reproduction of a wall relief from Saqqara in Lower Egypt, dated about 2300 BC [Szabo & Short, 2000]
Little is known about the daily life of the Ancient Egyptians, but proof of circumcision abounds in temple reliefs. Early Egyptologists assumed that all Egyptian males were circumcised, but more recently both circumcised and uncircumcised penises have been found on the unwrapped mummies of pharaohs. Modern Egyptologists have pondered about just whom among the Egyptians were circumcised and why. An early Masonic historian, Godfrey Higgins ("Anacalypsis", London 1836), writes, "Priests only of the Egyptians were circumcised." Candidates for priesthood, and for circumcision, were usually chosen from among puberty-age, virgin boys. Quoting modern Masonic historian, Manly P. Hall ("Freemasonry of the Ancient Egyptians", Los Angeles 1936), "In ancient Egypt learning was regarded as a high privilege and education was under the direction of a small number of individuals who were organized into bonds, pledges and vows of secrecy....(a candidate) having applied at Heliopolis, was referred to the Learned of the Institution at Memphis, and these sent him to Thebes (where) he was circumcised."
Some historians have contended that the priests of Egypt were circumcised as a sacrifice, a forsaking of "sinful pleasures". However, the concept of sex as sin is not known to have been a part of the Egyptian religion. What is known is that the circumcised penis was a symbol of fertility, as can be seen in temple reliefs throughout Egypt. According to Egyptologist, E. A. Budge ('The Gods of the Egyptians'. Dover Publications), there was a very early God of Circumcision whose job was to maintain the fertility of the Nile banks. Another early Egyptian myth contended that God circumcised himself and the blood from his penis fell and created the universe. This myth is thought by some to be the progenitor of the blood cults, in which animals were sacrificed and the blood covenants in the modern Semitic religions. Another theory, quite unorthodox, holds that the Great Pyramid (Cheops) was not a tomb at all (it contained no artifacts, no mummies, etc.) but was a temple of initiation. The young initiates to the priesthood were, supposedly, led single file through the narrow passages receiving one initiatory degree after another and, reaching what is now called the "Queen's Chamber", they were circumcised and then proceeded up the Grand Gallery towards the "King's Chamber" and their final degree. The circumcised priests were the guardians of immortality; symbols of fertility and life everlasting.
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Listening to Greek historians, you'd think that circumcision was foreign to the, Europe, Levant and "Near East". Today in the Levant, Jews are known for practicing it. Where could that have come from, if we are to believe the Greek historians?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it has done on males for the longest time with little health risk; so that might not be as much an issue as the case for females.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone know if female circumcision was for all females of ancient Kemet or was it just for some and today it is still called Pharaonic circumcision still practiced through-out much of Africa a lot of people blamed it's practice on Islam but surely it has much deeper roots than that..it is just one of those awful traditions like slavery that needs to end.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we go by results reported by Shandal (1963), from tests on mummies belonging to female personalities, it would appear that it was a tradition at least practiced on female royalty. If so, there is room for assuming that it was a widely practiced social phenomenon. It may have been practiced as a rite of passage and some for sanitary purposes, and something that all females and males alike were expected to partake. It seems that one of the few other antiquated evidence we have of female circumcision in Dynastic Egypt, comes from Greek writers like Herodotus. From G. Davis et al., we learn that the tradition was practiced in pre-Islamic Arabia, Ancient Rome, and so forth. Aside from Dynastic Egypt, they note that Herodotus is also our source for on pre-Islamic circumcision amongst Phoenicians, Hittites, and Ethiopians. Yet if I'm not mistaken, Herodotus was one of those personalities who suggest that circumcision could only have been brought to Canaan by the Kemetians, since the tradition was not known anywhere else in that general area at the time. Naturally, this would have meant that the practice was foreign to Greeks as well. At any rate, we are told:
It has not been possible to determine when or where female circumcision originated. Theories and supposition date it as far back as the 5th century, BC. Herodotus stated that the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Hittites, and Ethiopians practiced female genital excision 500 years before the birth of Christ. Although it is commonly believed that female circumcision originated in Egypt at the time of the pharaohs, there is no evidence of infibulation in the Egyptian mummies. The practice has been documented in pre-Islamic Arabia, ancient Rome, and tsarist Russia.l As late as 1870, British surgeons performed female circumcision to treat psychological disorders. In the United States, as late as 1954, clitoridectomy was practiced for the treatment of melancholia and had been recommended for nymphomania, hysteria, epilepsy, kleptomania, and even truancy.2 Today, female circumcision is common in 30 African countries, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Yemen. - G. Davis et al., Female circumcision: The prevalence and nature of the ritual in eritrea, 1999.
And we are told, about Shandal's (1963) tests, the following:
Shandal, in his study of 1963 ‘Circumcision and infibulation of females’, states that “a large number of circumcised females were found among the mummies of ancient Egyptians, but a few infibulations were encountered’.
Davis et al.'s findings pose an interesting light on that of Shandal (1963), although there's something in common to say about both research, i.e. sort of: The absence or rarity of infibulation in the Egyptian mummies. Davis et al. seem to suggest that they didn't come across any at all, while it seems that Shandal did come across a small but positive evidence of infibulation. This has led me to ask elsewhere, the following:
Thus, if we are to accept what these authors say about there being no sign of infibulation in the Egyptian mummies, then it raises the question of what Shandal was relying on as evidence of mutilation/circumcision, given the pretty much *dehydrated and dried up* nature of mummified flesh...since I assume, infibulation would serve as a superficial sign of circumcision.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, note that female circumcision has at some point been practiced in Britain and the U.S., presumably for medical purposes. Should they have been successful, which I assume it must have or at least it was thought to have remedied certain health adversities, could it then be argued that it is not necessarily a negative thing to do on females, as long as it is done correctly and for specific medical reason?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it the males who demand female circumcisions in those societies,what I am trying to get at is while it is tradition in a society like ancient Kemet and others in Africa where women was almost on a par with men didn't they view it as negative and could just flat-out not participate in it? After-all the priestess were very powerful in African societies and often called the shots.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
Yes, ritual female circumcision goes as far back as ritual male circumcision- it's a very ancient practice; there was also, for males, ritual excision as well as the circumcision...Gerald Massey discusses this in one of his books (can't think of which one right now; I'll look for it a little later today when I have more time). The original concept behind it all is kinda deep still....
Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Is it the males who demand female circumcisions in those societies,what I am trying to get at is while it is tradition in a society like ancient Kemet and others in Africa where women was almost on a par with men didn't they view it as negative and could just flat-out not participate in it?
I think this question could be asked in redards to just about any other social situation. Do women in society generally carry themselves the way they do, because they are conditioned to do what is expected to please men? Like I said earlier, it may just have been perceived as a rite of passage signifier. As such, it would have been perceived as cross-cutting gender boundaries.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
All anthropological data show that circumcision in general (both male and female) originated in Africa. According to sources from non-Abrahamic traditional African spiritual belief systems, circumcision is deeply tied into beliefs in adulthood and sexualization of individuals, thus it was an integral part of rites into adulthood. Young males upon entering puberty had to sacrifice their foreskins which were viewed as analogous to a female vulva, while females had to sacrifice their clitoris (at least the outer portion) analogous to the penis. This was done to initiate the male into manhood and female into womanhood. As a child it was okay to have these parts and be thus androgynous since children are not suppose to be sexual beings in the first place.
^ Notice the Egyptian boys being circumcised are painted with lighter complexions associated with females. This is because they are not yet truly men yet until the procedure is over. As it is in many African countries a male is not truly a man until he is circumcised. In some cultures if a boy even cries out during the process he is shunned as a coward!
As for the Middle East, it is interesting that Jews circumcise their boys at 8 days old (the time when babies have enough vitamin K for fast blood clotting), whereas in Arabian culture boys are circumcised at age 13 when they reach puberty. According to both Biblical and Koranic tradition Ishmael was circumcised by his father Abraham at age 13.
The ancient Greeks by the way frowned on the practice as truly mutilation of a male's parts, and they actually preferred for 'aesthetic' purposes uncircumcised penises.
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read of circumcision being a traditional Venda (a South African Bantu speaking ethnicity) practice as well. I've also read of Masai doing it in such a way on males that in order to increase female pleasure and orgasm from sex.
My question, as it regards to ancient egypt is was this at all clitoral (which i think is certainly wrong) as can it be in some cases in some places now?
At T&R, does this depth involve making the male more masculine and female more feminine to accentuate and further necessitate their union?
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic