Not so, according to our professor Horemheb. So goes the saying that even a creature from Mars could have possibly ruled the Kemetians, as long it adopted Kemetian culture. Was this really the case back then, when even Romans, Greeks, Nubians, Mesopotamians, Olmecs, Persians, etc, had no idea where they were from, and all they knew was their values and traditions, which BTW anybody could have adopted if they wished…OR is this observation simply another symptom of hallucinatory thinking?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
supercar...its what every historian in the world believes. The lack of basic education on this board is sometimes amazing. Obviously they understood the idea of 'Egypt'but it was only vague and had little impact on their lives. In pre modern times people looked to their local lord for leadership. Everthing in their lives was 'local.' National politics had little impact on their lives and most of it they were totally unaware of. When we speak of uniting the kingdom we are not speaking of uniting the 'people' but rather uniting the 'nomarchs.' What I hear here is people trying to apply modern political thought to ancient egyptians and that is totally unrealistic.

---

quote:

---

Did the ordinary Kemetians know that they were Kemetian, or part of Kemet?
Not so, according to our professor Horemheb

---

quote:

---

supercar...its what every historian in the world believes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
supercar...its what every historian in the world believes. The lack of basic education on this board is sometimes amazing. Obviously they understood the idea of 'Egypt'but it was only vague and had little impact on their lives. In pre modern times people looked to their local lord for leadership. Everthing in their lives was 'local.' National politics had little impact on their lives and most of it they were totally unaware of. When we speak of uniting the kingdom we are not speaking of uniting the 'people' but rather uniting the 'nomarchs.' What I hear here is people trying to apply modern political thought to ancient egyptians and that is totally unrealistic.

---

Horemheb, if your logic were to be taken with any sense of seriousness, your assessment could also be applied to comtemporary Americans, and other folks around the world, who are usually not in control of what is being done by their national leaders, and in this case too, national politics often has little impact on the lives of ordinary people, not to mention what you said of Kemetians, that "most of which they are totally unaware of" could also be applied. Most ordinary Americans knew very little of what their national leaders had been doing overseas until much recently, and even have little consciousness on the deeper implications of many aspects of national politics. Even now, as we speak, a case can be made that there are many Americans, who are still murky on National politics, be it dealing with international relations or national issues. Of course, many are aware of the visible and obvious developments, such as the current overseas wars, but beyond that, is another story. Yet this in no way, can be used to mean that ordinary Americans aren't aware of the sense of collectiveness that one would call "nationalism". The same assessment could very well be applied to any number of Nations around the globe. I can't contemplate on any historian, with any sense of dignity to even think of implying in any shape or form that ordinary Kemetians weren't aware of the concept of Kemetian citizenship, or that they were unaware of Kemetian nationality. You might as well go on to say, that a wandering ordinary Kemetian could have found himself amongst Libyans, Kushites, or what they used to call Ethiopians, etc, and would not have been aware of it, because as far as he is concerned, he has no national identity. On that note, I don't know about your students or disciples, but it is safe to say that most other folks, who have come out of age, would think that their teacher was trying to pull their legs or, something else must be going on with that teacher.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
supercar...its what every historian in the world believes. The lack of basic education on this board is sometimes amazing. Obviously they understood the idea of 'Egypt'but it was only vague and had little impact on their lives. In pre modern times people looked to their local lord for leadership. Everthing in their lives was 'local.' National politics had little impact on their lives and most of it they were totally unaware of. When we speak of uniting the kingdom we are not speaking of uniting the 'people' but rather uniting the 'nomarchs.' What I hear here is people trying to apply modern political thought to ancient egyptians and that is totally unrealistic.

---

I might be able to buy into that due to the fact that this is the situation now in the world. I live in NC and we are governed by a state legislature and a governor as all states in the U.S. are. I think this may be analagous to what Horemheb is talking about. Our state has a militia called the state police and a national guard and is allowed to conduct business of the state without respect to other states unless it encroaches on the other states.

A natural disaster in colorado really doesn't effect me unless I plan on going skiing.

quote:

---

the idea of a 'national state' is very recent. Prior to 1500 the world was a much more decentralized place. 93% of AE's were illiterate and had no political rights. Having political rights was not even an issue in their lives

---

Yes,this was definatley the case during the Old Kingdom. However, more Egyptians became literate in the Middle Kingdom. We have evidence from the various Letters to the Dead that the AE wrote to their departed love ones. Plus we know that lower class Egyptians were often allowed to sit in with more elite Egyptians. We have a text of a father telling his son that scribal training was the means to get out of povery.

Despite the fact that the AE had no political representation does not mean that many did not demand for their rights. We can see clearly in a text dating to the Middle Kingdom called the Eloquent Peasent who pettioned to the pharaoh about a incident of a high ranking officer stealing his donkeys and grain. So I must disagree that common AE never demanded rights,for we have the text of the Eloquent Peasent which proves otherwise.

Disputes were handled typically on the lower level of village courts called a kenebet,but serious offences against the nation were tried infront of the pharaohs. You can think of the various nomes[sepats] as sometimes nations within nations but all did answer to the pharaoh.

quote:

---

The only person they might have 'some awareness' of was their local lord. Every person on this board knows 100 times more about AE than the average person knew under Amenhotep III. Keep in mind when you read political history from those times you are not reading the history of the 'people' you are reading the history of the ruling elite and a very small percentage of the population.

---

This is partially true,but I believe that more people during the Middle Kingdom through the New Kingdom were probabaly more aware than during the Old Kingdom. During the Old Kingdom things were more stratified than in later periods. With the information present at the village of Deir El-Medina in modern Luxor we are starting to see more into the life of the commoners. The religious pratices,life and soceity.

Even the illiterate masses often hired people to write letters for them to the various regions in Egypt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
rasol, Go practice with your spear. academics and manners are not your strong point.

---

Besides, I need a moving target for spear practice. Not a dead horse, which is what you are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

This is partially true,but I believe that more people during the Middle Kingdom through the New Kingdom were probabaly more aware than during the Old Kingdom. During the Old Kingdom things were more stratified than in later periods. With the information present at the village of Deir El-Medina in modern Luxor we are starting to see more into the life of the commoners. The religious pratices,life and soceity.

Even the illiterate masses often hired people to write letters for them to the various regions in Egypt.

---

The scribes, priests, anybody with culture and knowledge would know, did you ever read the Amarna letters? They obviously show Egypt had an identity.
Are we aware and do we know about the files the tensions the debates the divisions in our nation's politics?
I know there is a lot that i don't know.
Identities sometimes are built on taboos and fears.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Good points Ausar. I would add that democracy and even literacy are distinct from awareness of National identity. This is why Horemheb is asked to cite a historian.

---

Rasol has just stated what is the obvious to any person with an average intellect: illiteracy or politically inactiveness, doesn't equate to unawareness of one's national identity. Should we now state that all illiterate folks world over, are not aware of their national identity? Like I tried to explain earlier, it not unusual to find people who are not very politically active even in our contemporary world. Faced with feelings of powerlessness, many members of the common people, are vulnerable to becoming disengaged in politics, or what is known as disenfranchisement. This isn't a new development, it has been with humanity since ancient times. This however, doesn't stop people from fighting for the rights they long for, no matter what level of political consciousness they might have. Anyone who implies that political dissent never took place in Kemet, obviously isn't as well informed about the history, as they think. Even in contemporary age, when nations are looked at, it is primarily the elite lifestyles that are often talked about, or reflected in the mainstream mass media. Anyone who thinks that this was the case only in antiquity, is not only lacking political consciousness, but also suffering from self-delusion.