posted
Several threads on this topic was started years ago, but I am unable to find them likely due to them being deleted. So here again I raise this topic due to some interesting facts.
Since humans are animals, the mating rites of humans are essentially no different from animals except in that they are formalized or regulated in more complex social or institutional ways. Marriage is one of those institutions if not the most important institution in human society that regulates mating and the establishment of families and kinship.
Of course as with all Egyptology, you have evidence and then you have interpretation of the said evidence, but from all the sources I've read the following remains clear.
1. There was no formal ceremony, and marriage simply meant a couple moving in together. In fact the Mdu-Neter phrase for marriage literally meant 'going into a house together'. While there is evidence of patrilocal habitation, we also have strong evidence of matrilocal residence of the 'beena' type where land was passed from mother daughter which continues into modern times. And even in cases of patrilocal residence, the situation could hardly be called a 'baal' marriage since the husband has no mastery over his wife who was free to divorce him any time she wants and upon moving into his house she still gains the title of 'Mistress of the House'. All of this even after the groom pays a brideprice to the bride's father as compensation for her leaving her household. While the majority of marriages were arranged by the couples themselves out of love, there were still marriages arranged by parents which was usually practiced by wealthy elite.
2. Monogamy was the rule for common people though elite men usually had two wives or more. The Pharaoh of course had the privilege of having a large harem as explained in the topic of polygamy
3. There seems to be no evidence of marriage contracts until after the Third Intermediate Period, and even then such contracts simply dealt with regulation of property between the spouses and were not formal acknowledgements of the marriage itself. Also, it becomes quite clear that all of the contracts favor the wife over the husband as far as prenuptial clauses are concerned, and especially is a wife has children does the husband continue to pay support. Women seemed to have had all the legal advantages when it comes to marriage which reflects Western societies today like in America, more so than Egypt's more male dominant neighbors.
4. When it came to adultery, there was no double-standard and it was equally wrong for men as it was for women (which again contrasts) with male dominant societies. Although there is a text from the late period of the New Kingdom which recommends an adulterous woman to be "thrown to the dogs", there is no evidence that wives were actually killed for adultery. Though she may lose property inheritance from her husband, the husband may still have to provide her with financial support after divorce especially if she has children. Even in cases of matrilocal 'beena' type marriages where the matrilineage is dominant or solely expressed, wives were still obligated to be faithful to their husbands out of fairness and respect since the husbands have become part of their households and work to support the wife and especially children that are allegedly his. Unmarried people having sexual relations with each other or 'fornication' as some would call it was apparently accepted, and even adolescent girls seemed to have engaged in sexual relations before marriage to the point that the Greek historian Herodotus claimed there are no virgin maidens in Egypt! In fact there is evidence that Egyptian men preferred girls with sexual experience as opposed to virgins which was again contradictory with their neighbors in Asia and the Greco-Roman world.
In conclusion, while marriage was a significant aspect of life for the Egyptians as it is for all societies, it was still a private matter for the couples and their families involved and not a community or legal affair. According to all the surviving records most marriages were happy ones with few ending in divorce though spouses could divorce each other at any time it was always costly for the husbands. The fact that women had more advantages in marriage than the men, even in situations of patrilocal residence, indicates a strong tradition of mother-right customs where women and especially as mothers and householders had to be protected and supported at all costs. Thus domestic abuse against women is virtually unheard of, which is in large contrast to marriage today in modern Arab Egypt!
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Thus domestic abuse against women is virtually unheard of, which is in large contrast to marriage today in modern Arab Egypt! [/QB]
Ancient Abuse When archeologist Brenda Baker unearthed a 4,000-year-old female skeleton from a cemetery at Abydos--an ancient Egyptian provincial town about 100 miles north of Luxor--her examination of the bones suggested that the woman had been fatally stabbed in the back when she was about 35, perhaps with a dagger like one of those shown here. Her left rear fifth and sixth ribs were sliced, and no new bone had been laid down--a sign that the wound never had time to heal.
But according to Baker, who works at the New York State Museum in Albany, the woman's troubles probably began long before her violent death. Her body bore the signs of a lifetime of abuse. Three ribs and a bone in her left hand had been fractured and had subsequently healed. A break in her right wrist showed signs of infection--channels in the bone that probably formed to drain away pus.
The pattern of injuries--some healed, some not--suggests that the wounds were not the result of one accident. Her injuries resemble those of battered women, who frequently suffer broken ribs when punched or kicked in the chest. The fractured wrist probably resulted from an attempt to break a fall.
