Blessed Be Egypt My People 1 Welfare in Ancient Egypt

1

Martti Muukkonen

“Blessed be Egypt my people[1]” – Welfare in Ancient Egypt

Presentation to the work-group of sociology of religion at the annual meeting of Finnish sociological association, Jyväskylä 26.3.2004

Along Mesopotamia, Egypt was the other ancient culture that influenced on both ancient Israel and Greece. Even if we do not accept the Moses and Exodus stories as historical, we have to remember that Palestine was frequently under Egyptian command and even when it was not, it was a crossroads of caravan routes. Palestine was cosmopolitan area where cultures interacted and blurred. In order to understand Biblical religion and ethics, it is necessary to review Palestine’s western neighbour as well as northern and eastern ones.However, Egypt did not only influence Israel but Greece and, later, emerging Christianity as well.

In the case of Greece, Egypt’s influence can be seen in the areas that we have thought being genuinely Greek. Herodotos’ thesis that Greek medicine has its origin in Egypt is perhaps the most evident contribution of Egyptian culture to Greece. While wowing in the name of Asklepios, Greek doctors and their western followers wow, in fact, in the name of Egyptian deified doctor Imhotep, who lived 2000 years before Hippocrates. Moreover, almost all prominent Greek doctors got their education in Imhotep's temple in Memphis.Along with doctors, also philosophers looked south from their peninsula and utilised the ancient Egyptian wisdom.

If we then, look at the Christian church, we soon find out that it did not just move from its Semitic roots in Palestine to Europe but to Africa as well. Actually, a great deal of early church fathers resided in Egypt and when they tried to explain who was this Jesus of Nazarene, they utilised Egyptian concepts. The most obvious example is the concept of trinity. Egyptian religion was based on trinities and Christian trinity is only a modification of this thinking. Actually, especially in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox world, the popular version of trinity is not Father, Son and Holy Spirit but Father Son and Mary. This latter one has a clear parallelism to Osiris, Isis and Horus. Isis and Horus is often presented archetype of Madonna and child.

In addition to these, much of out modern concepts are from Egypt. Most obvious is our calendar: When Julius Caesar launched the new roman calendar carrying his name, he only slightly reformulated the three-thousand year old Sothic calendar.

“Hail to thee, O Nile[2]” – Ancient Egyptian Context

History of the Egypt starts in the dawn of mankind, from the Palaeolithic period, which begun from 250,000 BC an lasted up to Epipalaeothic, circa 7000 BC[3]. The acriculture emerged during the Neolithic age, 6000-5000 BC, and, since much of the crops planted were from the Levant, it might be that there was migration also from there.[4]

However, it can be said that Egyptian history emerged with the unification of the country sometime between 3400 and 3000 BC[5]. Ancient Egypt’s history has usually been divided into 30 dynasties that are grouped to sequences of three Kingdoms (Old[6], Middle[7] and New[8]) which interrupted by Intermediate Periods[9]. During the Kingdom Periods, the country was unified and the country was prosperous. Intermediate Periods were characterised by rivalry, disorder and, as a consequence of internal weakness, foreign intrusions. Since the Egyptian society was basically ultra-conservative, it was during these Intermediate Periods when major changes in thinking occurred.

During the Third Intermediate Period Egypt was occupied, first by Assyria and, then, by Persia although there also were short independence periods[10]. When Alexander the Great occupied Egypt in 332 BC., it turned to Hellenistic cultural sphere and the country continued under Greek Ptolemaics until Rome occupied it in 30 BC and the country became a Roman province[11].

There are three themes that characterise Egyptian culture. The first is its astonishing continuity for three thousand years. The other revolves around the concept of Ma'at - the cosmic order of the world that the pharaoh should maintain. The third was the tendency to personificate almost everything - even parts of the body. Along these main features, there were a similar emphasis on the household and agriculture as in Mesopotamia although Egyptian culture was basically a rural culture while Mesopotamian was urban one. In the field of sciences and innovations, Egyptians were, in general, as advanced as Mesopotamians - in some fields they were better and in some they lagged behind.

Egyptian culture was a mixture of African and Levantine cultures but it isolated itself rather early and opened again only after the occupation by hyksos. In general, Egyptians despised their neighbours and saw them only as potential servants. This attitude had its consequences in slow adoption of new foreign innovations. From the welfare perspective, it could be supposed that when these kinds of attitudes prevailed, the lot of foreign slaves and prisoners of war was not pretty good. Another point was, as Richard Pierce argues, that stable, slowly changing technology rendered individual enterprise and favoured patronage[12].

