tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-90664740420219944342023-10-02T06:23:48.624-07:00DynegyptDyneslineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17557372978936806884noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9066474042021994434.post-36708433121985346422012-07-27T22:25:00.001-07:002012-07-27T22:25:57.430-07:00<h3 class="post-title">
Greece, Egypt, and the Near East
</h3>
Today a dwindling body of
intellectuals stubbornly upholds the supremacy of ancient Greece as the
unique progenitor and eternal paragon of Western Civilization. Indeed,
for some of these latter-day Hellenophiles the term “Western
Civilization” is redundant; for them, there are no other civilizations
worthy of the name.<br /><br />These partisans of the “Greek miracle” tend
to pass over very quickly the more unsavory aspects of the Hellenic
legacy. For example, slavery was universal in ancient Greece and
misogyny was rampant. <br /><br />Oh. but what about democracy? Indeed.
Let us look at the matter without rose-colored glasses. Wherever it
existed, ancient Greek democracy was much too elitist to meet modern
standards. Participation was limited to free-born male citizens,
excluding the majority of the population from having any say. Moreover,
democracy, such as it was, flourished for relatively brief periods in
but a few city states. The default settings for Greek city states were
oligarchy and tyranny, two institutions that retain an unmistakably
repellent aura. <br /><br />Then there is the influence of Greek classical
art at various periods of Western culture. Sometimes, as in the
Renaissance, this archetype has been beneficial, but all too often
recourse to formulaic Grecian classicism has yielded dreariness and
deadness. A recent and lamentable example is the styrofoam backdrop the
Democrats unwisely chose for their Denver Convention.<br /><br />With
regard to Greek art and its ostensibly perennial verity, here is what
the noted art critic Robert Hughes wrote about a 1993 exhibition:<br /> <br />“It
must be said, straight off, that The Greek Miracle: Classical Sculpture
from the Dawn of Democracy, now at the National Gallery in Washington .
. . is a very odd show. . . . Insofar as an exhibition can assemble
great sculpture and have practically no scholarly value, this one does.<br />“The
reason is that The Greek Miracle is an exercise in political
propaganda, and has to embrace stereotypes that no classicist today
would accept without deep reservations. First, the exhibit wants to
indicate how Greek sculpture changed in the classical period, by showing
its movement from the frontal, rigid forms of 6th century B.C. kouroi,
whose ancestry lay in Egyptian cult figures, to the more naturalistic
treatment of balance and bodily movement one sees in works such as The
Kritios Boy (circa 480 B.C.), which was found on the Acropolis. And it
demonstrates this in considerable detail, through marvelous examples of
5th-century sculpture . . .<br /><br />“As an orientation course for those
who don't know much about classical Greek sculpture . . . this show
ought not to be missed. But neither should its second premise be taken
seriously: the idea that there was some causal connection between the
advent of the classical style in sculpture and that of democracy in
Athenian politics. Both happened at roughly the same time: in the late
6th century an Athenian aristocrat, Kleisthenes, made an alliance with
the people of Athens in order to defeat another noble, Isagoras, and
pushed through a number of democratic reforms that were permanently
enshrined in the Athenian constitution.<br /><br />“These measures gave the
vote and other rights to citizens who had not enjoyed them before,
though not, of course, to slaves or women [or to the foreign-born--WRD].
But the idea that the beginnings of democracy in Athens changed the
way that rituals, gods and heroes were represented is hokum: exactly the
same changes of style occurred in cities, like Olympia, that were run
by tyrants. The fact that modern Greeks apparently want to believe
it--this being a time of superchauvinism in Greece, as in other Balkan
countries--means nothing, except in the scheme of simplistic
politico-cultural fantasy. You might as well claim that Abstract
Expressionism was "caused" by the election of Harry Truman.
Nevertheless, such is the show's political motive, and it seems a poor
pretext for taking great art and jetting it to America like so many
get-well cards, for the sake of political p.r.<br /> “In its reflexive
idealization, the show sets before us a notion of Greek antiquity that
was conceived in the 18th century by the German archaeologist-
connoisseur Johann Winckelmann and then elaborated into an all-pervading
imagery through the 19th. Balance, harmony, transcendence,
sublimation--all are characteristics of great classical art, but not the
whole story, and not one that would have been wholly intelligible to
the ancient Greeks. It is as though the organizers of this show still
felt obliged to believe in the division of the world claimed by the
original Athenians. Here is Hellas, populated by people. Outside, is the
domain of hoi barbaroi, those who are not quite human: the
superstitious Orientals, the treacherous mountain dwellers, the lesser
breeds without the law. The Greeks, by contrast, stop just short of
turning into marble statues of themselves--effigies of undying self-
congratulation, picked up by later cultures to signify the reign of the
past over the present.<br /><br />“It is true that since the image of
classical Greece began to lose the power it had accumulated up to the
end of the 19th century, many writers have found this marmoreal
stereotype insufficient. ‘How one can imagine oneself among them,’ mused
the English poet Louis MacNeice, no mean classicist himself, in his
1938 poem, Autumn Journal, ‘I do not know.’ And was this antiquity a
world of heroes or something more like modern Athens?<br /><br />"When I
should remember the paragons of Hellas I think instead of the crooks,
the adventurers, the opportunists, the careless athletes and the fancy
boys, the hair-splitters, the pedants, the hard-boiled skeptics, and the
Agora and the noise of the demagogues and the quacks; and the women<br />pouring libations over graves, and the trimmers at Delphi and the dummies at Sparta and lastly I think of the slaves.<br /><br />“No
such doubts obtrude upon the archaic fantasy world set up by the
writers in the catalog to this show. Slavery, as important an
institution for Periclean Greece as for America's antebellum South, does
not enter their vague lucubrations about the matched ‘miracles’ of Art
and Democracy. For them, all is idealism, naturalism, the world of
formal purity, grace and refinement. Whatever speaks of demonism, fear,
magic and irrational superstition is simply swept under the carpet; and
yet these were colossally important elements even in the "rational"
Athens of the 5th century B.C., let alone in the rest of Greece. The
naively optimistic idea expressed in Nicholas Gage's introduction,
echoing a long succession of enlightened Hellenophiles from Winckelmann
to Matthew Arnold, that ‘Mortal man became the standard by which things
were judged and measured,’ simply does not fit the facts of classical
culture. On the contrary: the Greeks of Pericles' time, like their
ancestors and successors, were obsessed with the weakness of the dike
that protected their social and mental constructions against
uncontrollable forces. Their culture was webbed with placatory or
‘apotropaic,’ rituals, charms, and images meant to keep the demons at
bay.<br /><br />“This is why classical Greek sculpture, in its original
form, was so very unlike the version made of it by Neoclassicists 2,000
years later, and recycled in this show. ‘No symbols or special trappings
of divinity,’ writes Gage, ‘were required beyond the figure's physical
harmony. The most perfect beauty, to the Greek of the 5th century, was
the pure and unadorned.’ But classical Greek sculpture was neither pure
nor unadorned; its decor has been lost or worn away. Were we to see it
in its original state, we would find it shockingly ‘vulgar.’ All the
great figures and sculpture were painted in violent reds, ochers and
blues, like a seaside restaurant in Skopelos. The colossal figure of
Athena inside the Parthenon was sheathed in ivory ‘skin.’ As for
adornment, there were ‘real’ metal spears fixed in the hands of marble
warriors, brightly simulated eyes with colored irises set in the now
empty sockets of The Kritios Boy. And far from rising above anxiety,
classical Greek art pullulated with horrors: snakes, monsters,
decapitated Gorgons, all designed to ward off the terrors of the spirit
world. One sometimes wonders if ancient Greece, more lurid than white,
so obsessed with blood feud and inexpungible guilt, wasn't closer to
modern Bosnia than to the bright world of Winckelmann. But you cannot
put that kind of ‘classicism’ in a museum, or relate it to ‘democracy.’”
<br /><br />With his pungent analysis, Hughes makes a key point, one that
is well known to social scientists: correlation is not causality. That
is, the fact that democracy and classic art arose at the same time is no
proof that there was any causal link between them.<br /><br />Recently, in
his book “Greek Ways: How the Greeks Created Western Civilization,” the
neocon historian Bruce Thornton has attempted a rejoinder. In a
nutshell, his strategy is briefly to acknowledge the shortcomings we
have mentioned, and then return to extolling the good old religion.
Uncontestably, he argues that some of the ideas that were necessary
building blocks for the rise of Western civilization, such as that there
should be a rational explanation for natural phenomena, originated with
Greek thinkers. However, the discussion of slavery and misogyny shows
much special pleading. Thornton also supports some outdated ideas about
Greek attitudes to sexuality--ideas that have been exploded by such
scholars as Sir Kenneth Dover and William A. Percy. All in all, it is
too late in the day for the worshipful exclusivism of a Bruce Thornton
to prevail.<br /><br />To be sure, ancient Greek culture remains a
considerable achievement. The poems of Homer and Hesiod, the plays of
the Greek dramatists, and the philosophical writings of Plato and
Aristotle will always be rewarding. In the originals and in
translation, these works have a cherished place in my library, and I go
back to them repeatedly. Greek art offers much delight and instruction.
By the same token, though, there are many things of equal value that
have been produced by other high cultures in the course of humanity’s
striving. I see no reason to deprive myself of Confucius and Lao-tse,
of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, of the epics of Atrahasis and
Gilgamesh, or of the Arthurian cycle in Old French--all things that have
nothing to do with ancient Greece. The Greek element must now take its
place as but one of many in the concert of cultures.<br /><br />At all
events, the first contention of the miraculists, that ancient Greece
still provides an unrivaled paradigm for our own age, lies in tatters.
What of their second assertion, namely that Greek culture is entirely
autonomous and self-generating, with no dependence on the venerable
societies of the ancient Near East?<br /><br />At this point, we must
acknowledge the entrance of Martin Bernal, a professor of government and
Near Eastern studies at Cornell. The first volume of his magnum opus,
entitled “Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization
(The Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785-1985),” appeared in 1989.<br /><br />Because
of the salience of this first Bernal volume (there are now three) in
the ensuing debate, it is worthwhile examining its arguments in some
detail. At the outset. one needs to dispose of two common
misconceptions. Bernal’s book is not about whether the Ancient
Egyptians were black. Nor does he claim that Greek civilization as it
exists today and became known to the Romans was a wholesale copy of
Egyptian civilization, as it obviously wasn't. <br /><br />In considerable
detail, this first volume spells out Martin Bernal's historiographic
assumption, that is, that ancient history can be seen as having been
molded into specific narratives, depending on the age when that
narrative was created and found its resonance. In this regard, he
defines three different models or narratives, namely the Ancient Model,
the Aryan Model, and his own Revised Ancient Model. He includes some
suggested timelines, but basically the Ancient Model of Greeks like
Herodotus indicated that in 15th century BCE, Egyptians and Phoenicians
had set up colonies in Greece and the Aegean, creating Greek
civilization. By contrast, the Aryan Model stipulates that civilization
started with the indigenous creation of a civilization in Greece, and
that there were Nordic invasions of Indo-European speakers who mixed in
with the non-Indo-European speaking indigenous population (the
mysterious Pelagians). Bernal's Revised Ancient Model places the
Egyptian and Phoenician invasions in the 21st-19th century, pushes back
the introduction of the alphabet to the 17th century (from the 9th
century), while acknowledging that indeed there were Nordic invasions. <br /><br />All
ten chapters in this book address distinct periods and the changing
perspectives and the emphasis that is put on a particular origin of
history or culture, from “The Ancient Model in Antiquity” (I), through
this model's transmission during the dark ages and the renaissance (II),
“The Triumph of Egypt in the 17th and 18th Centuries” (III), and the
beginning of “Hostilities To Egypt in The 18th Century” (IV) (a
development that in Bernal’s view long preceded J.-F. Champollion's
decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphic in 1822). The anti-Egyptian chill
evident among European elites was not unrelated to the existing
race-based slavery, colonialism. and the challenges from within Europe
to the transatlantic slave trade. <br /><br />Chapters V through IX deal
with other topics, beginning with the “Romantic Linguistics” (V),
triggered by Sir William Jones’ epochal discovery that Sanskrit is an
Indo-European language (1786), and the ensuing rise of the Indian-Aryan
model. “Hellenomania. 1” (VI) addresses with the rise of Greece as a
fount of European civilization and ideals, championed by the German
school of Wilhelm von Humboldt and Friedrich August Wolf.
“Hellenomania 2” (VII) traces the migration of this trend to England in
the context of the growing preeminence of the Aryan Model in the middle
of the 19th century. “The Rise and Fall of The Phoenicians” (VIII) deals
with the recognition of the Phoenicians and the influence of
anti-Semitism, as does chapter (IX). <br /><br />The book concludes with
“The Post-War Situation” (X), discussing the contributions of Cyrus
Gordon and Michael C. Astour--two pioneers who have been unjustly
marginalized--and their reclaiming of the legacy of the Phoenicians. <br /><br />Bernal’s
underlying premise is that much of the current body of Greek/Western
Civilization historical literature reflects the prejudices of racists
who have suppressed evidence of a non-Aryan component in the origin of
the Greek civilization. I confess that the term racist makes me
nervous, as that charge is all-too-frequently hurled nowadays, sometimes
with little foundation. Still there is no doubt that much of the
appeal of the Aryan Model lies in the idea that ancient Greece was
exclusively the creation of white people coming down from the North,
with little contribution from their venerable brown brothers to the East
and South. As will be evident in what follows, this fable of
parthenogenesis is simply unbelievable.<br /><br />After the appearance of
Bernal’s first volume, scholars began taking sides. Afrocentrists found
support for their views therein, even though Bernal takes no position
on the role of sub-Saharan Africa, their center of interest. With but
few exceptions, the response from classicists was outrage and disbelief.
Bernal, trained in sinology, was alleged to be a poacher who had no
business challenging the sacred truths so long cherished by the
Classical Guild. The hysterical tone of these miraculists, who seemed
incapable of weighing the evidence impartially, served only to lend
substance to Martin Bernal’s allegation of the irrationality implicit in
the Aryan Model.<br /><br />At all events, the classical scholar Mary
Lefkowitz sought to demolish Bernal through the production of two
volumes. one of which she wrote in its entirely, the other being an
collection of essays by Bernal’s critics. The first book, “Not Out of
Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History”
(1996), is basically a straw-man argument. Her main target is
Afrocentrism, the doctrine that civilization stems mainly from
sub-Saharan (“Black”) Africa. To be sure, excesses have been committed
by overenthusiastic Afrocentrists. Yet Martin Bernal is not in fact an
Afrocentrist, so that most of her attack on him fails on this ground.
In fact, she missed many opportunities to address his shortcomings.
Even though there are evident weak spots in Bernal's exposition (a
defect that is perhaps understandable with such a broad perspective),
Lefkowitz often insists on attacking arguments that Bernal never
actually made. Ultimately, the flaw that vitiates Lefkowitz’s campaign
against Bernal stems from a simple wish to defend her turf against an
impudent outsider. In her eyes his greatest sin seems to be his lack of
a degree in classical or ancient Mediterrainean studies. While the
matter of credentials elicits real concern, an individual’s degree is
not the sum of his knowledge. This is a subject on which I have some
expertise, in as much as over the years I have shifted my main interest
from art history (the field in which I received my graduate training) to
gay studies. To this day, academia has offered very few opportunities
to pursue advanced study in the history and culture of homosexuality.
To insist that one can never move from another field to this one would
prevent the discipline from ever arising, a manifest absurdity.
Moreover, as one writer has pointed out, “her academic snobbery on this
point seems a little misplaced for someone whose own specialty does not
include Egyptology or Semitic Bronze Age cultures (or even Greek Bronze
Age culture).” <br /><br />Together with Guy MacLean Rogers, Mary Lefkowitz
edited “Black Athena Revisited” (1996). This big book, containing
twenty essays reflecting several disciplines, was designed to pulverize
Martin Bernal’s magnum opus. At first, it appears to do so, but over
the years a good many cracks have appeared in the machinery.<br /><br />In
reality "Black Athena Revisited" is a very mixed bag. Some
contributions are convincing, pinpointing various weak or even absurd
points in Bernal's works. But some of the other essays are surprisingly
flimsy or overdogmatic. Truly to devastate Bernal a stronger case would
have to have been marshaled.<br /><br />First, let us note some of the
strong points. Jay H. Jasanoff and Alan Nussbaum sternly criticize
Bernal's attempts to prove that the Greek language is heavily Egyptian.
Over many generations professional linguistics have established strict
criteria for the historical evolution of languages. Bernal’s amateurish
excursions into this area do not meet these standards. The
Egyptologist John Baines points out that Bernal's fascination with
Greece is itself a social and ideological construct. Despite his
strictures, Bernal tacitly accepts the "Eurocentrist" position that
ancient Athens was the cradle of the West. He only wants to prove that,
in turn, the cradle of Athens was northwest Africa. Robert Palter
attacks the notion that Egyptian science was very sophisticated,
claiming that Babylonian and Greek science was much better. It would
seem that the jury is still out on this one, for it is difficult to
believe that the Egyptians, who built the pyramids to very exacting
standards, didn't have advanced mathematical and astronomical knowledge.
In a rare departure from the uniform condemnation, Frank Yurco
actually concedes some of Bernal's points. He points out that the East
Mediterranean was a cosmopolitan place during the Bronze Age, with many
crisscrossing cultural influences. (This point was made in considerable
detail by W. Stevenson Smith as early as 1965.)<br /><br />At all events,
many readers (including, briefly, the present writer) were initially
swept away by the double-barreled attack orchestrated by the formidable
Mary Lefkowitz. In 1997 the Egyptologist John Ray pronounced that
“Black Athena is dead.” Yet the ensuing decade has not borne out this
dismissive judgment.<br /><br />In a revealing and shocking instance of bad
faith, Lefkowitz refused to allow Bernal to publish a rebuttal in “Black
Athena Revisited,” her edited volume. Undeterred and unabashed, he has
since rounded on his critics in a barrage of articles published in
learned journals. These pieces are conveniently gathered in his book
“Black Athena Writes Back: Martin Bernal Responds to His Critics”
(2001).<br /><br />In this collection Bernal responds to the whirlwind of
criticism surrounding his work, providing additional documentation for
his thesis and exposing the sometimes petty conflicts among academics.
Conceding some shortcomings in his original work, Bernal bolsters his
thesis with new findings. In harsh terms Bernal lambastes the hypocrisy
of academics, steeped in the "cult of Europe," who only recently and
grudgingly credited Egypt's contributions to Western civilization.<br /><br />Bernal
offers point-by-point rebuttals of, for instance, Egyptologist David
O'Connor, who argues that Bernal is far too trusting of ancient literary
sources; of his arch-opponent Mary Lefkowitz, a classicist who finds
very little of value in his work; and of Emily Vermeule, an Aegean
Bronze Age specialist, who questions Bernal's archaeological
methodology. In response to Vermeule's allegations of "exaggerated
sensitivity" (Bernal's words), he returns to passages from studies that
he quoted in “Black Athena” as examples of scholarly racism. <br /><br />With
grim determination, Lefkowitz and her allies had sought to demolish
Martin Bernal. In the sequel it is evident that they have failed to do
so.<br /><br />In closing this section, I signal an effort to reach a
balanced view by a professor of Jewish studies at Georgetown University,
Jacques Berlinerblau: “Heresy in the University: The Black Athena
Controversy and the Responsibility of the Intellectuals” (1999). In
this book the author provides a fair summary of the work of Martin
Bernal (whom he apparently interviewed, permitting him to comment on
various parts of the book). Berlinerblau concludes that Bernal proves
that much of the body of antiquity studies produced by accredited
scholars reveals serious biases. Truculently, and with not a little bad
faith, Hellenophiles and their sympathizers have attempted a limited
reassessment. By the same token, these scholars have shown that Bernal
has made serious errors. Berlinerblau calls some of Bernal's critics to
task for the vehemence of their attack on Bernal, pommeling him on
facts while ignoring the larger larger points at issue. Berlinerblau
praises Bernal for engaging the public in his work, maintaining that
scholars should work more to became public intellectuals.<br /><br />So much then for the main points of the intricate “Black Athena” controversy.<br /><br /><br />That
is not the end of the matter. In the course of its development over
the last nineteen years, the discussion has tended to elide two major
themes: 1) what was the contribution of the visual arts (as distinct
from the literary evidence that these writers habitually privilege)?;
and 2) what was the role of the Semitic peoples residing in Western
Asia, including the Akkadians, the Assyrians, and the Phoenicians?<br /><br />As
it happens, a little-known archaeological monograph addresses both of
the these issues. The book is Janice L. Crowley, “The Aegean and the
East: An Investigation into the Transference of Artistic Motifs Between
the Aegean, Egypt, and the Near East in the Bronze Age” (1989).
Employing an artistic-iconographic approach, Crowley assembles a base of
544 items, which she has carefully catalogued. Her target area is
Mycenean Greece, a cultural realm that is now generally acknowledged as
Greek-speaking, and therefore constituting the foundations of Greece as
we know it. Her impressive list of borrowings in the visual arts
includes the following: heraldic poses; antithetical groupings of human
or animal figures about a center piece; symmetrical composition about an
invisible median line; a hero combatting a lion or a bull; the
“master/mistress of animals” (hero, god, or goddess between two animals
in antithetical groupings); the sphinx; the “sacred tree,” especially as
the focus of an antithetical composition, or as the object of a
watering ceremony; the palm tree and palmette pattern; the papyrus
plant; the rosette; the overlapping scale pattern; the convention of
representing human figures in profile or with the body twisted at the
waist to face the front; differentiation of male and female figures by
skin color (a standard convention in Egyptian art); siege scenes with a
man falling from a city wall; and hunting scenes.<br /><br />The Swiss
Walter Burkert probably ranks as the leading scholar today in the field
of Greek religion. His “The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern
Influences on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age” (1998) makes a
significant contribution to the debate. Chronologically, his focus is
deliberately narrow, for the most part relying on evidence that has long
been considered secure. With these premises, Burkert convincingly
displays a number of points where the Greeks, in the early Archaic Age,
borrowed from the cultures around them or at least shared common beliefs
or practices.<br /><br />Burkert’s volume comprises three chapters, each
organized around a particular class of people through whom East-West
contacts occurred: craftsmen; seers/healers (workers in the sacred); and
poets/singers. In this way he combines the visual and literary
evidence.<br /><br />Himself a Hellenist, Burkert shows no inclination to
knock the Greeks off their pedestal. Instead, he seeks to help us
better understand the Greeks, by presenting some aspects of their
culture in a broader light and by teaching us to apply insights from
other lands and peoples. In this respect his work compares with those
of the English scholars Jane Ellen Harrison and E. R. Dodds.<br /><br />A
massive contribution to the debate is M. L. West’s "The East Face of
Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth" (1997), a book
of 662 pages. This book is too complex to summarize here. Suffice it
to say that West focuses only on the civilizations of Western Asia
(sometimes known as the Levant), factoring out Egypt altogether. His
evidence, it seems to me, tips the balance in favor of the Near East
proper. While the contribution of Egypt remains significant (as others,
especially Martin Bernal, have shown), it is outshone by the mainly
Semitic cultures of Western Asia.<br /><br />At this point it is best to
bring this perhaps overlong examination to a close. Without attempting
further to sift the evidence, I would estimate the makeup of ancient
Greek civilization to reflect the following proportions: Indo-European,
35%; Near Eastern, 35%; Egyptian, 30%. <br /><br />If these estimates hold,
it will be seen that Bernal was basically on the right track. However,
his acknowledgment of the all-important Near Eastern (mainly Semitic)
strands tends to be perfunctory, and lacking in key details. These
strands were almost certainly more important than the Egyptian ones,
though not perhaps by much. <br /> <br />What should be clear, though, is
that some sixty-five percent of ancient Greek culture was borrowed. The
“Greek miracle” (if we are to retain this hoary term) may have been
made in Greece, but the ingredients were largely imported. So massive
were these imports that it is fair to say that Greek civilization could
not have come into being without them. Far from being a case of
parthenogenesis--that is, unaided birth--ancient Greece came about
through massive foreign insemination. It could not have been otherwise.<br /><br />Dyneslineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17557372978936806884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9066474042021994434.post-77653223294022365682012-07-27T22:22:00.002-07:002012-07-27T22:22:31.388-07:00<h3 class="post-title">
Greece and the Near East
</h3>
A few years back I wrote a piece on
the debt of ancient Greece to pharaonic Egypt. While I did not go the
full nine yards with the Egyptocentric Martin Bernal, there are so many
significant borrowings as to make the conventional view of the
parthenogenisis of Greece (the “Greek miracle”) untenable. This essay is
available at my ancillary site: Dynegypt,blogspot,com.<br /><br />At the
time I promised to produce a similar study on the Mesopotamia-Greece
connection, which is perhaps even more important than the Egypt-Greece
one. Until now the press of other business has prevented my from
fulfilling that vow. I will make a stab at doing that here.<br /><br />First,
what is ancient Mesopotamia? The word stems from the Greek for “[the
land] between the rivers,” and serves to designate the area comprised
today by Iraq and parts of eastern Syria, together with southeastern
Turkey and southwestern Iran.<br /><br />Ancient Mesopotamia included Sumer
and the Akkadian, Babylonian, and Assyrian empires. During the Iron Age,
it was controlled by the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires. The
indigenous Sumerians and Akkadians (including Assyrians and Babylonians)
dominated Mesopotamia from the beginning of written history (the late
fourth millennium BCE) to the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE, when it was
conquered by the Achaemenid Empire. It fell to the Macedonian Alexander
the Great in 332 BCE, and after his death it became part of the Greek
Seleucid Empire.<br /><br />MESOPOTAMIAN (SUMERIAN) FIRSTS<br /><br />The
Sumerologist Samuel Noah Kramer (1897-1990) produced a popular volume
(History Begins at Sumer, first ed., 1956) in which he undertook to
catalog a series of “firsts” that should be credited to ancient Sumeria.
