Despite Egypt being a society that easily assimilated foreigners, unassimilated foreigners were often seen as isofret[chaos] vs. Maat[balance] order. The chaos had to be controlled and this is why in so many scenes you see the pharaoh hold up the foreigners smiting them or stepping on them.
Another such example are execration texts.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Would this explain the distortionist favorite of the King tut sandals, that we keep hearing about?
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
Yes, King Tut-ankh-amun and the bound captives are such examples of the following. Most of the scenes are highly idealized and not very realistic.
During the Old Kingdom there is a scence of Sahure about to kill a Libyan cheif and his family is there begging for his life. In later times this is repeated in various tombs scenes. Possibly some of the depictions have some manner of realism but for the most part are part of the execration ritual.
Execration rituals were also for domestic enemies as well. Not just foreigners.
Posted by anacalypsis (Member # 5928) on :
Interesting. My question is, were the so called Nubians--people of Meroe or Kush--considered foreign or domestic entities amongst the Kemetians? I mean, I know that the Kemetians married many so called nubian women believing that the rights and legitimacy of the crown came through them....
However, this does not stop the so called distortionist from asserting that the nubians were not considered in the same league as the egyptian......leaving me to asks once again..did the Kemetians see the nubians as foreigners or brethrens??
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
You are forgetting that the Nubians consisted of different peoples. Some Nubians, like those of Wawat (Lower Nubia) are closely tied to the Egyptians and may even be related. It was women from this region whom Egyptian pharoahs would take as wives to legitimate their thrones. The Nubians of the 25th dynasty were the Kushites from Upper Nubia who were of foreign orign who first made their appearance in the Middle Kingdom.
The Kushites were portrayed differently from the Egyptians and even Lower Nubians because they had different features.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 13 March 2005).]
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Of course the so-called Nubians aren't homogenous. The Dinkas look distinct from the northern Sudans or the Upper Egyptians. The northern Sudanese don't look much different from the Upper Egyptians, just as in antiquity. Another example of heterogeneity in East African nations, is that of Ethiopia. For instance, the Nuer and the Anuak people reside with the Amhara people in Gambela, with the latter being physically distinct from the former two. East Africa is just as heterogeneous as any other part of Africa, and it is only outsiders who erroneously assume some kind of homogeneity. Egyptian art at times depicted Nubians with virtually the same phenotypes, and at other times with distinct ones. This is because they dealt with both the so-called Nubians who closely ressembled them in phenotype, and those who were somewhat distinct. This in no way negates the fact that all these groups came from tropical Africa, as studies have shown and time again.
Initially, in Dynasty 11-12 (ca. 2040-1783 BC), it was the Lower Nubian mercenary troops who figure in Egyptian art. These men were shown with black-painted skin but they had *features indistinguishable from the Egyptians*, who were painted uniformly with red brown skin. - (photos & including this excerpt; courtesy of nubianet.org)