The main feature in Egyptian culture was its aim to maintain the order of cosmos, the Ma'at. Although this was primarily the task of the pharaoh, maintaining harmony was the ideal for everyone. On the basis of this kind of general attitude one might suppose a strong emphasis on the justice and abolition of oppression.

Householdwas the basis of Egyptian society like in Mesopotamia. Also, in the same way, palace and temples were seen as households of the pharaoh and gods. Ultimately, the whole Egypt was a household of the divine pharaoh. And, thus, all were under the paternal authority of him. As a consequence, Egypt can be seen as centrally led state bureaucracy where all had their places according to the ma'at. The root metaphor of household implicitly contains the ideas of both sublimation under the paternal authority and trust for the care.

Pharaoh's bureaucracy needed tools for the administration of the country and hieroglyphs, human management, logistics, astronomy, mathematics and many other sciences developed to meet the needs of the administration. Reading and writing were the major administrative skills and they were the basic requirements for any leading position in the society. As a consequence, people were in principle equal and status was achieved solemnly by talents. However, in practice, this might have been a rare occasion since elite usually create mechanisms to ensure that their descendants achieve the needed skills.

The problem of evaluating cultural opportunity structures in Egypt is that most artefacts describe the great tradition. Tomb inscriptions, stelas and papyrus manuscripts describe mostly ideals of the elite and they do not necessarily describe the reality[13] - or, if they do, they describe the elite reality. Lower classes have not left descriptions of their lives or their values. Even the findings of village life are from few excavations where the population consisted of skilled artisans and, for example, literate level was much higher than the average in Egypt. Thus, while focus on cultural remnants paints a view of harmonious society where the primary goal is abolition of injustice, this is only the elite view.

Egypt’s economical basis can be expressed with one word: the Nile. The river and its flood was the source of fertile land where the crop grew. Nile was the main route between the north and south. Papyrus gave material to ship building, baskets, ropes - and, above all, to writing material. Mud of the Nile was exellent material for the bricks from which the most buildings were made. Egypt was profoundly, a daughter of the Nile.

Like in Mesopotamia, Egyptian economy was based on surplus of grain. However, because of the stronger role of the state and the absence of currency[14], the Egyptian markets had some special characteristics. The dominant phenomenon was the leading role of the state in the economy. The other was that, contrary to Mesopotamia, Egypt was basically a rural society.

Egyptian economy was basically a distributive economy where the state society collected a great deal of the harvest and distributed it to the people. Another speciality was the lack of money which meant that the trade was on barter basis. Along with the state, important actors in economy were temples and, actually, much of the economy of Egypt was revolved around temples. Temples used their income to building projects, that gave work opportunities, and to offerings, which were recycled and given to temple personnel, tomb builders and, at festivals, to the common people. The third element in the Egyptian economy was the domestic one. Families produced at home most that they needed and what they couldn't produce, they bartered with neighbours and at the river bank market.

If we compare Egyptian economy to the Mesopotamian one, the similarity was that the basis of economy was in the fertile land. Both areas lacked minerals and adequate trees which had to be brought abroad. The difference was that, although markets existed in Egypt, the economy was mostly led and stimulated by the state. Additionally, there was no currency in Egypt. Money was used only in foreign trade. Internal trade was barter trade although the value of commodities were often defined by the value of copper. Finally, as noted, there was no similar fibre revolution from linen to wool that occurred in Mesopotamia. Egyptian fibre was mainly linen. This was one reason why there was no such rush to towns that happened in Mesopotamia. Egypt remained as an agricultural society.

Political context of ancient Egypt had several phases during the three millenia of independent Egypt. In general, the political system was based on the divine kingship, like the Mesopotamian one. Contrary to Mesopotamia, in Egypt the centralised rule was the ‘normal’ status of affairs when in Mesopotamia it was an exception. However, in this broad system, there were nuances that influenced into the thinking and discourse of people.

Up to the middle of the Middle Kingdom, Egypt was a feudalistic society. In the Old Kingdom pharaoh utilised the resources of local nomarchs who were either spoken or forced to become kings vassals. The whole system was based on king's ability to organise irrigation projects, store grain for buffers against bad harvest and his ability to defend the country. It was the task of royal propaganda to ensure that people started to think that kingship is crucial to the wellbeing of the country.

When this system collapsed during the First Intermediate Period, local nomarchs gained again much of their lost independence. During a turbulence time, ordinary people sought for safe and nomarchs offered it for loyalty. Thus, feodalism in Egypt emerged a bit same way as in Europe after the great migrations.

During the 12th Dynasty pharaoh's reorganised the administration and re-created their bureaucracy. In this, they used similar discourse that nomarchs had used before. The pharaoh became the ultimate patron who ensured the wellbeing of both his vassals and commoners.

