When you charter a boat from us for a Nile Cruise because the crew is at your command they go the extra mile. Just had some guests who had a birthday on-board and the the crew made a cake and held an impromptu party. Looks like great fun Nile sailing.

Bah Humbug, Scrooge had a point

Christmas not for you, want to ignore the festive season, you can. Although we cater for Christmas in Luxor we understand that not everyone wants to join in. We have had people recovering from family problems who would rather not have Christmas shoved down their throats. No Christmas dinner thank you, no Merry Christmas, no decorations. They want to get away from Christmas. Of course non Christians (Muslims, Sikhs and Buddhists) don’t really want to celebrate this very Western festival. This is not a problem at Flats in Luxor/Sail the Nile. Our Christmas parties are totally optional and our Nubian Eco Village is a peaceful tranquil family free zone. By chartering your own boat you can make sure the day is just a normal one. In fact it is a totally touristic event in Egypt as the Egyptian Christians do not celebrate Christmas on 2th December but 6th January so apart from tourists nobody in Luxor is celebrating anything. Which means you can just have a normal holiday and ignore Christmas totally.

Sailing on the the river Nile gives you the most beautiful photos.

See the video of this delightful 4 bedroom sandal,  ideal for a larger family group, sleeping 8 people in comfort.

Getting to Luxor, Egypt.

While Luxor has a variety of different transportation methods to choose from, each journey has its own distinctive rewards.

• By Road
Ground transportation in Luxor is quite varied and scenic. Horse-carriages provide a relaxed way to take short journeys around town, while microbuses offer a speedier but often far more crowded circuit of Luxor’s various neighbourhoods. Taxis and horse-carriages tend to charge roughly the same amount for the same journey, and are often driven by fairly opinionated, cantankerous drivers who will take you to all sorts of places you may not want to go, including the Camel market. Anyone who wants to take a taxi or horse-carriage should agree on a price upfront, and be very firm about where they wish to be driven. The microbus drivers, on the other hand, will overcharge obvious tourists, but otherwise will stick to the preordained route. Because microbuses are a more local form of transport, it’s not uncommon to spend the ride jammed up against some live chickens or weary local tradesmen. Be prepared for adventure. Tourists can also rent a car or arrange for private car service, but driving in Luxor is hardly relaxing.

• By Flight
For those flying from the United States who wish to go to Luxor, they must first land at Cairo International Airport. While there are no direct flights from the United States to Luxor, Air Berlin, Jazeera Airways, Air Arabia and Qatar fly directly into Luxor International Airport. Those who wish to fly into Luxor from Cairo must do so by Egypt Air. For cheap flights to Egypt it’s worth reviewing the range of flight comparison services including Cheapflights.co.uk to ensure you get the best price.

• By Train
There are two major rail services in Egypt: one run by the Egyptian government, and the other run by a private company known as Wagon Lits. The Egyptian government discourages tourists from riding the government trains, and for good reason: they tend to be relatively uncomfortable, even if they are less expensive than the private service. Travellers should book their rides aboard the Wagon Lits at least a day in advance in order to avoid headaches at the ticket office.

• By Ferry or Motor Boat
Luxor is situated on the Nile River, which affords visitors the opportunity to take in the sights via passenger ferries, privately operated motor boats, or so-called “feluccas” or sailing boats. The passenger ferry crosses from the West Bank to Corniche roughly 4 times per hour all day and well into the night. Motor boat drivers perform the same journey but it can cost up to 5 times the price of the single fare on the ferry. That said, the motor boats don’t charge any extra for the number of passengers so they are an ideal option for a group or large family.

The sailing boats are far more leisurely and offer a beautiful cruise up the Nile. Those who are not in a hurry should opt for a felucca ride.

This is a link to an excellent interactive map of Ancient Egypt if you take a cruise on the Nile by sailing boat you have the opportunity to stop at a lot more places that don’t have docking facilities for the big cruise boats. If you look at the Egyptian map you can look up the stops and read about their importance in ancient Egypt. There is also a very helpful book list for further reading.

Sailing boat only stops

• Esna
• El Kab
• Gebel Silsila

Other stops

• Edfu
• Kom Ombo

Introduction

The terms Libyan and “Sea Peoples” are one of those naming conventions that are commonly used but need to be properly defined. Then we can look at the evidence for these groups interacting with Egypt. Finally we can look at the decline of the empire, the reasons it declined and their contribution to it.

Sea Peoples and Egypt

Various groups at various times have been described as “Sea Peoples” by the Egyptians. The groups are the Lukka, Sherdan, Shekelesh, Teresh, Ekwesh, Denye (n), Tjeker, Peleset and Weshesh. Their origins are the subject of much debate and disagreement as the historical records are sparse. Shaw describes them as follows “Among the new migrants in the Mediterranean region at this date were a loose confederation of ethnic groups from the Aegean and Asia Minor, known to the Egyptians as Sea Peoples. Some of these groups, such as the Denen, Lukka and Sherdan, were already active by the reign of Akhenaton (1352-1336 BC) while members of the Lukka, Sherdan and Peleset are portrayed as mercenaries fighting for the army of Ramses II (1279-1213 BC) at the Battle of Qadesh” (Shaw, 2000, p. 328) .  Some scholars even dispute that the term should be translated as ‘sea’ preferring ‘green’. “One of the most unfortunate conclusions arrived at by the early Egyptologists attempting to make sense of the Ramesside documents was that wAd-wr  ‘Great Green ‘ meant ‘sea’” (Nibbi, 1975, p. 35). However this opinion is fairly unusual.

DNA studies have been conducted to identify the spread of the Phoenicians, which have also touched on Greek expansion http://www.cell.com/AJHG/fulltext/S0002-9297%2808%2900547-8. These have not been carried out to any great extent in Egypt, nor on the origins of the Sea Peoples. It would be illuminating to see the same sort of study carried out in Egypt, including the people of the Nile delta, the Western Oasis and Upper Egypt and to see what the DNA reveals. Therefore we are unable to say with any authority exactly where they came from. To simplify the situation for the purposes of this essay, the Sea Peoples were probably from the coastal Mediterranean and its various islands, more important for our purposes is their impact on Egypt.

The first record of any members of this group is from the Amarna period. At that time they hardly ruffled Egypt’s feathers and the army was easily able to contain them, the attacks were small and any settlers were assimilated. “The Amarna tablets also provide early mentions of some groups of the Sea Peoples, namely the Lukka and the Sherdan – the first as pirates raiding Alasiya (= Cyprus) and the coast of Egypt and the second as body guards or mercenaries of Ribaddi of Byblos” (Woudhuizen, 2006, p. 31).

Many foreigners did settle in Egypt and evidence of their lives can be found, often they were quite successful and rose to positions of power. For an apparently xenophobic nation Egypt was surprisingly tolerant of foreigners who came and settled there. “It is also clear, however, that neither Nubian nor Syro-Palestine origins were regarded as particularly disadvantageous factors in terms of an individuals’ status or career prospects, particularly in the cosmopolitan climate of the New Kingdom, when Asiatic religions cults and technological developments were particularly widely accepted” (Shaw, 2000, p. 315).

The Sea Peoples used the “raid” strategy to great effect against the Egyptians.  “This being so, it should not be overlooked that one of the greatest military assets of the Sea Peoples was (as their name implies) their sea power: once they had cleared the waters of the eastern Mediterranean from enemy ships, they could, Just like the Vikings in a later age, attack any location of their choosing by hit and run actions, thus leaving the landlocked Imperial armies no chance at a proper defence!” (Woudhuizen, 2006, p. 41). These early raids, whilst they were difficult for a traditional army to counterattack, were not a full scale invasion. They certainly tested Egypt’s defences and required positive, direct action from whoever was the current king but they were not a serious problem to a strong central government.

Different groups were a problem at various times, during the New Kingdom the following groups interacted with Egyptians with raids and other military actions.

Figure 1 Sea Peoples in Egypt (Woudhuizen, 2006, p. 41)

The impact these groups had on the countries they came across varies, the Hittites, Egypt’s traditional rival power were destroyed but the damage to Egypt was limited to the loss of its empire. Egypt came off lightly compared to its neighbours. “The years around 1120 to 1159 saw the collapse of Egyptian influence in the Levant, the total ruin of the Hittite Empire in Anatolia, with the abandonment  of their capital Hattusas (modern Bogazkoy), and widespread destruction of cities in the Levant , Cyprus and mainland Greece”  (Sandars, 1985, p. 11).