Although healed fractures can be seen in two male skeletons from the site--one had a dent in the skull, the other a broken arm--the woman's injuries were by far the most extensive. She was probably a farmer or a householder, says Baker, since she was buried in a simple wooden coffin in the sand in an area reserved for common people, many of whose bones showed signs of malnutrition and osteoarthritis--afflictions often found in manual laborers. So she may have been an abused servant in an elite household. Alternatively, her assailant could have been her husband or father.
The woman's skeleton--and those of others around her--reveals a great deal about the lives of Egyptian working women in the second millennium b.c. "Seeing these skeletons helps us learn something about the kinds of conditions that they survived," says Baker. Or, in this woman's case, did not.
posted
^ Well that sentence you quoted is not mine! Whoever wrote that may be partially right in that so far there has been no recorded case of domestic abuse in ancient Egypt, however that does not mean abuse did not occur at all. As far as rape is concerned, there are ancient records of Egyptian men tried and punished for rape.
As for the Discover Magazine article, it is very interesting as it is tragic about the woman. It's obvious she was abused, though they don't even know by whom. It's stated she was a servant who could have been abused by her employers. Either way, that still does not in anyway refute the FACT that Egyptian society had customs and laws that protected women as well as servants from abuse and violation of their rights in contrast to contemporaneous societies like Assyria or Greece. Again, this does not mean such crimes never happened. Just because there are laws and customs against such things does not mean nobody broke those laws and customs. In the case of domestic abuse there were safeguards against this. For one, women were free to leave at any time, and secondly they usually had the protection of their families especially in the case of matrilocal residence. Who knows what the situation was for that poor woman whose remains are cited.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I forgot to add in my post above... Was your post suppose to be some sort of attempt at refutation of my post? Because if so, it is a pathetic one! LOL Again, my claim (which is based on historical records) was that abuse of women was so uncommon that is unheard of or at least not mentioned in texts. This is in stark contrast to modern day 'Arab' Egypt. And again, this is not to say abuse never happened at all in ancient Egypt. You cite evidence of one woman who did show signs of abuse, but I don't know how this one example contradicts anything I said. Abuse and exploitation of women in modern day Egypt is rampant, but such problems were extremely rare in ancient Egypt. Women in modern Egypt can't even go out in public without being sexually harassed if they aren't wearing proper hijab and without male escort. Ancient Kemet was a different story where women may go as they please without men and definitely without hijab as they can even go out topless.
quote:Sometimes this quote appears on websites:
"There is not a single recorded incident of sexual assault or domestic abuse against an African woman in the entire history of Ancient Egypt."
I really don't know which websites you are referring to since this is the first time I've seen this claim, though I can't help but to think what bothers you so much is the 'African' part. Does it really hurt you to think that native African cultures like the Egyptians had ancient traditions that maintained women's rights and protected them perhaps even better than your modern notions of 'liberated' 'feminist' Western culture?
quote:but in other similarly ancient cultures are such things being recorded?
Unlike Egypt we have records of complaints from wives and their families of mistreatment and abuse of said wives both in the Near East and in Greece. In the Near East especially in Assyria there is the Baal system where a woman is essentially a minor in custody of either her father or her husband. Although laws were in place to protect a woman from abuse, there was limited recourse since a wife's ability to divorce was weak if at all existent. Records for domestic violence are greater and more extensive still in Greece and Rome.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to the litertature women in Egypt had higher status and rights compared to similar ancient civilizations, I am aware of this.
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ My silence on what? Your idiocy?? LOL Sorry but I don't respond to nonsensical musings from idiots like yourself. So go bug-off. You're just lucky the moderators ain't here to delete your stupid posts. Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Compare to the Roman, Persian, Greek and Chinese civilization Women in Ancient Egypt and Ancient Nubia were very powerful and they were highly respected.In Egypt the Queen mother and Queen wife were advisers to Pharaoh and power brokers.The Queen daughter inherit the throne in Egypt.Egypt had at least five ruling Queens.Nubia/Kush had many ruling Queens named Candace/Ashanteshe.There were no ruling Queen in Ancient Rome, Greece and Persia.China had some accidental Queens ruling for their young sons.Regular women in Egypt inherit property and coud sue their husband for divorce.
Moderator Ausar is driving his 5 class BMW and living la dolce vita.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ My silence on what? Your idiocy?? LOL Sorry but I don't respond to nonsensical musings from idiots like yourself. So go bug-off. You're just lucky the moderators ain't here to delete your stupid posts.
