Arab Warriors

20^th – 21st Century Military

Incompetence

Map Middle East / North Africa, 1995

In the aftermath of World War II the Arab nations of the Middle East became independent and acquired their own military establishments, and further they have been involved in wars with outside powers and with each other. The results have been less than impressive. Despite up to date training, equipment etc., Arab armies have been repeatedly thrashed.1

War Time Letters  

Map of Egypt

The sands of Egypt have preserved many documents of everyday life and therefore provide a fascinating glimpse of everyday matters and private life. Several of these documents are the remnants of the archives of the family of a man named Apollonios who lived in the region of Hermoupolis in middle Egypt. At the time that the archive was accumulated he was serving as Strategos, (Chief Officer for law enforcement) for the district of Apollinpolis-Heptakomias. A position which he seems to have been appointed c. 113/14 C.E. He was caught in a truly unpleasant situation a few years, (115-117 C.E.) later when Egypt was engulfed by rebellion and war.1

The war is in fact very poorly known from our sources. It is generally characterized as the second Jewish revolt. From the accounts the Jewish communities of Cyprus, Egypt and Libya rose in revolt. The revolt was one of great ferocity and it appears to have been quelled with considerable savagery. Its causes and course are very obscure and given the extreme terseness of the sources likely to remain so.2 Some other time I may go through what we know and do not know about the rebellion.

Regarding our family. It appears that Apollonios’ family was of Greek descent, although several members had Egyptian names and further that they spoke Greek as their daily language. The family seems to have been upper class with a fair degree of wealth and estates in various parts of Egypt. Aside from Apollonios the other surviving letters are one from his wife and sister Aline and Apollonios’ mother Eudaimonis. Brother sister marriages seem to have been fairly common at this time among the Greeks in Egypt apparently has a way to consolidating wealth. Although it does tend to creep out people today. It is not clear whether or not Aline is Apollonios full sister or half sister, although full sister seems most likely given the letter from Eudaimonis to Aline.3

Apollonios comes across as bit of a wet blanket from his correspondence. Aline comes across as a worrywart. Eudaimonis comes across, however, like the bitchy relative you definitely want on your side.

Aline writes as follows to her husband / brother:

Aline to Apollonios her brother greetings. I am terribly anxious about you because of what they say about what is happening, and because of your sudden departure. I take no pleasure in food or drink, but stay awake continually night and day with one worry, your safety. Only my father’s care revives me and as I hope to see you safe, I would have lain without food on News Year’s day, had my father not come and forced me to eat. I beg you to keep yourself safe and not go into danger without a guard. Do the same as the Strategos here, who puts the burden on his officers…my father…for the name… of my brother was put forward…May God [preserve] him. If then, my brother, (you have leisure from) your business…write to me…to you…he is coming up safety…4

The letter was apparently written sometime in September of 115 or 116 C.E. The New Year’s day referred to here is the first day of the month of Thoth.5 It is certainly interesting to find out that c. 1900 years ago some people worried over there loved ones and were rendered sleepless by worry over them.

Eudaimonis writes in a different spirit instead of mooning and worrying she sends some good wishes to her son:

…with the good will of the gods, above all, Hermes the invincible, may they not roast you. For the rest, may all be well with you and all your men, Heraidous, your daughter, who is free from harm, greets you.6

Rather than bother her son with complaining about how worried she is; she assures him his daughter is well and safe and wishes him well and inquires about how he and his men are doing. A rather different tone from the rather self absorbed Aline. The comment about roasting refers to alleged atrocities being committed by the rebels. The letter is apparently dated from after Aline’s letter and can be dated to either 116 C.E. or 117 C.E.7

We know from another surviving letter in the archive, although it is not a letter addressed to Apollonios or other family members, and appears to be a letter written to his household presumably in the course of carrying out their duties, that the rebels won several battles in the Hermoupolis area and things must have gotten very difficult for the family.8

The one hope and expectation that was the push of the massed villagers from our district against the impious Jews; but now the opposite has happened. For on the 20th(?) our forces fought and were beaten and many of them were killed … now, however, we have received the news from men coming from … that another legion of Rutilius arrived at Memphis on the 22nd and is expected.9

Apollonios leading some troops, local militia, from his province took part in a battle near Memphis that resulted in a Roman victory. The letter goes as follows:

Aphrodisios to his dearest Herakleios, greeting. I have learnt from men who arrived today from Ibion that they travelled with a slave of our lord Apollonios; the slave was coming from Memphis to bring the good news of his victory and success. I have therefore sent you specially. that I may know with certainty and make a festival and pay the due offerings to the gods. You will therefore do well, dear friend, to inform me with speed. Two boys have been brought from the Oasis to my master, of whom one is four years old, the other three … the price … to you that you may be … I pray for your health, dear friend.10

The letter seems to be addressed from a steward of one of Apollonios’ properties to another, and aside from reporting the victory and Apollonios’ involvement records the purchase of some young slaves. The letter probably dates from early 117 C.E.11

Eudaimonis letter to Aline reveals again that Eudaimonis is a strong matriarch and more than a bit bitchy:

Eudaimonis to her daughter Aline, greeting. I pray above all that you may be delivered of a child in good time and that I shall receive news of a son. You sailed up on the 29th, and on the next day I began to weave. I at last got the material from the dyer on the 10th of Epeiph. I am working with your slave-girls as far as I can. I cannot find girls to work with me, for they are all working for their own mistresses. Our people have been marching all over the city, asking for more pay (or: offering higher wages). Your sister Souerous has been delivered of a child. Teeus wrote to me, expressing her gratitude to you, so I know, lady, that my instructions are being carried out. For she has left all her own people and gone to join you. The little girl sends her greetings, and is persevering with her lessons Be sure that I shall pay no attention to God until I get my son back safe. Why do you send me 20 drachmai, when I have no leisure? already have a vision of being naked when winter starts. (2nd hand) Farewell Epeiph 22. (1st hand) The wife of Eudemos has stuck by me and I am grateful to her.12

This letter seems to date from July of 117 C.E. The revolt is almost over and Eudaimonis is anxiously waiting for the return of her son Apollonios. The comment about paying no attention to the God refers to the old practice that the Gods are expected to do certain things in exchange for human worship, should they fail to do so they will be ignored until they fulfill their side of the bargain. Eudaimonis complains about the situation on the estate including an apparent lack of clothing and the fact slave labourers are hard to find. Which may indicate the area and more particularly Apollonios estates were hard hit by the war. The war itself seems to be over in the region of the estate, (Apollinopolis, Hermoupolis). Eudaimonis hopes that Aline, who is pregnant gives birth to a son safely. The little girl mentioned may be Apollonios’ and Aline’s daughter. Eusdaimonis seems to hope that Aline will give birth soon and is slightly exasperated by the delay in Aline giving birth which is why she mentions that Aline’s sister Souerous has given birth. Further Eusdaimonis is exasperated with Aline sending her money, as if she is not busy with making clothes and other duties and so has no time to lounge around. The comment about the wife of Eudemos sticking by her seems to be an indirect reproach of Aline.13

We finally hear from Apollonios himself in this letter in which he asks for 60 days leave:

To Rammius Martialis, the mighty prefect, from Apollonios Strategos of Apollinopolis-Heptakomias, greeting.

I attach a copy, prefect, of the application for leave which I previously submitted, in order that, by your favour you may grant me sixty days to put my affairs in order, at the time, especially, when … is pressing. I pray for your health, prefect. The (first) ear of the Emperor Caesar Trainus Hadrianus Augustus, Choiak 2. [The application follows]

To Rammius Martialis, the prefect, from pollonios, Strategos of Apollinopolis-Heptakomias, greeting.

…prefect … once … (Col. II) … make use of … For not only are my affairs completely uncared for because of my long absence, but also, because of the attack of the impious Jews, practically everything I posses in the villages of the Hermoupolite nome [province] and in the metropolis needs my attention. If you accede to my request and I am enabled to put my affairs in order as far as possible. I will be able to approach the duties of my office with a more tranquil mind.14

Aside from the usual flattery of a higher up. (Sucking up to the boss never goes out of style), the letter reveals that that Apollonios’ business interests have been badly affected by the war and that he feels those interests require his attention for a period of 2 months. Of course Apollonios adds the detail that if this request is granted he will be able to perform his official duties better because he will be less distracted. The techniques of psychological manipulation never go out of style. The letter can be fairly securely dated to the last half of 117 C.E, shortly after the accession of the Emperor Hardian who succeeded the Emperor Trajan in 117 C.E. 15

A few other letters round out this archive; in one the writers complain about Apollonios attitude in complaining about their failure to fulfill a contract:

We had no time, because of the bringing-in of the public corn, to protest to you and complain about your attacking us as if we were men of no account.

…

Now the affair must be governed by your conscience and your view of the matter(?) …consider too that not much … and that there was a state of riot.16

The authors are annoyed that Apollonios did not take into account the fact that things were in a state of disorder and the violence impeded their ability to fulfill the contract. They hope that upon reflection Apollonios will change his attitude. The letter probably dates from late 117 C.E.17

An architect named Herodes who was working for Apollonios gives some indication of the damage possibly done to Apollonios home by the revolt:

You know well of the urgently needed woodwork for the shrines and the guest-house, and because of this it was only on the second of the intercalary days that we set up the doors of the bedchamber in the hall as laid down in the agreement.18

Later in the letter Herodes requests time off to visit his brother in Alexandria who is mourning the death of his daughter to help his brother carry out his public duties during this difficult period.

I therefore request you, master, to allow me to go to my brother Hierakion in his boat during these idle days, for at another time I will not be able to go by foot through the country because of its devastation and the lack of …19

To sweeten his request for time off Herodes gives a statement of progress made and indicates that he is not immediately needed and can therefore take sometime off. Further he indicates that travel by water is preferably due to the devastation and the still chaotic nature of the much of the countryside due to the war. The letter seems to date from late 117 C.E.20

About subsequent developments we know nothing. Whether or not Apollonios was successful in re-establishing his family wealth, or if Aline successfully gave birth etc. All we have is a few tantalizing glimpses, almost a series of snapshots of a small group of people in time trying to cop under very difficult circumstances.

These letters give a rare glimpse into the private lives of an ancient family in the midst of a war and its aftermath. It certainly indicates that humans even thousands of years ago were very much like they are today despite the amount of time and cultural change in the meantime.

Funerary Portrait from the Fayum area of Egypt
Roman Period 1st Century C.E.

1. Tcherikover, Victor A., Corpus Papyromun Judaicarum, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MASS., 1960, pp. 226-227. These letters can also be found in Ben Zeev, Miriam Pucci, Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil, 116/117 CE, Peeters, Leuven Netherlands, 2005, in Part I, Ancient Sources, s. 2 Papyri, pp. 14-76.

2. The chief ancient accounts of the revolt, all very brief, are, written c. 326 C.E., Eusebius, The History of the Church, Penguin Books, London, 1965, Book 4, s. 2. See also Early Church Fathers, Church History of Eusebius, Here, in the Tetrullian website. Orosius, written c. 410 C.E., Seven Books of History Against the Pagans, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 50, The Catholic University of America Press, Inc., Washington DC, 1964, Book 7, s. 12. For a Latin version of this text see Paulus Orosius: Historiarum Adversum Paganos, Here, in the Attalus website. Dio, Cassius, written c. 220 C.E., Roman History, Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann, London, 1925, vol. 8, Book 68, s. 32, see Cassius Dio: Roman History, Here, in the LacusCurtius website. Dio's account unfortunately only survives in summary form. A few interesting tidbits about the revolt are found in The Babylonian Talmud, Sider Nashim, vol. III, Sotah, 49a-49b, Soncino Press, London, 1936, see also The Babylonian Talmud, Here and the The Talmud of the Land of Israel, vol. 17, Sukkah, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1988, pp. 116-119. For modern accounts of the revolt see Tcherikover, above, pp. 79-93, 225-227, Schurer, Emil, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Vol 1, T & T Clark Ltd., Edinburgh, 1973, pp. 529-534, Applebaum, Shim’on, Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene, E.J. Brill, Leiden The Netherlands, 1979, pp. 251-256, 269-305, Pucci, Marina, La Rivolta ebraica al Tempo di Traiano, Giardini Editori E. Stampatori, Pisa, 1981, [This is a good over all account of what little we know.] See also Ben Zeev in Footnote 1, [This account provides a detailed listing of virtually all the extant, inscriptional, literary, papyrical sources complete with originals and translations. The rest of the book is a analysis of certain themes and controversies, like the timing of the revolts, the duration, causes etc., rather than a overview of the course of the revolt.]  Alon, Gedaliah, The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age, vol. II, Magnes Press Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1984, pp. 386-427, Smallwood, Mary E., The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletion, E.J. Brill, Leiden the Netherlands, 1976, pp. 389-427.

3. See Footnote 1, Tcherikover.

4. IBID, pp. 234-235.

5. IBID, pp. 233-234.

6. IBID, p. 236.

7. IBID, pp. 235-236.

8. IBID, pp. 237-238.

9. IBID, p. 238.

10. IBID, p. 240.

11. IBID, pp. 239-240.

12. IBID, p. 245.

13. IBID, pp. 244-246.

14. IBID, p. 248.

15. IBID, pp. 247-249.

16. IBID, p. 251.

17. IBID, p. 251.

18. IBID, p. 254.

19. IBID, p. 254.

20. IBID, pp. 253-254.

Pierre Cloutier

Napoleonic Fiasco
Why Egypt?

Battle of the Pyramids 1798

Napoleon was, undoubtedly, one of the greatest military geniuses of all time yet he was involved in number of truly disastrous military fiascos.1 The purpose of the following essay is brief look at the preliminaries of the first and probably least costly of these fiascos the Egyptian Expedition.

Although Napoleon only commanded the expedition for the first part of the expedition, (1798-1799), it is obvious that by the time he left the whole thing was headed for disaster and failure unless the French simply cut their losses.

The expedition had in many respects aspects that gave it the appearance of a hair-brained scheme. For example it involved transporting a large French army across the Mediterranean to Egypt in order to conquer and occupy it. That in the face of English naval superiority was more than a bit reckless. Further it involved attacking a possession of a power that was if not an ally of France a power favourably inclined to France; the Ottoman Empire. How annoying the Ottoman Turks made any sense is questionable. In other words the expedition stood a very good chance of being isolated in Egypt under attack by an infuriated formerly friendly power and the British.2

So just why was this hair-brained scheme approved and carried out? Well first of all the scheme although still quite a risk was not quite as hair-brained as appears in retrospect.

It all started in the mid 18th century after the French had established various commercial and governmental agents in Egypt. In the year 1777 the French government sent a diplomat named de Tott to check out the French position in Egypt. After completing his mission de Tott produced a memorandum for the French Minister of the Marine in which he claimed the defences were meagre and the country could be occupied with ease. De Tott mentioned that occupation of Egypt would lead to control of land routes to India, Persia and Arabia to say nothing of the advantages of digging a canal from the Red sea to the Mediterranean. Further the wealth of Egypt itself was quite considerable. Further to this the governing class in Egypt was the Mameluke's, who were both stunningly corrupt and very unpopular.3

The Mameluke's had more or less governed Egypt for more than 5 centuries. They had originally started out as slave soldiers for the Sultans of Egypt in the mid 13th century. They were generally from the peoples who lived in the Caucasus region at the eastern end of the Black sea. By c. 1260 they had achieved control over Egypt. In 1517 C.E., the Ottoman’s conquered Egypt and overthrew the last of the Mameluke Sultans however despite this Egypt remained largely under their control.4

Under their rule, government, administration, taxes etc., became increasingly capricious and arbitrary. So that by 1798 it appeared that Egypt was ripe for the taking. Especially since the Ottoman Turks had little control over Egypt.

Also as a matter of course the Mameluke's although personally capable of great bravery were to put it bluntly quite inept at the art of war. In all it seemed like a good idea.

It did however have some rather severe drawbacks which should have caused the idea to be permanently shelved as a pipe dream.

First was the simple fact that the invaders would be at least nominally Christians would set off a great deal of animosity in an Egypt that was largely Muslim. So however much the average Egyptian may dislike the Mameluke's and their corrupt brutal rule they were not likely to have positive feelings regarding being ruled by Christians.

French Supressing an Uprising in Cairo
Secondly the climate of Egypt was one not very comfortable for European troops and very unhealthy for the inhabitants much less un-acclimatised Europeans. That Europeans would do badly health wise in this climate with its myriad diseases was a given.

Thirdly in the face of English Naval supremacy such an expedition would be likely to be cut off from reinforcements and basically trapped in Egypt.

Fourth despite Ottoman Turk dislike of their nominal vassals the Mameluke's any invasion of Egypt by the French would be regarded as and a declaration of war and would certainly cause a war between the Turks and the French.

Fifth the Turks, English and Russians regarded each other with great suspicion. The Turks for example, with cause, thought the Russians were aiming at the partition of the Ottoman Empire. The Russian’s thought the English were out to deny them commercial advantages in the Middle East and the English regarded both the Turks and Russians as out to screw them over. An Invasion of Egypt was all too likely to bring all these enemies together, at least temporarily, to drive the French out.

Sixth finally the simple fact is the current Ottoman Sultan and his government were very favourably inclined towards the French government and was basically an ally of the French. Under those circumstances it seemed pointless to annoy the Ottoman’s by invading one of their provinces.5

But the course human stupidity cannot be stayed. It appears that aside from the rather overdeveloped tales of the riches to be obtained by occupying Egypt that the real reason was quite simple. The government in France was frustrated at being unable to get a grip at its main enemy England. English Naval supremacy made an invasion of Egypt seemed a cheap and cost effective way at, somehow, striking at England. The fact that the blow struck someone else seemed beside the point.

Further despite English Naval superiority since 1796 the English had evacuated the Mediterranean because of Spain’s alliance with France. So it seemed that perhaps an invasion of Egypt did not have to worry about English Naval superiority.

Napoleon had his own reasons. He apparently underplayed the difficulty of the task and looked at it as a way of adding to his fame and fortune for home political advantage. In 1797 Napoleon had already explored the possibility of overthrowing the government and making himself ruler of France. At the time the idea sunk like a rock and he got virtually no positive feedback for that idea. Meanwhile the Directory that ruled France regarded Napoleon as a danger to it and thought the idea of Napoleon 1000+ miles away a really great idea. In Egypt Napoleon could not intrigue against the government. Napoleon saw it as another way to build up his fame and fortune.6

Well the results were predictable and virtually inevitable. The invasion was the catalyst that led to the formation of the Second coalition against France. The Ottoman Turks declared war on France. Egypt was conquered but proved difficult to hold, even with the manifest military incompetence of the Mameluke's. Nelson destroyed the French fleet in the battle of the Nile and trapped the French in Egypt. In late 1799 Napoleon abandoned his troops in Egypt in order to reap advantage from a political crisis in France. Perhaps at another time I will write about that shameful episode. In late 1799 Napoleon engaged in a coup that brought him to power.

In Egypt disease and attrition steadily reduced the size of the French forces. Finally in 1801 after years of steady attrition and a decaying situation the French left after negotiating a face saving capitulation that allowed them to return to France. Of the c. 50,000 French soldiers and sailors that went to Egypt 23,000 came back the rest were dead. This does not include the large number of Egyptian, dead from massacre, starvation, war, and one must add the English and Turkish dead.7

Aside from the fact that this Expedition marked the beginnings of modern Egyptology from the work of the scientists and specialists Napoleon brought with him the Expedition did little good. Perhaps at another time I will discuss other aspects of the Expedition.

French measuring the Sphinx
1. In Chronological order these fiasco's are The Egyptian Expedition, 1798-1801, The St. Dominique Expedition, 1801-1803, The Peninsular War, 1808-1814, The Russian Campaign 1812.

2. Herold, J. Christopher, Bonaparte in Egypt, Harper and Row Pub., New York, 1962, pp. 4-21, Fregosi, Paul, Dreams of Empire, Cardinal, London, 1989, pp. 146-154, Esdaile, Charles, Napoleon’s Wars, Penguin Books, London, 2007, pp. 61-70, Blanning, T.C.W., The French Revolutionary Wars 1787-1802, Arnold, New York, 1996, pp. 228-230.

3. Herold. p. 8-10, Fregosi, pp. 156-158.

4. IBID.

5. Kinross, Lord, The Ottoman Centuries, Morrow Quill Paperbacks, New York, 1977, pp. 417-418.

6. See Footnote 1 and Blanning, T.C.W., The Origins of the French Revolutionary Wars, Longman, New York, 1986, pp. 173-199.

7. Herold, pp. 1, 388-389.

Pierre Cloutier

Diffusionistic Fantasies I

One of the most persistent mythological ideas concerning the development of civilization in the Americas is the notion that the pre-Columbian civilizations of Americas were the result of the diffusion of cultural traits from the Old World to the New World.

In other words that civilization in the New World was the result of the diffusion of cultural traits from the Old World to the New World.

Now this idea was fairly popular in the late Nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and has since declined considerably in popularity. However it still has many adherents the great majority of whom are not experts in the Civilizations in question or even terribly knowledgeable or experts who just like thumb their noses at the “orthodox establishment”.1

Now one of the most persistent characteristic’s of this type of thinking is a pervasive inability to believe that the Peoples of the New World could have developed civilization on their own.2 Thus the accomplishments of the peoples of the New World is nothing more than them borrowing from the peoples of the Old World.3 Part of this approach is the infamous “White God” mythos which is to put it politely a total crock.4

Now this attitude is worth exploring in greater detail elsewhere but her I will examine just one example of diffusionistic reasoning. The example of Pyramids. It is a common trope in Diffusion literature.

The idea is that the peoples of the Americas got the idea of pyramids from the Old World; most commonly they were alleged to be copying the pyramids of Egypt.5

Pyramids of Giza, Egypt

Here is where nomenclature helps confuse the issue. Simply calling two things by the same name does not prove that the two things are the same thing. For example we have wolves in the Old World & North America and on the island of Tasmania there used to exist, the now extinct, Tasmanian wolf. The fact is the Tasmanian wolf is not a wolf at all, but a marsupial and aside from being a mammal is not related to wolves at all, which are placental mammals.6 Thus calling something the same thing as something else does not prove that they are identical or that there is any sort of relationship between them. In the case of the Tasmanian wolf, they certainly look dog like, but are about as close to dogs as is the Spiny Anteater or Platypus.

Tasmanian Wolves
In the case of the Pyramids it is the same the fact that pyramids in Egypt and Mexico / Peru look alike does not prove that they are linked in any way. In order to link the two items one must do a comparison and this involves discussing that they were made of and how they were made.

Egyptian pyramids like the Great pyramid at Giza were largely built as tombs for the Pharaohs of Egypt. The era of the building of huge spectacular pyramids in Egypt lasted only a little less than a two centuries.7 This was the period of the 3rd and 4th dynasties.

It was during the reign of these Kings that Pyramid building reached its climax and then went into rapid decline. Ever since the unification of Egypt under the 1st dynasty Egyptians had been increasingly experimenting with stone work and with building stone monuments. By the beginning of the 3rd dynasty the Egyptians were fairly accomplished in this work.8

It was during the reign of Pharaoh Djoser of the 3rd dynasty that the first spectacular example of both pyramid construction and massive stone work was built. Djoser’s step pyramid and the mortuary complex around it are the first outstanding examples of truly massive stonework in human history. It is also a very well built series of constructions that are in quite good shape considering their age, (more 4500 years!).9

Step Pyramid of Djoser

In terms of construction the Step pyramid of Djoser was constructed of a series of stepped layers and the stone blocks constructing it were much smaller that the stone blocks later used.10 It was all part of the process by which the Egyptians were learning how to construct massive stone monuments. Later developments would add smooth sides to the pyramids and, enlarge the blocks of they were composed add granite covering stones and make them progressively larger.11

However towards the end of the 4th dynasty pyramids got drastically smaller. For example Menkaure’s pyramid is only about ¼ the size of the Great pyramid.12 Afterwards in the 5th and 6th dynasties pyramids were drastically smaller and far less finely constructed , being made largely of rubble and mud brick. It appears that Egyptians decided that the enormous cost of building such colossal and finely built edifices of stone was simply not worth it anymore.13

Now if the idea of Pyramids were brought to the Americas by people who were influenced by structures like the Great Pyramid one would expect pyramids in Mexico / Peru to resemble them. The problem is they do not.

Pyramid of the Sun, Teotihuacan

Because of the very extensive time period over which pyramids were built in the Americas and the very wide diversity of cultures and places that built them there was, not surprisingly a great diversity of methods by which pyramids were constructed in the New World.

Pyramid, Tikal, Guatemala

There are some commonalities; however, one is that the pyramid had an earth / mud brick / rubble interior and that it was almost always used as a platform for a temple where sacred services / rituals would be performed. Also not infrequently there would be burials in the pyramids, but there chief purpose seemed to almost always have been platforms for temples.14

Pyramid at Sipan, Peru

Now one of the problems for the idea that someone had to bring over the idea of building pyramids from the Old World is that it is hard believe that it would not have independently occurred to someone that piling up earth etc, was a way to build an impressive monument. The fact is that the pyramid shape has a great deal of stability and strength and anyone who engages in trying to build impressive mounds will find out that the four sided shape is remarkably stable. Once you start building such monuments you would naturally come to this conclusion.15

Aside from differences between the purpose and techniques of building pyramids between Egyptian and New World pyramids there is the rather difficult task of explaining why New World inhabitants would seek to copy pyramids built during the great age of Pyramid building. As I said above the great age of Pyramid building lasted less than 200 years and then pyramid building went into rapid decline. After all pyramids built did no start being built in Mesoamerica until c. 1500 B.C.E., and they could not by any stretch of the imagination be compared to stone built Egyptian pyramids. If there was diffusion one would expect copies of the rather roughly stone, adobe, rubble cores with stone facings of pyramids of the Middle Kingdom.16

Of course by 1500 B.C.E., the Middle Kingdom was over and the New Kingdom had began and Egyptian Pharaohs from were being buried in rock cut tombs not pyramids. So just why would Egyptian visitors teach Mesoamericans to build pyramids when they were not building them anymore? That along with different purposes, and techniques of construction, aside make it highly dubious one as anything to do with the other.

As for South America, the same strictures apply as above with one important exception. The first pyramids in South America date to c. 3500-3000 B.C.E., at Notre Chico in Peru!17 This needless to say throws a severe monkey wrench into the idea that the natives of the New World got the idea for building pyramids from elsewhere.

Pyramids at Caral Peru, Notre Chico Culture

In fact it appears vastly more likely that if there was diffusion of pyramid building it would have been from Peru into Mesoamerica rather than from the Old World to either Mesoamerica or South America.

Now a much better idea, if you’re going to postulate diffusion is from Mesopotamia to the Americas, at least in terms of time. Mesopotamia developed into a complex society between 4000-3000 B.C.E., and during the same time period started erecting platforms, made of baked mud brick and rubble, for temples.18 This is about the same time period for the development of the pyramid temples of the Notre Chico civilization so it does fit the time period. Further Mesopotamian Ziggurats did have temples on their tops. However it does run into a whole series of problems. The four most important being.

Ziggurat of Ur, Iraq

1. If there was contact one would expect some artifacts from Mesopotamia in Peru and some artifacts from Peru in Mesopotamia. What one finds is nothing.19

2. The techniques of building are very different. For example Mesopotamian Ziggurats were built of baked mud brick with rubble cores. The pyramids of Notre Chico were built of earth and some rubble put into place in reed baskets.20

3. Mesopotamian Ziggurats don’t look a lot like Peruvian or Mexican pyramids.

4. The Mesopotamian Ziggurats did not attain the form that looks like pyramids until after Egyptian pyramids, (c. 500 years later). Which of course precludes them being inspirational for Notre Chico civilization.21

Now it is of interest to report that although the Mesopotamian Ziggurats look at lot more like New World pyramids than Egyptian pyramids they were never used as burial places, meanwhile New World pyramids were often used as burial places. Egyptian pyramids were always used as burial places and never used as platforms for temples.22

The dual use of so many New World pyramids would seem to indicate that some sort of independent development was going on.

Also one would expect that if there was contact between the New World and the Old world that one would find Old World artifacts in the New World and New World artifacts in the Old World in the relevant archaeological strata. One does not. With the exception of a slew of truly dubious alleged finds which have no providence and just show up with no background the finding of pre-Columbian Old World artifacts in the New world has been to all apparently zip. The same is true for New World finds in the Old World.23

Certainly if Egyptians influenced the development of Mexican Pyramids or in fact brought the idea, one would expect to find some Egyptian artifacts in the New World during this time period. In fact one does not find such artifacts. The same is true for Mesopotamian artifacts. They are absent.24

As said above it is absolutely incredible that anyone would think that it requires someone to bring the idea of building large impressive mounds to the New World. That such an idea would never occur to anyone except one lone genius in all of human history, from whom everybody took the idea. One just has to look at children playing in a playground to realize that piling up earth and sand is a very common idea.

Further the techniques of building Old World as against New World pyramids are different. To quote:

But those early Meso-American pyramids were made of earth and rubble covered with clay or plaster. The impressive stone structures that tourists travel to Mexico City, Yucatan, and Guatemala to see belong to the Classic Period (c. 300-900) or later. Even these later monuments were built with a core of earth and rubble and only an outer coating of limestone blocks. This building technique is quite different from those used to erect pyramids in Egypt or ziggurats in Mesopotamia.25

Also as indicated above the time periods are all screwed up. What with the Mesoamericans taking up pyramids after the Egyptians had abandoned them. And most decisively that the earliest pyramids on Earth seem to be Peruvian. If anyone spread the idea it would be from Peru to the rest of the world. Yes before the Egyptian pyramids before Babylonian Ziggurats Peru structures superficially like them were being built in Peru; in the coastal desert valleys.26

Of course some authors make foolish use of the tomb of Pacal in the Temple of the Inscriptions, (c. 670-700 C.E.) and say that it is a copy of a Pharaoh’s pyramid tomb in Egypt complete with sarcophagus. Unfortunately aside from missing the fact that why would a Mayan King imitate a tomb built 3000+ years earlier, there is the fact that Pacal’s tomb including the sarcophagus are only superficially similar. Also Pacal’s tomb is in many ways, including its huge stone sarcophagus unique in Mesoamerica, (so far). I further note not a trace of Egyptian iconography or artistic influence can be found in the tomb. (Ditto for Mesopotamian)27

Tomb of Pacal in The Temple of the Inscriptions, Palenque, Mexico

In many respects the attitude that assumes that because something looks like something else they are linked assumes that:

A) Similarity proves contact / influence without regard to details.

B) Similarity cannot arise or is very unlikely to arise independently.

Both of those assumptions are dubious. Given that humans are biologically similar and have similar brains the idea that they just might come to similar solutions to similar problems should not be a surprise.

Why so many want to deny the possibility that the natives of the New World were largely responsible for the civilizations of the New World is in itself a very interesting question that says a great deal about those who propose it.

Akapana Pyramid, Tiwanku, Bolivia

1. See Williams, Stephen, Fantastic Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1991, Steibings, William H., Ancient Astronauts Cosmic Collisions and Other Popular Theories About Man’s Past, Prometheus Books, Buffalo NY, 1984, Fagan, Garrett, Review of Voyages of the Pyramid Builders, from In the Hall of Maat Here.

2. See for example Heyerdahl, Thor, Early Man and The Ocean, Vintage Books, New York, 1978.

3. An all too common attitude see for example IBID, and such books as Marx, Robert F., & Marx, Jennifer, In Quest of the Great White Gods, Crown Publishing Group, New York, 1992.

4. See Marx above & Heyerdahl pp. 93-126. For an effective demolition of this nonsense see Davies, Nigel, Voyagers to the New World, William Morrow and Co. Inc., New York, 1979, pp. 125-140, Reece, Katherine, The Spanish Imposition, from In the Hall of Maat, Here, Townsend, Camilla, Burying the White Gods, American Historical Review, vol. 108 No. 3, June 2003, also at In the Hall of Maat, Here.

5. Heyerdahl, pp. 85-86.

6. Thylacine, Wikipedia Here.

7. Edwards, I. E. S., The Pyramids of Egypt, Second Edition, Penguin Books, London, 1961, p. 297. (2700 – 2500 B.C.E.)

8. Rice, Michael, Egypt’s Making, Routledge, London, 1990, pp. 169-198.

9. IBID, Mendelssohn, Kurt, The Riddle of the Pyramids, Sphere Books Ltd., London, 1974, pp. 45-54, Edwards, pp. 53-80.

10. IBID, Edwards.

11. IBID. pp. 90-115.

12. Mendelssohn, p. 48.

13. IBID, 127-131, Edwards, pp. 170-210.

14. Stiebings, pp. 120-125.

15. For an amusing demonstration about the strength of pyramid structures see Thomson, Devon, Stressed Out Structures, at Here. It turned out that a pyramid could handle c. 9 times the weight that caused other structures tested to collapse. See also Fagan.

16. Edwards, pp. 211-253.

17. Notre Chico at Wikipedia Here. see also Moseley, Michael E., The Maritime Foundations of Andean Civilization: An Evolving Hypothesis, From In The Hall of Maat Here.


18. Bertman, Stephen, Handbook to Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 194-198.

19. Davies, pp. 9-10.

20. Bertman, pp. 194-198, Lost Pyramids of Caral at BBC Here

21. Stiebings, p. 121.

22. Stiebings, pp. 120-125, Feder, Kenneth L., Frauds, Myths and Mysteries, Mayfield Pub. Co., Mountain View CA., 1999, pp. 172-175.

23. See Note 19.

24. IBID.

25. Stiebing, p. 124.

26. Footnote 17.

27. Schele, Linda & Mathews, Peter, The Code of Kings, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1998, pp. 95-132.

Pierre Cloutier

Around Africa according to Herodotus

Some of the most amazing feats of exploration are very poorly known. For example it appears that the first circumnavigation of Africa was achieved some time during the reign of Pharaoh Necho II of the Saite dynasty, (610-595 B.C.E.).1 Herodotus describes the voyage as follows:

For it is clear that Libya [Africa] is surrounded by water except for where it borders Asia. The first one we know of to have discovered this fact was Nechos king of Egypt. After he had stopped excavation work on the canal, which extended from the Nile to the Arabian Gulf, he sent some Phoenicians off on boats with orders to sail around Libya and back through the Pillars of Herakles [Straits of Gibraltar] into the Mediterranean Sea and to return by that route to Egypt. And so the Phoenicians set out from the Erythraean Sea [Red Sea] and sailed the Southern Sea. Whenever autumn came, they would put in to shore at whatever region of Libya they happened to have reached in order to sow seeds. There they would wait for the harvest, and after reaping their crops, they would sail on again. This they did for two years, and in the third, they came around through the Pillars of Herakles and returned to Egypt. They mention something else which I do not find credible, though someone else may: that when they were sailing around Libya, the sun was on their right side as they went.2

Phoenician Merchant Ship

Not surprisingly the above account has given rise to much discussion about whether or not it describes a real event. The consensus seems to be that it does for two main reasons.

First the amount of time given for the voyage, more than two years is realistic given the types of ships available and their limitations. Certainly the added detail of the crews stopping twice to sow crops also rings true. Secondly the detail that Herodotus records only to dismiss it as unbelievable, i.e., the sun being on their right is in fact true. This is true because in the Northern Hemisphere the sun if one is sailing westward the sun would always be on the left in the south. When one crosses the equator, the sun would appear overhead and then south of the equator the sun in the Southern Hemisphere would appear to the right in the north.3

It is in fact the second detail that is most convincing and it is rendered even more convincing in that Herodotus dismisses this as untrue. Apparently because he was unaware of the idea of the Earth having a spherical shape.4

Even in antiquity the above story was doubted by many. For example:

In giving the names of those who are said to have circumnavigated Libya Poseidonius says that Herodotus believes that certain men commissioned by Neco accomplished the circumnavigation of Libya; and adds that Heracleides of Pontus in one of his Dialogues makes a certain Magus who had come to the court of Gelo assert that he had circumnavigated Libya. And, after stating that these reports are unsupported by testimony,…5

The Historian Polybius also expressed doubts:

Just as with regard to Asia and Africa where they meet in Aethiopia no one up to the present has been able to say with certainty whether the southern extension of them is continuous land or is bounded by a sea,…6

Finally the great polymath Ptolemy had Africa joined to Asia! For example see this map made from the coordinates given in Ptolemy’s book.7

Ptolemy’s World Map

Also the whether or not the voyage actually happened has been doubted up to today, for various reasons.

The lack of detail for example, even the name of the Commander is not given. The lack of detail is hardly surprising however given that at the time it is unlikely that much more than a summary report would have been deposited in any archive or that after c. 100 years there would be much recorded except a brief summary and oral reports.

Further in regards to Herodotus; he may have heard details and simply recorded a bare summary of what he heard. We do know that Herodotus did not record everything he heard.8

So it appears that the lack of detail such as a notification of the disappearance of the Great Bear constellation, etc., is not much of a problem, further why then not ignore the telling detail of the position of the sun?

In fact the lack of elaborate detail, and fanciful stories are powerful indicators that the story is likely true. It sounds relatively prosaic and the only detail that Herodotus gives that he considers fanciful is absolutely true! Further the argument that the Pharaoh Necho would never approve of such a speculative venture is completely speculative. The fact is we do not know enough about him to judge what was or was not within his character.9

As for problems such as if they could make the voyage if they lacked a compass? It should remembered that they were following a coast line. On the way south on their west side and on the way north on their east side. This is not all that difficult. Given that sea travel in those days tended to be coast hugging and not a huge amount of cross oceanic travel, and considering that this particular voyage being into the unknown would if anything tend to be even more coast hugging it is not likely that a compass would be necessary to do it at all.10

Some have alleged the voyage is to short. This can be dismissed without further ado. The voyage took over two years, plenty of time even with two stops to grow crops. The idea that the sailors from the Northern latitudes would not have been able to judge when to plant makes them singularly unobservant and they could also ask the locals.11

As for why such a voyage was not repeated at a later date if it was in fact done. It should be remembered that the evidence we have indicates that later attempts to circumnavigate Africa were through the Mediterranean and down the west coast of Africa. There the currents and winds, especially for the vessels used in antiquity made such an attempt very difficult. In fact the Portuguese when they attempted it had great difficulty, because of winds and currents near the African coast. In the end they found that sailing far out into the Atlantic and then at the latitude of the Cape of Good Hope sailing East was the best way to do it. For the ships of antiquity such a voyage was frankly suicidal!12

Africa

The following is a possible reconstruction of the voyage. They probably left in November from a Red Sea port, they would have sailed out of the Red sea and into the Indian Ocean. There the wind and current would sweep them south. Until the Mozambique current caught them and moved them even further south past the Cape of Good Hope. Near by they may have stopped and sowed and harvested some crops, perhaps in May. Circumstances along with their orders would have urged them north, since the currents and winds that eased their journey south would have made any return voyage back up the east coast of Africa in the ships they had extremely difficult.

After the harvest the winds and currents would have helped them north up to the great bend of Africa. Along the Guinea coast they would have encountered winds and currents that were hostile but they could get past those obstacles because they could use oars. Some time in November December they would have stopped in Morocco and sown more crops and after harvesting them returned through the Mediterranean to Egypt after a voyage of c. 2 ½ years!13 They must have been glad to get home.

Of course for both the Phoenicians and Nechos this trip served to tell them that going around Africa for trade or shifting ships was not practical at the time. It also was a feat of sailing that was not duplicated, that we know of, for c. 2000 years. It was simply not practical until the late 15th century.

It is however of interest that even that long ago men were trying out daring feats of exploration and discovery and that man thirst for knowledge is not a modern invention.

1. Herodotus, The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories, Random House Inc., New York, 2007, p. 297-298, Cary, M. & Warmington, E. H., The Ancient Explorers, Second Edition, Penguin Books, London, 1963, pp. 110-119, James, Peter, & Thorpe, Nick, Ancient Mysteries, Ballantine books, New York, 1999, pp. 368-369, Casson, Lionel, The Ancient Mariners, Minerva Press, New York, 1959, pp. 129-132, Morison, Samuel Eliot, The European Discovery of America: The Northern Voyages, Oxford University Press, 1971, p. 5, Rennell, James, The Geographical System of Herodotus, V. 2, Second Edition, C. J. G. & F. Rivington, London, 1830, pp. 348-408, at Internet Archive Here.

2. Herodotus, 2007, Book 4, s. 42. Some translations add “-to northward of them.” See Herodotus, The Histories, 2nd Revised Edition, Penguin Books, London, 2003, Book 4. s. 42.