Libya and Egypt

There was a long history of interaction between Libya and Egypt but the peoples inhabiting this region had changed over time. Those earlier inhabitants had been replaced by a more aggressive and land hungry people.  They joined with the Sea Peoples in attacking Egypt. “From the dawn of Egyptian history, Libyan tribesmen had always been a thorn in the side of Pharaonic government, but their small numbers had prevented them from posing any serious threat to Egypt. During the New Kingdom, however, these older tribal groups had been replaced or absorbed by newcomers from the West: the Labu (who eventually gave their name to Libya), the Meshwesh, the Asbuta, the Hasa and others. With long, cutaway gowns, bearded, and wearing their hair in a long curl on one side, the Labu and Meshwesh had long since graced Ramesside triumph scenes as the enemy whose defeat is to be celebrated. But if under the great Ramses they had been easy prey for pharaoh’s forces, under Merenptah they proved more formidable. For now they were joined by piratical elements from the Aegean, the sea route to Libya was now a supply route” (Redford, 1992, pp. 247-248)

The reason that the attacks by these groups became more aggressive is again subject to much debate and discussion but we do not, as yet, have a definitive answer. Back in 1936 Edgerton said “It is perhaps too early to determine forces, economic and otherwise, underlying the Meshwesh attack on Egypt. It was undoubtedly connected with the restlessness in the Eastern Mediterranean at this time; involving the movement of the Sea peoples, the breakup of the Hittite Empire, the siege of Troy and previous Libyan attempts to settle in Egypt” (Edgerton & Wilson, 1936, p. 74) . However the situation in 1993 had still not clarified.  “One of the most important and stimulating contributions on our topic is formed by Robert Drews’ The End of the Bronze Age, Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. of 1993. In this work, the author set out to treat the various causes of the catastrophe as suggested in the relevant literature, like earthquakes, drought, systems collapse, and migrations, in order to refute them all;” (Woudhuizen, 2006, p. 40).

Figure 2 Starving Foreign Herdsman at Meir (Jane Akshar 2010)

Woudhuizen himself declines to back any of the various theories. My belief is that it would seem to be a combination of several factors but the inclusion of women and cattle in the invading force would suggest that this migration is primarily economic. To the starving foreign herdsmen, Egypt must have looked a very attractive option to people whose ‘nostrils have ceased, their desire is to breathe the breath” (Edgerton & Wilson, 1936, p. 39).

Figure 3 A cart, oxen, women and children in the middle of the land battle Medinet Habu (Jane Akshar 2010)

The Libyans also changed during their sojourn in the delta, originally a nomadic people with no centralised government or king they had formed alliances based on relationships, brotherhood and clan were important. As they became a settled people this changed and they acknowledged a chief of chiefs, this was significant to the Egyptians, and left them placed to assume kingship should the opportunity arise.  “The records indicate that while an identifiable, supreme chief was important to the Egyptians among the Libyans no term for ‘paramount chief’ was recognised and authority was less centralised” (Ritner, 2007, p. 330).

Decline of the Empire and International Standing

What was happening internally at this time these groups were interacting with Egypt, and what was the consequence of both these internal and external forces.  As has already been mentioned these external stresses were not a serious issue to a strong kingdom. The factors we will consider are

• Short Reigns
• Disputed Successors
• Elderly Kings
• Key Roles Inherited And Not By Royal Appointment
• High Priest War
• Theban Theocracy
• Decentralisation
• Lack Of Respect Towards Kingship
• Increasing Graft And Corruption
• Famine
• Defensive Rather Than Offensive Wars
• Natural Borders No Longer A Protection
• Reliance on Foreign Mercenaries
• Loss Of Foreign Prestige

Short Reigns. Disputed Successors, Elderly Kings

Using the data available to us it is possible to draw up a table of the late 19^th and 20^th dynasty kings and see at a glance the problems of succession, (data extracted from (Dodson & Hilton, 2004). All have problems with their reign except Ramses III and possible Ramses IX, although by then maybe it was late to stop the rot.

Figure 4 Royal Succession

Ramses II had been a strong vigorous king but his long reign inevitably weakened the power of the throne. By the time he died his successor, Merenptah was an elderly man, this was no vigorous Horus in the Nest. Indeed the entire line seems to have dissolved into kings of unknown parentage like Amenmesse; a child, Siptah and ending up with a female ruler, Tawosret. This is a sad end to the dynasty of a vigorous Ramses II and his 50 odd princes. The following dynasty did not fare any better, after an initial strong start with Ramses III, his successors were a series of short-lived, ephemeral and often elderly men. The Harris papyrus establishes Ramses IV as the legitimate successor but why was that needed as he was clearly the legitimate heir. There is obviously a back story there, with succession problems.

Key Roles Inherited, Not By Royal Appointment, High Priest War, Theban Theocracy, Decentralisation

Important roles became hereditary instead of by royal appointment, diminishing the power of the king. “Under weaker rulers, less loyal executives, and the union of civil and military power in the same hands, these same ‘convenient’ geographical divisions could spell the break-up of the realm” (Kitchen, 1995, p. 243).

There was a theocracy controlling the Theban city state, the high priests of Amun and commanders of the army controlled Karnak and its surroundings. So much economic power had been handed to Amun Re by a succession of successful New Kingdom warrior kings, which had resulted in Karnak becoming independent of the king.  That Thebes became theocracy, a city state with little influence outside its borders, ruled by “the chief general and high priest of Amun” (Shaw, 2000, p. 333) was not the issue as it would have been earlier in Egypt’s history. At that time, it would have been affront against Maat and the kings would have swiftly dealt with the situation. Now they did not seem to care.  “The attitude of the kings to this progressive fragmentation is of key importance. In the first and second intermediate periods the division of power within Egypt among two or more rulers was defiantly perceived as unacceptable; in the third intermediate period, however, decentralisation was not regarded consistently in a negative light” (Shaw, 2000, p. 344). However even this high priesthood was not totally in control, during the reign of Ramses XI “the High Priest of Amun. Amenhotep was ‘suppressed’ for 8 or 9 months. He may have survived this experience for a time at least. The ‘war of the high priest’ was long remembered” (Kitchen, 1995, p. 247).

Lack of Respect towards Kingship, Increasing Graft and Corruption, Famine

During the reign of Ramses IIII there was a conspiracy in the harem to replace the king. “The principal defendant was the secondary queen Tiy, who wanted to place her son Pentewere on the throne. At the same time, a revolt was supposed to take place outside the palace.” (Haslauer, 2001, p. 79). It is quite possible that the aftermath of the harem conspiracy was to destroy the mystic of the god pharaoh or maybe that was long gone before then.

During this period there was a famine caused by a high Nile, the royal tomb workers went on strike as their wages were not paid. Decentralised government meant the king could not control the economics of the kingdom; as a consequence the royal necropolis could not be protected.  The temptation of untold wealth was too much, and it was during this period most of the royal tombs were robbed.  “Economic conditions (famine, high prices of food), graft and corruption, loss of respect for the kings whether dead or reigning were all factors that transformed the sporadic violation of a royal tomb into a flood of pillage in the ensuing decades” (Kitchen, 1995, p. 247).

Defensive Rather Than Offensive Wars, Natural Borders No Longer a Protection, Reliance on Foreign Mercenaries, Loss of Foreign Prestige

Merenptah certainly had to deal with both enemies but seems to have coped with them with no significant problems. But that did not stop further attacks. Nor did it stop the alternative invasion by stealth. Repulsing them at the delta left them ideally placed to gradually infiltrate Egypt in a steady flow across the Western desert via the oasis. This left Egypt with an unassimilated foreign people within its midst and Merenptah’s successors were not able to stop this flow. “In the twenty-five years of weak government by the regimes of the four short-lived kings who followed Merenptah, the Labu and the Meshwesh entered the Western delta unhindered and settled as far east as the bank of the central Nile, destroying the towns of the Xoite township” (Redford, 1992, p. 249).  “…pressure from this quarter could threaten Egypt on a very long front” (Kitchen, 1995, p. 244)

Ramses III was a worthy successor to Ramses II, trouncing the invaders in three separate battles in year 5, 8 and 11, but this was a determined immigration.  Ramses II had fought an offensive war in remote foreign lands; Ramses III was fighting the Nile delta, a defensive war in Egypt itself.  “This victory (Ramses III, Yr protected Egypt from overt invasion from the North but ultimately it was to be the more insidious infiltration of Libyan peoples from the West that was more successful as a means of gaining control of Egypt” (Shaw, 2000, p. 329).