Whores like you should burn to blazes Mary, you are one shameless dried up tranny. Nobody no want you! Not even your ex-boyfriend Rashole! Sorry... Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL typical troll behavior. Since there are no moderators around, the rustedtincat and the anguishedofbeingadumbwhore now pollute my thread with their idiotic nonsense. *yawn*
quote:Originally posted by mena7: Compare to the Roman, Persian, Greek and Chinese civilization Women in Ancient Egypt and Ancient Nubia were very powerful and they were highly respected.In Egypt the Queen mother and Queen wife were advisers to Pharaoh and power brokers.The Queen daughter inherit the throne in Egypt. Egypt had at least five ruling Queens.Nubia/Kush had many ruling Queens named Candace/Ashanteshe.There were no ruling Queen in Ancient Rome, Greece and Persia. China had some accidental Queens ruling for their young sons. Regular women in Egypt inherit property and could sue their husband for divorce.
Yes, we know all this but I'm discussing more specifics about the marriage tradition in Kemet.
quote:Moderator Ausar is driving his 5 class BMW and living la dolce vita.
Which is great for Ausar, but I thought he wasn't the only moderator in here.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Europeans are really Asians. But unlike other Asians, European-Asians have recent African admixture. Which makes them, interestingly, the same as other Asians [though I spent five years denying this] – but wholly different from the other other Asians" - Prof. Mary Shameless Tranny, Rasol University, Mindless Campus, 2013.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes different from other Asians as in South Asians, East Asians, etc.-- all those Asians who were NOT significantly affected by recent African migrations. But this thread is about Marriage in Ancient Egypt!
So unless you want to address the actual topic of this thread, go bugger off and provide your 'service' in the mens' restrooms.
Patrilocal Marriage vs. Matrilocal Marriage: Husband's Responsiblities
Topics on Egyptian social and especially domestic life tend to focus on women especially considering their 'unique' status compared to other 'Near Eastern' societies. But let's deal with the men for moment. Obviously when it comes to family and raising children men play as much an invaluable role as the women.
In matrilocal societies where in Semitic terms, the 'motah' type marriage prevailed i.e. the husband is a temporary visitor to the wife's house, the husband may make some economic contributions to the house especially during courtship but it is the wife's brother who plays the full role of father and thus provider of children. This type of marriage is still practiced among a few Nilotic tribes in Sudan today. The Egyptians on the other had more or less permanent type marriages. The Semitic term 'beena' would be used to describe the husband being a long term resident in the wife's house. Since the husband is moving in and joining the household, he will be a provider anyway so there is no prenuptial provision.
In the case of patrilocal marriage in Egypt it was really no different from traditional patrilocal marriages in Africa especially among Nilotic tribes and not the same as the 'baal' type seen in Asia where the husband has lordship over the wife. But because the bride is moving out of her parents house and into the house of her groom, the groom makes a prenuptial payment to the bride's parents known as a bride-price which traditionally in Kemet was the amount paid for a slave. Unfortunately there has been much confusion in the West about this tradition that is still practiced today not only in Africa but in other parts of the world. There are those in the West, specifically feminists who are against this custom because they liken it to 'prostitution' or a man 'buying his wife'. Diop in his Origins book does a great job dispelling this awful misconception. The reason why a bride-price is paid is because women in such societies were productive members of the household. It is a little known fact that households in many cultures especially those in pre-industrial societies were also economic units of production, essentially businesses. A household usually had a farm which they raised livestock and grew crops as well as produced textiles such as pottery and clothing. The purpose of the bride-price was to compensate the bride's family for their loss since she leaves the household and no longer contributes to their business. In the West the converse tradition was originally practiced, namely the dowry. The dowry is a payment made by the bride's parents to the groom and is associated with patriarchal societies where girls do not contribute as much to their households as males. Thus girls are economically a burden in contrast to them being assets in those societies that pay bride-prices. So a bride's parents, or rather her father pays a dowry to the groom as compensation for her support. Although the dowry system has been abolished in the West since the early 20th century largely due to the 'women's movements', its remnant survives in the form of the tradition of the bride's parents paying the expenses of the wedding. Of course the higher in status the family of the bride, the higher bride-price or dowry. We know that a common woman's bride-price was equivalent to that of a slave, but for the wealthy it was doubt higher. In many African traditions, entire herds of cattle may be given in exchange for a wealthy bride and it's interesting that during the coronation of a pharaoh which may very well be associated with his marriage to a royal lady, do many records show movements of large cattle herd as well as trade in many livestock and crops. It's also interesting how the sources show that a gradual replacement of the bride-price system with a dowry system took place late in Egyptian history towards the end of the dynastic period. The bride-price was not only compensation for the bride's parents but also a gesture of sincerity on the part of the groom. Unfortunately today there are confused (to say the least) feminists from the West and even African women influenced by the former why are trying to ban this age old custom not realizing what its true purpose is. They claim it is 'buying women' and 'prostitution' yet no doubt these same women expect men to buy them expensive diamond rings that costs tens of thousands of dollars as a token of marriage. Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Divorce in Egypt was easy for both spouses though again more difficult for the husband, especially if children are involved. The Egyptians apparently practiced a form of child support as well as spousal support. Judging from records, divorce was a rare occurrence in part for cultural reasons in that the spouses put more effort into working things out, and another part again that it was more expensive for men. Usually divorces occur due to instances of adultery or sterility. If a man or woman were unable to produce offspring divorce could occur or a spouse would probably use a surrogate. We know surrogacy was quite common in Egypt in instances of sterility so even then divorces in such scenarios was rare.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Also I know Egyptian pharaohs married many Asiatic wives. Does that in a way also explain the non African admixture in the ancient Egyptians?