<br /><br />Among the items Kramer listed are: the First Schools, the
First Case of Juvenile Delinquency, the First "War of Nerves," the First
Bicameral Congress, the first Historian, the First Case of Tax
Reduction, the First Legal Precedent, the First Pharmacopoeia, the First
Moral Ideals, the First Animal Fables, the First Literary Debates, the
First Love Song, the First Library Catalog, the First "Sick" Society,
the First Long-Distance Champion, the First Sex Symbolism, and so on.<br /><br />Some
of these items, such juvenile delinquency and the notion of a “sick
society,” seem dated, reflecting as they do the Cold War atmosphere in
which Kramer lived. Others are cases of parallel invention, as the
innovation crops up in Egypt at about the same time. <br /><br />Perhaps
most significant of all such advances is the invention of writing. It
used to be thought that Mesopotamia was somewhat ahead of Egypt in this
realm. However, recent discoveries in the Nile Valley place the
inventions at about the same time, in the closing centuries of the
fourth millennium BCE.<br /><br />What then of the links with ancient Greece?<br /><br />LITERATURE AND MYTHOLOGY<br /><br />As
early as 1966 in his edition of Hesiod's Theogony, the English
classicist Martin L. West acknowledged the dependency of early Greece on
the Near East. With remarkable persistence and energy, he stuck to the
task, and some thirty years later produced a magisterial study
comprising 662 pages: The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in
Greek Poetry. <br /><br />West begins with a bird's-eye view of
commonalities of Near Eastern and Aegean cultures--commonalities that
can only be explained by direct transmission or a shared origin. Such
common elements include a substantial store of loan words. Because of
the importance of trade many of these words designate commodities. Yet
others pertain to social institutions such as kingship with its complex
accoutrements and rituals. The treaties negotiated by Aegean and Near
Eastern kings are replete with similar formulas. Methods of accounting,
counting, and weighing are similar or identical. Musical instruments are
much the same in East and West, as are styles of luxurious behavior. At
the top of the Greek pantheon, Zeus is a god of storms and high places,
and so was the Semitic Baal; both were honored with the same kinds of
sacrifices performed in the same way. <br /><br />Then West turns to the
literature of Western Asia, still too little known. The emphasis is on
epic and myth, but the author also describes Sumero-Akkadian wisdom
literature, hymns, disputations, and royal inscriptions. Of particular
interest is the Bronze Age literature from Ugarit (Ras Shamra), a north
Syrian port which ranked as a virtual gateway to the West. The Hebrew
Bible also figures in this equation. Then there are the Hurrians of
north Syria, whose kingdom was called Mitanni, who transmitted
Sumero-Akkadian traditions to the Hittites. The Hurro-Hittite stories
about the storm god Teshub's conflict with the older god Kumarbi served
as a model for Hesiod's Theogony.<br /><br />Another feature is the idea of
the assembly of the gods, familiar to us from Olympus. In fact the
notion of the organization of heaven, presided over by a company of gods
at which stands a powerful patriarch, seems to have been invented by
the Sumerians. This powerful idea was copied by the Akkadians,
Hurrians, Hittites, West Semites, and finally the Greeks.<br /><br />Many
other parallels are cited, some perhaps too general to command universal
assent. However, West is on firm ground with the poetry of Hesiod,
about which he is the leading expert. He also discusses Homer’s Iliad
and Odyssey, where he finds a number of revealing parallels in the
heroes, incidents, motifs, and expressions. There are many other
borrowings in the general realm of mythology.<br /><br />Finally, West turns
to the complex matter of how Eastern traditions might have passed to
Greece. He pinpoints two historical periods in which such transmission
was likely to have taken place: the Late Bronze Age and the 8th-7th
centuries BCE. Here writing is obviously key.<br /><br />VISUAL ART AND WIDER CONTEXTS<br /><br />The
special role of the Near East during one particular period of Greek art
and culture has long been recognized. In fact, this era is
conventionally termed the Orientalizing period, lasting from about 750
to 650 BCE. That phase saw a shift from the prevailing Geometric style
to a style with different sensibilities, which were inspired by the
East. During this period the Assyrians advanced along the Mediterranean
coast, accompanied by Greek mercenaries, who were also active in the
armies of Psammeticus in Egypt. The new groups started to compete with
established Greek merchants. There were various shifts in population.
Phoenicians from the east coast of the Mediterranean settled in Cyprus
and in western regions of Greece, while Greeks established trading
colonies at Al Mina, Syria, and in Ischia, an island off the Tyrrhenian
coast of Italy. These changes constituted the background of an intense
penetration of Semitic cultural traits into Greece. <br /><br />Massive
imports of raw materials, including metals, and a new mobility among
foreign craftsmen led to the introduction of new craft skills in Greece.
<br /><br />In 1992 the German scholar Walter Burkert offered a new
interpretation of this trend (The Orientalizing Revolution: Near
Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age). Burkert
described the new movement in Greek art as a revolution: "With bronze
reliefs, textiles, seals, and other products, a whole world of eastern
images was opened up which the Greeks were only too eager to adopt and
adapt in the course of an "orientalizing revolution.” Depictions of
Greek myths that were destined to become standard types originated from
attempts to naturalize foreign visual formulae stemming from the East.
As has been noted in the previous section some of the myths themselves
appear to be imports from Mesopotamia. <br /><br />In addition, Burkert
emphasizes the role of migrating seers and healers, bringing their
skills in divination and purification ritual along with elements of
their mythological wisdom. Surely the most outstanding contribution of
this period was the invention of the Greek alphabet, based on the
earlier phonetic Phoenician writing. This change caused a great leap in
literacy and literary production, as the oral traditions of the epic
began to be transcribed onto imported Egyptian papyrus and other media..<br /><br />In
Attic pottery, the distinctive Orientalizing style known as
"proto-Attic" was marked by floral and animal motifs; for the first time
specific religious and mythological themes appeared in vase painting.
The new style fostered a narrative clarity that had previously been
lacking.<br /><br />In 2004 Walter Burkert published a book seeking to
integrate these findings into the larger picture: Babylon Memphis
Persepolis: Eastern Contexts of Greek Culture (2004). <br />In general
Burkert adopts a moderate position on the question of Greek indebtedness
to the Near East and to Egypt, the claims of the latter of course being
famously challenged by Martin Bernal, who is not at all moderate.
Concerning the Bernal controversy, Burkert remarks: "Vigorous debates
have ensued: yet while many details of Bernal and his followers'
statements are open to argument, polemics are not worthwhile. One ought
to look for further evidence and new perspectives, and to work out more
equitable judgments,” <br /><br />Burkert has taken on a big assignment,
attempting to create a balance sheet of our knowledge of the how, why,
and what of cultural influences on Greece from the Near East, Egypt, and
Persia, mainly during the Archaic and Classical Periods. He attends to
the historical and geographical contexts of cultural transmission: trade
between Greece and the East (a push fueled by the Greek search for
metals), politics (diplomacy, war, and conquest), to be sure, but also
factors such as roads, libraries, schools, and writing materials (e.g.,
the switch from clay tablets to perishable materials with the Greek
import of the Phoenician alphabet). Allowing for the possibility of
“creative misunderstanding," Burkert seeks to discern a dialectical
process of give and take on all sides. <br /><br />In my view, he has not
entirely freed himself from the bonds of Greek exceptionalism, as when
he flirts with the hoary contrast of Oriental prerationalism and Greek
rationalism. A somewhat wistful nostalgia transpires from the following
statement: “Philosophy has largely tried to follow such an ideal of
truth. It threatens to become obsolete, though, with the onset of
relativity and deconstruction within the more modern trends in the
social sciences and humanities. It is still to be hoped that the Greek
heritage will not be totally lost.” We may be critical of modern
relativism, but surely it is not necessary to go back to ancient Greece
to oppose it.<br /><br />In Chapter Four Burkert offers a case study of
religious syncretism, involving the 6th-century Greek identification of
Dionysus with Osiris. In his view, mystery rites promising a blissful
afterlife provide the strongest basis for the association of the two
gods. From Dionysus one can easily move on to Orpheus and the question
of putative Egyptian influences on Orphic religion. This matter is made
difficult by the fact that, despite intriguing new discoveries, we
still know little about Orphic religion. All too often, assertion
outruns the evidence. <br /><br />Still, Burkert hazards the following
conclusion: Orphism can be situated within a general family of teachings
guaranteeing renewed life after death through the performance of
ritual; such rituals or mysteries were associated with Orpheus as well
as with Dionysus and taught by itinerant teachers. In this way Egyptian
influences in the 6th century BCE were probably of prime importance for
the transformation of the Mycenaean Dionysus into the Dionysus of
mystery rites. The centrality of the afterlife to the Egyptian world
view needs no underlining.<br /><br />For the period after the Persian War,
Burkert notes two religious ideas, both apparently Persian imports to
Greece. The first is the concept of the ascent of the pious dead to a
better life in heaven, an idea that replaces the uniformly bleak picture
of an afterlife held by first millennium Greeks, Mesopotamians,
Syrians, and Jews. There remains the problem of the dating of the
original Zoroastrian texts, A more familiar issue is well-accepted
Iranian homeland of the principle of dualism, which emphasizes a
persistent battle between good and evil forces. This vein of thought
finds several Greek avatars, the first perhaps being the philosopher
Empedocles' depiction of a war between Love and Hate as the driving
cause for natural processes.<br /><br />In his careful way, Burkert joins
forces with the current interest in hybridization. Cultural mixing is
not only a fact, but it is a positive force. "Culture, including Greek
culture, requires intercultural contact" Our stereotypes of an isolated
Greek miracle developed as the result of a historical accident: "Greek
culture had the good fortune to find successors who established a
heritage and took care of it continuously, while neighboring
civilizations fell victim to the ravages of time and to the victory of
either Christianity or Islam.” Still, Burkert is not altogether happy
with the recent dethronement of Classicism, which for him betokens an
abandonment of standards. "Classicism presupposes and confirms
recognized standards or norms -- but these are disappearing from our
multicultural world and will not be recovered easily.”<br /><br />Burkert’s
final position is somewhat that of a mugwump; he recognizes the
important catalytic role of the Eastern models, but still believes that
there is something unique and exemplary about Greek culture, which he
holds has determined the shape of “world civilization.” India and China
are apparently of no account.<br /><br />DEMOCRACY<br /><br />In one sphere it is generally agreed that the Greek contribution is unique--democracy. Is that strictly true?<br /><br />Using
Sumerian epic, myth and historical records, the noted scholar Thorkild
Jacobsen has identied what he calls primitive democracy. By this he
means a government in which ultimate power rests with the mass of free
male citizens, although "the various functions of government are as yet
little specialized, the power structure is loose." In the early period
of Sumer, kings such as Gilgamesh could not command the autocratic power
which later Mesopotamia rulers wielded. Rather, major city-states had a
council of elders and a council of "young men" (probably comprising
free men bearing arms). These collective bodies possessed the final
political authority, and had to be consulted on all major issues such as
war.<br /><br />Although Jacobsen advanced this idea as early as 1943, it
has not received the discussion it deserves. Some critics assert that
the same evidence also can be interpreted to demonstrate a power
struggle between primitive monarchs and the nobility, a struggle in
which the common people act more as pawns than the sovereign authority.
For a recent study, see B. Sakhan, “Engaging ‘Primitive Democracy’:
Mideast Roots of Collective Governance.” Middle East Policy, 2007.<br /><br /> <br />UPDATE. I have just acquired an important new book, which
facilitates a reconsideration of the problems discussed above. This is
"When the Gods Were Born: Greek Cosmogonies and the Near East" by
Carolina López-Ruiz (Harvard University Press, 2010). This book offers
two important perspectives. First, we should no longer think of the
Near East-Greek nexus as simply one of donor-recipient in which the
older cultures of Western Asia simply exported ideas and motifs, which
were then reframed by the Greeks. Instead, she believes that one should
speak of a larger koine, in which these elements freely circulate.
This model would imply that there are components which started in Greece
and moved eastwards (in addition to the more familiar reverse process).
Thus far the components of this kind that have been detected are few,
at least prior to the Hellenistic period. But one may expect to find
more of them.<br /><br />Secondly, she emphasizes the pivotal role of the
Ugarit (Ras Shamra) and the Phoenicians--the northwest Semitic area in
what is now western Syria and Lebanon--as a a kind of laboratory or
entrepot in which the culture mixing took place. Hitherto the greatest
emphasis has been on the Hittites and Hurrians (in Asia Minor) as
transmitters. That northern route was still important though, and since
the Hittites and Hurrians were Indo-European, it serves to remind us
that the matter is not a simple contrast between Indo-European Greeks
and Semitic Mesopotamians. In the transmission of myth, language was
probably not as important as usually assumed. We must also expect that a
good many bilingual individuals were involved.<br /><br />The author also
provides valuable references to recent research, and some indication of
new contributions that we may expect shortly.Dyneslineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17557372978936806884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9066474042021994434.post-30333070367095115542011-06-16T08:41:00.000-07:002011-06-16T08:44:54.888-07:00Primacy of Egyptian art and architecture"Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization" (1987-91), a major polemic by J. D. Bernal, has elicited much controversy. Despite the misleading title, this publication is not a contribution to Afrocentrism, as the term is usually understood. Instead the author seeks to restore what he terms the "ancient model," which posits the massive indebtedness of ancient Greece to Egypt. He holds that this view was dominant in ancient Greece itself, and prevailed in Europe until the late 18th century, when rising Eurocentrism sidelined it.<br /><br />Against Bernal, Mary R. Lefkowitz has orchestrated a torrent of criticism--in her own book "Not Out of Africa," and in an edited volume, "Black Athena Revisited," gathering a whole raft of scholars to smite Bernal’s work. In the eyes of some this massive assault demolished Bernal. Yet he was not to go down so easily. In a collection of essays and reviews, "Black Athena Writes Back" (2001), Bernal vigorously rebutted his opponents. The upshot is this: some of what Bernal says is true, and some of it isn’t. <br /><br />Yet that which is the case suffices to refute the conventional wisdom of the Hellenophile miraculists, who assert that the Greek "miracle" was a case of parthenogenesis, for it emerged without any help from the older peoples dwelling to the east and south. Apart from its fantastic etymologies, "Black Athena"'s major defect (in my view) is neglect of the ancient Near Eastern sources from Sumeria, Assyria, and Syria-Palestine (as pointed out by Walter Burkert and others).<br /><br />Bernal postponed the subject of artistic relations for a later volume. It appears that this sequel will not be appearing. If so, this will be a pity, as the case for artistic indebtedness is a substantial one. It is not impossible, though, to divine some of the points Bernal might make in his putative supplement. The following outline of the Egyptian legacy in art and architecture looks beyond Greece and Rome, to modern Europe<br /><br />1. Ashlar masonry. The Third Dynasty funerary precinct of Zoser at Saqqara (ca. 2630-2611 BCE) is the first major architectural enterprise to be executed in stone throughout. Moreover, the fine limestone blocks are in ashlar masonry. That is, they are parallelepipeds, six-faced regular solids of standard sizes, laid in regular horizontal courses. Before this, such monuments were of mud brick. Imitating the regularity of the six-faced bricks (top, bottomm and four sides), the Saqqara limestone blocks are examples of skeuomorphism, a learned term for the migration of a form native to one medium into another. Once invented, ashlar masonry had a great future. One thinks of the walls of Greek monumental buildings, not to mention countless stately banks, libraries, and governmental buildings of our own time—all executed in ashlar masonry. It is sometimes assumed, by the way that standardization is a product of our own industrial age. However, standarized bricks and limestone blocks long preceded it.<br /><br />2. Modularity. The invention of ashlar masonry is probably the first instance of the principle of modularity—the regular "scansion" of space using architectural means. A kind of negative version appears in the regular bays of Egyptian temples and hypostyle halls.<br /><br />3. Columnar architecture. The Saqqara complex shows several types of engaged (attached) columns. Later, the columns are freestanding, surmounted by capitals, and marshaled into rows (colonnades). Indebted to Egypt, columnar architecture was fundamental in ancient Greece, Rome, and the Renaissance.<br /><br />4. Pyramids. As is well known, the Egyptians perfected the pyramid as a geometrical monument with five smooth faces (counting the base). There is a long history of replication of pyramids, culminating in I.M. Pei’s glass examples in Paris and Washington, D.C., as well as the Luxor Hotel in Las Vegas. However, the pyramid embodies the broader theme of elementalism. As architects from Le Doux to Le Corbusier have shown, beauty and authority stem from dramatically simple forms.<br /><br />5. The hypostyle hall. As seen at the Karnak temple, this is a large pillared hall in which the central section, the nave, is higher than the two wings on either side. Light floods into the structure’s middle from the clerestory at the top of the nave. This principle recurs in Roman basilicas, and again in Christian churches, including many modern cathedrals.<br /><br />6. Orthogonal city planning. Groups of Old Kingdom mastabas are distributed according to a gridiron plan. Like most early towns everywhere, most Egyptian cities were apparently “organic” (higgledy-piggeldy) in planning. Hower, the Middle Kingdom town of Kahun, created anew to accommodate workers, reflects a system of right angles. Broadly speaking this is the pattern found in Greek “Hippodamean” cities, Roman towns, and many American cities. Regardless of whether there is a direct connection, the Egyptians pioneered the orthogonal principle.<br /><br />7. Monumental sculpture. Beginning in the Third Dynasty the Egyptians created canons of monumental sculpture, life-size or nearly life-size pieces that follow well-defined patterns of arrangement. In this way they invented the s t a t u e, as distinct from the “figurines” and rough “idols” formerly dominant.<br /><br />8. The nude. During the Fifth Dynasty the Egyptians introduced nude male figures in the tombs. These are shown striding, with the left foot forward. Sporadically recurring, the form was purloined by the Greeks for their k o u r o s.<br /><br />9. The bust. This is an abbreviated human being, a type of sculpture showing only the head and shoulders. The earliest surviving example seems to be the Old Kingdom Ankh-haf in Boston. There is a charming wooden example in the Tut treasure—and of course the world-famous Nefertiti in Berlin. The Romans produced busts of revered ancestors. And busts proliferated in the European baroque.<br /><br />10. The sphinx. Egyptian sphinxes (atypical examples of animal-human hybrids) generally represent rulers. In Greece the form, always female, is hypothesized. Modern artists like Elihu Vedder and František Kupka have quoted the form as a token of inscrutability.<br /><br />11. The frame. Early relief carvings, such as the Wadji stele in the Louvre and the wooden Hesira panels, fix the frame situation by raising the surface outside the picture area so as to create a uniform boundary. Later, the Egyptians developed wall paintings that clearly suggest beaded frames. Simulated frames occur in Pompeiian painting, while real three-dimensional examples enclose European canvases from the Renaissance to the present.<br /><br />12. Illustrated books. In their papyri the Egyptians invented the practice of interspersing pictures amidst columns of text. The illuminated books of Byzantium inherited this practice. It lives on in our art books, with their dialogue of picture and text.<br /><br />13. Comic papyri of animals simulating human conduct. A striking example is the strip of the lion and the gazelle in the British Museum. These images show that the ancient Egyptians had a sense of humor. Yet such depictions are not just humorous but embody social commentary. Cats peacefully look after mice and geese, while a gazelle must ponder how to cater to her lion master. Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck came much later.<br /><br />14. Abstract art. During the Amarna period (ca. 1372-54 BCE) the old anthropomorphic and thereomorphic (human and animal) forms of deities were discarded in favor of a circular rendering, the concave disk standing for the Aten, the solar principle. Modern abstraction, also rejecting the depiction of living beings, has also favored circles and disks. Among the abstract artists exploiting the disk form are Robert Delaunay, Theo van Doesburg, and Kenneth Noland.<br /><br />15. Gender variation. During the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom human figures complied with an established gender contrast. Men were robustly muscled, their buff upper torso revealed by the standard kilt. Women were slender, graceful, and lissom, generally wearing a slight slip-like garment. During the New Kingdom major changes became evident. Queen Hatshepsut (r. 1479-1457 BCE) ruled as a man. Her statues sometimes reflect her birth gender (her feminine side) and sometimes her masculine status, with pronounced features and a false beard. With his shrunken upper torso and pear-shaped middle section, the Amarna pharaoh Akhenaten (r. 1353-1337) shows a pronounced gender ambiguity. Recent scholarship holds that his wife Nefertiti may have assumed the male identity of Smenkhare, so as to be co-ruler with her husband during his last years. The depictions of Smenkhare are notably androgynous.<br /><br />In their number and variety, these "firsts" speak for themselves. To be sure, there were many firsts in the rival civilization of Mesopotamia, but rarely in art. Egyptian primacy in this realm suggests the following stark conclusion. In all of Western art there are two main sequences, BE (Before Egyptian, i.e. prehistoric) and E plus (Egyptian and after).Dyneslineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17557372978936806884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9066474042021994434.post-48564904007686715912008-12-10T07:25:00.000-08:002012-04-21T12:35:21.340-07:00Lecture thirteen (and supplement)We briefly discussed the evidence from Egyptian art for the dialogic link between deity and worshipper, noting that in most cases in the world’s religion this potential symmetry is honored more in the breach and the observance. That is, the worshipper extends offerings, sacrifices, prayers, hymns of praise--even sometimes cajolerie and threats. For the most part, there is no direct reciprocation. However, the famous Amarna panel of the royal family under the Aten’s rays shows an almost aggressive, “in-your-face” reciprocity on the part of the deity. <br />
<br />
The idea of an ongoing loop of reciprocation was expressed in different terms by the noted Jewish philosopher Martin Buber in his “I and Thou.” These issues deserve more pondering than I can provide at this time.<br />
<br />
<br />
THE AMARNA AFTERMATH<br />
<br />
Four rulers round out the Eighteenth dynasty: the mysterious Smenkhare, who may have reigned only a year or so; the now-famous Tutankhamen; the elderly vizier Ay; and the nonroyal Horemhab.<br />
<br />
Tutankamun did not receive this name at birth, but rather Tutankhaten (meaning "Living Image of the Aten"), placing him in the line of pharaohs following Akhenaten who was most likely his father. His mother was probably Kiya, though this too is in question. He changed his name in year two of his rule to Tutankhamun (or heqa-iunu-shema), which means "Living Image of Amun”--”Ruler of Upper Egyptian Heliopolis.” a reference to Karnak. <br />
<br />
The boy spent his early years in Amarna, where he even started a tomb. At the age of nine he married Ankhesenpaaten, his half-sister, later termed Akhsesenatun. At the end of Akhenaten's reign, Ay and the general Horemheb, both senior members of that king’s court, seemed to have realized that the Atenic religion could not continue: it was too disruptive and unpopular. Upon the death of Akhenaten and Smenkhkare, they had the young king who was nine years old crowned in the old secular capital of Memphis. And since the young pharaoh had no living female relatives old enough, he was probably under the care of Ay or Horemheb or both, who would have actually been the factual ruler(s) of Egypt.<br />
<br />
By year two of his reign--in keeping with the return to traditional religion--he changed his name, as well as Ankhesenpaaten's, removing the "aten" and replacing it with "amun."<br />
<br />
One reason why Tutankhamun was not listed on the classical king lists is probably because Horemheb, the last ruler of the Eighteenth dynasty, usurped most of the boy-king's work, including a restoration stele that records the reinstallation of the old religion of Amun and the reopening and rebuilding of the temples.<br />
<br />