After the Hykso occupation of the country during the Second Intermediate Period, kingship in Egypt was only shadow of its former mode. Instead of the pharaoh, who could not defend the country, people started to see major deities as their ultimate patrons. It was this time, when personal piety and commitment emerged.

“Egypt is the image of heaven[15]” - Egyptian Religion

According to Gleason L. Archer and William S. Lasor, Egyptiand never had a systematised theology[16]. Jan Assmann, in turn, states that Egyptian language had no word for 'religion' but, in spite of that, there was a clear distinction between holy and profane. Assmann quotes an old Egyptian hymn as an example:

Re has placed the king

in the land of the living,

forever and ever,

judging humankind

and satisfying the gods,

realizing Maat and destroying Isfet.

He (the king) gives offerings to the gods

and mortuary offerings to the deceased.[17]

In the wide meaning, all life and cosmos was intend to manifest and maintain Maat, the cosmic order and fighting against Isfet, chaos. In this sense, religion covers everything, especially ethics and justice. In the narrow meaning, religion dealt with contact with the gods and provisioning the dead.[18]

Egypt, like Mesopotamia, was a culture that emerged along the river. It was the Nile that offered the life for Egyptians. However, the river was a narrow strip between two deserts. Therefore it is natural that Egyptians sought some explanation for the polarisation of these two elements, fertile river valley and desert. Moreover, as J. Martin Plumley notes

From daily experiencethe early Egyptians learned that land. though bountiful and rewarding. was not entirely friendly, and that what at one moment might be regarded as friendly could become hostile. .. To explain this in a world that seemed so constant. the early Fgyptians began to assume that there were invisible forces. normally beneficent. but which could become hostile, or that there were othcr forces which were always ill disposed.[19]

It was from this dichotomy from which the basic concept of Egyptian thinking, Maat, arose.

The maat, which does not have a western equivalence, meant right, order, balance, conformity, truth, justice and sometimes righteousness[20]. In his classical work of Egyptian religion, Henry Frankfort defined that Maat is

a divine order, established at the time of creation; this order is manifest in nature in the normalcy of phenomena; it is manifest in society as justice; and it is manifest in an individuals life as truth.[21]

Black argues that Maat was personified as goddess and, in Heliopolitan tradition,

identified with Tefnut, the sister-wife of Shu. As such, she was not only ‘present at the creation’ , but in fact provided the principle according to which that creation was carried out: the principle of ‘order’.[22]

Actually the world, that was created by Maat, was a sort of paradise as seen in the following hymn:

Maat descended to the earth in their time,

and fraterninzed with the gods.

Abundant food was in the bellies of men.

There was nothing wrong in the country,

no crocodile did snatch away,

there was no sting of a serpent

in the time of the Primordial gods…[23]

Egyptian understanding of Maat meant that they made distinction between natural order and cultural life. Cultural life must be reproducted and maintained. Otherwise it would be ruined.On one hand, Maat was the cosmic order of the universe in a sense that we would call natural laws. According to Frankfort, Egyptians

Viewed the universe as essentially static. It held that cosmic order was once and for all established in the time of creation. This order might occasionally be disturbed, for the forces of chaos were merely subdued and not annihilated. Nevertheless, revolts against the established order were bound to remain mere ripples upon the surface.[24]

On the other hand, in the human life, maintaining Maat meant that people should benefit from the fruits of their co-operation. Maat, in a way, combined Hebrew (and, in general, Semitic) concepts of sedek and shalom. Thus, it meant justice and peace but also social harmony that was characterised by philia and caritas[25]. This can be seen in the legal decisions that aimed not so much to literal application of the law but to mutual agreement what is right in the situation.

King was the crucial person in maintaining Maat. Without him, the task would be impossible. As mentioned earlier, maintaining Maat was done by serving gods and securing the country. Thus, in one sense, Egyptian pharaoh was a mixture of Mesopotamian ensi and lugal: he was both the highest priest and secular authority. Contrary to Mesopotamia, where – at the beginning but not later – the king was a human who represented humans to gods, traditional paradigm of Egyptologists states that pharaoh was seen as a god representing gods to humans. Frankfort expresses this traditional paradigm as follows:

Pharaoh was not mortal but a god. This was the fundamental concept of Egyptian kingship, that Pharaoh was of divine essence, a god incarnate… It is wrong to speak of a deification of Pharaoh… His coronation was not an apotheosis but an epiphany.[26]

However, this view has not been unchallenged. Hans Goedicke sees that the king is a representative of gods, not an incarnation[27]. C. Jouco Bleeker points out, the although pharaoh

was descended from the sun-god, this did not make him equal of the gods. The pharaoh is always designated 'the good god' and never 'the great god', the predicate of the true gods.[28]