Figure 5 Different races from the sea battle Medinet Habu (Jane Akshar 2010)

Like so many empires Egypt was held back in its ability to fight against an enemy that did not fight in the traditional way. A large army of controlled divisions is hampered in both its thinking and its methods of warfare against hit and run, saboteurs, terrorist, infiltration and similar methods of fighting and invasion. “It was a battle fought according to accepted rules between forces that understood each other. It was therefore quite unlike the fighting at the end of the century when the Land and Sea Raiders were active” (Sandars, 1985, p. 32). Sandars also talks about “The practice of employing foreigners persisted until the end of 13^th century, by which time the pressure of new populations on the move had exposed the weakness of the system” (Sandars, 1985, p. 50).

So although Ramses III had repelled these foreigners who were attracted to the rich Egyptian land, they now started infiltrating the land, settling via the Western desert and in the delta, settling but not assimilating. It was Egyptian policy to settle conquered people in Egypt but this did leave them with fifth column in their midst. “Under the energetic leadership of Ramses III, the second pharaoh of the 20th dynasty, Egypt survived the onslaught by the Sea Peoples, who, unsuccessful in their plan to settle in Egypt, took up their abode in various places along the Levant, especially in the Philistine pentapolis (Woudhuizen, 2006, p. 33)”.

A succession of weak kings, a warlike people driven by economic factors to migrate, a settled brotherhood within Egypt willing to assist and an Egypt that was basically unprepared for a foreign world. Its previous geographic isolation left it physiologically unprepared to deal with an invasion force that could cross these previously unassailable natural barriers. Internally Egypt was no longer safe, fortresses were created to protect the people and their valuables, the kings were not in control of the land. “the Libyans and the Meshwesh had not only taken advantage of the general chaos to raid the Delta and ravage its towns, but numbers had actually settled there, and further immigrations threatened, while the mass movements of people which were turning the Aegean basin into a positive whirlpool gave warning of grave danger threatening from the north” (Elgood, 1951, p. 2)

Egypt had lost its foreign power, reputation and influence.  Back in the beginning of the New Kingdom Amenhotep III had rather arrogantly stated that their princess did not marry foreign kings. Now an unthinkable thing happened, an Egyptian princess married abroad (I Kings 3:1).

There is a poignant story about the treatment of an Egyptian envoy, Wenamun, who went to Lebanon to get cedar.  “Upon reaching Byblos, he was shocked by the hostile reception he received there. When he finally gained an audience with Zakar-Baal, the local king, the latter refused to give the requested goods for free, as had been the traditional custom, instead demanding payment. Wenamun had to send to Smendes for payment, a humiliating move which demonstrates the waning of Egyptian power over the Eastern Mediterranean. The whole experience obviously shocked him, two lines stand out which sum up the decline of the importance of Egypt and the lack of respect to its envoy, who was told  “When you pay me for doing it, I shall do it!” (www.shc.ed.ac.uk/classics/undergraduate/ancient/documents/Wenamun.pdf, p. 1) and reflected “And I was silent to this a long time” (www.shc.ed.ac.uk/classics/undergraduate/ancient/documents/Wenamun.pdf, p. 1). It is impossible to imagine the envoy of Tuthmosis III being treated like this

Conclusion

The Egyptian Empire declined as a result of two factors, its overseas satellites were taken over by the Sea Peoples and Libyans at the same time as  weak kingships was disintegrating the kingdom from within. It is possible that with stronger kingship Egypt might even have been able to hang on to its empire. Against this background of decay and weakness the strong rulers that had arisen in Tanis culminating in the Libyan dynasty could have been seen as deliverers and greeted with relief. Indeed the Libyans could said to have re-established Egypt in taking advantage of the situation. Certainly the Libyan dynasty was a rich period in Egyptian history.

“But midway between Memphis and Tanis was the city of Bubastis where a line of Libyan chiefs had by this time been settled for up to five or six generations, each bearing  the title ‘great chief of the Ma(shwash) and so reaching back to the Ramesside period” (Kitchen, 1995, p. 285). These eventually culminated in Shoshenq. “It was this man who now ascended the throne as Shoshenq I. The new ruler was no usurper or mere parvenu, especially if the marriage of MaatKare had preceded Psusennes’ death. Politically Shoshenq eminence was seemly unmatched. By marriage, both his family, and the late Tanite dynasty were indirectly linked” (Kitchen, 1995, p. 286).

Bibliography

Dodson, A., & Hilton, D. (2004). The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt. Cairo: American University in Cairo.

Edgerton, W., & Wilson, J. (1936). Historical records of Rameses III. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Elgood, P. G. (1951). Later Dynasties of Egypt. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Haslauer, E. (2001). Harem. In D. Redford, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (pp. 76-80). Cairo: American University in Cairo.

Kitchen, K. (1995). The Third intermediate Period in Egypt. Warminster: Aris and Philips.

Nibbi, A. (1975). The Sea Peoples and Egypt. New Jersey: Noyes Press.

Redford, D. (1992). Egypt. Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Ritner, R. (2007). Fragmentation in the Third intermediate Period. In D. Brockman, The Libyan Period in Egypt (pp. 327-340).

Sandars, N. (1985). The Sea Peoples. London: Thames and Hudson.

Shaw, I. (2000). Egypt and the Outside World. In I. Shaw, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (pp. 330-368). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Woudhuizen, F. C. (2006). The Ethnicity of the Sea Peoples. Rotterdam: Erasmus Publications Repository.

www.shc.ed.ac.uk/classics/undergraduate/ancient/documents/Wenamun.pdf. (n.d.). last accessed November 2010

For the purposes of this essay, temples of Amarna period are excluded.

Introduction

It is surprising that the terminology used by Egyptologists for many years, to describe the temples, is actually quite difficult to define; this seems to be a recognised problem. There are also slight variations on these terms such as divine instead of cult and memorial instead of mortuary. Should they even be used?  “For all these reasons, one should not divide the principle temples of ancient Egypt into categories ’mortuary’ and ‘divine’. “The temples functions and symbolic representations were on the one hand too varied and on the other hand too intertwined” (Shafer, 1998, p. 4).

The ancient Egyptians refer to the two varieties of temple differently, “Mansion of Millions of Years” (Hwt-n t-HH-m-mp.wt), for mortuary temples and “Mansion of the God” (hwt-nTr) for the cult temple, but without defining what is actually meant by the terms. Traditional differentiations such as mortuary temples being situated on the west bank and cult temples on the east don’t help as there are examples of both on the opposite sides. Some kings also built more than one temple of each type on a different side of the river. For example Tuthmosis III built a Temple of Millions of years at Karnak, on the East Bank, the so called Festival Hall; he also built on the West Bank in the northern Assasif.  This temple is also called a Temple of a Million of Years (Myriam Seco Alvarez, 2010, private communication). He also built at Deir el Bahri and dedicated that temple to Amun, so that is an example of a cult temple on the West Bank.

To use the area devoted to the royal mortuary cult as a definition as to whether the temple is a mortuary temple is also problematic. Can the Gurna temple of Seti I seriously be called a mortuary temple when the royal cult is a tiny part off the back of the building which is reached by exiting the temple proper and going down the side to the back on the southern wall. Whereas the main temple has chapels to Osiris, Ptah, Amun, Mut and Khonsu as well as a sun altar which are so much bigger and more prominent. Then there are temples like the Seti I temple at Abydos which, although it does have a chapel dedicated to Seti I, it also has numerous other chapels, which precludes us  from saying that if the temple has a chapel to the king, no matter what size, that makes it a mortuary temple. The temple at Abydos is a very special cult temple to Osiris. Consequently, actually defining what is a mortuary or cult temple is fraught with difficulties.

Thankfully for the purposes of this essay other sources are more willing to come down on one side of the fence. “The cult temple is the easiest for us to understand for it is the place where a particular god or gods resided and where cultic activities took place, which we might term worship. The mortuary temple, in contrast, was the royal version of the mortuary chapels attached to private tombs, and its most basic purpose was to provide offerings for the use of the dead king and to ensure his beneficial survival in the afterlife”  (Snape, 1996, p. 8). So for our purposes we can take this simplified definition. Indeed the very first mortuary temple built by Hatshepsut was built on the eastern side of the monument surrounding the tomb mimicking the Old Kingdom mortuary temple on the side of a pyramid. It was just that her structure was the rather large natural mountain (Andrzej Cweik, private communication, 2010).

Background

It wasn’t until the New Kingdom that temples were built of stone. Our knowledge of what preceded them or how the design came about is necessarily slim as their predecessors do not survive. Kemp suggests that temple history and design can be categorized as follows “… the late Old and Middle Kingdoms by ‘Early Formal’ temples with a rectilinear plan but with limited use of stone, succeeded in turn by “Mature Formal” temples of the New Kingdom with more extensive use of stone and finally by “Late Formal” structures on uniformly massive scale, familiar to modern visitors to Ptolemaic and Roman Period sandstone temples from Philae to Dendera ” (Kemp, 1991, pp. 65-79). The temples of the New Kingdom come into the Mature Formal category.  It is probable that the layout was similar to earlier temples; there must have always been a special sacred area where the statue of the God resided. This was at a higher level than the rest of the area and the later design of slightly ascending floor level copies this.

Design

It seems as though the overall plan was loosely defined and the selection of, and number of elements, courtyard, hall and sanctuary, was a matter of personal choice.  “The open courtyard, pillared hall and hidden sanctuary might be said broadly to coincide with the parts of an Egyptian House” (Snape, 1996, p. 10).  The mortuary temple used these same elements, open courtyard, hypostyle halls, sanctuary, in the same order making the cult temple the inspiration for the mortuary temple.  “I therefore suggest that the royal temples are offshoots from the more central divine tradition” (Bains, 1997, p. 223).

The temple did not only consist of the temple proper but all the ancillary buildings, gardens, storage, workshops and housing.  See Fig 1. So both secular and divine requirements could be met. Processional ways, although outside the temple boundaries are an important part of the

overall design, where God met the people even if he was hidden in the barque shrine. The temple precinct overall design was also not rigid, although various elements are generally incorporated.  For example although it has been diligently searched for, no sacred lake or well has been found at the Ramasseum (Christian Le Blanc, private communication, 2008). So each king would select or emphasis elements he favoured.

“… the standard plan was probably never thought of by the Egyptians as a firm blueprint for temple design but was merely a collection of individual architectural units which satisfactorily served their particular functions. Variations on a theme were the norm rather than the exception. At its broadest, the temple is a recreation of the landscape of creation, the place where, at the ‘first time’, land arose from the waters of chaos and order (Maat) was created from chaos” (Snape, 1996, p. 29).

As well as following the pattern of a house the temple also followed the design of world around them. “Ceilings are covered in stars, columns take the form of papyrus and lotus (both marsh plants), whilst the floor level of the temple rose” (Snape, 1996, pp. 30-31). Snape goes on to say that the undulating walls may have been built to mimic the waters of Nun and that the pylons represent the hieroglyph for the horizon. Orientation is generally East to West although there are occasional exceptions like Luxor temple. This meant that the sun would rise and set between the pylons.

The external decoration of the temple shows “the king acting as a king in the sight of gods and man” and the internal “the king carrying out service” to the god “(Snape, 1996, p. 33).  The front of the pylon often shows war like scenes. The king smiting his enemies is a common theme and carries the hidden meaning of the king subduing external chaos in his role of upholder of Maat. The pylons at Karnak have many examples of this. Another common scene is the king being heroic and warlike in a chariot firing arrows against enemies. Various gods accompany the scenes, often the God of the cult temple, a recording God like Thoth or Seshat or an alternative warlike God like Neith or Sekhmet. Often there is a list of captive towns and this would have added a propaganda advantage.

Within the temple the king would be shown making offerings to the Gods, both the God of the temple and other Gods in the pantheon. At one and the same time the king is showing reverence for the Gods and the Gods would be rewarding the king for this act of devotion.  Important events in the king’s life are often recorded. For example the coronation of the king, examples are at Medinet Habu and Karnak.

Function

To paraphrase (Snape, 1996, p. 10) the function of a cult temple was to provide a hidden place for the statue of the god and a place of theatre.  The temple was a possible site(s) of a Heb Seb or coronation celebration but most importantly it was the house of the God, where he/she resided, where offerings were received, incense burnt, specific clothing worn, dances performed and the God revitalised. Cult temples could be at a national or local level, national ones could host functions like the coronation of the king or his Heb Seb festival.

It was also important for the king to be seen to build temples.  “Temple building was an essential activity in the maintenance of Maat” (Snape, 1996, p. 30).  The king had to be seen to be offering to the Gods in perpetuity.

Our use of the word priest carries much baggage from our own culture, for example it implies pastoral care of the congregation, teaching the theology and rites of passage such as christenings. These were not aspects of the role of an Egyptian priest. He was a servant to the God and his role was to serve the god. Just like a servant in an ordinary house.

Comparison

What are the differences and similarities between a mortuary temple and a cult temple? A mortuary temple has a chapel for the benefit of the king and the royal ka. This mortuary temple is the place for “offerings for the nourishment of the dead king’s ka, part of the royal tomb complex like the pyramid complexes” and the temple itself “is based on contemporary cult temples” (Snape, 1996, p. 41). This does not have to be the prime or only function of the temple but can be restricted to a small part of the temple like that of Seti I. The design however is the same for both temples selecting one or more of the various elements from all the possible ones for both temple complex and the actual building.

There are also other, less important differences as well. Rather than God related heads to the sphinxes, such as rams headed sphinxes at Karnak and Luxor temples there are jackal headed sphinxes. Merenptah and Ramses II had dozens of these at their temples and there are still examples on site.  There is often a temple palace attached to a mortuary temple.  This was not where the king lived but merely a summer house or picnic hut used during ceremonies held at the temple as there were no kitchens (Stadelmann, 2005, private communication).

So it is the function that is different in the two types of temple, not the design, location or elements and this function can be limited to a small part of the temple.

Fig 1 Layout of Temple of Seti I (photo Jane Akshar 2010)

A good example of a mortuary temple is the temple of Seti I. The diagram (Fig 1) shows the layout of the temple and the surrounding area.  “The main building was laid out along the classic tripartite design of Theban memorial temples, with a back portion housing the inner cult rooms, preceded by two open courts fronted by mud brick pylon gateways and enclosed by side walls”

(Brand, 2000, p. 229). The gateway of the first pylon is made from limestone and is decorated. It has two open courtyards with a possible roofed colonnade (Stadelmann, 2005, private communication), leading to a portico with three entrances. To the left or southern side of the first courtyard is a small temple palace. It has two entrances and in the middle there is a pillared hall with a flight of steps leading to a window of appearances. These windows allowed the king to

appear to selected individuals surrounded by scenes showing power and majesty, often to present costly rewards such as collars of gold.

The second courtyard is at a higher level than the first courtyard and is the Heb Seb courtyard. This courtyard is surrounded by a wall. The right (most northern) entrance leads to an open area with an altar used for the worship of the sun. “There is a stairwell leading up to what must have been a rooftop shrine to the sun god” (Brand, 2000, p. 232). The central entrance leads to a hypostyle hall with a number of side rooms. Side chapels show the king offering or having libations poured over him.

This then leads to 5 chapels dedicated to Amun, Mut and Khonsu, the Theban triad, with the addition of chapels to Osiris and Ptah.  These chapels are decorated with pictures of the barque shrine and the king making offerings to it. Above the entrances are pictures of the god to whom the chapel is dedicated. The central area was decorated with 2 goddesses suckling the king and many scenes to celebrate the ‘Beautiful Feast of the Valley’ (Stadelmann, 2005, private communication). Seti’s temple would have been the first stop on the west bank in this important festival. The King is invariable shown bowing, kneeling or inclined before the gods. The temple lines up with Karnak temple and from the hill behind the temple the first pylon is clearly visible. The hill surmounting the Valley of kings dominates the temple (see Fig 2).

Fig 2 Layout of Temple of Seti I (photo Jane Akshar 2010)

The left hand or southern entrance leads to a chapel dedicated to Ramses I, who never had time to build his own mortuary temple. To the rear of this sub temple are some fine false doors. Exiting the chapel at the side and going to the back behind the false doors of the Ramses I temple area there is a further chapel for the royal mortuary cult. This is the part that makes it different to a cult temple; there was a specific area where offerings could be made to the king who was buried in the Valley of Kings.  The entrance halls are interconnected. The sanctuary floor is higher than those preceding it and the roof is lower, the smallest, darkest place.  The roof of the temple has footprints carved into the floor so this must have had some significance.

Fig 3 Layout of Khonsu Temple

( http://www.ancient-egypt.co.uk/people/images/t_image030-2.jpg )

The temple of Khonsu at Karnak is an excellent example of a cult temple as the design is cohesive (see Fig 3) being executed by a limited number of kings Ramses III, IV and XII. When there are a lot of kings involved in the design, like at Karnak, the design is harder to see as there are so many additions and reworking.  The gateway should be ignored as it is outside the time period being Ptolemaic.

The temple is connected to the both the Temple of Mut and Luxor temple by an avenue of sphinxes leading to a pylon. The axis is south/north which is probably dictated by the need to line up with Luxor temple via the avenue of sphinxes. A similar axial alteration was made at Luxor temple by Ramses II, “This prolific builder constructed a huge

pillared court and pylon on a new axis which swung east in order to align itself with Amun’s main temple at Karnak” (Wilkinson, 2000, pp. 166-167).

This avenue would have hosted the processions between the various temples and an opportunity for the populous to see the barque containing the statue of the God. Inside the pylon is a staircase leading to the top and several ‘windows’ can be seen at the top.

Behind the pylon there is just one open courtyard with a roofed colonnade, the columns are closed papyrus bud capitals. A set of steps lead to the hypostyle hall, which is lit by celestory windows and contains examples of open papyrus capitals. The columns support a higher central roof with closed bud capitals which support the side roof.  The celestory windows are built in to the side wall between the high central roof and the side roofs.  The temple further ascends until the area of the barque shrine and ambulatory around it. As the temple floor ascends the roof level descends. Leading off, in the south east corner, is a stairway leading to the roof which has a chapel.  There are side rooms and at the back in the smallest, darkest place, the sanctuary, see Fig 3.

The interior decoration is of the king making offerings to a selection of gods and barques of the gods, not just to Khonsu.  Only the ambulatory and inner chapels were decorated by kings of the New Kingdom, principally Ramses III and Ramses IV. The Theban triad dominate but the other moon god, Thoth is also present. Khonsu is shown both as a falcon headed god with a moon crescent and a young boy with a forelock of youth and moon insignia, see Fig 4.

Fig 4 Khonsu as a young boy (photo Jane Akshar 2010)

There are also important iconic images like the king receiving libations and unification of the two lands. The outside of the pylon is not decorated but if finished would have no doubt show the king smiting his enemies or a similar war like portrayal. The temple would have had a number of statues and there are still some remaining including a baboon (see Fig 5), which is associated with moon and sun gods.

Fig 5 Statue of a Baboon (photo Jane Akshar 2010)

Conclusion

In conclusion there is no or little difference in design or decoration between a mortuary and cult temple, just the function.

Bibliography

Bains, J. (1997). Temples as symbols, guarantors and participants in Egyptian civilisation. In S. Quirke, The Temple in Ancient Egypt: New Discoveries and Recent Research. (pp. 216-235). London: British Museum Press.

Brand, P. J. (2000). The Monuments of Seti I – Epigraphic, Historical & Art Historical Analysis. Leiden; Boston; Koln: Brill.

Kemp, B. (1991). Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civlisation. London: Routledge.

Shafer, B. E. (1998). Temples. Priest and Rituals. In B. E. Shafer, Temples of Ancient Egypt (pp. 1-30). Tauris.

Snape, S. (1996). Egyptian Temples. Princes Risborough: Shire Publications.

Wilkinson, R. H. (2000). The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt. London: Thames & Hudson.

http://www.ancient-egypt.co.uk/people/images/t_image030-2.jpg last accessed Jan 2010

Introduction

To access Hatshepsut’s success as an ancient Egyptian king you first have to define what do you mean by successful.

The following items need to be accessed

• Upholding Maat
• Building Works
• Trade
• Military Expansion
• Domestic Economics
• Maintaining control in the crown
• Being remembered
• Continuing the dynasty

If we look at kings who could be considered unsuccessful what made them unsuccessful: Pepy II devolving too much power to the nobles, Unas who had starving peasants, Taa I or Djehuty who built nothing and left no mark on the Egyptian landscape, Neferusobek who ended the Twelfth Dynasty. Can Hatshepsut be put into the same category?

The Ancient Egyptians themselves defined the necessary qualifications to be a king “Rekhmire, in the inscription from his tomb, poses the question ‘who is the king of Upper and Lower Egypt?’. The reply describes the qualities of a king saying ‘’He is a God by whose dealings (sSm) one lives, the father and mother (of all people) alone by himself without equal”  (Troy, 1986, pg 132). Does Hatshepsut meet these requirements in the eyes of the Egyptian people?

Did Hatshepsut have everything that was needed to rule successfully? Robbins (1993, pg 46) believes Hatshepsut need three things to make her co regency possible:-

1)    Her own men in positions of power

2)    That co-regency was an accepted concept

3)    Neferura, her daughter was available to perform the role of God’s wife

Upholding Maat

“It was the power of Maat that was believed to regulate the seasons, the movement of the stars and the relations between men and Gods” (Shaw & Nicholson, 1996, pg 166). Without Maat Egypt literally could not function, the Nile would not rise as required, there would be no food, the Gods would be neglected. This is the aspect of kingship that affects the common people most, stability of the king and the kingdom. Maat is a difficult concept for us to understand but if the king is properly in control then everything in Egypt will be in balance and harmony, peace is assured.

Part of Maat was that the king had to be depicted as male. “Egyptian relief representations of kings in essence functioned as hieroglyphic determatives. Representations of the king functioned magically as stand-ins, ensuring the perpetuation of that link. It was thus important for images of Hatshepsut to identify her correctly” (Roth, 2005, pg9).

In inscriptions “… the traditional male royal names, titles and epitaphs were replaced by feminine variants, liberally sprinkled with feminine endings. This rather schizophrenic projection of her gender has been interrupted as an assertation of androgyny, a characteristic of fertility gods and creator gods. But it was also a way of insuring that both kingly identity and feminine gender were attached to the images allowing them to function as intermediaries with the gods” (Roth, 2005, pg9).

It would seem that Maat is not upset by females taking on masculine roles. Indeed there is even a title for female Horus. “…Hrt, the female Horus (D2/18). This title commonly used by the women occupying the throne of Egypt, with its origin in the role of Sobeknofereu…”  (Troy, 1986, pg 138). The important thing was that the king did the right things, the sex of the person was unimportant as kings and gods needed masculine and feminine characteristics. Females in ancient Egyptian society, both god and human, can be strong willed people and are much admired.

Maat was not upset by having co-regencies; this was a well attested concept from the Middle Kingdom. In fact Maat could even be strengthened by a co-regency and it means at no time is the kingdom left without a ruler.

Building Works

The king should build, not only does it glorify both king and gods but it also provides work. It demonstrates how wealthy the king is, cheap shoddy buildings that collapse and are buried are not the mark of a successful king. Keller (2005, pg 97) identifies the location and number of monuments that Hatshepsut built and that still survive:-

Two temples near Beni Hassan including Speos Artemidos.

Temple of Hathor at Meir (Cusae)

Opet temple at Luxor temple

Karnak

Obelisks

Chapelle Rouge

Hatshepsut Suite aka Palace of Maat

VIII Pylon

Mut temple

Deir el Bahri

Medinet Habu

Valley of Kings

Elephantine

Kom Ombo

Hierakonpolis/El Kab

Gebel el Silsila

Batn el-Baqqare

Hermopolis

Armant

Nubia

Sinai

This enormous list fully demonstrates that Hatshepsut was running a successful country well able to afford this kind of expenditure. It is easy to forget when viewing modern day Luxor, for example, how new it was at this time to build temples in stone. This was an innovative thing for a King to do; most buildings prior to this were in mud brick. The extent and scale of her building works is very impressive.

Trade

A successful king is one who can afford to trade with outside countries bring in expensive luxuries, such as ebony, incense, frankincense, myrrh, elephant tusks, panther skins, gold. Trade in these commodities demonstrates power and influence. Hatshepsut undertook an ambitious expedition Punt, believed to be modern day Somalia.  This would have involved transporting the boats from central Egypt, to the Red Sea, over the desert, the danger of the journey to Punt and ‘persuading’ the people there to trade.

That it was highly prestigious is evidenced by how much she boasts about it at her temple at Deir le Bahri. The exotic land is drawn in wonderful detail, the difficulties and dangers hinted at by the military presence and boats. The wealth is shown being loaded on to the boats and presented to Amun. The later alone shows this was a high status and celebrated achievement. You do not offer anything second rate to Amun.

Her mummy, if correctly identified, shows that she could afford every kind of culinary luxury as it is grossly overweight, to the extent that removal of the viscera had to take place through the pelvic floor rather the abdomen (Donald Ryan, private communication 2008).

Military Expansion

According to Redford (1992, Pg 149) Hatshepsut laid claim to Punt (Pwnet), Libya and Syria “…, the old idea that Hatshepsut intended to be a throwback to a much earlier type of king and turned out to be pacifist requires considerable modification: it is abundantly clear that the queen did not eschew military activity, and at least once took the field herself. Nonetheless, her campaigns are very few in number and were undertaken on a limited scale. Obviously use of the military did not constitute a major element in her program” (Redford, 1992 pg 149).

Although not the major part of her policy military campaigns are still necessary and a strong general required. This is where Hatshepsut shows herself at her cleverest, sitting at court is this young testosterone driven prince who is gagging for adventure and glory. He is also very clever and ambitious. I believe they cooked up a deal between them so he could go off and learn how to be a soldier which led to him having an empire that stretched “… from Hagr el Merwa and Kurgus at its southern end to Naharin in Syro-Palestine at the northern end” (Davies, 2005, pg 51) and most stable, it lasted until the reign of Akhenaton, in the entire Egyptian history.

His exploits during the co-regency are recorded. “The Armant Stela records two campaigns he led to Mesopotamia and Palestine during the co-regency” (Dorman, 2005, pg 261).  “In summary, there is reliable evidence to prove historically of at least four military campaigns or series of campaigns during the two decades Hatshepsut ruled Egypt alone. These are (1) the campaign against Nubia led by the queen herself, probably early in the reign; (2) mopping up operations in Palestine and Syria, also probably early; (3) the capture of Gaza by Tuthmosis III, probably later in Hatshepsut’s floruit; (4) the campaign against Nubia by Tuthmosis III, shortly before the queen’s death. It is just possible that we could increase this list to six” (Redford D. P., 1967, pg 62).

Delegation is not a sign of weakness but a clever use of the resources you have. I am sure it suited Tuthmosis III as well, who wants to be sitting at home reading a load of red boxes when you could be out winning glory for Egypt. For both of them, passing that responsibility (administration, military command) to someone who was not a member of the family could have undermined the throne.

Co-rulership suited them both, she controlled the civil service and he was free to be the army man. This army training was of huge benefit to Egypt and its eventual empire. “When the ruler of Qadesh in north west Syria convened Levantine leaders at Megiddo about the time of the Queens death, her nephew Tuthmosis III perceived a new threat to Egypt, as well as a chance for gifting and reward. He marched northward in year twenty three with a newly professional and equipped army and for the rest of his fifty four year reign he dominated Palestine and costal Syria. Winning control of Nubia and Sudan at the same time, this vigorous pharaoh created the Egyptian empire.  (Lilyquist, 2005, pg 261)

Domestic Economics

The level of Nile flood was a constant worry to the ancient Egyptians, too little and not enough fields to grow food, too much then destruction of villages, If pharaoh maintains Maat then the Nile will flood enough but not too much, there will be food but your house will not be swept away. This is the aspect of life that concerned the peasant most. I sure he neither cared nor really knew who the king was, what concerned him was the king did his job which meant food on the table and peace.

With no internal bickering or foreign threats he could just get on with his job growing crops and building temples. There is little evidence of the lives of these people but from the enormous outlay on building projects and the expedition to Punt it is apparent that economically Hatshepsut was doing well and therefore the peasantry had enough for their needs.

Maintaining control in the crown

Hatshepsut seems to have been a great picker of men and this probably started early in her adult life.

“We know that queens were given their own estates and that they also had male officials such as stewards in their service” (Robbins, 1993, pg 42).

Often a woman is better at being a CEO as she is not threatened by the success of male subordinates and can give them free reign to do what they do best. A lot of her staff appear to have been raised up from the lower middle classes and that would have bought enormous loyalty. They did not get above themselves; wealth was not dispersed amongst hereditary nobles in remote nomes. It wasn’t just Tuthmosis III who she put to work but also Ahmose pa-nekhbit, old soldier and treasurer, Duwa-eneheh first herald, engineer Benya, Amenemne Khu – viceroy, Ineni – architect, Senemut – steward, Senimen – royal tutor, Hapuseneb – high priest of Amun and Puyemne – second priest of Amun and many others (Lilyquist, 2005 pg 63)  (Davies W. V., 2005, pg 87)  (Dorman, 2005, pg 107)  (Roehrig, 2005, pg 113)  (Bryan, 2005, pg 181)  (Redford D. P., 1967, pg 77). All were highly skilled men who served her well.

Many of their tombs are in the hills of Thebes and these are really good quality tombs. The fact that some of them served under her predecessors and successors would seems to indicate that her choices were good ones.

They obviously did not have a problem serving under a woman. Egypt at this time had seen a succession of successful women regents such as Meritneith, Khentkawes and other extremely important women like Tetisheri, Ahhotep I, Ahhotep II and Ahmes-Nefertari who contributed enormously to the war against the Hyskos.

“Ahmose, Amenhotep and Tutmosis II seem to have been quite young at their accession, perhaps averaging 5 years old, which means their mothers or other female relatives had ruled for ten or twelve years before they came of age.

As a result women effectively ruled Egypt for almost half of the approximately seventy years preceding Hatshepsut’s accession” (Davies W. V., 2005, pg 52). So these men would have been used to working with clever women and comfortable with the concept.

Tuthmosis III also would have had no problems with deferring to a powerful woman, most probably brought up in the all female environment of the harem with stirring stories of illustrious female predecessors. The idea of having a woman in charge would not have been the radical thought it might have been to other near Eastern neighbors. It is interesting to note he married almost invisible doormats with none of the character and verve of previous royal wives. Did his army career and exposure to various countries where women were not valued give him a new basis for marriage and the role of the great royal wife? However this is much later and certainly at the beginning of his career, strong dominate women were common, positive and hereditary.  It is also possible they had a religious authority. The role of God’s wife of Amun might have carried more power than we realize. Hatshepsut obviously thought it important enough to install her own daughter in the role; her motives are unclear but must have been strong.

Being Remembered

Although her monuments were attacked after her death this was not the full scale attack of the Amarna period and it took place 20 years after her death and was not complete.

“…as time went by, political expediency might have won over sentiment, and he (Tuthmosis III) might finally have agreed that all traces of the unnatural female king should be erased, since they did not conform to Maat, the natural order of the world. It may be significant that the name and figure of Hatshepsut as queen were not attacked “(Robbins, 1993, pg 52).

“Noteworthy also is that although Tuthmosis III was responsible for this far reaching program of alteration, it is only rarely that his own name is carved over Hatshepsut’s. Rather in nearly every instance, he inserted the name of his father Tuthmosis II or grandfather Tuthmosis I” (Dorman, 2005, pg 267).

It seems more a case that history is being rewritten, “the timing and short duration of the attack on Hatshepsut’s image and name suggest that it was driven by concerns related to royal succession and ceased once Amenhotep II was securely enthroned”  (Dorman, 2005, pg 269).

Although it is not possible to identify a rival for the throne over Amenhotep II, it is unlikely the Egyptians would have left a trace of this person, is quite possible there was one. “The earlier kings of eighteenth dynasty had many daughters and their progeny were closely related to the founders of the dynasty than were Tuthmosis III and his son. Kingship derived its religious authority from the direct succession of rulers from one generation to the next, from Osirus to Horus. By attacking images of Hatshepsut as king and this magically denying her kingship, Tuthmosis III disposed of a legitimate alternative to the Tuthmoside line and facilitated his son’s succession to the throne of Egypt. The fact the erasures seem to have suddenly stopped, perhaps on coronation of Amenhotep II, suggests that the motive for the erasure disappeared once his kingship was assured” (Roth, 2005, pg 15).

So it was the concept of a female heir that was the problem and needed to be removed not Hatshepsut personally. This would explain why the proscription was late, sporadic and short lived.  The royal women had got above themselves and needed to be reminded of their place.

“This matriarchal streak is one of the most striking features of the early Eighteenth Dynasty. The stubbornness and driving ambition of the queens could not help but precipitate a conflict with the males of the family, at least if the women persisted in grasping after what logically must have been their ultimate aspiration, viz a vi the crown”  (Redford D. P., 1967, pg 65)

However considering she was supposed to be proscribed and forgotten she has maintained her place in history. Tour guides will refer to her as Egypt’s only female pharaoh a gross aspiration on a number of other ladies such as the wife of Djedkare Izezi of Vth dynasty (Roth, 2005, pg 12) and as Robbins (1993, pg 50) identifies: Nitiqret or Neith Iqerti aka Nitocris at the end of VI dynasty, Neferusobek at the end of XII dynasty, Tausret end XIX dynasty and Cleopatra VII the last Ptolemy.   However Manetho knew about her and every tourist that comes to Luxor knows about her. Her temple still dominates the Theban Hills; you can see it from most of the West Bank. Numerous TV programs are on her.  If to speak the name of the dead is to make them live again then she is having a rip roaring time.

Continuing Dynasty

Previous and subsequent female kings normally signal the end of a dynasty and have short reigns but Hatshepsut was in the middle of one of the most successful dynasties, the line did not end with her nor was her reign short. She ruled for 20 years and the transition to Tuthmosis III was smooth and untroubled. Many of her best civil servants continued to serve under him.

Conclusion

In conclusion yes she was a successful king, the dynasty did not end with her like other female kings, Maat was maintained, she built extensively and of good quality, Egypt was militarily secure, foreign trade missions were undertaken, the ordinary people were content and well fed, she utilized a controlled civil service and finally her name has lived for ever.
Biblography

Bryan, B. (2005). The Temple of Mut. In C. H. Roehrig(ed.), Hatshepsut:From Queen to Pharaoh (pp. 181-183). New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Davies, W. V. (2005). Egypt and Nubia. In C. H. Roehrig(ed.), Hatshepsut:From Queen to Pharaoh (pp. 49-59). New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Davies, W. V. (2005). Hatshepsut. In C. .. Roehrig(ed.), Hatshepsut: From Queen to Pharaoh (pp. 87-95). New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Dorman, P. (2005). The Career of Senemut. In C. H. Roehrig(ed.), Hatshepsut: From Queen to Pharaoh (pp. 107-111). New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Dorman, P. (2005). The Proscription of Hatshepsut. In C. H. Roehrig(ed.), Hatshepsut: From Queen to Pharaoh (pp. 267-269). New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Keller, C. (2005). The Joint Reign of Hatshepsut and Thuthmosis II. In C. H. Roehrig(ed.), Hatshepsut: From Queen to Pharaoh (pp. 96-100). New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Lilyquist, C. (2005). Egypt and the Near East. In C. H. Roehrig(ed.), Hatshepsut: From Queen to Pharaoh (pp. 60-69). New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Redford, D. B. (1992). Egypt, Canaan and Israel. American University in Cairo.

Redford, D. P. (1967). History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Robbins, G. (1993). Women in Ancient Egypt. British Museum Press.

Roehrig, C. H. (2005). Senenmut, Royal Tutor to Prince Neferure. In C. H. Roehrig(ed.), Hatshepsut:From Queen to Pharaoh (pp. 112-116). 2005: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Roth, A. M. (2005). Models of Authority. In C. H. Roehrig(ed.), Hatshepsut: From Queen to Pharaoh (pp. 9-15). New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Shaw, I., & Nicholson, P. (1996). British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press.

Introduction

This essay does not cover the entire period of Egyptian art but concentrates on the early development during the Old Kingdom; the Amarna period is specifically excluded.

It is important when looking at Egyptian wall paintings to remember what we are looking at. This is not some pretty picture to cheer up a tomb but had a vital and significant purpose. The artist could not experiment or he might destroy the whole purpose of what he was trying to achieve. Art as, defined by European standards, did not exist, the decoration of the tomb had a specific function and, as such, artistic considerations were not important. According to Aldred (1980 p15) the artist “… represented not what could be seen transiently, but what he expected to exist for perpetuity, symbols rather than images”.

This does not mean the tombs are devoid of beauty but rather should be viewed with an unprejudiced eye. The tomb craftsman used two dimensional art to fully represent what he was trying to show. It was ‘fit for purpose’; indeed it was more than that as some of the small vignettes are testimony to skill to the largely unknown craftsman. Indeed “to represent was, in a way, to create” (Robins 1997 p12) so they needed to represent the clearest picture of the object or figure, so it was instantly recognisable.

The Figure

The figures in the tomb were drawn according to a convention that was well established, first shown on the Narmer palette. The convention was: head in profile, eye full frontal, shoulders full frontal with distinct collar bones, arms in profile, hand does not appear as a hand but as a symbol for a hand, upper chest side view with one nipple, navel three quarters with belly button showing two thirds along, legs profile, feet striding, inner side of foot always shown so depending on the direction of the figure there will be two left or two right feet (Smith 1946 p273 Robins 1990 p14). It is not until the New Kingdom that both left and right feet will be shown. Mostly the figure is shown facing left which means when it was turned to face right, for example on both sides of a doorway, it can be a little clumsy.

The Cannon of Proportion

Not only was the figure drawn according to this convention but the figure also has rules about proportion. Some Egyptologists believed that these rules are rigid. “The small cubit equals the length of the arm from the elbow to the tip of the outstretched thumb. It is divided in 6 hand breadths, each of 4 fingers, measured across the knuckles at the back of the hand. Each finger has sub division ½ 1/3 ¼ 1/8 1/16. An extension of the hands breadth is 5 fingers or 1 ¼ hands breadth. The fist represents 4 fingers and thumb (which equals 1 1/3 fingers), making 5 1/3 fingers or 1 1/3 handbreadths, 2/3 of the cubit is the length of the arm elbow to wrist, which is equivalent to 4 handbreadths. It corresponds to a foot in Greek metrology. Lastly we have the fathom, which measures 4 small cubits and represents the height of a standard standing male figure.” (Iverson 1975 p22)

“As has been the custom, we take the baseline as 0 and count upwards horizontal 5 runs beneath the knee cap, 6 above the kneecap, 7 beneath the tips of the fingers hanging by the body, 8 under the thumb, 9 beneath the buttocks, 11 through the naval, 12 through the elbow, 14 through the nipple, 16 through the junction of the neck and shoulders, 17 beneath the nose, 18 through the hairline” (Robins 1994, p36). A proper grid is a later tool and during the Old Kingdom it is not often seen.

“Based on the small cubit the figure is drawn. Although grids are not generally used at this time, Old Kingdom figures can be analysed on the bases of hypothetical grids.” (Robins 1990 p35).

However whilst grids, rules and lines are common they were not always followed exactly and good artists did not always need them. “Once Iverson has established his hypothetical system, he attributes discrepancies between it and the material to errors arising from the incompetence of the artist.” (Robins 1994 p53). So it is a mistake to think that grids and rigid rules were always used, perhaps one could theorise that the very worst and the very best did not. “One has to assume, therefore, that these lines were merely aids to the artist and he was not tied to them”. (Robins 1994 p66) and “…proportions are not dependent on the grid and that the grid was simply adopted as an aid to obtaining them” (Robins 1994 p229)

Groups of Figures

Size matters, the most important person in the scene is the biggest, if shown “the king and the deity are equal footing” (Robins 1994 p8). However the most important person in an Old Kingdom noble’s tomb is the owner, as neither the king nor a god appears until after the Old Kingdom. He is the dominant figure in every scene. Men are in front of women, who are usually shown on a smaller scale or occasionally on the same scale. Adults are always shown in their prime, women are slim, and men are muscular.  “The owner could be displayed either as a young man with a short kilt or a mature man with a calf length kilt. The wife was always displayed young as maturity might indicate lack of fertility.” (Robins 1997 p76). “The elite have no disease, deformity or old age…identity was established by the inscriptions” (Robins 1997 p75).

Young are shown as mini adults with a finger to their mouth or forelock of youth and they are generally nude.

Depiction of the minor figures in a scene was much more flexible and here you see much more lifelike poses and attitudes, humour or a snap shoot of real daily life.

“Where as major figures had to be depicted as ideal in formal poses, minor figures could be shown as far from perfect, perhaps suffering from deformity, disease or hunger, in positions which caught the body in transitory actions or engaged in energetic movement.” (Robins 1990 p38)

The Tomb

Neither time nor space are reflected and within the same set of registers you could see ploughing and threshing, gathering grapes and bottling wine. The figures and objects completely fill the space available with appropriate hieroglyphic inscriptions filling and balancing the scene. The only occasion registers are not used is when there is a deliberate invocation of chaos, a desert hunting scene, a battle or a marsh hunting scene.