3. Herodotus, 2007, p. 299, Footnote 4.42.4a, James, pp. 370-371, Cary, p. 115, Casson, pp. 131-132.

4. James, p. 370.

5. Strabo, Geography, Book 2, s. 4, at LacusCurtius, Here.

6. Polybius, The Histories, Book 3, s. 38, at Lacus Curtius, Here.

7. See also Ptolemy, The Geography, Book 4, at Internet Archive, Here.

8. Lateiner, Donald, The Historical Method of Herodotus, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1989, pp. 59-75, Cary, pp. 114-115.

9. Cary, p. 115, Casson, pp. 131-132, James, pp. 369-373.

10. Cary, 115-116. James, IBID.

11. Cary, pp. 116-117, Casson, pp. 131-132.

12. Cary, pp. 117-118, Morison, Samuel Eliot, The European Discovery of America: The Southern Voyages, Oxford University Press, 1974, pp. 220-223, James, p. 374, Rennell, pp. 348-408.

13. Cary, pp. 117-119, James, p. 374, Casson, 131-132, Rennell, pp. 348-408.

Pierre Cloutier

A Note on Zero
Part I

Zero

One of the most important intellectual feats of all time was the invention of the Zero. Now “0” is what enabled the creation of a place system of writing numbers and in fact seems to absolutely necessary for higher mathematics aside allowing the use of numbers in a significantly less cumbersome way.

Now the “0” is a symbol meaning “nothing” and indicating non existence and as such the idea of something representing “nothing” can be a bit of a stretch especially if you figure out that this “nothing” is in fact a real number and not simply “nothing”.

Now the concept of Zero, as a number, since it is not obvious seems to have been invented only three times. In Ancient Babylonia, Mesoamerica and India.1 In each case the invention seems to be independent. So called uses of Zero like symbols in Egypt etcetera do not count in that they seem to have been used to indicate that nothing of X remained and not to have been used as a true number to count with. A dash in list by an item is also today commonly used to indicate nothing.2

Babylonian Zero

Now I mentioned above although a Zero represents “nothing” this nothing is still in mathematical terms a real number so that thinking of Zero as simply being nothing misunderstands what it is.3 This being the case any symbol representing nothing is not necessarily a Zero. In order for a Zero to be a true Zero it must be used in a numerical system and must be understood to be a number like other numbers.

Now to get to the point of what do I mean about a Zero being a “true number” perhaps one can look at the following problem:

6789 divided by 0 = ?

If you don’t treat Zero like a real number you get the answer “0”. If you treat Zero like a real number you get the answer infinity. In other words zero goes into 6789 an infinite number of times.4

Now the other use of Zero indicating that it is viewed as a “true number” and not simply an indication of nothing is if you use it in ordinary ways to number things. For example the Maya had Zero days, and years indicating that they understood Zero as a true number.5

Mayan Zero

It is strange that the Greeks and the Romans had a hard time with the idea of both infinity and the void and that this led them to avoid using a Zero. To put it simply the idea that there could exist “nothing” was thought impossible by most Greeks and Romans and further the idea that something could be infinite further bothered them has being both absurd and horrible.6

The Mathematicians of India however had no problem at all with either the idea of a void “nothing” or the idea of infinity. The result was that they devised a Zero and place system of writing numerals.7

Indian Zero

The Zero is one of these inventions that only seems obvious in retrospect. In fact it seems that the idea of using something to represent nothing and that that “nothing” is in fact something is simply counter intuitive.

Later I might write some more about the Zero but this is it for the time being.

1. Seife, Charles, Zero, Penguin Books, London, 2000, p. 12-19, 63-71, Ifrah, Georges, The Universal History of Numbers, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2000, pp. 148-156, 308-311, 438-439.

2. See web page on Egyptian Zero. Lumpkin, Beatrice, The Ancient Egyptian Concept of Zero and the Egyptian Symbol for Zero, Here Page provides some interesting material but fails to prove that the “Zero” is a Zero at all.

3. Seife, pp. 19-23, 131-156.

4. See Seife p. 71, Ifrah, p. 440, and Wikipedia, Division by Zero, Here. I should note that this answer does not solve all division by Zero problems and that this result can lead to mathematical paradoxes etc., if your not careful. See Wikipedia article for more info.

5. Ifrah, pp. 312-316.

6. Seife, pp. 19-62.

7. Ifrah, pp. 356-440, Seife, pp. 63-82.

Pierre Cloutier

Queen Pharaohs
 

In the world of Ancient Egypt it was considered normal that Pharaohs had to be male. It was viewed that a female Pharaoh was just not in keeping with Maat, (justice); that such a thing was a violation of the natural order of things. That attitude combined with the large harems of Egyptian Kings made it highly unlikely that in the traditional Egyptian State that women would achieve the supreme political position. However a couple of features were unique to Egypt made the possibility of female rulers possible in Egypt. The following essay will look at the following areas. The first section will be a brief look at the position of Queens and Princesses in Egyptian Royalty and society. The second will look at the four undisputed cases of Female Pharaohs, albeit briefly.
 

The Royal Women
 

It used to be thought that in the dynastic system the right to rule went through the female line, and this resulted in men marrying their sisters, mothers, daughters etc. In other words this explained the prevalence of Royal incest. The bottom line is that this idea does not work because there are too many exceptions to this. What appears to be the case is that Egyptian royalty conceived of itself as a divine group like the incestuous divine couples for example the brother sister pair of Osiris / Isis. The result was that the right to rule was dependent not just on the heritage as a divine individual of the Pharaoh but also his wife. The Royal Princesses carried this divinity also. So that a Pharaoh marrying a Royal princess with the right pedigree would improve and reinforce his claim to the throne. The importance placed on this seemed to have waxed and waned over the years and among the different dynasties. Thus a man having the "right" ancestry from both his mother and father would have an advantage over the older son of a Minor Queen of a lesser lineage.1
 

One result of this was that Royal Women had a position and power independent of their position as daughters, wives, sisters etc of royal men. For example Egyptian women were NOT given in marriage to foreign rulers. The reasons for this seem to be a combination of the Egyptian sense of superiority to other societies and the apparent fact that Royal Princesses would NOT marry non-Egyptians but were kept to ensure that the Royal household would continue to be large. Even when Egypt went into serious decline the marriage of Royal women to foreign rulers did not happen. At least we have no record of it until the Ptolemaic period, which was a non-Egyptian Dynasty.2

From the Tell-El-Armana letters we know that Foreign Rulers wrote directly to the Queens of Egypt. Apparently the Queens could engage in diplomacy in their own right. For example the letter of King Tushratta of Mitanni to Queen Tiye, Wife of Amenhotep III and mother of Akhenaton, requesting her assistance. Other such letters exist in the Tell-El-Armana letters. Also we know from the Hittite Archives that this diplomacy could reach a very high level, i.e., when an Egyptian Queen, probably Ankhesenamun the widow of Tutankhamun wrote King Mursilli of the Hittites requesting that he send her one of his sons so she could marry him and make him Pharaoh. Mursilli sent his son Zannanza who was apparently murdered and Ankhesenamun forced to marry Ay who became Pharaoh.3

We know that frequently when a new Dynasty was established the founder of the new Dynasty reinforced his claim to the throne by marrying a Princess of the previous Royal Family. For example the founder of the 2nd Dynasty seems to have married a Princess of the 1st Dynasty. This pattern was repeated by the founders of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 12th, 13th, 18th, 21st, Dynasties and probably by other Dynasties as well. It appears for example that Horemheb, the last Pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty was not a member of the Royal family but that he established his membership of the 18th Dynasty by his marriage to Mutnodjme a sister of Nefertiti and a member of the Royal family. It appears that Horemheb had no suitable sons to succeed him and therefore he appointed his Vizier Rameses to succeed him. Rameses became Rameses I founder of the 19th Dynasty. At the beginning of Egypt's history Narmer who is often identified with Menes the unifier of Egypt apparently cemented his conquest of Lower Egypt by marrying a northern Princess. More than 2,500 years later Ptolomy I initially tried to reinforce his claim to the throne of Egypt by marrying a Princess of the last native Egyptian Dynasty, the 30th. The marriage failed.4