Tutankhamun’s building at Karnak and Luxor included the continuation of the entrance colonnades of the Amenhotep temple at Luxor, including associated statues, and his embellishment of the Karnak temple with images of Amun, Amunet, and Khonsu.<br />
<br />
Militarily, little happened during the reign of Tutankhamun, a surprising fact considering that Horemheb was a well known general. Apparently there were campaigns in Nubia and Palestine/Syria, but this is only known from a brightly painted gesso box found in Tutankhamun's tomb, which we have seen on several occasions. It portrays scenes of the king hunting lions in the desert and gazelles, as well as smiting Nubians and then Syrians. <br />
<br />
Tutankhamun died young, but the manner of his death has long been a subject of speculation. There is still some support for the theory that he was murdered. In fact, a recent CT scan seems to indicate that he may very well have died from infection brought about by a broken leg, which may have occurred in a chariot accident.<br />
<br />
<br />
THE TOMB<br />
<br />
Located in the Valley of the Kings, it is not the grandest tomb in Egypt, and was certainly not occupied by one of Egypt's most powerful rulers. All the same, the public knows the tomb of Tutankhamen (KV 62) better then any other, because of all the royal tombs, it was found mostly intact. What was found in this tomb surely gives us pause to understand the motive behind ancient tomb robberies. If such a vast fortune in treasure (approximately 3,700 items) was found in this modest tomb owned by a relatively minor king, what must have dazzled the eyes of the thieves who first entered the huge tomb of Rameses II or one of Egypt's other grand kings? Or possibly for some reason the tomb of the boy king was particularly lavish. We cannot know. Of course, the range of funerary equipment has proved very useful to Egyptologists, giving them an idea of the standard equipment of a royal tomb.<br />
<br />
The tomb, which lies in an area that was not normally used for royal burials in the Valley center, was apparently quickly buried deep below the surface. It was forgotten until the English archaeologist Howard Carter discovered it on November 4th, 1922. Part of Carter's luck was that it was not discovered earlier when, his predecessor in the Valley, Theodore Davis who was American, came within little more then a meter of finding it himself.<br />
<br />
Carter was told, prior to finding the tomb, that his patron Lord Carnarvon was withdrawing from the project. After pleading his case, he was given one more season of excavation in order to find it.<br />
<br />
The sequence of rooms is not arranged according to a linear axis (typical of the great royal tombs) but assumes a somewhat convoluted, cramped space. The entrance Corridor leads to a broad Anteroom. From there one can procede to the Annexe, something of a blind alley, or to the Burial Chamber proper, which is accompanied by the Treasury. <br />
<br />
While the king’s mummy has been returned to a climate-controlled glass case in the tomb, the funerary equipment has been removed to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. What is to be seen is mostly the wall paintings, which are restricted to the Burial Chamber. Here all the walls have the same golden background. On the west wall we find scenes depicting the apes of the first hour of the Amduat. On the south wall the king is followed by Anubis as he appears before and as he is being welcomed into the underworld by Hathor, Anubis, and Isis. The north wall depicts the King before Nut with the royal ka embracing Osiris. On the same wall, we also find the scene of Ay performing the opening of the mouth ritual before the mummy of Tutankhamun. Finally, on the east wall, Tutankhamun's mummy is depicted being pulled on a sledge during the funeral procession.<br />
<br />
This tomb was not found completely intact. In fact, there had been at least two robberies of the tomb, perhaps soon after Tutankhamen's burial, probably by members of the tomb workers. <br />
The centerpiece for the whole tomb is of course the housing for the royal mummy. This consists of four big rectangular boxes, one inside the other. These serve to protect no less that three coffins. The associated golden masks of the king are slightly different, but there is no reason to believe that they have been usurped from a previous owner.<br />
<br />
Also notable is the Golden Shrine, with its four protective goddesses. A number of figures show the king in the guise of various divine or protective figures. There are two interesting pars pro toto images: the so-called manikin and the wooden image of the king’s head rising from a lotus (an image of rebirth).<br />
<br />
Of an almost incredible quality, the jewelry rings all the changes of the ancient Egyptian craft, whether in solid or ajoure’ form.<br />
<br />
Any account of the tomb can only scratch the surface as we have done. For further insights, monographs must be consulted.<br />
<br />
<br />
PART TWO (not given in class):<br />
<br />
“NOTES ON THE LEGACY OF ANCIENT EGYPT”<br />
<br />
The following outline of the Egyptian legacy in art and architecture looks beyond Greece and Rome, to modern Europe and North America. <br />
<br />
1. Ashlar masonry. The Third Dynasty funerary precinct of Zoser at Saqqara (ca. 2630-2611 BCE) is the first major architectural enterprise to be executed in stone throughout. Moreover, the fine limestone blocks are in ashlar masonry. That is, they are parallelepipeds, six-faced regular solids of standard sizes, laid in regular horizontal courses. Before this, such monuments were of mud brick. Imitating the regularity of the six-faced bricks (top, bottomm and four sides), the Saqqara limestone blocks are examples of skeuomorphism, a learned term for the migration of a form native to one medium into another. Once invented, ashlar masonry had a great future. One thinks of the walls of Greek monumental buildings, not to mention countless stately banks, libraries, and governmental buildings of our own time—all executed in ashlar masonry. It is sometimes assumed, by the way that standardization is a product of our own industrial age. However, standarized bricks and limestone blocks long preceded it. <br />
<br />
2. Modularity. The invention of ashlar is probably the first instance of the principle of modularity—the regular "scansion" of space using architectural means. A kind of negative version appears in the regular bays of Egyptian temples and hypostyle halls. <br />
<br />
3. Columnar architecture. The Saqqara complex shows several types of engaged (attached) columns. Later, the columns are freestanding, surmounted by capitals, and marshaled into rows (colonnades). Indebted to Egypt, columnar architecture was fundamental in ancient Greece, Rome, and the Renaissance. <br />
<br />
4. Pyramids. As is well known, the Egyptians perfected the pyramid as a geometrical monument with five smooth faces (counting the base). There is a long history of replication of pyramids, culminating in I.M. Pei’s glass examples in Paris and Washington, D.C., as well as the Luxor Hotel in Las Vegas. However, the pyramid embodies the broader theme of elementalism. As architects from Le Doux to Le Corbusier have shown, beauty and authority stem from dramatically simple forms. <br />
<br />
5. The hypostyle hall. As seen at the Karnak temple, this is a large pillared hall in which the central section, the nave, is higher than the two wings on either side. Light floods into the structure’s middle from the clerestory at the top of the nave. This principle recurs in Roman basilicas, and again in Christian churches, including many modern cathedrals. <br />
<br />
6. Orthogonal city planning. Groups of Old Kingdom mastabas are distributed according to a gridiron plan. Like most early towns everywhere, most Egyptian cities were apparently “organic” (higgledy-piggeldy) in planning. Hower, the Middle Kingdom town of Kahun, created anew to accommodate workers, reflects a system of right angles. Broadly speaking this is the pattern found in Greek “Hippodamean” cities, Roman towns, and many American cities. Regardless of whether there is a direct connection, the Egyptians pioneered the orthogonal principle. <br />
Orthogonal planning is evident also in the planning of Akhetaten, Akhenaten’s new capital at Amarna. Foreshadowing Washington, DC, Canberra, and Brasilia, this is the first example known to history of a capital founded afresh, rather than developing organically from an existing town.<br />
<br />
7. Monumental sculpture. Beginning in the Third Dynasty the Egyptians created canons of monumental sculpture, life-size or nearly life-size pieces that follow well-defined patterns of arrangement. In this way they invented the s t a t u e, as distinct from the “figurines” and rough “idols” formerly dominant. <br />
<br />
8. The nude. During the Fifth Dynasty the Egyptians introduced nude male figures in the tombs. These are shown striding, with the left foot forward. Sporadically recurring, the form was purloined by the Greeks for their k o u r o s. <br />
<br />
9. The bust. This conventional form is an abbreviated human being, a type of sculpture showing only the head and shoulders. The earliest surviving example seems to be the Old Kingdom Ankh-haf in Boston. There is a charming wooden example in the Tut treasure—and of course the world-famous Nefertiti in Berlin. The Romans produced busts of revered ancestors. And busts proliferated in the European baroque. <br />
<br />
10. The sphinx. Egyptian sphinxes (atypical examples of animal-human hybrids) generally represent rulers. In Greece the form, always female, is hypothesized. Modern artists like Elihu Vedder and František Kupka have quoted the form as a token of inscrutability. <br />
<br />
11. The frame. Early relief carvings, such as the Wadji stele in the Louvre and the wooden Hesira panels, fix the frame situation by raising the surface outside the picture area so as to create a uniform boundary. Later, the Egyptians developed wall paintings that clearly suggest beaded frames. Simulated frames occur in Pompeiian painting, while real three-dimensional examples enclose European canvases from the Renaissance to the present. <br />
<br />
12. Illustrated books. In their papyri the Egyptians invented the practice of interspersing pictures amidst columns of text. The illuminated books of Byzantium inherited this practice. It lives on in our art books, with their dialogue of picture and text. <br />
<br />
13. Comic papyri of animals simulating human conduct. A striking example is the strip of the lion and the gazelle in the British Museum. These images show that the ancient Egyptians had a sense of humor. Yet such depictions are not just humorous but embody social commentary. Cats peacefully look after mice and geese, while a gazelle must ponder how to cater to her lion master. Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck came much later. <br />
<br />
14. Abstract art. During the Amarna period (ca. 1372-54 BCE) the old anthropomorphic and theriomorphic (human and animal) forms of deities were discarded in favor of a circular rendering, the concave disk standing for the Aten, the solar principle. Modern abstraction, also rejecting the depiction of living beings, has also favored circles and disks. Among the abstract artists exploiting the disk form are Robert Delaunay, Theo van Doesburg, and Kenneth Noland. <br />
<br />
15. Gender variation. During the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom human figures complied with an established gender contrast. Men were robustly muscled, their buff upper torso revealed by the standard kilt. Women were slender, graceful, and lissom, generally wearing a slight slip-like garment. During the New Kingdom major changes became evident. Queen Hatshepsut (r. 1479-1457 BCE) ruled as a man. Her statues sometimes reflect her birth gender (her feminine side) and sometimes her masculine status, with pronounced features and a false beard. With his shrunken upper torso and pear-shaped middle section, the Amarna pharaoh Akhenaten (r. 1353-1337) shows a pronounced gender ambiguity. Recent scholarship holds that his wife Nefertiti may have assumed the male identity of Smenkhare, so as to be co-ruler with her husband during his last years. (This idea is speculative.) At all events, the depictions of Smenkhare are notably androgynous. <br />
<br />
In their number and variety, these "firsts" speak for themselves. To be sure, there were many firsts in the rival civilization of Mesopotamia, but rarely in art. Egyptian primacy in this realm suggests the following stark conclusion. In all of Western art there are two main sequences, BE (Before Egyptian, i.e. prehistoric) and E plus (Egyptian and after). <br />
<br />
APPENDIX: “Red and Black”<br />
<br />
A recent B-movie about winning at Las Vegas made me think about the conventions of the roulette wheel. Apart from the numbers on the rim (which are, appropriately, numerous) there are two binary contrasts: odd vs. even, and red vs. black. The first reflects a fundamental property of mathematics that is, so to speak, built into the universe. Every number must be either odd or even. <br />
<br />
Not so the red/black opposition. To be sure, hues may be measured in angstrom units, arraying them in a vast rainbow, but the only contrast that seems objectively valid is between white (total fusion of colors) and its opposite black (the absence of color). And we do speak of black-and-white contrasts. Among other things, piano keyboards and old movies reinforce the perception of this complementarity. However, red is just a hue among countless others, with no objective or necessary companion, except as convention dictates. In traffic lights, for example, red contrasts with green.<br />
<br />
Why then the red/black antinomy? The answer goes back to the writing conventions of the ancient Egyptians, whose beautiful hieroglyphs we admire in our museums and libraries. In Egyptian papyri black is preferred for the main body of running text. Red, which occurs less often, is reserved for headings and words that need to be emphasized, italicized as it were. <br />
<br />
Among the Egyptians this contrast was in part practical, reflecting the ready availability of black ink (carbon black) and red (hematite, or red iron oxide). There were also symbolic overtones. The Egyptians often called their own country Kemet, the Black Land, acknowledging the rich dark soil brought from East Africa by the annual inundation’s. By contrast red was associated with the desert, a potentially dangerous, but inescapable accompaniment of the Black Land.<br />
<br />
These symbolic associations faded, but not the idea that black is to be preferred for main texts, red for exceptional indications. Medieval scribes called the use of red "rubrication." Even today, we use the term "red-letter days," which originally referred to special feasts and saints' days in the calendar. At the beginning of her career, the Theosophist Annie Besant wrote a book on "black-letter saints," worthy figures but not as famous as the red-letter ones.<br />
<br />
Today a version of the contrast occurs in bookkeeping, where accountants traditionally enter debits in red. This practice has influenced ordinary language. No one wants to be "in the red," while the assurance that one is "in the black" is calming.<br />
<br />
The bookkeeping practice draws on the association of red with danger, which may be biological in origin. In the case of the roulette wheel, however, this association is not present. Given the mathematical nature of the odds, a better would be foolish to avoid red.<br />
<br />
In Stendhal’s great novel, "Le Rouge et le noir" (1831), red refers to a political career, possibly a revolutionary one, while black means choice of the Church. Roughly they correspond to to our Left and Right. The contrast could also occur within factions of the Left. In 1834, if memory serves, two flags were unfurled in Paris: a red one for socialism, a black one for anarchism. Red has continued to be favored in the symbology of Marxist regimes, while some Anarchists unfurl the black flag.<br />
<br />
It is a curious fact that a custom that started in ancient Egypt lingers in two realms where the red/black contrast is significant: in gambling and accounting. Perhaps someone should alert the Las Vegas hotel, the Luxor (where I stayed several years ago). Both types of endeavor, gaming and accounting, figure in the business side of the hotel.Dyneslineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17557372978936806884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9066474042021994434.post-81785837549756261972008-12-03T06:14:00.000-08:002008-12-03T06:20:54.650-08:00Lecture twelveLeaving the realm of the private tombs, with their impressive murals, we return to the major personalities of the Eighteenth dynasty. Who was the most outstanding? Hatshepsut would certainly make a claim. She demonstrated the virtues of trade and peace, instead of war. In her own person, she fused (in her view) the perfect female and the perfect male, introducing an androgynous model that resurfaced with Akhnaten (albeit in different form). Her nephew, the macho Tuthmose III could make his claim based on his conquests, which extended Egyptian territory significantly. Amenhotep III, the “dazzling sun” and creator of over 1000 statues of himself, represented the zenith of Egyptian power. His son Amenhotep IV, known as Akhnaten, introduced a new religion and a new style of art. As his virtual coregent, Nefertiti could have made a claim, with her serene beauty and self-confidence. Finally, the boy king Tutankhamen, owing to the happy accident of the survival of his treasure, ranks as one of the most famous--if not the most famous--pharaohs for our own age.<br /><br />Previously we dealt with the first two of these Great Ones, Hatshepsut and Thutmose III. Now we transition to the third worthy by means of Amenhotep II and Thutmose IV. The former’s tomb survives in the Valley of the Kings (KV 35) in reasonably good condition. The sarcophagus is superb (note the golden figure of Isis), and the walls are decorated with scenes from the Amduat (the book of “That Which Is in the Netherworld), divided into 12 hours (of the night). He had reigned for 27 years.<br /><br />The succession of Thutmose IV seems to have been uncertain, confirmed though (as he believed) by a dream in which the sphinx appeared to him, commanding her restoration. Thutmose’s sphinx is clearly “solarized,” by the identification Khepri-Ra-Atum, that is, the rising sun, zenith, and setting sun. He reigned for only 9-10 years.<br /><br />The Eighteenth dynasty peaked during the reign of Amenhotep III, who reigned for almost 40 years.. Sustained by the enormous wealth of past conquests, by tribute and diplomatic gifts of vassal kings and foreign rulers, Amenhotep III became one of the greatest builders in the history of his country.<br /><br />Like his ancestors, he continued extending the great temple of Amun at Karnak. He was responsible for rebuilding the Temple core at Luxor. His architect may have been Amenhotep, son of Hapu. On the Theban west bank, he built a large palace complex (known as Malkata) and a funerary temple of which, unfortunately, only the two damaged colossi (“of Memnon”) now bear witness. Excavators have uncovered the basic elements of the plan of the palace which consisted of a succession of halls and courtyards, with satellite villas.<br /><br />His sculptures show an oscillation of features, from the severe “basilisk countenances” to the baby-faced types. He is sometime shown with his wife Tiye, daughter of Yuya and Tuya (the latter occupied tomb KV 46).<br /><br />Anticipating Louis XIV, Amenhotep III had himself identified as the “dazzling sun.” The Aten disk appears in the iconography of his reign. As we noted at the outset of this course, a tendency to solar preeminence was always latent in Egyptian culture (note, e.g., the Sun Temple at Abu Ghurob of the Fifth dynasty). In view of the absolute triumph of the sun under his son Akhneten, it is tempting to seek elements of the new, revolutionary religion in the long reign of the father. In this quest for origins, it is difficult to find a balance--in part because the theologians of Amenhotep III did not know where they were going. Akhenaten did.<br /><br />AKHENATEN AND AMARNA<br /><br />In the early years of his reign, Amenhotep IV lived at Thebes with Nefertiti and his 6 daughters. Initially, he permitted worship of Egypt's traditional deities to continue, but near the Temple of Karnak (Amun-Re's great cult center), he erected several massive buildings including temples to the Aten or sun disk. These buildings at Thebes were later dismantled by his successors and used as infill for new constructions in the Temple of Karnak; when they were later dismantled by archaeologists, some 36,000 decorated blocks from the original Aten building here were revealed which preserve many elements of the original relief scenes and inscriptions.<br /><br />The relationship between Amenhotep IV and the priests of Amun-Re gradually deteriorated. In Year 5 of his reign, Amenhotep IV took decisive steps to establish the Aten as the exclusive, monotheistic god of Egypt. With stunning ruthlessness, the pharaoh disbanded the priesthoods of all the other gods, diverting the income from the other cults to support the Aten. This step suggests that their may have been an economic subtext behind his reform, a subtext that would garner support among the military and the bureaucracy, increasingly concerned about priestly domination.<br /><br />The king officially changed his name from Amenhotep IV to Akhenaten or “Servant of the Aten.” <br />As we have previously noted, their is a kind of latent solarism that runs through Egyptian religion. This theme had become stronger in the reign of the father Amenhotep III, the “dazzling son.” Thus Akhenaten’s “heresy” had real roots.<br /><br />Still, there is no doubting the genuinely revolutionary character of Akhenaten’s new faith, which was, in essence, a “found” religion, and not one that had simply evolved like all previous belief systems. Contrary to some doubters, I believe that it was genuinely monotheistic. As such, it proclaimed a new dichotomous standard of truth and falsehood, seen as absolutely opposed. With regard to the Aten, there was no “complementary dualism,” unless it was the pharaoh himself, the deity’s own vicar on earth. Atenism was both aniconic (no anthropomorphic or animal representation) and iconoclastic (destruction of images of rival gods). In all these respects, it forecasts later forms of monotheism.<br /><br />As seen in the Great Hymn (possibly written by Akhenaten himself) the new religion presented many appealing aspects. The supremacy of the sun, the source of all life, accounts for both human diversity (what we would term multiculturalism) and human solidarity (the sun shines equally on all lands). The Hymn shows some similarities with other forms of Middle Eastern wisdom literature (cf. Psalm 104).<br /><br />As if this new religion was not enough, Akhenaten made two other innovations: his new capital and his new style (or styles) of art.<br /><br />THE NEW CAPITAL<br /><br />Akhenaten's fifth year also marked the beginning of construction on his new capital, Akhetaten, or “Horizon of Aten,” at the site known today as Amarna. This city ranks as the first effort in world history to create a new capital from scratch, foreshadowing Washington, Canberra, and Brasilia. <br />The area of the city was effectively a virgin site. It may be that the Royal Wadi's resemblance to the hieroglyph for horizon showed that this was the place to found the city.<br /><br />Construction started in or around Year 5 of the king’s reign (1346 BCE) and was probably completed by Year 9 (1341 BCE), although it became the capital city two years earlier. To speed up construction of the city most of the buildings were constructed out of mud brick, and white-washed. The most important buildings were faced with local stone.<br /><br />It is the only ancient Egyptian city that integrally preserves its internal plan, in large part because the city was abandoned after the death of Akhenaten. The city seems to have remained active for a decade or so after his death, and a shrine to Horemheb indicates that it was at least partially occupied at the beginning of his reign, if only as a source for building material elsewhere.<br /><br />Hastily constructed, Akhetaten extended along approximately 8 miles of territory on the east bank of the Nile River; on the west bank, land was set aside to provide crops for the city's population. The entire city was encircled with a total of 14 boundary stelae detailing Akhenaten's conditions for the establishment of this new capital city of Egypt.<br /><br />The ruins of the city are laid out roughly north to south along a grand avenue, the Royal Road. The royal residences are generally to the north, in what is known as the North City, with a central administration and religious area and the south of the city is made up of residential suburbs.<br />Most of the important ceremonial and administrative buildings were located in the central city. Here the Great Temple of the Aten and the Small Aten Temple were used for religious functions; between these the Great Royal Palace and the Royal Residence were the ceremonial abodes of the King and Royal Family, being linked by a bridge and ramps. Located behind the Royal Residence was the Pharaoh’s Bureau of Correspondence, where the Amarna Leters were found. This central zone was probably the first area to be completed.<br /><br />To the south of the city was the area now referred to as the Southern Suburbs, containing the estates of many of the city's powerful nobles. This area also held the studio of the sculptor Thutmose, where the famous bust of Nefertiti was found in 1912.<br /><br />The tombs broke with the tradition of location on the west bank of the nile Away from the city Akhenaten's royal necropolis was started in a narrow valley to the east of the city, hidden in the cliffs. <br /><br />The king was active in architecture outside of his new capital. In honor of Aten, Akhenaten also oversaw the construction of some of the most massive temple complexes in ancient Egypt. In these new temples, Aten was worshipped in the open sunlight, rather than in dark temple enclosures, as had been the previous custom. <br /><br />ART STYLES<br /><br />Styles of art that flourished during this short period are markedly different from other Egyptian art, bearing a variety of inflection, from elongated heads to protruding stomachs, outright ugliness and the beauty of Nefertiti. Significantly, and for the only time in the history of Egyptian royal art, Akhenaten's family was depicted in a decidedly naturalistic manner, and they are clearly shown displaying affection for each other. Nefertiti also appears beside the king in actions usually reserved for a Pharaoh, suggesting that she attained unusual power for a queen. Artistic representations of Akhenaten give him a strikingly bizarre appearance, with an elongated face, slender limbs, a protruding belly, wide hips, and an overall pear-shaped body. It has been suggested that the pharaoh had himself depicted in this way for religious reasons, or that it exaggerates his distinctive physical traits. Until Akhenaten's mummy is located and identified, such theories remain speculative, though some evidence from mummies of relatives has recently come to light.<br /><br />Because of its surpassing beauty, the famous bust of Nefertiti (now in Berlin) is both the masterpiece and the exception among the Amarna works. Probably a model rather than a finished work, the Nefertiti relies upon superb detailing and (compositionally) on a kind of counterintuitive balancing, with the most massive element at the top. Several other heads and torsos of female figures suggest that the Amarna approach was (to our eyes at least) more congenial for women rather than for men. There are, however, some eloquent male heads, some apparently modeled from life.<br /><br />AFTERMATH AND CONCLUSION<br /><br />Although it is accepted that Akhenaten himself died in Year 17 of his reign, the question of whether Smenkhkare became coregent perhaps 2 or 3 years earlier or enjoyed a brief independent reign is unclear. If Smenkhkare outlived Akhenaten, and became sole Pharaoh, he likely ruled Egypt for less than a year. The next successor was either Neferneferuaten, possibly a female Pharaoh who reigned for perhaps 2 or three years, or Tutankhaten (later, Tutankhamun), with the country perhaps being run by the chief vizier and future Pharaoh, Ay. Tutankhamun is believed to be a younger brother of Smenkhkare and a son of Akhenaten, and possibly Kiya although one scholar has suggested that Tutankhamun may have been a son of Smenkhkare instead. It has also been suggested that after the death of Akhenaten, Nefertiti reigned with the name of Neferneferuaten.<br />With Akhenaten's death, the Aten cult he had founded gradually fell out of favor. Tutankhaten changed his name to Tutankhamun in Year 2 of his reign (1332 BCE) and abandoned the city of Akhetaten, which eventually fell into ruin. <br /><br />Finally, Akhenaten, Neferneferuaten, Smenkhkare, Tutankhamun, and Ay were excised from the official lists of Pharaohs, which instead reported that Amenhotep III was immediately succeeded by Horemheb. This is thought to be part of an attempt by Horemheb to delete all trace of Atenism and the pharaohs associated with it from the historical record. Akhenaten's name never appeared on any of the king lists compiled by later pharaohs and it was not until the late nineteenth century that his identity was rediscovered and the surviving traces of his reign were unearthed by archaeologists.<br /><br />Akhenaten has been called by historian J. H. Breasted “the first individual in history." According to taste, he ranks as the first monotheist, the first scientist, and the first romantic. (The scientist claim seems to derive from his understanding of the sun as the source of energy.)<br /><br />The striking portrayals of Akhenaten, with a sagging stomach, thick thighs, pendulous breasts, and long, thin face--so different from the athletic norm of royal portraiture--have led certain Egyptologists to suppose that Akhenaten suffered some kind of genetic abnormality. However, Dominic Montserrat in Akhenaten: History, Fantasy and Ancient Egypt argues that "there is now a broad consensus among Egyptologists that the exaggerated forms of Akhenaten's physical portrayal...are not to be read literally.” Montserrat and others argue that the body-shape relates to some form of religious symbolism. Because the god Aten was referred to as "the mother and father of all humankind" it has been suggested that Akhenaten was made to look androgynous in art as a symbol of the androgyny of the god. This required "a symbolic gathering of all the attributes of the creator god into the physical body of the king himself", which will "display on earth the Aten's multiple life-giving functions". Akhenaten did refer to himself as "The Unique One of Re," and he may have used his control of artistic expression to distance himself from the common people, though such a radical departure from the idealized traditional representation of the image of the Pharaoh would be truly extraordinary. (As indeed, it is.)<br /><br />There has also been interest in the identity of the pharaoh Smenkhare (to be discussed next time), the immediate successor to Akhenaten. In particular descriptions on a small box seemed to refer to Smenkhare beloved of Akhenaten, posing the possibility that Akhenaten might have been bisexual. In all likelihood, Smenkhkare was a half-brother or a son to Akhenaten.Dyneslineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17557372978936806884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9066474042021994434.post-12708637443391538832008-11-25T17:15:00.000-08:002008-11-25T17:19:49.659-08:00Lecture elevenEGYPT ELEVEN<br /><br />The new exhibition at the Met, “Beyond Babylon,” fills in much detail from the central area of the “Fertile Crescent.” It is also pertinent to the New Kingdom era with which we are presently concerned. Before sharing with you some preliminary impressions, let us say something about Egyptian penetration into the Levant in our period. As we noted earlier, the expulsion of the Hyksos suggested the need for an Egyptian buffer, which was duly established. Then the Egyptians extended themselves into Nubia, as far as the area between the Fourth and Fifth cataract. <br /><br />Thutmose I began a period of active imperialist expansion in the Levant, by landing with an army at the key city of Byblos. However, it was the twenty years of campaigning by Thutmose III that really established Egyptian hegemony. Thutmose took three “native” wives. The great temples of Luxor and Karnak are in large measure an evidence of the tribute exacted from the subject peoples. <br /><br />The Levant that Egypt sought to control was called Retjenu (rṯnw; Reṯenu, Retenu). It covered the region from the Negev Desert north to Orontes River in Syria. The borders of Retjenu shifted with time, but it generally consisted of three regions. The southernmost was Djahy, more or less corresponding with Canaan. Lebanon proper was located in the middle. North of Lebanon was designated Amurru, the land of the Amorites. The latter was particularly strategic, as it included the timber exporting port of Byblos and Ugarit, source of important religious documents. <br /><br />This area also developed what came to be known as the Phoenician script, based ultimately on Egyptian. The simplified Egyptian script seems not to have been created in the Sinai, as we previously thought, but has been attested in graffiti (1900-1800 BCE) at Wadi el-Kol, between Thebes and Abydos. This is the ultimate progenitor of our own alphabet. <br /><br />Where do the ancient Israelites fit in? The first (and so far) only mention of “Israel” in Egyptian documents is a stele of king Merenptah (1213-1203)<br />.<br />Did the Egyptians really colonize this area, or were their raids something of a quest for booty, and a “pacification” project? The reality is something in between. There was no massive settlement, but the local elites of the cities were encouraged to acculturate.<br /><br />Ironically, the incursions showed the limits of Egyptian power by stimulating a countermovement: the rise of Mitanni and the Hittites. Desperate, Tutankhamen’s widow sought to have a Hittite prince come to Egypt as her husband, a step that might have led to the combination of the two empires. This plan came to naught.<br /> <br />The Amarna Letters (late 18th dynasty) tell the story of the decline of Egyptian influence in the region. The Egyptians showed flagging interest here until almost the end of the dynasty. Horemheb, last ruler of this dynasty, campaigned in this region. The neglect had proved costly to Egyptian interests.<br /><br />This process continued in the nineteenth dynasty, with Seti I and especially his son Ramesses II. Historical records exist which record a large weapons order by Ramesses II the year prior to the expedition he lead to Kadesh in 1274 BC. The immediate antecedents to the Battle of Kadesh were the early campaigns of Ramesses II into the Levant. In the fourth year of his reign, he marched north into Syria, either to recapture Amurru (the northernmost region). or to as a probing effort to confirm his vassals' loyalty and explore the terrain of possible battles. Ramesses marched north the 5th year of his reign, and encountered the Hittites at Kadesh. Regrettably, there are varying opinions on almost every aspect of the battle.<br /><br />Ramesses’ army came equipped with at least 2,000 chariots, an enormous force, divided into four divisions. For their part, the Hittites brought along 19 allies. Unfortunately, Ramesses committed major tactical errors. The Hittite chariotry crashed through the Amun division’s shield wall and began their assault. <br /><br />The pharaoh, now facing a desperate fight for his life, summoned up his courage, called upon his god Amun, and fought valiantly to save himself. Ramesses personally led several charges into the Hittite ranks, together with his personal guard, deployed and attacked the overextended and tired Hittite chariotry.<br /><br />The Hittites meanwhile, who understandably believed their enemies to be totally routed, had stopped to loot the Egyptian camp, and in doing so became easy targets for Ramesses's counterattack. Ramesses' action was successful in driving the Hittites back towards the Orontes and away from the Egyptian camp, while in the ensuing pursuit, the heavier Hittite chariots were easily overtaken and dispatched by the lighter, faster, Egyptians chariots.<br /><br />The next morning a second, inconclusive battle, was fought. The Hittite king Muwatalli is reported by Ramesses to have called for a truce but this may be propaganda since Hittite records note no such arrangement. Neither side gained total victory. Both the Egyptians and the Hittites had suffered heavy casualties; the Egyptian army failed to break Kadesh’s defenses while the Hittite army had failed to gain a victory in the face of what earlier must have seemed certain success.<br /><br />Today, there is no consensus about the outcome or even what took place, with views ranging from an Egyptian victory, a draw, and an Egyptian defeat (with the Egyptian accounts simply propaganda).<br /><br />The Kadesh peace agreement-- on display in the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul--is believed to be the earliest example of any written international agreement of any kind. Proclaiming victory, Ramesses prudently retired back into Egypt--without taking Kadesh. This episode marked the high water mark of Egyptian power in the Levant.<br /><br />Now to the Met exhibition, “Beyond Babylon.” Addressing the second millennium, this show is a sequel to the splendid “Art of the First Cities” (2003),<br /><br />Extraordinary is the find of a Minoan fresco (copy in the exhibition) by the Austrian excavators at Tell el-Dab’a (Avaris). See the illustration in Malek, fig. 149. Another Minoan motif has long been known from the Malkata palace in Western Thebes. Crete, of course, lay beyond the reach of Egyptian arms, but trade was appreciated with these “Keftiu.”<br /><br />Byblos played a key role, since its prosperity depended on the timber trade (the famous cedars of Lebanon) that passed through it.<br /><br />PAINTING<br /><br />First, a word about color symbolism, which tends to vary from culture to culture. In ancient Egypt, red was generally a color of danger (cf. a plea by Isis to protect her from “red things”). By contrast, black has a favorable connotation but not always. (In papyri notice the contrast between red and black; distantly continued by our own accountants.) White is associated with silver, and also favorable. Green is best, because it is associated with resurrection. Note that these qualities are rarely explicit in the paintings, which serve to designate the actual colors of objects.<br />Egyptian painters used mainly mineral pigments, which tend not to decay over time like colors made from plant sources. Various yellow, red, and brown colors were obtained from ochres, forms of iron oxide, which were common throughout Egypt. A more lemony yellow came from orpiment, a naturally occurring sulphite of arsenic.<br /> <br />White was made from limestone or gypsum (calcium carbonate or calcium sulphate), or from a mineral known as huntite (a magnesium calcium carbonate).<br /> <br />Black was carbon-based, using the charcoal from burnt plant materials or bone, or the soot scraped from an oven or a cooking pot. Green was more of a problem. Even though there were several compounds of copper, such as malachite (copper carbonate), which gave a green color, these tended to oxidize to a brownish tone. Technically, blue was the most elusive color.<br /> <br />There is some evidence that a cobalt pigment was used for coloring pottery during the Amarna Period, but this was unusual. Most blue coloring had to be artificially made by a method similar to the manufacture of glass or glazes. This blue pigment, known as “Egyptian Blue,” was a copper calcium silicate or frit. When mixed with one of the yellow pigments, Egyptian Blue produced a variety of greens.<br /><br />The grids that are sometimes still visible are now thought to serve as guides for transfer, rather than guarantors of “ideal form.” For the wall paintings supports were of three types: smoothed limestone, stucco, or a loam-and-straw foundation. The artists did not use true fresco (in which the pigment penetrates the drying plaster), but a form of tempera. As a result the paintings are fragile, and suffer from the damp. In addition, some have been prized from the walls and placed in museums (our Met has generally avoided this unfortunate practice, and instead has assembled a collection of good watercolor copies).<br /><br />At Thebes many of the rock-cut tombs contain wall paintings that rank among the finest products of ancient Egyptian art. Regrettably, many of these have suffered extensive damage since the 1820s, when they first began to be brought to light. Over four hundred tombs and tomb-chapels have been allotted numbers for ease of reference and control. Others are numbered more haphazardly. <br /><br />The more lavish tombs (cf. Rekhmire, TT 100) typically have an inverted “T” plan, allowing for additional wall space in the vestibule which is perpendicular to the axis.<br /><br />The imagery of the paintings is partly traditional (hunting; scenes of country life) and innovative (feasts). In the feasts the artists permitted themselves formal liberties in keeping with the occasions, which reflect the human wish to observe “zones of licence” where ordinary rules do not apply. The exuberant Egyptian zest for life is fully in evidence. Significantly, the is the period in which a quantity of Egyptian love poetry, evoking themes that recur later (e.g. in the biblical Song of Songs).<br /><br />The British Museum has a refurbished site on its Nebamun paintings (also a book); the paintings have parted company with their tomb (no one knows its whereabouts). <br /><br />We also looked at work from the tombs of Menna, Rekhmire, Nakht and others. Particularly impressive are the murals in the Nefertari tomb in the Valley of Queens (nineteenth dynasty).<br />For more data on these wonderful scenes, see individual entries on the Internet.<br /><br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dyneslineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17557372978936806884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9066474042021994434.post-78115254929923748032008-11-19T08:01:00.000-08:002008-11-19T08:06:39.133-08:00Lecture tenLast time we briefly considered the Egyptian contribution to town planning: the “Hippodamean” plan before Hippodamus. Most would agree, though, that the two most important Egyptian achievements in architecture were the pyramid and the monumental temple. It is to the latter type of monument that we turn today.<br /><br />THE EGYPTIAN TEMPLE<br /><br />Because of the role of the gods, temples must have always existed in ancient Egypt. Yet our evidence is relatively sparse before the NK. The pyramids are the glory of the OK in northern Egypt, the temples the NK in Upper Egypt. Certainly temples existed in the north, but the habit of rebuilding them has erased much evidence, together with their role as quarries.<br /><br />During the New Kingdom the status of the priesthood increased, with various temples controlling great estates. They began to play an economic role as centers of redistribution. Egyptians always loved festivals, and the temples capitalized on this predilection.<br /><br />Two OK precursors help to establish (if only by contrast) the novelty of the New Kingdom development: the Valley Temple of Khafre at Giza and the ruined Sun Temple of Niuserre at Abu Ghurob. The latter consisted of a valley temple, a causeway, and a stone enclosure. The latter featured a stubby obelisk, preceded by an altar. Not far off is the model of a solar boat in brick.<br />The true temple was the abode or mansion of the god, represented by one or more statues. These statues generally came with boats (or barques) which were used for parading to the people. Normally, however, the cult image resided in seclusion in the inmost recess of the temple, the holy of holies, attended only by the priests. This zone is the true heart of the temple as we will see.<br /><br />Let us examine first the “template of the temple,” as it were. At the Metropolitan Museum, the Temple at Dendur (from the start of the Roman period) is perhaps too abbreviated, though we see the two key elements: the sanctuary house (at the back) and the pylon or monumental doorway in the front.<br /><br />One may look at the great Horus temple, perhaps the best preserved of all, for the key elements. The original core (lying athwart an earlier temple’s ruins) goes back to the third century BCE in the Ptolemaic period. This was later enlarged, the whole being complete only in 70 BCE. Generally, speaking the temple proper was only for the priests. The people could gather in the court outside the pylon, being admitted further only under special circumstances.<br /><br />We pause to note some major features: the residence of the god in the inaccessible gloom of the holy of holies; the sanctuary is not congregational; the whole is kinetic in sequence--open courts vs. covered areas; along with the shrine, the pylon is the other major anchor.<br /><br />As at Edfu, the choice of a site is often governed by a previous sanctuary. The original choice reflected some natural feature, such as a landscape feature or a water source. (Many temples had articificial ponds or lakes, with the most famous one being at Karnak.) <br /><br />Ideally, the temple was laid out by the pharaoh. One began by fixing the plan of the temple by “stretching the cord.” Then gypsum was spread all over the site to purify it. Trenches were dug, and the bricks or stones assembled. Foundation deposits were placed at the corners (compare our contemporary “time capsules”). The whole temple was purified, and then presented to its god, whereupon sacrifices were offered.<br /><br />The two great complexes are at the “twin cities” of Luxor and Karnak<br />.<br />In its present form the LUXOR temple was founded by the great Amenhotep III, with a columned courtyard, a pronaos (32 papyrus columns) a pillared hall, offering room, the barque chapel for the temporary residence of Amun, Mut, and Khonsu, and a final area for the local Amun. Then Tutankhamun added a preface in the form of a conlonnade, seven papyrus columns long. Ramses II made a further major extension: columned courtyard and a great plyon with two obelisks in front.<br /><br />Not only do we need to understand these buildings as complete (as far as we can), we need to see them as theaters of sacred ritual. Of great relevance here is the OPET festival. By the Twentieth dynasty it had come to last 27 days. It took place during the flooding season, when the people could take the time off. Theban citizens and their guests from afar celebrated the fruitful link between their pharaoh and the almighty god Amun. During the celebration the might and power of Amun were ritually bequeathed to his living son, the king. Therefore, the celebration belonged to the official royal ideology of the state and, not surprisingly, witnessed the personal involvement of the pharaoh. <br /><br />At Karnak, the northern sanctuary, the people watched the high priests disappear in the temple. In the privacy of the inner recesses, the priests bathed the image of the god. They dressed him in colorful linen, adorning him with jewelry from the temple treasury including magnificent necklaces, bracelets, scepters, amulets and trinkets of gold or silver encrusted with lapis lazuli, enamel, glass and semi-precious gems. The priests then enclosed the glittering god in a shrine, placing the shrine on top of a ceremonial barque or boat supported by poles for carrying.<br /><br />Carrying the barque on their shoulders, the priests moved into the crowded streets where people elbowed each other to catch a glimpse of the sacred vessel. In Hatshepsut’s time, the complete journey was accomplished on foot, while stopping at different resting stations. Later, the boat was carried to the Nile and then towed upriver to the Luxor Temple. After reaching Luxor, the pharaoh and priests left the crowd behind, maneuvering the boat into the dark recesses of the temple. Incense filled the air. There was a ceremony communing with the other, local holy image of Amun.<br />During the Festival of Opet, onlookers could ask the god questions that could be answered by a simple yes or no. A man might ask if his brother in another town was in good health, If the boat dipped forward, the answer was yes; if it backed away, the reply was no. <br /><br />More than anything, the ancient Egyptian population enjoyed the largesse of the priestly class during these festivals. During one Opet festival in the twelfth century BCE, it is recorded that temple officials distributed 11,341 loaves of bread and 385 jars of beer to the citizens. Since these items had been donated to the temple, this largesse was a form of redistribution akin to our own food pantries.<br /><br />In size and accumulation of major monuments, the Amun precinct at KARNAK is indisputably Egypt’s premier sanctuary. Processional ways connected it with the Mut precinct, the Luxor temple 1 1/2 miles away, and the Nile bank. The MK has the oldest remains: the first huge limestone temple built in the reign of Senwosret I and surrounded by a brick enclosure wall. In front of this structure stood engaged statue pillars. In the rear half were three cult chambers, the last furnished with an alabaster plinth for the shrine of the cult image.<br /><br />In the NK, beginning with Amenhotep, it rose to the status of Egypt’s national shrine. The temple was surrounded with an enclosure wall connecting with the newly erected fourth and fifth pylons. Pairs of obelisks were erected by the Thutmosids. A new pylon (the sixth) appeared between the barque shrine and the fifth pylon. Two big new pylons were erected in the southern axis towards the Mut precinct, the eighth (Hatsepsut) with four colossal statues, and the seventh (Thutmosis III) with two seated colossal statues and a pair of obelisks. Further major additions were made by Amenhotep III.<br /><br />HATSHEPSUT AT DEIR EL BAHRI (“Western Thebes”)<br /><br />Some say that one cannot draw too precise a line between temples proper and mortuary sanctuaries. Certainly, this seems to be so in the NK. At any rate Hatshepsut’s mortuary temple at Deir el Bahri has many features of temples properly speaking, while discarding the last remnants of pyramids.<br /><br />Erected to surpass its neighbor, the Mentuhotep monument, the complex was probably designed by Senmut, Hatshepsut’s loyal factotum. The sequence of terraces and colonnades is breathtaking--even in competition with the massive cliff behind. Much of the detail of the interior was mutilated by Thutmosis III and Akhenaten. The proto-Doric columns of the Anubis chapel are noteworthy forerunners of the corresponding Greek order. The biographical frieze includes the picturesque detail of the fat queen of Punt.Dyneslineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17557372978936806884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9066474042021994434.post-63673023656739841072008-11-12T05:41:00.000-08:002008-11-12T05:50:08.997-08:00Lecture Nine[Middle Kingdom continued]<br /><br />In the previous class we presented the case for a major shift in mentality during the MK. For this change we noted two pieces of evidence: the pessimistic literature (including Amenemhat I’s “Instruction,” picturing the king’s life as insecure) and the “existential” portraiture of the later Twelfth dynasty. A particularly striking instance of the pessimistic literature is the “Dispute of a Man with His Soul,” in which the man proposes suicide, the soul (ba) opposes it. This little piece demonstrates wavering about that “sure thing,” the afterlife. At a more fundamental level, it shows the emergence of dialectical thinking--the principle that counsels that sometimes one must choose between alternative views, with the choice not being simple. <br /><br />Another aspect is what might be called the beginnings of multiculturalism, the appreciation, however tentative, that foreign ways may have their merits. Sinuhe “went native” in Syria--he acculturated--but eventually decided to return to Egypt. Others, though, may have stayed. <br /> <br />To put the matter in a nutshell, the key word for the Old Kingdom is CERTAINTY; the word for the Middle Kingdom is DOUBT.<br /><br />Let us step back a bit: are we perhaps overinterpreting? After all, the main task of the MK was to restore the good old days after the horrors of the First Intermediate Period. This meant reaffirming “truth, justice, and the Egyptian way.” At the start of the 21st century, we are attracted to the idea of a changed mindset in the MK because it seems more modern, more like our own way of approaching things (including dialectical thinking). In reality, though, what is new in the MK is probably more a matter of accents than essence.<br /><br />We return to PORTRAITURE. A striking example of Senwosret III (S3) is the statue in the British Museum. One of four, these introduce a new royal pose: the attitude of prayer with hands on the kilt. Among the several characteristic features of the face the mouth is perhaps most striking, with its narrow upper lip, rising steeply to the center. One scholar notes the “hauntingly somber emotion that sometimes seems to approach anguish? An undecidable question is this: do such statues express the inner man in a way that almost anticipates Rembrandt and Hals, or are they more impersonal icons of the era?<br /><br />The statues of S3, some 100 of them, are relatively uniform. For his son A3, three styles have been discerned: realistic, idealized and stylized. The head from a colossus in the British Museum belongs to the stylized class. It has an almost mocking quality.<br /><br />The wooden statue of the ka of King Hor is an isolated masterpiece of the otherwise scrappy Thirteenth dynasty. The head, torso, and left leg are from one log; the other limbs were carved separately and attached by tenons. As Cyril Aldred remarks, “[T]he slender, somewhat elongated forms belong to the elegant distortions of a sophisticated art which is already trembling on the verge of mannerism.”<br /><br />We then turned to some examples of the MINOR ARTS. Two pieces of open-work jewelry showed the superb techniques of metalworking and incorporation of precious stones. The so-called “concubine figures” found in the tombs remain a problem. Some may have been fetishes, as it were, originally made for popular use, that went into the tombs. The function of the beloved Met hippo “William” in faience also remains uncertain. The “tattooing” of landscape features on the body is a special creative application of the principle of interaction between the animal and its environment.<br /><br />TOWN PLANNING<br /><br />Excavated by W.M.Flinders Petrie in 1889-90, Kahun (or more properly Lahun) was the pyramid city of Senwosret II, situated near the entrance to the channel that took Nile waters to the Fayum. The plan of the settlement is divided into two unequal parts. That to the west was reserved for what appear to have been workmen’s houses and humbler dwellings. The eastern quarter was nearly three times bigger. The whole complex was surrounded by walls about ten feet thick at the base and about twenty feet high. The Manhattan-like blocks of the eastern quarter are readily apparent. In this way the scheme anticipates the Hippodamian (orthogonal) town planning of the Greeks. The houses followed a basic design pattern: the rooms grouped together in sets of six with only one outer door to the street.<br /><br />The houses in the eastern quarter show six types: the so-called acropolis (possibly the governor’s residence) and adjacent guard building to its south, together with six other similar mansions along the north wall and three more to the south of the great east-west road; the houses built against the inner wall dividing this quarter from the western; the storerooms behind the great southern mansions; the workmen’s street behind the great southern houses; five similar streets of workmen’s houses on the east of the city; some further undesignated buildings at the extreme east side of the city. <br /><br />Recent finds at the workmen’s quarters at Giza have revealed a similar type of planning. Not an innovation of the MK, such orthogonal layouts are characteristic of new towns. From what we can tell, the older towns followed the typical winding layout of villages and towns in all traditional societies. The house types, though, are probably a representative sample.<br /><br />The finds include doctor’s implements and a gynaecological papyrus. Seeds show that there were flowers (poppies, lupins, mignonette, jasmine, heliotrope, and irises) and vegetables (peas, beans, radishes, and cucumbers). <br /><br />RELIGIOUS EVOLUTION <br /><br />Some scholars speak of the “democratization of the afterlife” in the Middle Kingdom. This claim may go too far, but there was definitely a broadening of access to the afterlife. In principle, during the OK, immortality was limited to the pharaoh. The Pyramid Texts, starting at the end of the Fifth dynasty with Unas, apply only to him. Queens of course sometimes had their own pyramids. Leading courtiers would huddle their mastabas around the royal tomb in hopes that they could benefit from the coattails effect (cf. the practice until recently of churchyard burial). <br /><br />During the First Intermediate period, however, the nomarchs no longer had any confidence in the feeble “central government” in Thebes. They began building their own tombs in the provinces, demonstrating that nonroyals of means could aspire to the afterlife.<br /><br />In due course private tombs become more lavish, many bearing elements of a new body of spells, adapted in part from the earlier Pyramid Texts. These texts emphasize the role of personal responsibility, whereby the deceased offers assurance that he has lived a good life. The idea that only those who have proved themselves worthy in this life deserve the next is of course the cornerstone of other religions that stress the afterlife,which is not a certainty, but a reward for living a good life. Inscriptions make clear the personal qualities that are needed to be worthy of resurrection into a happy afterlife: self-control, generosity, and honesty. One cannot simply barge one’s way into immortality (as a pharaoh might do), but the privilege must be earned by being a good person in this life. Otherwise one will fail the qualifying exam administered be the gods, or perish in the dangerous passage to the fields of eternal happiness.<br /><br />The Coffin Texts, to give the new writings their conventional name, are a collection of funerary spells appearing on coffins and the walls of tombs beginning in the First Intermediate Period. Drawing on earlier exemplars, they contain substantial new material related to everyday desires that reflects the fact that the texts were now used by private persons. <br /><br />As the modern name of this collection of some 1,185 spells implies, the texts are mostly found on Middle Kingdom coffins. However they are sometimes inscribed on tomb walls, stelae, canopic chests, papyri and even mummy masks. Because of the limited writing surfaces of some of these objects, the collection was often abbreviated, and this gave rise to long and short versions of some of the spells, a number of which were later incorporated in the later compilation known as the Book of the Dead.<br /><br />In contrast to the pyramid texts which focus on the celestial realm, the coffin texts emphasize the subterranean elements of the afterlife ruled by Osiris, in a place called the Duat. In principle, an Osirian afterlife is available to everyone, and the deceased is even referred to as "the Osiris-[name]." The subterranean path to one’s final destination is described as being filled with threatening beings, traps, and snares with which the deceased must contend. The spells in the coffin texts allow the deceased to protect themselves against these dangers, so that one does not "die a second death."<br /><br />A new theme recorded in the coffin texts is the notion that all people will be judged by Osiris and his council according to their deeds in life. The texts allude to the use of scales, which became the pivotal moment of judgment in the later Book of the Dead. The texts address common fears of the living, such as being required to do manual labor, with spells to allow the deceased to avoid these unpleasant tasks. The figurines known as shabtis (shawabtis, ushabtis) stand ready to assume these duties of manual labor.<br /><br />The texts combine ritual actions intended as protection, expressions of aspiration for a blessed existence after death and of the transformations and transmigrations of the ba and akh and so on. In addition there are descriptions of the land of the dead, its landscape and inhabitants. These include the Sekhet Hotep (Field of offerings or peace), the paths of Rostau and the abode of Osiris.<br /><br />PAINTING<br /><br />The wooden coffins, mainly from Middle Egypt, are the major venues, so to speak, of the Coffin Texts. There are beautifully painted interiors: note in particular the one of Seni in the British Museum and Djehuti-nakht in Boston. The latter is reproduced as a two-page spread in Malek.<br /><br />SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD<br /><br />This marks a period between the end of the MK and the start of the NK when Egypt once again fell into disarray. Its earlier counterpart had been the product of internal devolution; by contrast, the new era of decline saw the intrusion of a hated foreign group, the Hyksos.<br /><br />Stepping back a bit, we note that the brilliant Twelfth dynasty had been succeeded by the much weaker Thirteenth dynasty. The Thirteenth dynasty is notable for the accession of the first formally recognizable Semitic king, Kendjer. Demographic changes were under way.<br /><br />The Thirteenth dynasty proved unable to hold onto the entire territory of Egypt, and the provincial ruling family in Xois, located in the marshes of the western Delta, broke away from the central authority to form the Fourteenth dynasty. The splintering of the land accelerated after the reign of the Thirteenth Dynasty king Sobekhotep IV, when the Hyksos may have made their first appearance, taking control of the town of Avaris in the eastern Delta. From their base in the northeast the Hyksos were able to overrun much of Egypt, led by Salitis, the founder of the Fifteenth dynasty. <br /><br />This dynasty was succeeded by a group of Hyksos princes and chieftains, who ruled in the eastern Delta with their local Egyptian vassals. These individuals, who sought to assimilate to Egyptian culture, are known primarily by scarabs inscribed with their names.<br /><br />The Hyksos kings, however, were not able to maintain their control over the whole of Egypt, and only a few years after it had been conquered, Thebes again arose as an independent state, and home to the Seventeenth dynasty. This dynasty was to prove the salvation of Egypt and would eventually lead the war of liberation that drove the Hyksos back into Asia. <br /><br />In later times the Hyksos were execrated. However, they were responsible for one major innovation: the use of the horse, together with chariots and the characteristic trappings. It was with the aid of chariots that the New Kingdom was able to conquer the Levant.<br /><br />The first historically recorded traces of a native Egyptian war against the Hyksos are dated to the reign of Kamose at the end of the Seventeenth dynasty. Two stelae commemorate Kamose's struggle against the Hyksos and their vassals. Against the advice of his council, Kamose started or continued the war, punishing all those who had collaborated with the hated foreigners.<br /><br />It would be Kamose's brother, Ahmose, who would finally succeed in overthrowing the Hyksos. With his reign, a new era of prosperity and wealth would begin: the New Kingdom.<br /><br />THE NEW KINGDOM (Shaw: 1550-1069)<br /><br />The New Kingdom comprises the period from the Eighteenth through the Twentieth dynasties. This was Egypt’s most prosperous time, marking the zenith of its power. Possibly as a result of the foreign rule of the Hyksos occupation during the Second Intermediate Period, the New Kingdom saw Egypt attempt to create a buffer between the Levant and the kingdom based on the Nile, which attained its greatest territorial extent. Egyptian dominion expanded far south into Nubia and held wide territories in the Near East.<br /><br />In keeping with these developments, the former isolationism of Egypt yielded to a new cosmopolitanism. For the first time, as the Amarna Letters show, Egypt entered into a pattern of international relations, with diplomatic links with foreign countries. The new opulence encouraged flexibility regarding gender, as seen in the emergence of characteristic themes of love poetry, and the “gender bending” of Hatshepsut and Akhenaten. This new approach to gender informed the emergence of the Amarna style, unlike anything Egypt had ever seen.<br /><br />Hatshepsut concentrated on expanding Egypt's external trade, sending a commercial expedition to the land of Punt in the Horn of Africa. Thutmose III ("the Napoleon of Egypt") expanded Egypt's army, wielding it with great success. He created the largest the largest empire Egypt had ever seen.Dyneslineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17557372978936806884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9066474042021994434.post-33613277210386128442008-11-05T06:40:00.000-08:002008-11-05T07:00:40.482-08:00Lecture EightLast week we bade a reluctant farewell to the Old Kingdom, so formative not only for ancient Egypt, but in some respects for all subsequent civilizations in the West. We then turned to the enigma of the First Intermediate Period, where the older idea of catastrophic decline has been challenged by the newer revisionism. Perhaps the appeal of the newer view is that it makes the era seem more like our own, with regional pluralism and a degree of personal freedom. (This approach is sometimes labeled “present mindedness,” about which there are both pros and cons.) At the same time, we saw that there was a price to be paid for these putative advances, as seen in the generally marked decline in quality of the surviving objects.<br /><br />Assuming, as I think we must, that an actual deterioration occured in some sectors, the era poses for the first time the recurrent historiographical problem of Decline and Fall, exemplified most notably by the fate of the Roman Empire. Once the possibility is entertained, there arises the disturbing possibility that our own society might be scheduled for such a devolution. <br /><br />Undoubtedly, this possibility lurked behind the facade of perfect restoration in the Middle Kingdom. Yet there was a dividend, in that the new wariness promoted a more complex view of human destiny than heretofore.<br /><br />THE MIDDLE KINGDOM (MK)<br /><br />Earthly salvation, as the ancient Egyptians conceived it, came in the course of the Eleventh dynasty. Everything was put back as it was. The gods are in their heaven, and all is well again, hopefully forever and ever. But things were not so simple. The wound to Egyptian self-confidence could not be so readily erased. <br /><br />Another way of looking at the matter is that this is the first Renaissance in human history: the happy return to a lost utopia (or so it was perceived).<br /><br />The MK saw the first great flowering of Egyptian literature. (OK writings were restricted to funerary autobiographies and the Pyramid Texts.) For this reason, the language of the period was adopted as the norm among the scribes of later eras (including our own). <br /><br />In literature, the period sees the emergence of the genre of fiction, as exemplified by the tales the Shiprwrecked Sailor, the Eloquent Peasant, and Sinuhe.<br /><br />The Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor is an account of a southerly voyage to the land of Punt (Somalia). The tale expresses the anxieties castaways experience, together with loneliness, and the fear of dying in a foreign country, a recurrent theme in Egyptian literature. The story seems to be presented as a lesson for a scribe as there are many recurring phrases used in different ways; notably aha n ("Then I"). <br /><br />In a short introduction the master asks his servant to tell him his story. The servant narrates how his ship, manned by one hundred fifty sailors, had sunk in a storm and how he had managed to hold on to a piece of timber and had been washed up on an island, all by himself. Nothing was lacking on this island: there was food aplenty, grain, fruit, fish, and fowl. As the castaway was making a burnt offering to the gods to thank them for his salvation, the earth shook and an enormous magic serpent approached him, speaking perfect Egyptian.<br /><br />The snake foretold that a ship from Egypt would come and take him back to his country. When a ship did arrive the serpent gave him valuable presents to take back, such as incense, fragrant wood, and ivory. The “Shipwrecked Sailor” is the first in the tradition of castaway narratives, of which the best-known are the stories of Sinbad and Robinson Crusoe.<br /><br />The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant begins with a poor peasant named Khun-anup who is tricked off the road by the greedy overseer of a nobleman named Rensi, and forced to lead his donkey through the edge of the nobleman's crop field. The donkey, naturally, ate some of the grain, and the overseer confiscated the donkey and beat Khun-anup for his trespass.<br /><br />Khun-anup searched out the landowner Rensi to appeal to him for justice. Although Khun-anup did not have any witnesses, the nobleman found his speech to be so eloquent and moving that he agreed to hear the case anyway. Rensi then brought the case before the king and told him of the peasant's amazing speaking prowess. After hearing of the speech, the king was also quite impressed. So much so, in fact, that he ordered that the peasant's case should continue to go on and that all of his speeches should be written down for the Pharaoh to ponder.<br /><br />For nine days Khun-anup begged Rensi for justice, with each of his speeches more eloquent than the last. Finally, when it seemed like his case was getting nowhere, Khun-anup insulted Rensi and was punished with a beating. After one last speech—the best speech of all—he gave up and left to go home.<br /><br />Rensi sent for the peasant to come back and, rather than being punished further, the peasant was finally given justice. The Pharoah Amenemhat, after reading Khun-anup's last speech, was so impressed with his eloquence and righteousness that he ordered the donkey to be given back and that the peasant would be compensated with all the property of Rensi's greedy overseer, including his job.<br /><br />The story deals with issues of class--showing how even a proletarian could have the gift of eloquence--and justice, always difficult for the disadvantaged to obtain.<br /><br />The Tale of Sinuhe is a narrative set in the aftermath of the violent death of Amenemhat I. The tale opens as the traveler Sinuhe speaks from his own tomb. Sinuhe has died and has been properly buried in Egypt. The tale begins with the death of the king Amenemhat (who we know from the “Teaching of Amenemhat” was assassinated). Sinuhe at this point is returning from a campaign in Libya with the eldest son of the king (probably the future king Senwosret I). He overhears a messenger speaking of another brother who also heard of the news and is returning and in a blind panic flees the country. Arguably, Sinuhe was momentarily taken over by the forces of “chaos,” as here was no logic behind his actions. Settling in Syria, he marries the daughter of an local chieftain, who adopts him. Over time he rises to power within his adopted tribe. Eventually, though, he returns to Egypt at the invitation of Senwosret I. The king accepts that Sinuhe had no control over his actions and blames the fallability of the human heart.<br /> <br />The tale ranks as a major achievement of ancient Egyptian literature. It combines into a single, economically expressed narrative an extraordinary range of literary styles, and is also notable for its nuanced examination of the motivations of its central protagonist. The poem continually examines the reasons for Sinuhe's flight and his possible culpability for it, without reaching a conclusion.<br /><br />By placing an Egyptian character in a non-Egyptian (i.e. Levantine) society, the poem also explores the nature of what it is to be an Egyptian, subtly questioning, without ultimately undermining the standard Egyptian assumption that life outside Egypt is meaningless.<br /><br />The story formed part of the inspiration for an international bestseller, the novel “The Egyptian.” originally written in Finnish by Mika Waltari (1945). Although set during the reign of king Akhenaten in the Eighteenth dynasty, the book features a lead character named Sinuhe who flees Egypt in disgrace, to return after achieving material success and personal redemption in foreign lands. Yours truly (like many others of his generation) read the novel, so that for good or ill it laid the first foundation of his understanding of ancient Egypt. The novel was also the basis for a 1954 Hollywood film.<br /><br />Other MK writings have a more probing character. These texts reveal a new sense of the precariousness of human life and our situation in the cosmos. We must expect that history will “fluctuate between order and disorder, from generation to generation, and eventually end in a return to primal chaos, in which only the creator would survive.” (Parkinson).<br /><br />We have already noted (in the previous class) the pessimistic accounts of social decline, which refract the events of the First Intermediate Period through the sensibility of the MK. There are also evidences of a new concept of kingship , anticipating Shakespeare’s “uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.” The poem known as the “Teaching of King Amenemhat I” takes the form of an intensely dramatic monologue delivered by the ghost of the murdered Twelfth dynasty ruler Amenemhat to his son Senwosret I. The narrator describes the conspiracy that killed Amenemhat, and enjoins his son to trust no-one. The poem forms a kind of apologia of the deeds of the old king's reign, It ends with an exhortation to Senwosret to ascend the throne and rule wisely in Amenemhat's stead.<br /><br />All this literary evidence, it has been argued, reveals a major shift in world view, yielding what J. H. Breasted termed the “Dawn of Consciousness” in his book of 1933. For the person who is aware, the world does not “add up” in the simple sense that prevailed in the OK. Instead, paradox and uncertainty rule.<br /><br />Two sculptures serve to exemplify the new mood. The first, of Sahathor, is an instance of the new category invented in the MK: the block statue, where the lower body is encased in a kind of “security blanket.” This particular piece was set within a confining niche, further reinforcing the idea of reclusiveness. Wrapped in his tight-fitting mantle, the worldweary treasurer Khertihotep provides a more subtle version of the theme.<br /><br />THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY<br /><br />This dynasty divides into two parts, the first essentially corresponding to the last phase of the First Intermediate Period, when three principal rulers, all named Intef, ruled the southernmost five nomes from the town of Thebes. The second part consists of three rulers named Mentuhotep. On coming to the throne (apparently in 2055) Mentuhotep II Nebhepetre started a relentless drive northward. In his ninth year, this was crowned by the conquest of the rival capital of Heracleopolis, speedily followed by the submission of the rest of the North. Egypt was whole again.<br /><br />The other accomplishment of Mentuhotep II was his great funerary complex at Deir el-Bahri on the west bank looking back towards Thebes proper. The head of an Osiride statue in the British Museum comes from this site; cf. also the relief of the king embraced by Montu (damaged), plus Osiride statue and relief in Met. <br /><br />The mortuary shrine nestles in a bay of the rock cliffs facing the town on the east bank. It continues the tradition of the more modest saff tombs with a courtyard and pillars. However, the new complex innovates with the use of terraces, and the verandalike walkways the complemented the central edifice. Thee were groves of sycamore and tamarisk trees. A long unroofed causeway ran up from this tree-line court to the upper terrace, with the central edifice. The main construction probably took the form of a square mastaba; behind it lay a hypostyle hall and the intimate cult center. The king was buried in a dromos tomb at the rear of his temple. <br /><br />All in all, the great complex of Mentuhotep constitutes a revolution in Egyptian architecture. The classic pyramids had been free-standing, with four equal sides. The new concept is that of a linear trajectory, to be experienced by traveling (as the sun does) from east to west. The new “kinetic” layout was to enjoy great influence, notably in Hatshepsut’s complex which was built on an immediately adjacent site. Arguably, the kinetic concept finds an analogue in the grand avenues of European and American cities. Think, for example, of the way in which lower Fifth Avenue culminates in the Washington Square Arch.<br /><br />We looked briefly at some other objects from the Eleventh dynasty, notably the fine sarcophagus of Queen Kawit. The sunk reliefs of this commanding monument show the royal lady at her ease at home, being attended by her hairdresser and a servant. The carving manages to combine an almost crude boldness of detail with subtlety of action (the hand gestures). <br /><br />We also looked at some examples of grave goods. The servant woman in wood from chancellor Meketra’s tomb (now in the Met) is beautifully realized. The finery of the servant’s costume illustrates the emergence of the concept of livery--that aristocrats may flaunt their status by the garments assinged to their staff. <br /><br />THE TWELFTH DYNASTY <br /><br />The new royal family moved the capital to the north, to Ijtawy, near Lisht, where they resumed pyramid building. (Thebes retained great importance.) The rulers are all named Amenemhat (“Amun is at the head”) and Senwosret (“the man of Wosret,” an obscure Theban goddess). The order of the seven kings can be remembered by the formula ASASSAA.<br /><br />Towards the end of his reign A1 was joined by S1 as coregent; after his father was murdered, S1 took over as sole ruler. In portraiture AI is not well documented, but his successor S I is: the headless statue in the Met has an amazing sensuality. Note the beautiful little White Temple from Karnak, covered with reliefs of the highest quality.<br /><br />In a number of respects, the reign of Senwosret III is a turning point. His sculptural portraits exhibit a remarkable transformation. The “air-brushing” process of idealization, so cherished in the OK, yields to a new honesty. It is not exactly realism in our sense, but in a most remarkable way the human face becomes a kind of membrane in which the record of experience produced over time appears in the folds and puffiness of the countenance. Indirectly, these portraits pose a kind of "diagnostic problem" that persists to our own day, the challenge of physionomic interpretation. To what degree is the character of the inner person detectable in the specific features of one’s appearance?Dyneslineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17557372978936806884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9066474042021994434.post-64364445907414353532008-10-30T04:59:00.000-07:002008-10-30T05:04:20.372-07:00Lecture SevenThe Old Kingdom established the grandeur and uniformity of the Egyptian canon in two major realms: architecture, with the pyramid; and figure sculpture. Later pyramids are rare, though sometimes impressive. Yet statues (that Egyptian invention) are everywhere: just visit Central Park. Momentously, the Egyptians placed figure sculpture at the center of the nonarchitectural arts. This is not inevitable, witness paleolithic cave painting and Turner, not to mention Chinese landscapes. Thus the ascription of centrality to the human body, usually idealized, is not a cultural universal. We tend to ascribe this innovation to the ancient Greeks, but it is the Egyptians of the Old Kingdom who deserve the credit.<br /><br />Amid the uniformity, some EXCEPTIONS stand out. These bend the rules, but do not overtly flaunt their singularity.<br /><br />The dwarf Seneb (Cairo) is a rare instance where, as an apparently realistic gesture, the common tendency to enlarge the scale of the male head of household was resisted.<br /><br />Over against the idealized athletic body, whose fashion was set by royal statuary, some pieces demonstrate either obesity or emaciation. While obesity is permissible for members of the elite, outright emaciation is not. Bodies subjected to involuntary anorexia, as it were, include those of workmen, foreigners (especially desert dwellers), and prisoners.<br /><br />Previously we saw instances of partial rendering in the so-called “reserve heads” and the bust of Prince Ankh-haf in Boston.<br /><br />The so-called pseudo-groups represent another anomaly: paired representations of the same figure.<br /><br />During the Predynastic era, small nude figures, male and female, have been plausibly ascribed to the fertility motive. Throughout Egyptian history small children have been conventionally shown naked, with one finger touching the lips and the hair treated as a braid on one side. With the generally delicate nudes that emerge in the Fifth dynasty another concept seems to be at work: the idea of rebirth (into the afterlife) as a second birth, when of course nakedness prevailed. Nudes occasionally refer in later Egyptian art. Comparative analysis shows that the nude does not have just one meaning (as Sir Kenneth Clark assumed in his monograph, “The Nude: A Study in Ideal Form”) but several: it is polysemous. Among the meanings are fertility and eroticism; humiliation; vulnerability; challenge and hostility; display of the ideal body; and primal innocence.<br /><br />We now turn to the other side of the coin, that is, the factors making for uniformity. According to an old, perhaps excessively rigid scheme, Egyptian sculpture permitted only six normative types of sculpture in the round. These are standing, seated, scribe (or squatting), kneeling, asymmetrical, and the block figure (in which the lower body is enclosed in a kind of impenetrable cloak). The first five stem from the Old Kingdom. Only the last, the block figure, had to await the Middle Kingdom to appear. <br /><br />The more varied figures of servants show that this sextet of typological norms was not absolute. Nonetheless, it constitutes a kind of set of default settings to which the Egyptian artists recurred again and again.<br /><br />Comparable, though different norms that govern bas reliefs and paintings. Different as they are these media share a common root in what might be called “the homage to the square,” as seen in the grid schemes that are preparatory to the bas reliefs and paintings, as well as the block origin of sculpture in the round. Parenthetically, we noted the Old Kingdom invention of sunk relief, which seems to have had a protective function.<br /><br />Returning to our chronological survey, we noted that towards the middle of Fifth Dynasty Old Kingdom culture seems to enter into a kind of autumnal period, with less ambitious undertakings. <br />Still reflective of the grandeur of the Fourth dynasty is the colossal head Userkaf, the first pharaoh of the new dynasty. The Brooklyn Museum possessed three exquisite pieces from the sixth dynasty: the figure of Pepi I with the Horus falcon, another of him kneeling, and the dual seated image in alabaster of Pepi II as a child on his mother’s lap. Pepi, who ascended the throne as a boy, was reputed to have lived to the age of 100.<br /><br />The often scanty information about the lives of the ancient Egyptians has called forth many works of imagination to make up the slack. The first, some say, was Herodotus, who thought he was writing history, but in many cases was just relaying gossip. Nowadays, the palm seems to belong to Christian Jacq, who has published at least 23 novels on ancient Egypt. Most of these are about later periods, as the pharaoh’s of the Old Kingdom kept their secrets well. Not suprisingly, fantasies have clustered around Khufu, as seen in the preposterous story of his prostituting his own daughter, and the magician episode.<br /><br /> An unexpected, and highly personal aspect emerges from an authentic ancient Egyptian document, the Middle Kingdom story of Pepi II, who was alleged to have been conducting a homosexual affair with his general Sasinet.<br /><br />Discovered in 1864, the Fifth dynasty tomb of the Two Manicurists at Saqqara of Nyankhkhnum and Khnumhotep offers interesting visual evidence. Greg Reeder is probably right in interpreting the two as “more than just friends.”<br /><br />As noted, beginning about the middle of the Fifth dynasty, the Old Kingdom enters into an autumnal or post-classical period. What are the reasons for this change? In principle all autocracies rely upon ideology (in this case the myth of divine kingship) backed by brute force. In practice, though, these two things are not enough. Comparative study of European and Chinese monarchies shows that they maintained their power through a gradual dispersal of assets to their followers. These assets comprised real property (estates) and honors. As a rule this process of gradual alienation was accelerated by usurpation on the part of the gentry, who were constantly seeking to convert lifetime appointments into permanent ones. The result of this process was an erosion of the central power and an increase of provincial prerogatives--decentralization in short.<br />Some have thought that a series of shortfalls in the Nile inundation produced periodic famines. The inability of the kings to deal with this problem would have lessened their authority.<br /><br /> FIRST INTERMEDIATE PERIOD<br /><br />[To begin with there is a small chronological glitch. Most authorities start the First Intermediate Period with the Seventh dynasty, while Shaw and co. prolong the OK through the Seventh and Eighth dynasties, on the ground that they were centered in Memphis. I follow the traditional sequence.]<br /><br />The Old Kingdom had lasted about 500 years, a record that has rarely, if ever been equaled since (by my calculation, the British Empire lasted only some 340 years, from 1607 to 1947). Prizing stability above all else, the ancient Egyptians assumed that the good times would role on forever. After the death of Pepi II (about 2180), who lived to be 100, it became increasingly clear that this was not so. Egyptian society had experienced a nervous breakdown. Or in their own terms, Maat had fled.<br /><br />After the reestablishment of order in the New Kingdom, Egyptians looked back in horror at the experience they had gone through, even though it had only lasted, at most, 129 years. Middle Kingdom writings paint a dire picture of breakdown: compare the lament of Ipuwer and other commentators. Here is Ipuwer: “The land spins around as does a potter’s wheel. The robber is now the possessor of riches. ... All maid servants make free with their tongues .. . The ways are not guarded roads. Men sit in the bushes [waiting to rob and even kill the unwary traveler]. . . . Ah, would that it were the end of men, no conception, no birth! The the earth would cease from noise, without wrangling! [As it is] the children of nobles are dashed against the walls. The once-prayed for children are laid out on the high ground. ... Noble ladies are now gleaners, and nobles are in the workhouse. ... Behold, the owners of robes are now in rags. ... If three men go along a road, they are found to be two men; it is the greater number that kills the lesser.”<br /><br />Another commentator, Nefer-rohu, adds his voice: “This land is helter-skelter and no one knows the result. ... I show you the land topsy turvy. That which never happened has happened. ... I show you the son as foe, the brother an an enemy, and every man killing his own father. Every mouth is full of ‘Love me!’, and everything good has disappeared.”<br /><br />Recent scholarship has shown that perhaps things were not so bad in the First Intermediate Period as later generations thought. To be sure, there was a marked decline in artistic quality, as we shall see. However, the decentralization process allowed provincial centers to assert their individuality, laying the groundwork for the more varied art of later Egypt. Freed of the all-seeing pharaonic bureaucracy, there was probably more personal freedom, marred of course by licence and some violence.<br /><br />Examination of wall paintings, as at el-Gebelein and Mo’alla, seems to bear out the idea of decline. On the other hand, some small sculpture seem not notably different from works of the Sixth dynasty.<br /><br />At all events, the following lecture will portray the recovery, which opened the way to the Middle Kingdom.Dyneslineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17557372978936806884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9066474042021994434.post-35073393194273312032008-10-22T07:27:00.000-07:002008-10-22T07:31:28.467-07:00Lecture Six[The best source of up-to-date information on the material covered in this lecture is the Met Museum catalogue “Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids” (1999).]<br /><br />The Great SPHINX of Giza (known in Arabic as "The Father of Fear") is a colossal reclining statue, half-human, half-lion, Thought to be the largest monolithic statue in the world, it ia 73.5 meters (241 ft) long, 6 m (20 ft) wide, and 20 m (65 ft) high. Most Egyptologists think that the foreparts of the Great Sphinx represent the likeness of King Khafre. (The ascription to his father Khufu is generally discounted). There may have been an additional association with the lion god Ruti, and in its turn to Atum, the creator god. In later times the sphinx was connected with the sun.<br /><br />As far as we know, the sphinx form was the creation of the Fourth Dynasty, specifically of Khafre’s predecessor Djedefre.<br /><br />The Great Sphinx resides within part of the greater funerary complex credited to Khafre which includes the Sphinx and Valley Temples, a causeway, and the second major Giza pyramid. It is generally accepted that the temples, along with the Sphinx, were all part of the same quarry and construction process.<br /><br />Hewn from the living rock, the sphinx consists of three major horizontal layers (called “members” in the technical literature). These have weathered at different rates, opening the way for some speculation, since discounted, that the sphinx is the survivor of an earlier civilization. At least once the Sphinx had to be rescued in antiquity, when Thutmosis IV had it partly excavated, following a dream.<br /><br />The one-meter-wide nose on the face is missing. A kind of urban legend holds that the nose was broken off by a cannon ball fired by Napoleon’s soldiers and that it still survives. However, sketches of the Sphinx by Dane F. L. Norden made in 1737 and published in 1755 illustrate the Sphinx without a nose. Writing in the fifteenth century, the Egyptian historian al-Maqrizi attributes the vandalism to Muhammad Sa’im al-Dahr, a Sufi. In 1378, upon finding the Egyptian peasants making offerings to the Sphinx in the hope of increasing their harvest, Sa'im al-Dahr was so outraged that he destroyed the nose, and was hanged for vandalism. <br /><br />In addition to the lost nose, a ceremonial pharaonic beard is thought to have been attached, although this may have been added in later periods after the original construction. <br /><br />ROYAL SCULPTURES<br /><br />The fine quartzite head of Djedefre (aka Radjedef) is probably the forepart of a sphinx. Another sphinx was found in the ruins of Djedefre’s pyramid at Abu Roash.<br /><br />Most likenesses of Khufu are lost to history. Only one miniature statuette has been fully attributed to this pharaoh. Since he is credited with building the single largest building of ancient times, it is ironic that the only positively identified royal sculpture of his is also the smallest that has ever been found: a 7.6cm (3 inch) ivory statue that bears his name. In 1903 Flinders Petrie discovered it not at Giza, but in a temple at Abydos. Originally this piece was found without its head, but bearing the pharaoh's name. Realizing the importance of this discovery, Petrie halted all further excavation on the site until the head was recovered three weeks later after an intensive sieving of the sand. Zahi Hawass thinks that this unusual miniature is in fact a copy of the 26th dynasty, when there was a renewed cult of the king; in this case it would be the replica of a lost monumental statue.<br /><br />The great Khafre in the Egyptian Museum is one of the most impressive of all Egyptian statues. It is carved of hard stone, now identified as anorthosite gneiss. Apart from the imperious majesty of the monarch, the statue is notable for the remarkable connection, fused yet separate, of the Horus falcon with the human figure. To judge by the surviving bases, it was originally one of twenty-three such figures in the Valley Temple of the king at Giza. <br /><br />The relatively small pyramid of Menkaure finds its compensation, so to speak, in the wonderful sculptures of the king. The dual portrait of Menkaure and his wife (Khamerernebty?) is in Boston. The two figures connect, but do not interact emotionally. Close-ups show that both share the high cheekbones, bulbous nose, gentle furrows from the eyes, and slightly pouting lower lip. <br /><br />These family resemblances suggest that the two were related, perhaps half siblings. (There seems no justification for the suggestion that the woman is the king’s mother.) This pair provided the template for many private dyads showing a husband and wife interacting in this way.<br /><br />There are five surviving triads, all showing Menkaure with Hathor and nome gods for districts in which the goddess was particularly revered (there may have been eight originally). One is in Boston, the others in Cairo. The presentation of the figures shows a remarkable interplay: all are similar, but different. The Boston piece is unusual for the central position of Hathor.<br />Boston has two other likeness of Menkaure, a colossal statue (restored) and a head.<br /><br />PRIVATE SCULPTURES<br /><br />The pair of Prince Rahotep and Nofret is remarkable for retaining its pigmentation (the dark-light gender contrast, is conventional, not somatic). Rahotep, who held several offices, is characterized as “of the body of the king,” so that he was presumably a younger son of Sneferu. The group therefor belongs to the earlier part of the fourth dynasty.<br /><br />The bust of Prince Ankh-haf in Boston is special in several ways. The figure displays a light coating in gesso, facilitating the realistic detail. It has been speculated that it originally had arms, but maybe not. Busts are occasionally found in later times (a Tut example was shown).<br /><br />The 31 surviving reserve heads are also an example of pars-pro-toto. Their significance remains mysterious. Stylistically, they represent an extreme point of the idealization process.<br /><br />The obese Hemiunu, now in Hildesheim, was a vizier to king Khufu. As superintendent of the king’s construction works, he may have been the architect of the Great Pyramid.<br /><br />Ka-aper, the “village headman,” was another high official. Again corpulence is permitted to the high aristocracy, while reigning monarchs are never, to my knowledge presented this way.<br /><br />The Seated Scribe in Paris is a superb example of the squatting type. In addition to being a scribe, Kay (apparently his name) was the governor of a province.<br /><br />Ranufer, was supervisor of sculpture and painting. Accordingly, his two statues are very carefully executed--but in my opinion a bit dull.<br /><br />RELIEFS AND PAINTINGS<br /><br />These are found in tombs. Private tombs, even for the most prominent, were mastabas, generally in brick, with offering shrines above and the burial chamber below ground. The Perneb tomb at the Met gives a good idea of the above-ground offering areas and decoration. (Only a portion of this mastaba, which with its ashlar masonry is particularly luxurious, has been transferred to New York. One doesn’t see the air shaft or the underground burial chamber itself.)<br /><br />The Ti reliefs come from one of the most luxurious tombs at Saqqara, located about 500 yards north of the Djoser complex. Ti was a palace administrator in the early 5th dynasty. One scene shows hippopotamus hunting, another cattle fording a stream. The purpose of the scenes is to recall episodes of the life of a prosperous member of the rural gentry, anticipating the continuation of such pursuits in the life to come.<br /><br />The geese of Meidum, very carefully executed, are an example of pure painting, using local color within contours (no chiaroscuro).<br /><br />The small figures of WORKERS reveal a more intimate picture of Egyptian life. Significantly, the sculptors felt free to depart from the strict canons of Egyptian representation.Dyneslineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17557372978936806884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9066474042021994434.post-23986752329624493752008-10-08T09:57:00.000-07:002008-10-13T15:12:14.222-07:00Lecture FiveA glance backwards shows a stark contrast between the still murky, though intriguing evidence from the Predynastic era and the much clearer foreshadowing of later Egyptian culture in the Early Dynastic. From the often small, often almost insignificant objects of the period, we get important information. But we must not exaggerate the importance of what we find, and skepticism is required with regard to some claims. <br /><br />Let us take the institution of kingship. For a long time Henri Frankfort’s 1948 book “Kingship and the Gods” seemed to be the last word. In essence Frankfort took the royal propaganda at face value: the reigning king was simply a god, like all the other gods--maybe even superior in some respects. Further reflection suggests a need for nuance.<br /><br />What do we really know of Early Dynastic kingship? The Narmer Palette shows the king as a killer, though ostensibly in a good cause: the unity of the land. He also promotes public works (the macehead). He enjoys a special relationship with Horus (and sometimes with Seth). He can renew himself by performing the Heb-Sed ritual. <br /><br />Yet here some questions intrude. What god needs the tonic of a Heb-Sed to keep going? Moreover, if the pharaohs were gods, why couldn’t they keep their tombs from being pillaged? Clearly, we must separate hype from reality.<br /><br />Later European regalia imagery suggests a fundamental distinction between head and hand items. Crowns seem to stem from helmets, and are protective, not aggressive. As a rule hand items--in Egypt the mace, crook, and flail--are assertive tokens, suggesting the ruler’s capacity to correct and quell by violence. <br /><br />Our term “pharaoh” stems from the ancient Egyptian per-aa, meaning “Great House.” Compare our own synecdoche: the White House (when the president is meant). <br /><br />Another light is cast on the matter by the Egyptian formulas for the ROYAL TITULARY. This sequence did not achieve full standardization until the Middle Kingdom, but the process of accretion can already be witnessed in the Early Dynastic era.<br /><br />In the early reigns of the first dynasty, royal nomenclature was restricted to the Horus name, shown in a serekh surmounted by the falcon (occasionally the Seth animal appeared instead). Den was the first to add “he of the sedge and the bee” (nesw-bit, which later became a standard feature). Later Huni (end of third dynasty) introduced the cartouche to frame his nesw-bit name, while Djedefre (fourth dynasty) was the first to use the “son of Ra” title, introducing the birth name.<br /><br />Here is the standard sequence:<br /><br />1) The Horus name was originally written in a serekh (cf. the beautiful Wadji stele). At least one Egyptian ruler, Peribsen (second dynasty), substituted an image of the god Seth for Horus, perhaps signifying an internal religious division within the country. He was succeeded by Khasekhemwy, who placed the symbols of both Seth and Horus above his name. This variation proved transitory, and the Horus form became standard.<br /><br />2) The Nebty, or Two Ladies name, was associated with the so-called “heraldic” goddesses of Upper and Lower Egypt: Nekhbet, a vulture deity, and Wadjet, a cobra deity.<br /><br />3) The Golden Horus name typically featured the image of a Horus falcon perched above or beside the hieroglyph for gold. The meaning of this particular title remains unclear. One suggestion is that it alludes to the triumph of Horus over his uncle Seth, as the symbol for gold can be taken to mean that Horus was "superior to his foes." Gold also was strongly associated in the ancient Egyptian mind with eternity, so this may have been intended to convey the pharaoh's eternal Horus name.<br /><br />4) The Praenomen is the throne name. It usually has the title nesw-bit, “he of the sedge and the bee.” <br /><br />5 The personal name, or Nomen was the name given at birth. The name itself was preceded by the title "Son of Ra," written with the hieroglyph of a duck (za), a homonym for the word meaning "son" (za), adjacent to an image of the sun, a hieroglyph for the chief solar deity Ra. It was first introduced to the set of royal titles during the fourth dynasty and emphasizes the king's role as a representative of the solar god Ra. <br /><br />What can we glean from this quintet? Four deities are mentioned, Horus (twice), Nekhbet, Wadjet, and Ra. Items 2 and 4 incorporate the Egyptian idea of complementary duality.<br /><br />We then turned to the select roster of early royal STATUES. The little ivory figure in the British Museum (apparently first dynasty), shows the stooped figure of the aging monarch bearing the white crown and apparently wearing the Heb-sed robe.<br /><br />At the end of the second dynasty, with the two Khasekhem images (we looked at the better preserved one in Cairo), we see the emergence of the paradigm of the seated monarch--a formula that is to last throughout Egyptian history. At 22 inches high, the Cairo figure does not reach the realm of life-size images. However, at 55 in. the awesome Djoser image (from his serdab) does. So this sequence of three royal figures seems to display a decisive developmental trajectory. <br /><br />The third dynasty has provided some other important figures. The standing figures of Sepa and Noset (Louvre) suggest that private sculture in the round had not yet achieved the authority displayed by the royal figures. The Hesyre reliefs in wood show an impressive mastery of the bas relief form. The standing figure of the scribe is in proper fractional representation. (Whether it was laid out using the grid remains uncertain). The splendid figure of Radyzen, the “king’s daughter,” seems to be from the same workshop as the Djoser (though her relation to him is uncertain). <br /><br />We turn to the question of the origin of the PYRAMID. Is the step pyramid the immediate ancestor? That is, does it constitute a protopyramid? We returned to the mysterious landmark of Saqqara 3038; why was the nine-step pyramid encased in a palace facade enclosure? Compare the Merneith example. The Djoser enclosure and step pyramid could be regarded as an enormous enlargement of the 3038 paradigm: a step pyramid surrounded by a palace-facade perimeter.<br /><br />We returned to the Djoser precinct at Saqqara, noting the basic outline of stages of erection: first a square mastaba, which was then enlarged; then a four-stage step pyramid; then the final enlargement (some have discerned some other manipulations along the way, but these are the main stages of construction). It is oriented, but is three degrees off true N-S. Egyptian geometry was, as far as we know, ad hoc without the benefit of a “Euclidian” treatise, but it worked well enough. <br /><br />The monument shows two main types of masonry: one in pyramid itself, and more refined type in walls, especially in the Heb-Sed court. The North Palace facade with its wonderful courses of ashlar masonry shows an application of the principle of modularity aka deployment of standard parts. (Contrast Mycenae’s Lion Gate.). The principle of skeuomorphism, transfer from one medium to another, finds various applications, including the papyrus columns, imitation of brick courses in ashlar masonry, and mimicry of the blue tiles in the vault containing the running Djoser.<br /><br />The following is an excursus on STONES. Egypt offers abundant stone of various types so that there was no need to import. Generally speaking, one can distinguish between soft (sandstone, limestone) and hard (siltstone aka slate, diorite) stones. Although copper tools were available, in general the Egyptians preferred stone tools--stone cutting stone. Unlike the pyramids themselves, the quarries were staffed by criminals and prisoners of war. The roughly shaped stones were brought to the site by water, using sledges and human labor for shorter distances. They were then carefully dressed. (On this subject, see the monograph of Dieter Arnold, “Building in Egypt.”)<br /><br />We then turned to the stages of the emergence of the true PYRAMID.<br /><br />This accomplishment is due to the extraordinary exertions orchestrated by Sneferu, founder of the fourth dynasty. (Apparently the son of Huni, Sneferu was married to Hetepheres I who is thought to have been the daughter of his father Huni, and therefore, his father-in-law may also have been his father.)<br /><br />As a builder, Sneferu was actually more prolific than his more famous son Khufu, being responsible for constructing three pyramids. During the first fifteen years of his reign he completed a step pyramid at Meidum, following the example of his predecessors in the third dynasty. So far so good. But then he moved his residence to the Dahshur area, about 25 miles north, and resolved to create the first true pyramid. In the execution of the structure subsidence developed and the angle of the incline had to be changed: hence the term Bent Pyramid. He finally got it right, so the reasoning goes, by constructing the North or Red Pyramid, also at Dahshur.<br /><br />Near the end of his life, it seems that Sneferu pushed his luck by seeking to encasing the old-fashioned step pyramid at Meidum so that it too would become a true pyramid. The casing collapsed, and today one only sees a melancholy three-stepped tower rising among a sloping mound of debris. <br /><br />Sneferu may be said to have practiced “experimental” pyramid building, with all the risks that such an endeavor implies. His successors profited from his mistakes. While the pyramids built under Sneferu are individually smaller than the Great Pyramid of Khufu, the total volume of stone used in Sneferu's monuments surpasses that of any other pharaoh.<br /><br />The GREAT PYRAMID is the oldest and largest of the Giza trio. Thanks to a discovery of payment graffiti at the Red Pyramid of Sneferu, it has been possible to calculate by analogy the rate of construction as about 11 and 1/2 years. The heaviest work crews were required for the first 2-3 years, when the foundations and lowest courses were laid. Then the work could proceed at a comparatively leisurely pace. Most scholars agree that the stones were hauled up huge earthen ramps, later dismantled.<br /><br />The masonry was not uniform, for originally the Great Pyramid was covered by casing stones in fine Turah limestone that formed a smooth outer surface. What we see today is the underlying core structure. Some of the casing stones that once covered the structure are scattered around the base.<br /><br />There are three known chambers inside the Great Pyramid. The lowest chamber is cut into the bedrock upon which the pyramid was built and was unfinished. The so-called “Queen's Chamber” and King's Chamber are higher up, being embedded within the pyramid structure. The Great Pyramid of Giza is the main part of a complex setting of buildings that included two mortuary temples in honor of Khufu (one close to the pyramid and one near the Nile), three smaller pyramids for Khufu's wives, an even smaller "satellite" pyramid, a raised causeway connecting the two temples, and small mastabas surrounding the pyramid for nobles.<br /><br />Some have speculated that Hemiunu, the king’s vizier, was the architect of the Great Pyramid.<br /><br />The Great Pyramid commands superlatives. It is thought that, when complete, the monument was 280 Egyptian royal cubits high, 480.97 feet, but with erosion and pillaging of the casing, its current height is considerably less. Each base side was 440 royal cubits. The Great Pyramid contains about 2,300,00 blocks of stone. The size of the courses diminishes towards the top. Many of the casing stones and interior chamber blocks of the great pyramid were fit together with extremely high precision. Based on measurements taken on the northeastern casing stones, the mean opening of the joints are only 1/50th of an inch wide. The accuracy of the pyramid's workmanship is such that the four sides of the base have a mean error of only 58 millimeters in length, and 1 minute in angle from a perfect square. The base is horizontal and flat to within 15 mm. The sides of the square are closely aligned to the four cardinal compass points. <br /><br />As noted above, there has been much speculation as to whether the Egyptians knew such principles as pi and the Pythagorean triangle. It seems likely that they proceeded empirically, by trial and error, incorporating basic geometrical principles without formulating them theoretically.<br /><br />The base of the Great Pyramid of Giza is not a perfect square. The base is a four-pointed star, each side of the pyramid being slightly concave, i.e. each face of the pyramid is indented from the corner to the midpoint of the base. This design feature can only be seen from the air, at certain times of the day. It was first photographed in 1940. <br /><br />This concavity divides each of the apparent four sides in half, creating a very special and unusual eight-sided pyramid; and it is executed to such an extraordinary degree of precision as to enter the realm of the uncanny. For, viewed from any ground position or distance, this concavity is invisible to the naked eye. This subtlety foreshadows the “optical corrections” of later Greek architecture.<br /><br />In AD 1301 a massive earthquake loosened many of the outer casing stones, which were then carted away by the Mamluke Sultan An-Nasir Nasir-ad-Din al-Hasan in 1356 in order to build mosques and fortifications in Cairo. <br /><br />One of the mysteries of the pyramid's construction is how they planned its construction. John Romer (author of a recent major monograph on the Great Pyramid) suggests that they used the same method that had been used for earlier and later constructions, laying out parts of the plan on the ground at a 1 to 1 scale. He writes that "such a working diagram would also serve to generate the architecture of the pyramid with a precision unmatched by any other means." <br /><br />The Great Pyramid is remarkable for containing both ascending and descending passages. As noted above, there are three known chambers inside the Great Pyramid. These are arranged centrally, on the vertical axis of the pyramid. From the entrance, an 18-meter corridor leads down and splits in two directions. One way leads to the lowest and unfinished chamber. This chamber is cut into the bedrock upon which the pyramid was built. It is the largest of the three, but totally unfinished, only rough-cut into the rock. The other passage leads to the Grand Gallery (49 m x 3 m x 11 m), where it splits again. One tunnel leads to the Queen's Chamber, a misnomer, while the other winds to intersect with the descending corridor. The Grand Gallery itself features a corbel haloed design. An antechamber leads from the Grand Gallery to the King's Chamber.<br /><br />The sarcophagus of the King's Chamber was hewn out of a single piece of Red Aswan granite and has been found to be too large to fit through the passageway leading to the chamber. Whether the sarcophagus was ever intended to house a body is unknown. It is too short to accommodate a medium height individual without the bending of the knees, a technique not practiced in Egyptian burial, and no lid was ever found. The King's Chamber contains two small shafts that ascend out of the pyramid. These shafts were once thought to have been used for ventilation, but this idea was eventually abandoned, which left Egyptologists to conclude they were instead used for ceremonial purposes. Some now think that they were to allow the Pharaoh's spirit to rise up and out to the heavens.<br /><br />The so-called “Queen's Chamber” is the middle and the smallest, measuring approximately 5.74 by 5.23 meters, and 4.57 meters in height. Its eastern wall has a large angular doorway or niche. Mark Lehner believes that the Queen's chamber was intended as a serdab, a structure found in several other Egyptian pyramids, and that the niche would have contained a statue of the interred. <br /><br />The Queens Chamber has a pair of shafts similar to those in the King's Chamber, which were explored using a robot, Upuaut 2, created by the German engineer Rudolf Gantenbrink. In 1992, Upuaut 2 discovered that these shafts were blocked by limestone "doors" with two eroded copper handles. In a film often seen on TV, the National Geographic Society recorded the drilling of a small hole in the southern door, only to find another larger door behind it. The northern passage, which was harder to navigate due to twists and turns, was also found to be blocked by a door.<br /><br />The "unfinished chamber" lies 27.5 meters below ground level and is rough-hewn, lacking the precision of the other chambers. Egyptologists suggest that the chamber was intended to be the original burial chamber, but that King Khufu later changed his mind and wanted to be interred higher up in the pyramid.<br /><br />KHAFRE’s pyramid is the second largest of the Giza group. The pyramid has a base length of 215.25 m (707 ft) and originally rose to a height of 143.5 m (471 ft). The slope of the pyramid rises at an 53° 10' angle, steeper than its neighbor, Khufu’s pyramid, which has an angle of 51°50'40". The pyramid sits on bedrock 10 m (33 ft) higher than Khufu’s pyramid, a situation that makes it appear to be taller<br /><br />The pyramid is built of horizontal courses. The stones used at the bottom are very large, but as the pyramid rises, the stones become smaller, becoming only 50 cm (20 in) thick at the apex. The courses are rough and irregular for the first half of its height but a narrow band of regular masonry is clear in the midsection of the pyramid. Casing stones cover the top third of the pyramid, but the little pyramidion is missing.<br /><br />Two entrances lead to the burial chamber, one that opens 11.54 m (38 ft) up the face of the pyramid and one that opens at the base of the pyramid.<br /><br />One theory as to why there are two entrances is that the pyramid was intended to be much larger with the northern base shifted 30 m (98 ft) further to the north which would make the Khafre’s pyramid much larger than his father’s pyramid. This would place the entrance to lower descending passage within the masonry of the pyramid. While the bedrock is cut away farther from the pyramid on the north side than on the west side, it is not clear that there is enough room on the plateau for the enclosure wall and pyramid terrace. An alternative theory is that, as with many earlier pyramids, plans were changed and the entrance was moved midway through construction.<br />The pyramid was surrounded by a terrace 10 m (33 ft) wide paved with irregular limestone slabs behind a large perimeter wall.<br /><br />To the east of the Pyramid sat the mortuary temple. It is larger than previous temples and is the first to include all five standard elements of later mortuary temples: an entrance hall, a columned court, five niches for statues of the pharaoh, five storage chambers, and an inner sanctuary. There were over 52 life-size statues of Khafre, but these were removed and recycled, possibly by Ramesses II. The temple was built of megalithic blocks (the largest is an estimated 400 tonnes, but it is now largely in ruins.<br /><br />A causeway runs 494.6 meters to the valley temple. The valley temple is similar to the mortuary temple, but much better preserved. The valley temple is built of megalithic blocks sheathed in red granite. The square pillars of the T -haped hallway were made of solid granite and the floor was paved in alabaster. The exterior was built of huge blocks some weighing over 100 tonnes. There are sockets in the floor that would have fixed 23 statues of Khafre, but except for one magnificent specimen these have since been plundered.Dyneslineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17557372978936806884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9066474042021994434.post-11046152533557774182008-09-24T18:14:00.000-07:002008-09-24T18:21:57.270-07:00Lecture FourLECTURE FOUR<br /><br />We briefly returned to the Predynastic decorated pottery to clear up the confusion left last time about the sequence light-on-dark (Naqada I) to dark-on-light (Naqada II). The superficial similarity with the ancient Greek distinction between black figure and red figure demonstrates the limitations of the diffusionist approach, characteristically reluctant to admit the possibility of independent invention. With its appearance of a “pasted-on” panel, the first piece (by Exekias) showed the unresolved effort (in my opinion) of much highly regarded Greek ceramics in reconciling the picture format with the shape of the support (the vase). The bulbous shape of the typical pot presents a particular challenge, met better in some cultures than others (at least in my view).<br /><br />Before turning to the main theme of the lecture--the Early Dynastic Period (D. 1 and 2)--we sought to characterize some major features of the Egyptian style and its legacy. It was the achievement of the late Predynastic period, as seen in the Hierakonpolis mural, to set forth the two major parameters, flatness and the frame situation. (These fundamentals have remained fundamental in easel paintings to the present day, as seen in the Poussin and Albers examples shown). <br /><br />Egyptian paintings and the closely related medium of low relief show certain typical features, including the maintenance of the elements of representation close to the picture plane, with minimal overlapping, and (sometimes) a combination of views--from the front and above. Typical and indeed systematic is the convention of “fractional representation,” which employs both profile and frontal views. The claim that this device means that the Egyptians had a defective concept of the wholeness of the human body seems gratuitous, as the procedure does not carry over to statuary in the round. One should be wary of the label “aspective,” which seems too limiting. A comparison with modern maps is instructive. No one expects a country map, say, to show all the features, including mountains, the contrast of desert and cultivated areas, and so forth. In reading a map, we make an implicit contract that certain types of information will be recuperable, while other types won’t be. Egyptian paintings and reliefs require a similar tacit understanding on the part of the viewer. <br /><br />The Early Dynastic Period seems to have lasted some 350 years. As the takeoff phase, it was formative for “canonical” Egyptian civilization. Above all, this was the nation-building phase, as the kings deliberately encouraged a sense of nationalism (focused of course on their own persons). The regalia (including the two crowns, white and red) that were to signify pharaoh-hood throughout ancient Egyptian history debuted in this era. There is also evidence of the emergence of special rituals, including the Sed ovservance, whereby the king “renewed” himself. Unlike the shadowy dynasty 0, we have a secure king list for dynsties 1 and 2. Several deities are clearly distinguishable, including Horus and Seth, royal patrons. <br /> <br />Gazing back into the closing phase of the Predynastic (Naqada III), archaeologists have determined that crystallization took place from three nodal points ruled by territorial kings: This (and Abydos), Saqqara, Hierakonpolis--all in Upper Egypt. The conquest of the North is a well established fact. The conquest led to the emergence of Memphis as a pivotal center of control, and eventually the dominant metropolis in Egypt--a situation that persists to the present day with Cairo. Saqqara, near Memphis, came to rival Abydos as a preeminent royal burial ground, forecasting the emergence of the Pyramid District.<br /><br />The Narmer Palette is outstanding both as a historical document and as a work of art. We noted the emergence of the system of registers (and the associated phenomenon of the ground line), fractional representation, and the so-called “hieratic scale” whereby size signals the social importance of the figure. The serekh, with its two characters yielding the readings “nar” and “mer,” documents the presence of hieroglyphic. (Recent finds have pushed hieroglyphic back some 150 years, but it still seems that Mesopotamia deserves chronological priority. Of course, the two systems are entirely different, illustrating, together with other early forms of writing, the human capacity for independent invention.)<br /><br />We can hypothetically trace the antecedents of the Narmer Palette principles in several other early objects, including the Two-Dogs Palette in Oxford, the Gebel el Arak knife, and the knife in the Brooklyn Museum. <br /><br />A comparison of the superb Wadji stele in the Louvre with the clunky (and later) Raneb stele in the Metropolitan suggests differences in quality. It seems that some patrons were able to command the work of especially fine artists, while others were not. A hierarchy of skill had emerged. In visiting the Met, be sure to examine the Raneb piece as well as the decorated Predynastic pottery.<br /><br />Turning to architecture. we noted three types of early tomb. The first two types, the common mastaba and the relatively rare palace-facade type, are illustrated by the two examples created for the woman pharaoh Merneith. The third type, a protopyramid, appears in tomb 3038 at Saqaara, with its nine steps, erected for one Nebetka, a high courtier in the time of Den (or Anidjib).<br /><br />The step pyramid climaxed in the Djoser precinct at Saqqara, designed by Imhotep, history’s first known architect. This vast complex (37 acres) was surrounded by a high wall (34 feet). The design of the wall (and the single entrance) reflect the advancing and receding panel design associated with monumental secular architecture (or so we assume), as well as the serekh, its miniature counterpart. The huge pyramid, incorporating several stages of enlargement, sits upon a vast labyrinth of underground chambers. Despite much work on the part of archaeologists, not all of this warren has been explored. <br /><br />Recovered from the serdab is the noble, but mutilated statue of the seated Djoser. Despite (or perhaps even because of) the depredations it has suffered, this piece ranks as a major landmark in which the almost incredible grandeur inherent in the pharaoh image has been realized. Also surviving is the exquisite low relief of the athletic pharaoh performing his Sed run.<br /><br />At the break, the first assignment was distributed; see the adjacent posting.Dyneslineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17557372978936806884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9066474042021994434.post-50065019084508202162008-09-18T07:35:00.000-07:002008-09-18T07:45:33.433-07:00Lecture ThreeLECTURE THREE<br /><br />Assignment: Shaw, 61-88; Malek, 66-88.<br /><br />THE MIND OF ANCIENT EGYPT<br /><br />The expression “Mind of Ancient Egypt” is probably not inclusive enough. This approach encompasses patterns, customs, and assumptions as well as concepts that are made explicit in texts. It might be called the search for the “deep structure” of ancient Egypt. <br /><br />The endeavor is not unlike the attempt to assess “national character” in relation to modern peoples. Most of us do this in a kind of seat-of-the-pant way. We have been told that the English are polite and quaintly traditional, while Germans are industrious and orderly. And so we find such people in those countries--but not always. Nonetheless, there is a problem of stereotyping. As a result we need to separate misconstruals of national character from persuasive accounts. It is tempting to speak of the “personality” of peoples, but a nation is an aggregate of individuals, not some sort of superindividual. <br /><br />Still, there are encouraging prototypes. A famous example comes from the brilliant American anthropologist Ruth Benedict. In 1946 Benedict published a book entitled “The Chrysanthemum and the Sword,” an effort to describe the national character of the Japanese. Her findings are summed up in the title: Japanese culture exhibits a tension between two dominant character traits: a deferential side, which defers to authority and manifests flexibility (the chrysanthemum) and assertive, often unthinking rigidity (the sword). Since she began work during World War II she was unable to visit Japan. She has been criticized for practicing an “anthropology of distance,” but that is all we can do with a “dead” society like that of ancient Egypt. Benedict rose above her lack of sources--she began work during World War II--and succeeded in putting aside the intense negativity revealed in the disgraceful deportation of Japanese-Americans to “relocation camps.” From her anthropological training, Benedict retained two valuable assumptions: 1) one must start from an assumption of sympathy (otherwise there is a rush to judgment); and 2) one must try to understand how the individual parts fit together.<br /><br />As we noted above, in traveling abroad, even to a relatively familiar society, the temptation to judgmentalism is strong. For example, Americans visiting Britain often say: “Why do they drive on the wrong side of the road? (I suspect that Britons make the same observation when visiting the US.)<br /><br />The perception that the Egyptians do things the reverse of everyone else occurs in a famous section of Herodotus’ “Histories” (2:33-34). “In keeping with the idiosyncratic climate which prevails there and he fact that their river behaves differently from any other river, almost all the Egyptian customs and practices are the opposite of everywhere else. For example, women go to the town square and retail goods, while men stay at home and do the weaving; and whereas everyone else weaves by pushing the weft upwards, the Egyptian push it downwards. Or again, men carry loads on their heads, while women do so on their shoulders. Women urinate standing up, while men do so squatting. They relieve themselves indoors, but eat outside on the streets. ... Everywhere else in the world priests let their hair grow, but in Egypt they shave their heads. ... Other peoples, unless they have been influenced by the Egyptians, leave their (male) genitals in their natural state, but the Egyptians practice circumcision. . . . As Greeks write and do their sums they move their hands from left to right, but Egyptians move from right to left. ... They have two types of script, sacred and demotic.”<br /><br />Note that a number of these observations have to do with gender roles and are quite modern. What is not convincing, though, is the idea that a single trope--”they do everything in reverse”--can guide us. Herodotus’ ploy is the first in a series of stereotypes, that we are briefly reviewing. They must be set aside, before proceeding to a more plausible account of the ancient Egyptian national character.<br /><br />Following the 1822 decipherment, Egyptologists made great progress in publishing and translating the texts that the explorers had been unearthing. Still, these savants often had trouble making sense of the whole. In 1905, for example, Adolf Erman (probably the greatest Egyptologist of his time) found Egyptian religion to be a weird stew, in which he could find no consistency. Such conclusions reflect in part the immaturity of the discipline, influenced also by the fact that Egyptologists had originally been trained in the study of the Greco-Roman classics, where different norms prevail. <br /><br />At first this sense of bafflement took hold--instead of (ultimately) fading as greater familiarity led to a more sensible approach. In this first approximation to the issue, it was felt that. the problem lay not with the observer (as it surely was), but with the Egyptians themselves. They belonged to a “pre-logical” stage of culture, unable to take the steps that would be needed to resolve their contradictions. <br /> <br />We turn now to the background of this “pre-logical” assumption. The French scholar Lucien Lévy-Brühl (1857-1939) ranks as the first anthropologist to address comparative cognition. In his work How Natives Think (English translation, 1910), Lévy-Brühl posited two basic mindsets of humanity, "primitive" and "Western." The primitive mind does not differentiate the supernatural from reality, but rather uses "mystical participation" to manipulate the world. According to Lévy-Brühl, moreover, the primitive mind doesn't address contradictions. The Western mind, by contrast, uses conjecture, which must be tested, and logic. Like many theorists of his time, Lévy-Brühl believed in a historical and evolutionary teleology leading from the primitive mind to the Western mind. In this passage, evidently the ancient Egyptians got stranded along the way (such at any rate is the view expounded in a once- famous book called “Before Philosophy” written by Henri Frankfort and others). The English anthropologist Evans Pritchard critiqued Lévy-Brühl, arguing that the “primitive mind” does address contradictions, but does so differently. <br /><br />As we noted previously, the Egyptians had three major creation stories. They compete, yet the stories themselves show an effort to bring order into complexity, as seen in four generations of the Heliopolitan version. The old idea that Egyptian ideas are “hopelessly confused” is the product of a lack of imagination on the part of modern scholars. Even today we must tolerate some contradictions, as in the contrast of Einsteinian physics with Quantum mechanics.<br /><br />We no longer speak of the “primitive mind,” an expression that reveals condescension and a lack of careful comparative analysis. Today the prelogical claim is pretty much discarded, and we acknowledge that Egyptian culture is consistent within its own terms.<br /><br />Another misconception is the idea that the Egyptian concept of the universe is “static.” This is clearly an exaggeration. The Egyptians prized stability, and sought to reestablish it when things had gone awry. They did, however, have a concept of improvement. Through careful attunement of the personality one could become worthy of the afterlife; this status did not come automatically.<br />Let us turn now to some culture traits that can be more plausibly ascribed to the ancient Egyptians.<br /><br />A. Complementary dualism <br /><br />Instances of duals are: the Two Lands (Upper and Lower Egypt); the two banks; the black and the red land; the contentions of Horus and Seth. Anyone who could afford it had two houses: a temporary abode and a house for eternity. The two-gender system in language. One of the reasons why the Amarna religion of Aten proved so unpalatable is that is sought to repeal this idea of complementarity. Instead of two factors supplementing one another, there was only a stark contrast between truth and falsitity. <br /><br />B. Stability<br /><br />Ma’at, the goddess of justice and truth, did her best to maintain the stability that the Egyptians regarded as essential for individual flourishing. Wary of change per se--it could always be for the worse--the Egyptians acknowledged the need for improvement (kheper, personified by the scarab): through careful molding of the self one could merit the afterlife.<br /><br />The pharaohs, it was claimed, aided Ma’at in this essential task. The existence of Seth, god of confusion, Attested that some perturbation would occur from time to time. Such “noise” would not affect the overall harmony.<br /><br />Stability had several visual counterparts, such as the careful alignment of the pyramids, and the gridiron planning of mastaba groups and planned cities. The retention of the block form in statutes powerfully conveys a sense of imperturbability and stability. The execution of paintings was generally preceded by the laying out of a grid of squares. Individual features of the representation were then placed according to the preestablished coordinates. (This procedure is a little like our latitude and longitude, applied to a small scale.) Through the Egyptians showed a preference for the right angle, a view to be echoed in our own time by the architect Le Corbusier--while at the same time it was rejected by Buckminister Fuller.<br /><br />C. Patrimonial government. <br /> <br />The pharaohs governed Egypt as if it were a family business. They could not do this alone, and required the assistance of the scribe class (the bureaucracy). The premise of pharaonic supremacy was generally accepted; such divine figures could do no harm Not so the bureaucracy, and Egyptian literature gives examples of individuals who appealed to the arbitrary judgments of officials. Implicitly, the protester relied on the principle of Ma’at. <br /><br />D. Ethnocentrism.<br /><br />Like some later peoples, the Egyptians were convinced of the inherent superiority of the Egyptian way of life. Their view of the earth was necessarily a restricted one, but it allowed for the existence of neighboring peoples. It was easy to disregard the desert dwellers to the east and the west; a nomads, they had no settled way of life. Encounters with Nubians and the mainly Semitic peoples of Western Asia were more problematic, as they had evolved complex societies. Nonetheless, the Egyptians tended to steretype them, as seen in Tutankhamen’s wood box. These ideas were the accompaniment of imperialism, in which the Egyptians established colonies on their southern and northeastern frontiers.<br /><br />E. Earthiness<br /><br />In the literal sense Egypt arose yearly from the mud deposited by the Nile inundations. There was not only mud, but dung. The scarab, a dung beatle, was important because it represents the principle of becoming or transformation (kheper) Khepri is the god of the rising sun.<br /><br />However, by “earthiness” we generally mean something else--frankness regarding bodily functions and sex that shows their approach to be at odds with any sort of Victorian prudery. For example, the story of Atum’s creation of the first gods (Shu and Tefnut) shows them as emerging from his own body, possibly as the result of an act of autofellation.<br /><br />By the 19th dynasty the enmity between Seth and Horus, in which Horus had ripped off one of his uncle Seth's testicles, was represented as a separate tale. Seth is depicted as trying to prove his dominance by seducing Horus and then sodomizing him. However, Horus places his hand between his thighs and catches Seth's semen, then subsequently throws it in the river, so that he may not be said to have been inseminated by Seth. Horus then deliberately spreads his own semen on some lettuce which was Seth's favorite food (regarded as aphrodisiac). After Seth has eaten the lettuce, they go to the gods to try to settle the argument over the rule of Egypt. The gods first listen to Seth's claim of dominance over Horus, and call his semen forth, but it answers from the river, invalidating his claim. Then, the gods listen to Horus' claim of having dominated Seth, and call his semen forth, and it answers from inside Seth. (In our eyes, the idea of “talking semen” is a bit bizarre.)<br /><br />Geb (earth) and Nut (the sky) were entranced with each other. Efforts had to be made to prevent them from perpetually copulating, which would leave no room for humanity in the gap between them.<br /><br />The ithyphallic god Min is known from earliest dynastic times, and perhaps from before. Other figures emphasize both male and female genitals.<br /><br />We are tempted to regard such sexual and bodily themes as tainting serious, divine matters. Perhaps, though, the matter could be examined differently, as showing an effort to redeem and integrate aspects of human life that will always be with us.<br /><br /><br />PART TWO: THE PREDYNASTIC PRELUDE<br /><br />As we noted earlier, the Egyptians kept careful records of the pharaoh’s reigns, eventually marshalling them into 31 dynasties. We currently place the start of Dynasty 1 about 3000 BC. <br /><br />What happened before that? The Egyptians had some ideas, very different from those of modern archaeologists. For millions of years, the gods had kept the earth to themselves. Then, about 28,000 years ago, they decided to share the earth with human beings. There were two eras, the Age of the Gods proper (about 10,000 years) and the Age of Horus or the Spirits (a somewhat longer period. They also took a long view of the future. If all was well, one might expect to live a trillion years after being placed in the tomb.<br /><br />Modern archaeology has established a series of periods. In all honesty, the paleolithic, with its endless scrapers and punchers, is not very interesting in Egypt (skim over those parts of the Shaw book). Things get more interesting about 5500 BC, when there is evidence of a more complex society, with pottery, some small sculptures, and evidence of social differentiation (as seen in the burials).<br /><br />Flinders Petrie, the first archaeologist to investigate the matter thoroughly, set up a system of Sequence Dates, based on his excavation of burials (from 31-80). Nowadays we reckon on larger periods: Badarian, Naqada I-III. (The first two phases of Naqada were formerly termed Amratian and Gerzean, after two type-sites.) Naqada III corresponds to the transition to dynastic Egypt (sometimes termed Dynasty 0).<br /><br />Pottery is our best index. Basically, the earlier pottery has light forms on a dark ground (Naqada I), while the later Naqada II ware is the reverse. (NB: In class, the instructor erred in ascribing the first group to the Badarian. This mistake will be corrected next time). <br /> <br />Characteristic scenes involve figures and boats, together with decorative motifs. The imagery finds parallels in petroglyphs from the wadis in the Eastern Desert.<br /><br />The signature sculpture (as it were) is the Brooklyn Bird Goddess (actually one of a pair). Her gesture is paralleled in the pottery. Generally speaking it is hard to identify the (possibly) divine figures in these representations. The figure of Min is an exception. On the whole, though, it is frustrating the we cannot learn what we would like to learn about the origins of Egyptian religion as seen in Dynastic times from these early anticipations. It may be that the Predynastic people worshipped some gods who have disappeared from the later pantheon, while not yet knowing some figures who became prominent later. <br /><br />Other small sculptures show different stylizations of human figures and animals. Some have a strikingly “modern” quality. They generally lack the canonical features that characterize representations from the pharaonic period. <br /><br />The Hierakonpolis mural is a kind of anthology of late Predynastic motifs. Mesopotamian influence is evident, as is the warrior theme.Dyneslineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17557372978936806884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9066474042021994434.post-15700333344718348122008-09-10T08:41:00.000-07:002008-09-10T13:33:35.096-07:00Lecture TwoEGYPT LECTURE TWO<br /><br />ASSIGNMENTS<br /><br />1) Here at Dynegypt.blospot, com, review the summary of Lecture One (below). Then read my essay, “Greece, Egypt, and the Near East,” which fleshes out the material that we could not complete in class at the end of Lecture One. <br /><br />2) In the textbooks, read: Shaw, pp. 17-60; Malek, pp. 9-66.<br /><br />RESOURCE INVENTORY<br /><br />1) Cyberland<br /><br />For the best gateway to Internet material go to Greg Reeder’s Egyptology.com, and click on THE BEST EGYPT LINKS ON THE WEB. This collection of 164 items is a mixed bag, for it mingles several levels--advanced sites consorting with introductory ones. (Warning: as is always the case with the Internet, there are some speculative sites and some trivia.) Among the most impressive are the “cutting-edge” sites on two of the most important locales: 10. The Lost City, on the Giza Mapping Project; and 33. the Theban Mapping Project. Several sites offer alphabetical lexica of the gods and goddesses, one with 115 (a realistic figure, alas). There are interactive sites, together with some reflecting special interests (e.g. 95. Autofellatio and Ontology).<br /> <br />For recent discoveries one can consult the site of Zawi Hawass, the flamboyant General Secretary of the Supreme Council of Antiquities of Egypt (The Plateau, at: guardian.net/Hawass.<br /><br />On the whole, I find the museum sites disappointing, because they tend to illustrate only a few objects in their care. With some 250 photos, Cairo’s Egyptian Museum has the most. The Metropolitan Museum of Art has a valuable Timeline, illustrated with a few objects. This site is best regarded as the prelude to a visit.<br /><br />2) Printed materials. I still find these essential, because the best ones gather a wealth of material that would take much patience to assemble from the ‘net.<br /><br />Comparable to our Malek text as general surveys are: Gay Robins, The Art of Ancient Egypt; and W. Stevenson Smith, The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt (somewhat out of date, but still the fullest one-volume account, with many references for further research). For quick reference, Ian Shaw and Paul Nicholson, The Dictionary of Ancient Egypt, is unsurpassed.<br /><br />Mark Lehner’s The Complete Pyramids of Ancient Egypt, ranks as the best handbook on this important subject. The Thames and Hudson firm has produced a number of other books, using the “Complete” formula (which is sometimes a bit of an exaggeration). Among the best of these is Richard H. Wilkinson, The Complete Gods and Goddess of Ancient Egypt. Wilkinson has also produced an enlightening Reading Egyptian Art: A Hieroglyphic Guide to Ancient Egyptian Painting and Sculpture.<br /> <br />As an introduction, I still have a fondness for Joseph and Lenore Scott, Egyptian Hieroglyphs for Everyone (out of print, but easily available); there are of course fuller and more recent manuals on this important subject. <br /><br />For almost two centuries, specialists have labored to edit and translate Egyptian writings. From a scholarly point of view, the collection of Miriam Lichtheim, ed., Ancient Egyptian Literature (3 vols. 1973-80) remains standard. Yet these translations give little idea of the real beauty that some of these writings display; for that one can turn to John L. Foster, ed., Ancient Egyptian Literature. A good compromise between the two approaches is R. B. Parkinson, ed., The Tale of Sinuhe and Other Ancient Egyptian Poems, 1940-1640 BC (Oxford World Classics). Oddly enough, there seems to be no real history of Egyptian literature; this is a pity, because literature is one of the major areas of ancient Egyptian creativity.<br /><br />A lavish monograph on a subject of perennial interest is Salima Ikram and Aidan Dodson, The Mummy in Ancient Egypt. The Egyptians addressed issues of sexuality candidly. As yet we have no fully satisfactory monograph, but see Lisa Manniche, Sexual Life in Ancient Egypt.<br /><br />There is a glossy magazine called KMT (pricey), which I usually just glance at because the information is mostly available elsewhere.<br /><br />3) A resource that has few peers is the Metropolitan Museum, right here in Manhattan. The collections occupy the entire North Wing (main floor). It is best to follow the historical trajectory, which is counterclockwise. The main bookstore at the Met is a good general source for printed volumes.<br /><br />4) Summaries of the lectures appear here at Dynegypt.blogspot.com, after the presentation. Supporting materials and research tips will also be found here.<br /><br />RELIGION<br /><br />As with most ancient peoples, the Egyptians observed polytheism, revering many deities. Most observers (and even Egyptians themselves) have been struck by the proliferation of Egyptian gods and goddesses, striking even by polytheistic standards. Unlike ancient Greece with her Twelve Olympians, there is no canonical list of the most important ones. (The ones shown on the handout are a personal selection by a French scholar, François Daumas.) To be truly proficient in the pantheon of the Egyptian gods and goddesses, one should know about a hundred, a quantity not expected in this class. In due course it will be evident which ones are most important in the instructor’s judgment.<br /><br />The following is a basic categorization according to function. 1) Some deities correspond to natural forces, such as the air and moisture, the earth and sky, the sun and the moon. Of particular interest is Hapy, the Nile god. 2) Then there are gods with special responsibilities, such as Tawert who helps with pregnancy and Thoth, the scribe, who keeps careful records. 3) Many deities relate to particular places--towns and nomes--which benefited from the festivals which were found there. 4) Personification deities represent particular qualities, as Ma’at (truth, justice) and her polar opposite, Isfet (chaos). Note also Heh (eternity), and Shai (fate). These deities tend to be somewhat bloodless, lacking the colorful life histories of such figures as Horus and Seth. 5) In principle, the kings were divine. At times, though, this claim seemed to wear a little thin. If they were gods, how is it that they could not protect their tombs from violation by robbers? Addressing these doubts, perhaps, is the later tradition of the merger of the deceased king with Osiris, ruler of the afterworld.<br /><br />Particularly striking are the animal-headed forms. The animal references may relate, in a general way, to the old idea of totemism (now considered problematic by anthropologists). Rarely does the reverse occur--as in the sphinx, where the human head concludes an animal body. The animal may also appear whole, as the falcon of Horus and the jackal of Anubis.<br /><br />To be candid, the sheer mass of Egyptian deities, each one set apart with his or her distinctive characteristics and responsibilities, tends to create a bewildering effect. Apparently, the Egyptians themselves sometimes felt this way, so that they developed ways of linking deities: there are pairs (using siblings, such as Isis and Nephthys) and couples. Triads (family groupings) also occurred, such as Isis, Osiris, and Horus. Creation stories entailed genealogies, e.g. the Heliopolitan Ennead :<br /><br /> Atum <br />Shu -- Tefnut<br />Geb -- Nut <br />Osiris -- Isis -- Seth -- Nephthys<br /><br />As worshippers discovered that two deities were “really” one, fusion could occur: Re-Harakhte; Amun-re. Some quarters showed the gradual emergence of the concept of a supreme figure: Amun-Re (cf. Zeus in Greece). This development, sometimes known as summodeism, allows for the existence of other deities, though these are subordinate to the supreme one. Finally there are transcendent principles, preeminently Ma’at, and the solar concept. <br /><br />It seems that a certain uneasiness lies at the heart of Egyptian polytheism. Many felt must be some underlying principle that governs this welter; netcher (God) instead of netcheru (gods). A similar view sometimes occurred in ancient Greece and ancient India.<br /><br />We tend to study Egyptian religion as if it were always the same. Yet we must not expect unchanging uniformity in human affairs. According to Jan Assmann, Egyptian religion evolves from a state of almost pure praxis (in the Old Kingdom, when devotion to the gods was unproblematic) to a new, more intellectual form, eventuating in something that we might term theology. This trend towards complexity first emerges after the time of troubles that preceded the Middle Kingdom. Theology reached its full flower in the New Kingdom, especially with the emergence of the New Solar Religion, evident from the reign of Amenhotep III in the 18th dynasty.<br /><br />As described in the hymns of the mid-18th dynasty, the main features of this New Solar Religion are as follows. 1) The sun is alone in the sky, so that the sun god accomplishes his course in complete solitude. 2) The sun is distant, so that the sun god is inaccessibly remote and unfathomable in his essence. 3) Though distant, the light of the sun is on earth. 4) Light opens up the world. making it visible and useful to humankind. 5) Light fills the world with the incarnate visibility and “beauty” of the sun god. 6) Light reveals the god who is hidden in it. 7) Light grants the ability to see to all eyes. 8) Light gives life to all creatures, who live on the sight of the god. 9) Light is the gaze of the god, with which he beholds his creation. 10) Movement is the “work” of the god, which he accomplishes by rising and setting with miraculous constancy. 11) Considering both space and time, movement is miraculously swift. 12) In the periodicity of his movement, the god ever again create himself as a new and yet the same being. 13) Movement creates time, with its cyclical, rhythmic regularity; 14) Along with time, movement creates transitoriness. 15) And along with time, movement creates the lifetime (‘h’w) of every living creature, in whom individual essence and destiny can unfold. [This enumeration, which I derive from Jan Assmann, was not presented in class because of time constraints, but is a useful reminder that the Amarna revolution did not come out of nowhere.]<br /><br />It is clear then that such ideas constitute the indispensable precursor of Akhenaten’s monotheism, the Amarna religion centering around Aten, the sun disk. What then was new in it?<br /><br />The Amarna revolution lasted only about twenty years. It is the first instance of a FOUNDED religion, foreshadowing the religion of Moses, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism (as distinct from the polytheistic religions which evolved organically), Amarna challenged the basis of every previous religious orientation. In general, polytheistic devotees acknowledged an easy tolerance. Not so the Aten faith which is based on a stark contrast of truth and falsity. The old cults are simply wrong. Moreover, the imagery of the Amarna faith is essentially aniconic, rejecting human and animal forms in favor of the abstract symbol of the sun disk. By the same token, Amarna aspired to be universal (the sun shines on all peoples), taking issue with the traditional Egyptian sense of ethnocentrism (national chauvinism).<br /><br />These qualities are strikingly similar to the monotheism ascribed to Moses in the Hebrew Bible. In the past such correspondences have triggered the assumption that Moses might have been an officer in Akhenaten’s court. However, the time gap, amounting to several centuries at least, is too great for such a direct link to be possible. <br /><br />There would seem to be two solutions to this puzzle. The first acknowledges the human capacity for reinvention. Writing, for example, was separately invented over and over again, in Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley, and China. This may have happened with monotheism also. There is, however, another possiblity, and that is that a “subterranean” monotheistic religion persisted in Egypt long after the formal profession of the Amarna faith was stamped out. At all events, the emergence of monotheism remains one of the most intriguing contributions of Egyptian civilization.Dyneslineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17557372978936806884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9066474042021994434.post-20511760014759688872008-09-03T07:20:00.000-07:002008-09-06T16:20:45.468-07:00Lecture OneFull disclosure compels me to acknowledge that I am not a professionally trained Egytologist. Immodestly perhaps, I still feel qualfied to act as your guide. I have visited Egypt twice, reflected closely on Egyptian objects in our museums, and have taught this course at Hunter College off and on for some twenty years. <br /><br />Why have I elected to do this? I believe that Egyptian art and culture are of vital, universal importance. Many of the things that matter to us started in ancient Egypt. In fact the cycle of ancient civilization starts not with Greece but on the Nile. <br /><br />Much of what is usually said about ancient Egypt--Kemet as they called it--is important and true. Still there is reason question some of the conventional wisdom about Egypt of the pharaohs.<br /><br />1) Let us start with a famous truism: Egypt is the gift of the Nile (Herodotus) . There is no doubt that ancient Egypt is Nilotic, dependent for its very existence on the great river. (Only about a sixth of the Nile is in question--up to the First Cataract; further upstream lie Nubia, Axum, and Ethiopia). Each year saw a regular pattern of inundation from late June to September. Nature did much of the work that human toil had to perform elsewhere. The corollary, it seems, is that the need to control water resources led to absolute centralization under a single authoritarian ruler, the pharaoh, regarded as divine. <br /> <br />A great historian, Karl Wittfogel, addressed the question, why are some societies more despotic than others? (“Oriental Despotism,” 1957). He found the key in management of water resources. Where rainfall is regular and predictable, there is little need for such management. Yet scarcity is another matter, opening the way for domination: “agromanagerial despots claim to be benevolent, but the actually seek to maximize their own power and privileges.” One result is the pyramids. Wittfogel introduced the term “hydraulic society.” Ancient Egypt might almost be termed hyperhydraulic.<br /><br />Is this analysis true? Each year as the waters receded the kings supervised adjudication of property rights. Maintenance of canals was required.<br /><br />Still some comparative perspective is helpful. River systems characterize ALL the four primary civilizations of the Old World: Egypt, Mesopotamia, Indus Valley, and Shang China. The other three all seem to have a city state organization, rather than centralization under a supreme monarch as in Egypt. So it seems that we cannot derive the poltical system in Egypt, so important for art and architecture, directly from the riverine environment. Ideology, including religion, played a significant ancillary role. (Note that it is no disgrace being a secondary civilization: viz. Greece and Japan.)<br /><br />2) The Egyptian geographical details are as follows. Upper and Lower Egypt are the “two lands,” unified about 3100 B.C. E. Behind this dualism we can glimpse a pattern of local settlements, villages that became foci of little realms, a pattern that seems to survive in the 42 nome system, each with its god or gods. <br /><br />Nomenclature tends to show a triad of options (ancient Egyptian, Greek, Arabic: Waset, Thebes, Luxor. Further; Mer, pyramidion, Haram (al Ahram). Current usage shows a shift in royal names. so that Chephren becomes Khafre; Sesostris, Senwosret. From Arabic come a number of recurrent name elements: wadi, gebel, kom or tell, bahr.<br /><br />3) The sequencing of Egyptian history follows several templates. Egyptians tended to segment their history only into reigns, calling for a formidable feat of memory. At the end of the pharaonic era Manetho stipulated 31 dynasties. We still feel that certain dynasties have a “personality”: 3d the prodigy era (adolescence) of Old Kingdom; 4th the pyramid age par excellence; the 18th, worldliness. Before dynastic Egypt was the predynastic period. The now conventional sequence of Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, and New Kingdom is of modern origin; this triad seems to have been introduced by the German archaeologist Karl Richard Lepsius in 1842.<br /><br />4) Language: The Afro-Asiatic languages constitute a vast language family with about comprising more than 300 million speakers spread throughout North Africa, the Horn of Africa, northern West Africa, northern Central Africa, and Southwest Asia (including some 200 million speakers of Arabic). Egyptian is, of course, now a dead language (except in the film Stargate). The Afro-Asiatic language family includes the following subfamilies: Berber, Chadic, Egyptian, Cushitiic, Semitic.<br /><br />The term "Afroasiatic" was coined by Joseph Greenberg to replace the earlier term "Hamito-Semitic" after his demonstration that Hamitic is not a valid language family. It is now most often spelled "Afro-Asiatic.” Afro-Asiatic is one of the four major language families of Africa identified by Greenberg in his book The Languages of Africa (1963). It is the only one also spoken outside of Africa.<br /><br />No agreement exists on where Proto-Afro-Asiatic speakers lived, though the language is generally believed to have originated in Northeast Africa. Some scholars (such as Igor Diakonoff and Lionel Bender) have proposed Ethiopia, because it includes the majority of the diversity of the Afro-Asiatic language family and has very diverse groups in close geographic proximity, often considered a telltale sign for a linguistic geographic origin. Other researchers (such as Christopher Ehret) have put forward the western Red Sea coast and the Sahara. <br /><br />Given that wavy-line pottery is found widely in the Sahara from 8000 BCE, and that the Neolithic agricultural technologies arrived around 5000 BCE. this finding sets a possible context for Proto-Afro-Asiatic dispersal. As it is known that the Ethiopian farmers moved into the highlands from the direction of Nubian Sudan, and attempts to translate the Meroitic script found in this area show significant Afro-Asiatic characteristics, Lionel Bender suggests that this area of the Southern Nile was the centre from which the Afro-Asiatic languages dispersed. The dates of pottery and agriculture set approximate early and late dates for this linguistic dispersal. The date of Proto-Afro-Asiatic would thus lie somewhere between ca. 8000 and ca. 5000 BCE or, expressed differently, between 7,000 and 10,000 years ago.<br /><br />Climatically this was the time of a "wet Sahara" phase with large rivers and lakes. The dispersal of Afro-Asiatic may thus have been a response to the recent operation of the "Sahara pump.”<br /><br />Common features of the Afro-Asiatic languages include: a two-gender system in the singular, with the feminine marked by the /t/ sound; VSO typology with SVO tendencies; a set of emphatic consonants, variously realized as glottalized, pharyngealized, or implosive; and a templatic morphology in which words inflect by internal changes as well as with prefixes and suffixes (e.g haram/ahram)<br /><br />Apart from these questions, are there cultural traits that spread along these linguistic paths? Pottery (not yet fully investigated in this light) might show some interesting common properties, assuming that pottery was invented before the dispersal. There is also the question of sacred kingship as found in West Africa (e.g. the Oba of Benin). <br /><br />The stages of the Egyptian language are as follows: Old, Middle, Late, Coptic.<br /><br />So much about the natural features of this group of languages. <br /><br />What about the distinctive Egyptian writing system, commonly known as hieroglyphic? Egyptian writing is a mixture of phonetic, determinative, and ideographic elements. The matter is complicated by biliteral and triliteral signs. The example of mer (pyramid) was noted. The key to this complex task of interpretation was given by Jean-Francois Champollion in 1822.<br /><br />At their finest, hieroglyphs have a beauty and clarity that makes them works of art in all but name. Indeed the transition from hieroglyph to art is a gradual one.<br /><br />5) At the outset we said something about the origins of pharaonic Egypt. What of its legacy?<br /><br />A. Coptic. By tradition the founding of Christianity in Egypt is due to the missionary work of St. Mark in Alexandria. In some instances, Coptic (written in a modified Greek script) preserves the original vowels, which were not written in hieroglyphic. A considerable number of gnostic Christian documents have survived (e.g. the Nag Hammadi finds). The stylized mummy portraits of Roman times contributed to the emergence of icons. Institutionally monasticism is the greatest contribution of Coptic Christianity. There may be some remote connection with the organization of pharaonic temples. Generally, though, the Copts were unappreciative of their pharaonic heritage: some monks deliberately defaced murals and sculptures of earlier times, as survivals of “pagan superstition.” <br /><br />B. Islamic. The Arab conquest in the 640s yielded an uneasy coexistence with Coptic Christianity. According to Okasha El Daly, a contemporary Egyptian researcher based in London, progress was made by Muslim scholars in Egypt and elsewhere from the 9th century C.E. onwards In this writer’s view the first known attempts at deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphs were made by Dhul-Nin al-Misri and In Wahshiyya in the 9th century, who were able to gain some understanding of what was written in the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, by relating them to the contemporary Coptic language. Abdul Latif al-Baghdadi, a teacher at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University in the 13th century, wrote detailed descriptions of ancient Egyptian monuments, Similarly, the 15th-century Egyptian historian al-Maqrizi produced detailed accounts of Egyptian antiquities. [In Dynes’ view, this is exciting research, which will go far to redress the balance. Yet some claims may be a little overenthusiastic.]<br /><br />C, The hermetic tradition. This is a largely fantastic European elaboration of Egyptian wisdom based on speculative interpretations of the hieroglyphs, set against the background of the Corpus Hermeticum, ostensibly written by the sage Hermes Trismegistus in early times. In principle this approach was demolished by Champollion's decipherment of 1822. Yet something of the hermetic approach survives in the modern fashion for pyramidology, a series of speculative interpretations of the pyramids.<br /><br />D. Influence on ancient Israel. In the Hebrew bible Egypt figures as a negative role model: the bondage from which one must free oneself. Yet modern scholarship has questioned the historicity of the exodus story. Egypt did, however, anticipate monotheism with Akhenaten in the mid-14th century B.C.E. A new analysis of Egyptian religion, currently underway, may recast the problem. <br /><br />E. Influence on Greece. In three massive volumes (so far) of “Black Athena,” Martin Bernal has questioned the conventional view of ancient Greece as autonomous and self-generating, an approach that is encapsulated in such phrases as “the Greek miracle.” Bernal believes that Egypt made an enormous contribution to Greece. In all likelihood, time constraints will prevent us from returning to this important matter in class. See, however, my paper above: "Greece, Egypt, and the Near East."Dyneslineshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17557372978936806884noreply@blogger.com0