The central figure was usually male, accompanied by wives, parents and offspring. His titles and name would be constantly repeated and a biography would be included. There would be a false door connecting the dead with the living. The deceased would be shown before a table of offerings and there could be a procession of offering bearers. There would be the production of further supplies in scenes of everyday life showing the production of food, clothing, objects (furniture, jewellery, and boats). “The owners would be shown benevolently supervising these activities.” (Aldred 1980 p87)  The peasants are shown in a variety of lively poses. The owner is shown taking an active part in fishing and fowling in the marshes and hunting in the desert. These have the threefold purpose in the afterlife, enjoyment, food provisions and also the religious concept of overcoming chaos. The depiction of the funeral would ensure the correct funerary rights. The common scene of the clap net being employed in the marshes shows the owner bring order and rule to the chaos of the marches, as he hoped would happen in both life and death.

A mixture of carving styles was used depending on where the scene appeared.

Traditional, sunk relief was used on the outside walls and raised relief on the interior ones. (Robbins 1997 p25). It would often be indicative of a reward from the king that a noble had a top quality tomb. The best non royal tombs would belong to members of the king’s family or very senior members of his court. “The ability to command first rate artists displayed the tomb owner’s wealth and status”. (Robbins 1997 p25)

Perspective v Plan

They draw things in plan because this shows most of the contents. If you drew a building with an enclosure wall drawn in perspective you would know nothing of the interior of the wall. By drawing in plan you can seen the house and garden. The art is “conceptual rather than purely perceptual” (Robins 1990 p11). If you take the plan of a house you have no idea of the internal structure when shown in perspective, it was important to the Egyptians that this would understood and represented. Indeed the hieroglyphic for house and courtyard show the plan rather than the elevation or perspective.

There is an attitude that not showing perspective is somehow primitive or naïve and that being aware of it they should use it. “…men have always been conscious of the phenomena of perspective at all periods, but for some reason they have not at all periods made use of this awareness in their drawing”.  (Schafer 1986 p81).

Fig 1 http://www.excavacionegipto.com/campana/campana04_ing.jsp.htm

However the apprentice board discovered by Dr Jose Galan in the courtyard of TT11 shows us in unmistakeable terms that the Egyptian artist was capable of fully representational drawings. This board, Figure 1, shows a picture of the king fully frontal. It is thought to have been a practice piece for a sculpture. There are two drawings side by side, one by the confident hand of a master and the other by the more hesitant hand of a student. As the shoulders are five squares across it is believed to be a representation of Hatshepsut as females are traditionally shown with the smaller shoulder width where as a male would be six squares across. The second picture shows the reverse of this piece with the more usual sideways view. It shows us that artists were taught both methods but only one type would appear on a wall and the other would be used for sculpture. But they could do it and were obviously expected to.

Offerings & Contents

These are vital to the survival of the owner so need to be shown in detail from the best possible angle to make it completely obvious what they are. A table would be shown with the contents tipped or piled up so every object is clearly defined.

The contents of a chest or box are drawn individually above the container. Again without this the contents would not be useable by the owner. The figures would be shown carrying offerings so in the unlikely event of the descendents neglecting to provide offerings; a combination of artistic skill depicting offerings, the hieroglyphics removing any ambiguity and magic e.g. the opening of the mouth, would provide for the tomb owner.

“The drawings could occasionally reinforce the hieroglyphs with a picture of a scribe having the palette and staff that comprise the hieroglyphics for scribe. Likewise offering bearers are shown carrying the hieroglyphic for offering” (Robbins1997 p51).

Magic

“… the role of representational art was closely interwoven with the religious beliefs of the ancient Egyptians and often one cannot be understood without reference to the other.” (Wilkinson 1992 p11). He continues “It is only knowledge of this aspect of Egyptian Art which can transform such a scene a relatively meaningless to the richly detailed tapestry of symbols which the artist originally produced”

Figure 2 tomb of Kheruef (photo Ray Johnson 2008)

The ceremony of the opening of the mouth will make these drawings come alive so they will sustain the owner but they could also bring danger to him so certain hieroglyphs will be incomplete or cut through so the dangerous creature would not hurt the owner, see Figure 2. This mutilation of hieroglyphics is shown in Pyramid Text and it demonstrates how vividly the Ancient Egyptian believed in the magical potency of the pictures. Likewise removal of the name beside a figure is enough to remove that person from the tomb.

Scenes often reflect mystic values such as order v chaos, the battle against demons in the after world. The clap net bringing order to the marshes. Spearing the hippopotamus destroys the demons of chaos.

Colour

Tones and shading are not shown but there is some clever use of colour including a white, white and a black black. The white white is shown on a kilt (hunite) on the while back ground (Calcium Carbonate). (Robbins 1997 p27). Also black, black wigs or the ‘T’ glyph on a black background.  Although men are shown a reddish colour and women a yellow sometimes there are variations of this where several people are shown on top of each other and there is a need to differentiate or a very high status man will be shown a lighter shade than the workers in the field. (Francisco Tiradritti pers comm. 2008).

The Tomb of Kagemni

This tomb demonstrates many of the principles talked about above. Wilkinson (1992) contends that art is often just large hieroglyphs, when you view scenes in a typical tomb like Kagemni from this perspective; you suddenly see a much more complex picture.

Fig 3 Harper & Scemin 2006 p491

These simple scenes, Figure 3, of the owner hunting in the marshes are actually a complex representation of the deceased bringing order to the afterlife environment. It represents both upper and lower Egypt with lotus and papyrus flowers. The lotus also represents the sun and creation. Birth, fertility and regeneration are shown by the frog and the bulti fish, which hatches its young in its mouth. A young child is shown exactly like the hieroglyph, nude, sucking and with a forelock of youth.  Cosmic disorder is shown by the crocodile and hippo. (Wilkinson 1992 p111, 107,105, 25, 21)

Fig 4 Harper & Scemin 2006 p495

In figure 4 the statue of the owner is a large representation of the statue glyph and the lotus symbols carried by the offering bearers are both a symbol of sun and creation and upper. The offering bearers show the contents of their baskets above the picture. The men pulling the statue are shown the same size even though they are behind one another. (Wilkinson 1992 p121, 23)

Fig 5 Harper & Scemin 2006 p496

Figure 5, the tomb owner is the largest figure, he supervisors the activities of the smaller registers. He carries a sceptre shown his power and authority. He is portrayed in the standard pose. Scribes are shown in the position of the scribe determinative. (Wilkinson 1992 p15, 183)

Fig 6 Harper & Scemin 2006 p497

Figure 6, the layout is shown in plan; the men pulling the net are carefully interwoven to give a sense of layering. Flocks of bird are represented by groups of three (plural) (Wilkinson 1992 p95, 183)

Fig 7Harper & Scemin 2006 p515

Figure 7, the offerings are piled up in front of the owner, fully displaying themselves. The magic will make them come alive and sustain the owner. Selection is made of offerings that have powerful significance, such as the foreleg of an ox (Wilkinson 1992 p75)

Although no hieroglyphic mutilation is shown in this tomb, erasure of one of the sons demonstrates their belief in the magical power of picture and glyphs. “It is conceivable, therefore, that some or all of the four erased figures are representations of an adult son of Kagemni, younger than Teti-ankh, who at some stage, presumably after the death of his father, fell from grace and could not remain as a named individual in Kagemni’s tomb.” (Harper & Scemin 2006 p411)

Conclusion

So Egyptian art is more complicated than it first appears, it was not primitive or naïve but immensely complex, full of deep and hidden meaning. Only by following all the rules and conventions could the artist be sure that he had provided his patron with everything he needed for the afterlife. A grid could help the artist to produce the artistic convention. The artist could express himself very individually in small vignettes and demonstrate his knowledge, vision, humour and artistry.

Bibliography

Aldred, C. (1980), Egyptian Art in the Days of the Pharaohs, 3100-320 BC, Thames and Hudson, London.

Harper Y & Scemin, P (2006) the Chapel of Kegemni, Oxford University Press

Iversen, E. (1975, 2nd edition), Canon and Proportions in Egyptian Art, Aris & Phillips Ltd, Warminster.

Robins, G. (1997), The Art of Ancient Egypt, British Museum Press, London.

Robins, G. (1990), Egyptian Painting and Relief, Shire Books, Princes Risborough.

Robins, G. (1994), Proportion and Style in Ancient Egyptian Art, University of Texas Press, London.

Schafer, H. (1986), Principles of Egyptian art, translated and edited with an introduction by J. Baines; foreword by E.H. Gombrich, Griffith Institute, Oxford.

Smith, W (1946) A history of Egyptian Sculpture and Painting in the Old Kingdom, Oxford University Press

Wilkinson, R (1992) Reading Egyptian Art, Thames & Hudson

http://www.excavacionegipto.com/campana/campana04_ing.jsp.htm (Accessed February 2008)