Or hieroglyphs as the writing of ancient Kemet is now better known. In fact the translation of the two words means the same thing: sacred writing or script. The Kemite script was versatile in that it can be read from right to left, vice versa, or from top to bottom. Many signs are in profile, but out of all of the signs, the one that I am asked the most about is the frontal face (above).
The face sign
If you look at the column on the left side of the photograph above, you can see a version of the sign towards the bottom of the relief, with a line underneath it. When the face appears with the line, it spells the preposition ‘upon’, which is why it is so common on reliefs. It can be used in the writing of ‘upper’.
It’s sound is ‘hr’, which is the Kemite word for face, as confirmed by its similarity to the much later Coptic version of the word. The sound value can appear in other words too.
The example above is from the funerary temple of Hatshepsut, and so dates to what we now call the 18th Dynasty. If you look carefully you can see how much the original pigment has faded; there are traces of the original and darker colour on each side of the nose.
In Gardiner’s sign list this sign is listed as D2, a part of the human body.
Many people will recognise the somewhat unusual Was sceptre, which has an animal head with a long snout and prominent ears. It is thought that the animal is a form of canine or canid, for example a fox and that originally the sceptre was a type of fetish- containing the spirit and power of the animal. The bottom of the sceptre, unlike other kemite staffs, is forked.
The Was staff became synonymous with power and was often the sceptre held by a variety of gods and the king. It was thus a sacred emblem.
A giant Was sceptre
This remarkable object stands over 2 meters tall (over 7 feet) and weighs 65 kilos (143.3 pounds). It is made from glazed crushed quartz, from a mould. We now erroneously refer to this material as faience, because when it was seen for the first time scholars believed it was the same as an Islamic material, which is a glaze over pottery. The Kemite version is not, however, made of clay. I’ll write more about this in a future post.
The object was found by the Egyptologist Petrie in an inner chamber of a temple dedicated by Thutmose (I) Aakheperkare to the deity Seth in the Naqada region. Thutmose ruled from 1504 to 1492 BCE. However, the sceptre is inscribed with the names of a later king, also from the Dynasty 18: Amenhotep (II) Aakheperrure, who ruled from 1428-1397 BCE.
The object was in fragments when it was discovered and has been restored. It was originally made in sections from a mould which were then joined by the artist.
I first saw the object as part of an exhibition Gifts of the Nile. Ancient Egyptian Faience in mid-1990’s. Many visitors were drawn towards it because of its unusual appearance and its size. It was hard to comprehend that ancient people were capable of making something of these proportions out of a material that is difficult to work with and which has to be fired at exact and high temperatures. For me, it remains one of the most intriguing objects to have survived from the ancient world, not least of all because it was made over 3400 years ago. In this respect it is a testimony to the Kemite artisans.
A few people have commented on the photograph that I recently uploaded for the blog on the homepage and asked what it represents. It comes from a procession, which forms part of the festival scenes of Ramesses (III) Usermaatre-meryamun at his funerary temple on the West Bank, which is now best known as Medinat Habu. This is actually my favourite temple from Kemet, both for the decorations and because it also contains the chapels of the God’s Wives of Amun.
The pigment on the walls is extremely well preserved when compared to most other temples, and presents an idea of how colourful the temples of ancient Kemet once were. It also gives a clear indication of the complexion of the people.
The men features in the relief are royal attendants, in the section that I chose for the blog (shown above) they appear to be carrying the parts of a staircase- you can see the steps that are carried by the men in the middle section. This is a reference to the festival that we see depicted: The Festival of the Staircase. It was on his staircase that the god Min was presented with the first ears of corn from the harvest by the King.
To the right of the first scene is the scene above, which shows the King being carried as part of a procession; the colours used for the this scene were identical to those of the previous section, but as you can see from when I took this photograph, the sunlight falls directly on the wall and has almost erased the pigment.
Min was a fertility god, initially of animals but later of vegetation. He is often depicted with lettuce, which was believed to be an aphrodisiac by the people of Kemet. The final section of the procession (above) shows the god standing on a raised area. The procession carrying the King can just be seen to the left, as if walking at the side of the god’s platform ready to present him with offerings at the front. You can just about see their heads and the standards that they are carrying.
October is Black History Month in the UK and Kemet remains a popular subject choice when I am asked to present lectures. In fact this year I will presenting 4 lectures on Kush.
Kemet has inspired many people of African heritage, with many from the Diaspora making a cultural journey the Giza plateau; this included Malcom X during his 1964 trip to Africa.
Six years later the artist Jack Whitten produced an extraordinary piece of art entitled Homage to Malcom (above). The piece was recently displayed in the exhibition Soul of a Nation: Art in the Age of Black Power at the Tate Modern in London. The connection to Kemet was immediately apparent but on closer inspection of the piece and the accompanying information I learned that the surface was created by using an afro comb over the painted surface. Thus drawing on another shared history between African and its Diaspora of the comb.