An example of the importance of the Royal women was the position of "Heiress" and "God's Wife". The Chief Queen became the High Priestess of Amun. This position came into being during the reign of Amosis founder of the 18th Dynasty. Until this time the "God's Wife" was a women of rank. During Amosis's reign it became a position held by the chief Queen of the Pharaoh. The position also became hereditary within the Royal family through the female line so that each generation had a chief Queen who was also the "God's Wife". The result was that the Pharaoh had to marry has his chief Queen this Royal woman who was called the "Heiress". The position swiftly acquired great prestige and influence. The first "God's Wife" was Amosis's Queen Ahmose-Nefertari who was either his sister or cousin. All "Heiresses" had to be descendants of her. This gave the Queens of the 18th Dynasty formidable power independent of their position as wives and daughters of the Pharaoh. A Pharaoh was considered to be, hopefully, the son of a Pharaoh and a "God's Wife". If not The Pharaoh was usually married to the "God's Wife" as soon as possible even if the "God's Wife" was his sister.5
 

Later the position of "God's Wife" changed, during the period (c. 750 B.C.E. - 525 B.C.E.) The position was given to the eldest daughter of the Pharaoh. The "God's Wife" at this time was celibate and she resided in Thebes. Her successor would be the eldest daughter of the next Pharaoh, who she would train. By this time the Pharaoh's ruled Egypt from the Delta and the "God's Wife" in effect ruled upper Egypt from Thebes. By making sure their daughters functioned as viceroys for them in Upper Egypt the Saite Pharaoh's helped insure that Upper Egypt did not slip out of their control.6

The Four Queen Pharaohs

Queen Nitocris

Queen Nitocris one of the last rulers of the 6th Dynasty who ruled c. 2180 - 2170 B.C.E. There are many fantastic legends recorded about her in the writings of the Greek historian Herodotus, (5th century B.C.E.), and in the fragments of Mantheo, (3rd century B.C.E.). Herodotus records that Nitocris took power after the murder of the King, her brother, and murdered hundreds of Egyptians in revenge by flooding a chamber she had constructed and then lured them into. According to Herodotus she killed herself by jumping into a room full of ashes. Mantheo records similar fantastic stories and confuses her with the character of Rhodophis the Courtesan.

If we just had these stories it would be tempting to record Queen Nitocris has entirely mythical, given that no contemporary records or other archaeological evidence have been found concerning her. However the Turin Canon papyrus, (dated c. 1600 B.C.E.), that lists the Pharaohs of Egypt, lists her. The Turin Papyrus gives her reign has lasting 2 years, one month and a day. Mantheo gives her a reign of 12 years. Other sources give her a reign of 6 years.

 

It is the suppossed mention of her in the Turin Canon that makes her an historical figure and not a mythical figure. however it appears that the mention of her may in fact be the result of damage to the inscription and her historical status is not entirely secure. Although most Egyptologists accept her as being real. The circumstances of her alleged ascension to the throne are unknown although the stories recorded by Herodotus and Mantheo would seem to indicate that intrigue and the possible murder of her first husband played a role. After her alleged death the First Intermediate Period began with the reign of a few brief Pharoahs.7

Queen Sobeknafou



Queen Sobeknafou was the last ruler of the 12th Dynasty who ruled c. 1790 - 1786 B.C.E. According to the Turin Canon she ruled for a period of 3 years, 10 months and 24 days. She was the daughter of Pharaoh Amenenhat III and sister/wife of Amenenhat IV. Upon the death of Amenenhat IV she assumed the throne. Contemporary inscriptions give her royal titles and indisputably indicate her ruling as Pharaoh.

It appears that Queen Sobeknafou took the throne because no suitable male members of the Royal family were available. There is no evidence that her role of Pharaoh was resented then or later neither was she considered a usurper, as she is listed in later historical accounts as Pharaoh.
 

Queen Sobeknafou apparently selected as her successor the founder of the Egyptian 13th Dynasty. After her death Egypt's middle kingdom went into a serious decline and the Second Intermediate Period began.8

Queen Hatshepsut

Indisputably the greatest of Egyptian Queens and one of the greatest of Egyptian rulers. Hatshepsut was a Pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty who ruled c.1479-1457 B.C.E. She was the daughter of Thutmose I and had married her half brother Thutmose II to secure his hold on the throne.

Hatshepsut was the daughter of Thutmose I by his chief Queen or "God's Wife". As such her "pedigree" was better than that of her husband who was the son of Thutmose I and a concubine. Thutmose II reigned only for about 5 years before dying. Hatshepsut and Thutmose II had one child, a daughter. The inscriptions of the time period give Hatshepsut no unusual prominence over and above that of chief Queen and 'Gods Wife". Upon the death of Thutmose II, Hatshepsut as chief Queen and mother of the next Heiress Queen, her daughter Nemonje becomes regent for Thutmose III, (at most 12 years old at this time), Thutmose II son by a concubine or secondary wife.
 

Regencies like this had happened before but this time a crisis seems to have developed. By the second year of the regency Hatshepsut was emerging from the background and by year seven the transformation was complete, she was Pharaoh, co-ruler with Thutmose III nominally and ruler in fact of Egypt. What has been called a "creeping coup" was a success.

Hatshepsut then embarked on a vast propaganda campaign and an ambitious building program to justify her rule. She claimed to be a daughter of the God Amun and that her father Thutmose I had selected her to succeed him. Hatshepsut emphasized her descent from both Thutmose I and his Chief Queen, thus indirectly emphasizing that her divine ancestry was better than that of both her half brother Thutmose II and her nephew Thutmose III and hence her right to rule.

In fact Hatshepsut backdated the start of her reign to the death of her father Thutmose I. Despite this no effort was made by her to dispose Thutmose III or to exclude him from the nominal symbols of being Pharaoh. It appears possible that Hatshepsut, given her later actions probably did exercise an enormous amount of influence during the reign of her half brother / husband Thutmose II, the written record gives no evidence of this however.
 

During her reign has part of her propaganda campaign Hatshepsut built near the valley of the kings the beautiful and magnificent temple at Deir-el-Bahri and had numerous monuments erected to justify her right to rule. As part of this propaganda campaign she had herself depicted wearing male garb and sometimes wearing a male pharaonic beard, at other times she was depicted as a women.

Hatshepsut as a woman
 

Her foreign policy was one of peace abroad and the pursuit of trade. One of accomplishments was the re-establishment of direct trade with Punt a country located in modern day Somalia. Direct trade had been broken off centuries earlier. At Deir-el-Bahri the walls are covered with inscriptions describing this expedition. Also has part of this campaign Hatshepsut linked herself with the expulsion of the Hyskos from Egypt. Virtually no military campaigns are recorded during her reign.
 

One of the perennial mysteries of Egyptology was how Hatshepsut managed to keep Thutmose III under control, until he was in his early thirties. Thutmose III has been called Egypt's Napoleon and was one of the most formidable soldiers ever to have lived. And aside from being a formidable general was an all round strong Pharaoh. How Hatshepsut was able to take power and to keep it in her hands until Thutmose III was well past the age of ascension, (in Egypt 15 years of age) is a mystery.
 

It used to be though that after Hatshepsut's death, (which in this school of thought may have been arranged by Thutmose III), Thutmose III had her monuments defaced and destroyed in a fit of revenge against his step-mother for usurping the throne and keeping him in the background. It is now known that this attack on Hatshepsut's memory occurred 20 years after Hatshepsut's death. Even more importantly it appears that during the later part of Hatshepsut's reign Thutmose III was apparently in command of the army. It appears likely that Hatshepsut and Thutmose III worked together and that the theory of unbridled hatred by Thutmose III against his step-mother is myth. The reasons for the attack against Hatshepsut's memory apparently had little if anything to do with personal animosity. If this is the case Hatshepsut probably died of natural causes still Pharaoh of Egypt.
 

Hatshepsut was not listed in the list of Egyptian rulers probably because she was considered a sort of usurper. During the reign of her successor, Thutmose III, Egypt became the most formidable military power in the middle east. Hatshepsut's reign was apparently a great success and inaugurated Egypt's Golden Age.9

Queen Twosret

Queen Twosret was the last ruler of the 19th Dynasty and she ruled c. 1193-1185 B.C.E. Twosret was the wife of Seti II and apparently upon the death of her husband made herself co-ruler with Siptah, Seti's son. It is not clear if Sipah was also Twosret's son also. It is clear that Siptah was very young, (less than 10 years old), when his father died.

It appears that Twosret was a member of the Royal family by descent although how closely she was related to her husband is not known. Certainly the ease with which she took the throne indicates this, further she is listed in the official lists of Egyptian rulers, which indicates that her rule was accepted as fully legitimate. Siptah did not live long dying in c. 1191 B.C.E. After Siptah's death Twosret ruled alone, depending on the source, any where from 2 - 6 years, (more likely 6 years).

After the death of Rameses II, (c. 1212 B.C.E.), Egypt was subject to a series of major crises of foreign invasion, drought, a breakdown of law and order and rampant corruption. The reign of his two successors Merenptah and Seti II were both short. It appears that when Seti II died there were no suitable, male, Pharaoh's available so Queen Twosret became Pharaoh as the only suitable member of the Royal family available.

Queen Twosret's tomb in the valley of the kings is imposing in both size and grandeur, and the start of its construction appears to predate her ascension as ruler of Egypt. It appears that even during the reign of her husband Seti II she was a formidable figure.

During the later part of her reign she was involved in a power struggle with her Vizier Bay over the succession and she may have been deposed. This is unlikely given that her chosen successor Sethnakhete came to throne shortly after her death and established the 20th Dynasty. Egypt's long decline was well underway by the time her reign started.10

Two Ambiguous cases

Queen Meryt-Neith

 

Queen Meryt-Neith was the chief Queen of Wadj, the third ruler of 1st Dynasty, c. 3000 B.C.E. Queen Meryt-Neith is poorly known and she is not mentioned as a ruler in any of the Egyptian king lists.

 

What makes some it likely that Meryt-Neith ruled as Pharaoh is that she was buried like a Pharaoh. For example a solar boat was buried with her. An honor reserved for a king. Also Meryt-Neith had a tomb in both Upper and Lower Egypt, which during the 1st and 2nd Dynasty was only done with Pharaohs to symbolize their rule of the two lands. Also buried with Meryt-Neith were 40 attendants who were killed to accompany her into the hereafter, which again was at the time something done only for Pharaohs. If the burial had been of a man it would have been accepted unquestionably as a Pharaoh's tomb. It appears likely that Meryt-Neith was regent for her son the Pharoah Den. Athough she may have ruled alone or co-ruled with her husband.11
 

 

Queen Nefertiti

Queen Nefertiti was the wife of the Pharaoh Akhenaten, called the "Heretic Pharaoh", c. 1350-1334 B.C.E. It appears that she was a member of the Royal family probably a cousin of Akhenaten and not a sister. Due to the contentious nature of reign of Akhenaten and the myriad disputes about virtually every aspect of this period nothing is at all clear about Nefertiti's position. No inscription describes her as Pharaoh however a number of indications have been, reasonably in my view, been interpreted has indicating that Nefertiti may have co-ruled with her husband for a time if not succeeded him for a time has Pharaoh.
 

We know that Nefertiti supported the religious reforms of the period and had with Akhenaten 6 daughters. The art of this time period shows in rather loving and intimate detail a loving relationship between Akhenaten and Nefertiti which as made them attractive to modern tastes.

Among the treasures of world art is the magnificent bust of Nefertiti found in the ruins of Akhenaton's capital at Tell-el-Amarna. It is perhaps the most perfect example of unearthly, divine beauty ever created. It was found in the work shop of the chief sculptor of Tell-el-Amarna, by the name of Thutmose. It purpose was not, as a work of art in its own right but to serve as a model for other sculptors, while working on sculptured reliefs, of how to sculpt the face and head of Queen Nefertiti. The bust now resides in the Berlin Museum where it is considered one of it's greatest treasures. This sculpture more than any other object associated with Nefertiti has made her world famous.
 

The Bust of Nefertiti
 

If the art of the Amarna period is the reason for how well Nefertiti is known to today, modern historians are more interested in the questions concerning her influence and importance. In this there is lots of speculation and few facts.
 

We know that with the ascension of Akhenaton Nefertiti was also elevated to a position of great importance. In the temple that Akhenaton built at Thebes, shortly after his reign started, Nefertiti's image is as prominent has his and more common. Also it appears that certain colossal images that had been thought to portray Akhenaton, with very large hips, thighs and no visible genitalia in a skin tight costume are in fact of Nefertiti. If this is the case, the statutes also have a Pharonic beard like Queen Hatshepsut, the statutes also show Nefertiti holding the Croup and the Flail, Egyptian symbols of Kingship. Later in the reign a relief shows Nefertiti wearing a triple Atef-crown which is usually worn only by Kings. In fact Akhenaton's religious reforms which elevated the Aton, the disk of the sun, into the supreme, and possibly only, God required that his subjects worship the Royal family as divine. Nefertiti in this system was a combination fertility symbol and the wife of the sun. The implication seems to be that sometimes early in the reign of Akhenaton Nefertiti became co-regent with her husband, certainly Nefertiti is shown frequently performing tasks performed usually only by kings.

Inscriptions describing and referring to Nefertiti late in the reign are few and sparse. The old solution to this problem was that Nefertiti was leader of the "radical" Atonists and was exiled to the North Palace at Tell-el-Amarna where she lived until she died. Variations of this idea are used to explain her sudden disappearance in about the 14th year of the reign of Akhenaton. Another idea is that Nefertiti was not exiled but that she reappeared as the mysterious and shadowy Smenkhare, usually thought to be a son of Akhenaton, who was co-ruler with Akhenaton and who briefly survived Akhenaton. A variation of this is that Nefertiti was another character referred to in the inscriptions which is usually thought to be another name for Smenkhare, Ankhheperure who then was co-ruler with Akhenaton. All of this is quite contentious. Recent genetic analysis has provided evidence that Smenkhare was a real figure and not Nefertiti. The simplest solution for the problem of Nefertiti's disappearance, and one supported by some evidence, is that Nefertiti simply died in the 14th year of Akhenaton's reign.

After the death of Akhenaton his new capital was abandoned and his religious reforms were dropped and within one generation an effort was made to erase the memory of the reign of Akhenaton, Smenkhare, Tutankhamen, Ay all of whom were tainted with the heresy of Atonism. In fact the last Pharaoh of the 18th dynasty, Horemheb, considered himself the direct successor to Akhenaton's father Amenhotep III. The reigns of at least 4 Pharaoh's and 5 if Nefertiti was in fact Pharaoh was systematically erased from History. Later Egyptian king lists do not mention any of the Amarna kings or Queens. Until the late 19th and early 20th century this rewriting of history was successful. Nefertiti was only rediscovered after being buried in oblivion for 3000 years.12

Such is an outline of the major native Egyptian Queen Pharoahs.

 

Footnotes

1. Aldred, pp. 134-141, Tyldesley, 1994, pp. 187-203.

2. Tyldesley, 1994, p. 185.

 

3. Aldred, pp. 228-229, Tydesley, 1994, pp. 202-203.

4. Breasted, p. 93, 98, 335, Race, p. 141, 144, see also Ancient Egypt, Here

5. Aldred, pp. 134-145.

6. Ancient Egypt, Here, Tydesley, 1994, pp. 204-206.

7. Tydesley, 1994, pp. 216-218.

8. Tydesley, 1994, pp. 218-220.

9. Breasted, pp. pp. 220-235, Tyldesley, 1994, pp. 220-230, & 1998.

10. Tyldesley, 1994, pp. 237-241, Breasted, p. 339.

11. Tyldesley, 1994, pp. 214-215, Rice, pp. 122-123.

12. Tyldesley, 1994, pp. 231-237, & 1999, Aldred, pp. 219-230.

 

Sources:
 

Tyldesley, Joyce A., Daughters of Isis: Women of Ancient Egypt, Penguin, London, 1994

Tyldesley, Joyce A., Nefertiti: Egypt's Sun Queen, Penguin, London, 1999.

Tyldesley, Joyce A., Hatchepsut: The Female Pharaoh, Penguin, London, 1998.

Kuhrt, Amelie, The Ancient Near East: c. 3000-330 B.C., Vol 1, Routledge, London, 1995.

Kuhrt, Amelie, The Ancient Near East: c. 3000-330 B.C., Vol 2, Routledge, London, 1995.

Aldred, Cyril, Akhenaten: King of Egypt, Thames and Hudson, London, 1988.

Breasted, James Henry, A History of Egypt, Bantam Books, New York, 1964.

Rice, Michael, Egypt's Making, Routledge, London, 1991.

 

Sitek, Dariusz, Ancient Egypt, Here.

 

Pierre Cloutier