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ And exactly which admixture do you speak of??
The pharaohs married many wives from many lands usually for political purposes. Thus how many Asiatic wives a pharaoh had depended on the political situation which depended on the time period. Most marriages to Asiatics usually occurred during the New Kingdom when Egypt conquered territories in Asia. Either way the chief wife was always a native Egyptian or at least native African (judging by certain Nubian dynasties) since only natives were allowed to produce heirs.
Also, the pharaohs themselves constituted a small minority even among elite so I fail to see how the marriage practices of the kings could have great influence on the population demographics by and large in Egypt.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^I was talking about when the Ancient Egyptians started getting mixed. Like we start seeing lighter toned Egyptians in paintings. I thought the Pharaohs marrying Asiatic woman could have played a big part since the pharaohs had many children with them.
Anyways thanks for the correction.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: ^^I was talking about when the Ancient Egyptians started getting mixed. Like we start seeing lighter toned Egyptians in paintings. I thought the Pharaohs marrying Asiatic woman could have played a big part since the pharaohs had many children with them.
Anyways thanks for the correction.
Large scale mixing with Asiatics was usually (though not strictly) confined to the Delta where Asiatics settled especially the eastern part. As far as 'lighter toned Egyptians' whatever do you mean? Are you referring to the yellow color of women? Because if so, that is the typical artistic convention of Egyptian women regardless of actual complexion.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^When I meant lighter toned Egyptians I meant the ones who were a result from mixing. Anyways thanks for the correction.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ What you bring up is another thing I should include in this thread-- intermarriage with foreigners. We know there was no restriction from Egyptians marrying foreigners so long as the foreigners were assimilated or naturalized citizens. From before the New Kingdom, most foreigners especially Asiatics were slaves or prisoners taken in war. Of course slaves in African societies including Egypt were eventually freed and able to join Egyptian society. There were foreigners from Nubia and other southern lands who moved into southern Egypt while some Asiatics moved into the Delta. There were others from Libya or the Eastern desert that moved into Egyptian society and all were assimilated. Again, Asiatics usually lived in the north which had the largest Asiatic communities.
We know that during the Second Intermediate period the Hyksos took over the Delta during the absence of central authority. Egyptian texts describe this take over as a sudden shock as nobody payed attention to the Asiatics who were infiltrating the area. This influx of Asiatics were not slaves taken in war but immigrants who sought refuge either from wars and/or famines in Asia. This corroborates Biblical stories like Joseph and his family. There is also this conception that the Biblical Hebrews or Israelites were enslaved by the Egyptians when evidence suggests they were actually paid laborers and mercenaries. The moderator Ausar even has a theory that Asiatics were the equivalent of today's Mexicans in the U.S.! LOL According to Biblical texts, it was when pharaoh saw their numbers increase that he increased their burdens and made life harder (perhaps an attempt to slow their reproduction) since he feared they may join forces with their 'brethren' in Asia. This may suggest that the 'Exodus' took place in the New Kingdom well after the Hyksos period and the pharaoh of that time feared another Hyksos/Asiatic takeover. But Biblical Exodus or not, throughout the New Kingdom there was a thriving Asiatic community in the eastern Delta. Although Asiatics were largely in the Delta they were not confined there as we have evidence of a Hebrew community as far south as elephantine near the border of Nubia.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic