Problems In Egyptology: Ancient Egyptian Kinship PDF

Sage Reference Handbook of Black Studies For the most optimal reading experience we recommend using our website. A free-to-view version of this content is available here, which includes an easy to navigate and search entry, and may also include videos, embedded datasets, downloadable datasets, inter...

Sage Reference Handbook of Black Studies For the most optimal reading experience we recommend using our website. A free-to-view version of this content is available here, which includes an easy to navigate and search entry, and may also include videos, embedded datasets, downloadable datasets, interactive questions, audio content and downloadable tables and resources. Author: Troy Allen Pub. Date: 2010 Product: Sage Reference DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412982696 Keywords: sisters, dynasties, wives, husbands, Egypt, brothers, families Disciplines: Race & Ethnicity, Race, Ethnicity & Migration, Black Studies, Sociology Access Date: July 24, 2023 Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc. City: Thousand Oaks Online ISBN: 9781412982696 © 2010 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Sage Sage Reference © 2006 by Sage Publications, Inc. Africana Studies and the Problems in Egyptology: The Case of Ancient Egyptian Kinship TroyAllen Egyptologists have produced vast amounts of data on various aspects of ancient Egyptian society. This information has primarily been developed from ancient Egypt's archaeological and textual records. Egyptologists believe that the data (archaeological and textual record) provide the answers to any question surrounding ancient Egyptian society; it need only to be translated or excavated (Trigger, 1993). The study of everyday life in ancient Egypt has not been of central concern. Its understanding has been treated as something that emerges naturally out of familiarity with data, rather than as a form of investigation that requires special training…. Egyptologists tend to assume that no particular expertise is needed to understand the behavior of the ancient Egyptians. (p. 2) Because Egyptology is a combination of archaeology, philology, and linguistics, the interpretation of these data has been of great interest to other disciplines, particularly Black Studies. From the archaeological and textual record, numerous studies have been produced on certain aspects of ancient Egyptian society, marriage, family, women, sexual life, and customs. But these studies deal with kinship in an allusive manner. In 1927, M. Murray published an article in the journal Ancient Egypt titled “Genealogies of the Middle Kingdom.” This article is often cited to give credibility to the popular, albeit erroneous, assumption that ancient Egypt (pharaonic) was rampant with consanguineous marriages—that is brother/sister and father/daughter. Indeed, what this article illustrated was Murray's unfamiliarity with the indigenous meaning of ancient Egyptian kinship terms. Consequently, Murray disposes of the idea that kinship terms such as snt (sister), and hmt (wife), may have different cultural connotations than those of Europe. Murray (1927) states emphatically: It is often argued that the terms of relationship were not as strictly applied as at the present day, and that when a woman is said to be a “sister of a man,” the word may mean “wife's sister,” “brother's wife,” paternal or maternal aunt, niece or even cousin; but this can hardly be the case. (p. 45) Although Murray suggests that the ancient Egyptian kinship terms may not be similar to those of European (Western) usage, these differences are still explained in the context of European kinship and family relationPage 2 of 9 Handbook of Black Studies Sage Sage Reference © 2006 by Sage Publications, Inc. ships. In the polite world of Egyptology, J. Cerny (1954) dismissed Murray's conclusions with a footnote in an article titled “Consanguineous Marriages in Pharaonic Egypt.” Cerny states the following: I should like to point out that this method of establishing consanguineous marriages is not new. Miss Murray, Anc. Egypt, 1927, 45ff, has used some of my stelae and also some other in this way to indict the Egyptians for the customs of marrying not only their sisters, but also their daughters, and their mothers. Her reconstructions of genealogies seem to me incorrect and I cannot accept her conclusions. Lack of space however prevents me from refuting her assertions in detail here. (p. 27) In fact, Cerny's study was designed to identify whether consanguineous marriages existed in pharaonic Egypt (Nur El Din, 1995, pp. 9–69).1 In his introduction Cerny (1954) states, “Though no serious attempt has ever been made systematically to collect evidence of consanguineous marriages Egyptologists seem always to have accepted their existence without stating clearly their reasons for such belief” (p. 29). Cerny gives three main reasons why these assumptions are held with no corroborating evidence: (a) the Greco-Roman period, (b), testimony from classical authors, and (c) Egyptian wives of all periods were called “sisters” (cited in Robins, 1993, pp. 61–62). Cerny studied 358 stelae (inscribed stone slabs or pillars) ranging from the First Intermediate period down to the Eighteenth Dynasty, as well as the 68 houses at Der el Medinah and concluded, “We have no certain instances of a marriage between full brother and sister” (Cerny, 1954, p. 29). Although Cerny's study set the standard for ancient Egyptian marriage, he does not deal directly with kinship terms or the different types of marriages in ancient Egyptian society. Even after Cerny's work had apparently lain to rest the idea of consanguineous marriages in ancient Egypt, there appeared another article on the subject by Russell Middleton (1962). His article was titled “Brother-Sister and Father-Daughter Marriage in Ancient Egypt.” Middleton's article did not include any analysis of ancient Egyptian kinship terms in his assessment of ancient Egyptian marriage. Middleton's major flaw in analyzing ancient Egyptian marriage is that he combines pharaonic Egypt with the Greco-Roman period in Egypt without distinguishing the differences between the two periods (Carruthers, 1984, p. 489). Also, Middleton cites Murray as his authority on pharaonic Egyptian consanguineous marriages, a source that had already been discredited. In spite of their weaknesses, Murray's and Middleton's articles are cited to substantiate claims of consanguineous marriages in ancient Egypt, even when it has been shown that they have a complete lack of knowledge of ancient Egyptian kinship terms and family social organization. Page 3 of 9 Handbook of Black Studies Sage Sage Reference © 2006 by Sage Publications, Inc. Marriage is dealt with directly in P. W Pestman's (1961) work titled Marriage and Matrimonial Property in Ancient Egypt: A Contribution to Establishing the LegalPosition of Women; the interrelatedness of kinship terms and social organization are never considered directly by Pestman. In fact, he states, “The position of children in the family law as well as the law of succession will be left out of consideration, as these subjects require special study” (p. x). By failing to examine the law of succession, Pestman (1961) is able to single out “women” as if they were a separate entity in society. A shortcoming of Pestman's study is his failure to acknowledge that women existed as individuals and as members of a family. Although a woman may reach a status that may be termed “adulthood,” in fact, she remains a child of another group of adults (parents). Moreover, her place in the family and society could have well been established as a “child,” by birth order, parental lineage, and gender. All these could directly affect a woman's “legal” entitlement to family property. Also, because it is well known that marriage in ancient Egypt was a cultural event, not a legal or religious matter (Robins, 1993, p. 56), the ideal of “property” entitlement is a fascination of Western civilization's primogeniture system.2 When more contemporary work is examined on the ancient Egyptian family, we find that kinship and social organization are not dealt with in a direct manner. Sheila Whale's (1989) work titled The Family in the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt: A Study of the Representation of the Family in Private Tombs is laced with the same ambiguities in regard to ancient Egyptian kinship, family, and social organization. Whale's study is an analysis of 93 tombs of the Eighteenth Dynasty. A key aspect of Whale's work is the “Analysis of Family Relationships and Family Structure in the Eighteenth Dynasty Egypt,” yet she realizes the problems posed by ancient Egyptian kinship terms for Eurocentric analysis.3 Whale addresses the problem in this manner: The oversimplified terminology of the kinship system in ancient Egypt makes it difficult at times to determine who-was-who in the extended family structure. The kinship terminology was purely descriptive but its simplicity does not imply that it was by any means a primitive system. (p. 239) Whale (1989) further states that she does not seek to engage “in an in-depth discussion of kinship terms” (p. 1). This is quite astonishing because one of the main objectives of Whale's work is to ascertain whether the prominence of the mother in the tomb of her son at this time implies a matrilineal society in which the influence of the mother is paramount in the household of her son, or whether there are some other explanations for the role she plays in some tombs. (p. 2) By discarding kinship as the central focus of her analysis, Whale (1989) is privileged to place her own arbitrary criteria as to why the mother appears in the tombs of her sons with a higher regularity than does the father. Page 4 of 9 Handbook of Black Studies Sage Sage Reference © 2006 by Sage Publications, Inc. In the literature produced on women in ancient Egypt, the same ambiguity and imposition of Western/European contextualization exists. In her work Women in Ancient Egypt, Gay Robins (1993) states: It is possible that some of the families appear larger than they actually were, if some members labeled with kinship terms, sa (son) or sat (daughter), traditionally translated as son and daughter, were actually grandchildren, or the spouse's children, since these two terms also encompass these relationships …. terms sen and senet traditionally rendered as brother and sister … could be collateral relatives, equivalent to cousins, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, or in laws. (pp. 98–99) The same complications are further spelled out in Joyce Tyldesley's (1994) work titled Daughters of Isis: Women of Ancient Egypt. Tyldesley comments on the complicated Egyptian kinship terms in this manner: “Unfortunately for modern observers, the Egyptians employed a relative restricted kinship terminology, and only the basic nuclear family was classified by precise terms. All others have to be identified in a more laborious manner” (p. 48). Certainly, this idea of “laborious” kinship terminology has been imposed on the ancient Egyptians from the outside. Life of the Ancient Egyptians by Eugene Strouhal (1992) follows the same pattern of ambiguous references to ancient Egyptian kinship: The kinship terms in old Egyptian themselves show the basic unit of society was the nuclear family. They only define relationships of the close sort—father, mother, sister, and brother. There were no names for more distant relationships and those had to be paraphrased. (p. 55) The works cited illustrate the ambiguity that surrounds ancient Egyptian kinship terms. The lack of comprehension is clearly illustrated by statements that Egyptian kinship terms are “laborious” or have to be “paraphrased.” The studies by Egyptologists on ancient Egyptian kinship show little agreement with regard to the type of system or rules of descent used by the ancient Egyptians. In 1979, Gay Robins produced a study in Chronique d' Egypte titled “The Relationship Terms Specified by Egyptian Kinship Terminology of the Middle and New Kingdoms” in which she opens by stating, “My description of their use does not claim to be complete, and there are many problems still to be solved; there is no comprehensive study of terms” (p. 197). M. L. Bierbrier (1980) followed Robins's attempt with a study titled “Terms of Relationship at Deir El-Medina” in which he concluded, “Terms of Relationship in the Tombs-reliefs and stelae usually do indicate an actual relationship rather than a vague affinity, but the terms may have a wider meaning than hitherto been supposed” (p. 7). Page 5 of 9 Handbook of Black Studies Sage Sage Reference © 2006 by Sage Publications, Inc. H. H. Willems (1983) was the next to embark on a systematic study of ancient Egyptian kinship with his article “A Description of Egyptian Kinship Terminology of the Middle Kingdom, c.2000–1650.” The aim of Willems's study was to fill the gap in the previous studies of ancient Egyptian kinship by providing formal rules governing ancient Egyptian terms. His data are drawn strictly from Middle Kingdom stelae, which, he says, exhibit a strong “maternal bias.” Willems also offered strong critiques of the previous work done by Robbins and Bierbrier, especially in the area of structural interpretation of the ancient Egyptian kinship system. Willems's conclusion is that “It is now possible to state the rules underlying the ancient Egyptian kinship terminology” (p. 161). Willems's (1983) research led him to reject the conclusions of Jansen, who decided that the ancient Egyptian kinship system was “Hawaiian,” and also the conclusion of Fattovich that the ancient Egyptian kinship system was “Kariera.” Willems's own conclusion is that the ancient Egyptian kinship system fits into Scheffler's class of systems with intergeneration extension rules, together with the Maygar system (see general discussion in Murdock, 1949, pp. 184–260). To date, all studies on ancient Egyptian kinship terms fail to agree on the nature of their kinship system or social organization. Although ancient Egyptian kinship terms have been somewhat clarified, their use and the kinship system require further study. Robins (1979) and Bierbrier (1980) draw no conclusion on the type of kinship system used by the ancient Egyptians in their work. Although Fattovich sees it as Kariera, Jensen describes it as Hawaiian, and Willems describes it as a Maygar system with intergeneration extension rules, Franke determines the system to be both symmetrical and bilateral (see Helck & Westendorf, 1986, pp. 1031–1035). Because there is no agreement as to the nature of ancient Egyptian kinship that clarifies its social organization, further study of this topic is needed. More important, Egyptologists have imposed Western (Indo-European) kinship terminology on ancient Egyptian society by mechanically following Western kinship terms. For example: sn n mwt. i, which is literally “brother of my mother” or “mother's brother,” is typically referred to as “Uncle.” This type of imposition of Western kinship terminology alters the comprehension and reality of ancient Egyptian kinship terms and social organization. For example, Annie Forgeau (1996) states, “The rule of succession, from brother to brother until the branch became extinct, and from uncle [italics added] to son of the eldest brother is further evidence of the greater importance attached to patri-linearity” [italics added] (p. 135). In Western/European kinship terminology, the term uncle has several components; one is that it designates a male and could encompass generations above and below that of a related relative. Consequently, it could be one's mother's brother or mother's sister's husband, or husband's father's brother or father's sister's husband Page 6 of 9 Handbook of Black Studies Sage Sage Reference © 2006 by Sage Publications, Inc. (Schneider, 1968, pp. 21–30). By reexamining Forgeau's (1996) statement without the Western imposition of kinship terminology, a different reality appears: “The succession, from brother to brother until the branch became extinct, and from [mother's brother] to son of the eldest brother is further evidence of the greater importance attached to patrilinearity.” The change in kinship terminology from uncle to mother's brother, alters the entire context of Forgeau's (1996) assumptions and makes the question of patrilinearity dubious at best. In fact, the term “mother's brother” could be said to demonstrate the importance attached to matrilinearity. This type of imposition of Western kinship terminology alters the comprehension and reality of ancient Egyptian kinship family and social organization. E. L. Schusky (1983) in his work Manual for Kinship Analysis states, “A translation of the foreign term into the nearest English categories distorts the meaning” (p. 16). Indeed, kinship and social organization are primarily patterns of behavior determined by culture. By proceeding from a Western/European perspective, Egyptologists not only impose Western/European kinship terms on ancient Egyptian society, they also impose cultural connotations and values to these terms. In fact, this has been one of the methods used by Egyptologists to remove ancient Egyptian civilization from its African context. Notes 1. Cerny's study was limited to nonroyal families; it is known that in the royal families brothers and sisters would sometimes marry to cement and maintain royal blood lines. Diop (1981) calls this “royal incest.” However, when this happened the “sister” would always have a title such as Snt nsw, King's Sister, or S3t nsw, King's Daughter, with H mt nsw, King's Wife, always coming next to King's sister. Sometimes these women were “real” sisters to their husbands and some were not. For example, Queen Tiy, wife of Amenhotep III held the title King's Sister, and in fact she was not his sister or half sister (Nur El Din, 1995, see pp. 9–69). 2. “It is currently held that the term senet (sister) to refer to as wife emerges in the mid-eighteenth Dynasty” (Robins, 1993, pp. 61–62). In contemporary African societies many husbands refer to their wives as sister. “As some Africans put it, your wife of long standing becomes your sister” (Bohannan & Curtin, 1971, p. 112). 3. Most Egyptologists recognize that ancient Egypt—that is, pharaonic Egypt—begins to change dramatically after the Eighteenth Dynasty. See Carruthers (1984, p. 48) and Bowman (1986): Page 7 of 9 Handbook of Black Studies Sage Sage Reference © 2006 by Sage Publications, Inc. The first was the marriage between Philadelphius and his full sister Arsinoe and the practice was maintained until the end of the dynasty…. Perhaps the Macedonian rulers were indifferent to possible outrage, perhaps they misunderstood the Egyptians habit of using “brother” and “sister” as a form of address between husband and wife. (p. 24) References Bierbrier, M. L.Terms of relationship at Deir El-Medina. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology66 (1980). 100–107. Bohannan, P., & Curtin, P. (Eds.). (1971). Africa and Africans. New York: Natural History Press. Bowman, A. (1986). Egypt after the Pharaohs: 332 BC-AD 642. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Carruthers, J. (1984). Essays in Ancient Egyptian studies. Berkeley, CA: University of Sankore Press. Cerny, J.Consanguineous marriages in pharaonic Egypt. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology40 (1954). 23–29. Diop, C. A. (1981). Civilization or barbarism: An authentic anthropology. New York: Lawrence Hill Books. Forgeau, A. (1996). The survival of the family name and the pharaonic order. In A. Burguiere, C. Klapisch-Zuber, M. Segalen, & F. Zonabend (Eds.), A history of the family. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Helck, W., & Westendorf, W. (Eds.). (1986). Lexikon der agyptologie (Band VI). Wiesbaden, Germany: Otto Harrassowitz. Middleton, R.Brother-sister and father-daughter marriage in ancient Egypt. American Sociological Review27 (1962). 603–622. Murdock, G. (1949). Social structure. New York: Macmillan. Murray, M.Genealogies of the Middle KingdomAncient Egypt (1927.) 45–51. Nur El Din, A. (1995). The role of women in ancient Egyptian society. Cairo: S.C.A. Press. Pestman, P. (1961). Marriage and matrimonial property in ancient Egypt. Leiden, Germany: E. J. Brill. Robins, G.The relationships specified by Egyptian kinship terms of the Middle and New Kingdoms. Chronique Page 8 of 9 Handbook of Black Studies Sage Sage Reference © 2006 by Sage Publications, Inc. d'Egypte54(108) (1979). 197–217. Robins, G. (1993). Women in ancient Egypt. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schneider, D. (1968). American kinship: A cultural account. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Schusky, E. (1983). Manual for kinship analysis (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Strouhal, E. (1992). Life of the ancient Egyptians. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Trigger, B. G. (1993). Early civilizations: Ancient Egypt in context. New York: Columbia University Press. Tyldesley, J. (1994). Daughters of Isis: Women of ancient Egypt. London: Penguin. Whale, S. (1989). The family in the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt. Sydney: Australian Centre for Egyptology. Willems, H.A description of Egyptian Kinship terminology of the Middle Kingdom c. 2000–1650 BC. Bijdragen tot de Taal-Land-en-Volenkunde139(1) (1983). 152–168. • sisters • dynasties • wives • husbands • Egypt • brothers • families https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412982696 Page 9 of 9 Handbook of Black Studies