Since the turn of the 20th century eminent African American scholars, artists and activists had made the connection between Kemet and the rest of the African continent, including the artist and print maker Charles C. Dawson and the scholar and civil rights activist W.E.B. Du Bois. Some people may be surprised to hear that Du Bois was in direct contact with early Egyptologist W.M.F.Petrie. Egyptologist Dr Vanessa Davies has been researching communications between the two; her early findings were reported here in a lecture and are well worth exploring and a good reminder of the long history of African American activism, which (of course) reaches back to when the first people were forcibly removed from their home land.
It’s just a pity that in the 21st century museums are still neglecting to even reference the connections between Kemet, African and people of African descent. In 2017 there should not still be a need to have Black History ‘Month’. African cultural heritage should be available to everyone all of the year round. Nor should the connection between Kemet and other African cultures be restricted to special exhibitions or projects; it should be made automatically and as a matter of course.
Notes on Black Abstraction Mark Godfrey in Soul of a Nation. Art in then Age of Black Power edited by M. Godfrey and Z. Whitley 2017.
Kemet Expert is now nearly 18 months old. It has been great to make new contacts, and to receive some really interesting questions and thoughts on matters relating to African-centered approaches to the study of Ancient Egypt. However, some readers who get in touch clearly do not share this viewpoint. I’m not sure how much clearer I could be about the purpose of this blog. So I’m re-posting below.
‘Kemet Expert’ is a blog dedicated to African-centred Egyptology. ‘Kemet’ was one of the ancient names given to the country that later became known as ‘Egypt’. However, more recently ‘Kemet’ implies an African-focused approach to the study of the ancient culture.
The blog is based on the premise that Ancient Egypt shares commonalities with other African cultures; and that in order to fully understand this ancient culture, it is necessary to draw parallels from other indigenous African cultures.
This blog is intended as a source of information for those who wish to view Ancient Egypt from an African-focused perspective. It is not intended as a forum for questioning this approach; many of these already exist.
Eurocentrics have been doctoring images since the advent of photoshop in order to support their view of ancient Kemet. However, I have noticed an increasing trend of people wishing to demonstrate support for an African origin for Kemet doing the same to prove their point. This is entirely unnecessary given the strength of cultural, visual and linguistic evidence to demonstrate that Kemet was an indigenous African culture in every sense. And in producing doctored memes, those who seek to support an African origin do the opposite, because they undermine the solid evidence that exists without their adaptations. In light of this phenomenon, I have been asked recently how I would suggest beginners should go about exploring Kemet within its rightful African context. This is what I would suggest. Other readers may have other ideas and it would be great if you could share these for novices.
Exhibitions usually follow a theme (there is supposed to be some rationale behind assembly objects in a temporary space). The catalogues or on-line exhibition websites are often a good way to obtain an introduction to a subject. On the Brooklyn Museum of Art website for example is information dating to 2006 , which explores Western interest in Ancient Egypt, and the contribution of African American scholars on Egyptology. Such places and also old catalogues can be a good place to start and second hand copies are often cheap and easy to find. But remember to look at the text critically. Statements should be backed up with evidence to support them. Do not mistake opinion for documented evidence.
Museum on-line catalogues
These are a great source, often with good images and an increasing number of museums are happy for people to download and use high resolution photographs for non-profit activities. Generally, the dates and identification of material is correct. Here is an example.
First thing to note is that the statue does not have a provenance (excavation site). It was purchased on the art market with a museum fund (Charles Edwin Wilbour Fund). This means that it could of course be a forgery. Next is the date, which is Ptolemaic and around 50 BCE. This is perfectly reasonable; I would probably date it the the century before because of the style of hair, which has parallels during the reign of Ptolemy VI but the period is certainly correct.
The material, here a stone known as Diorite is listed. Museums sometimes get the exact stone incorrect, because some of the Kemite stones look very similar to the eye.
The description. These vary and can be subjective and are often outside of a wider African context. Here, you will note the author makes a distinction between indigenous Egyptians and Greeks. They often include information about the condition of the object and if there are any restorations that may not be noticeable from the photograph.
References. Finally, this head has been in 3 exhibitions, which are listed alongside links to their pages. So, if you were interested in similar material this they would be a good place to go. Some on-line catalogues also contain a bibliography or reference list of publications that have included an object.
An African context
There are some on-line resources that combine material from Kemet and the rest of the African context. Triumph, Protection & Dreams was an exhibition that I co-curated a number of years ago. It explored similarities in use and design of headrests in East Africa and there remains a dedicated site showing the items that were on display. If museums don’t offer this facility then you can undertake the research yourself, by using the on-line resources for contemporary African cultures. Rather than selecting a department or culture you could search generically for ‘head rest’ and obtain a range of different dates and cultures, which you can then compare.
Most museums will not stress the African origin of material from Kemet, or offer an interpretation within a African-centered framework. However, having access to material that is not even displayed through the digitisation of collections is an invaluable resource for those wishing to explore Kemite material culture. You just need to be able to work around the framework and build up your own library of parallels from elsewhere in Africa.
Just a quick post to announce a great initiative this summer, which is free to take part and can be enjoyed in and with your local community. The Nswt Bity Experience is providing a simple way to celebrate the history of African hair in your local barber shop or beauty salon. The event will take place between 21 July and 7 August 2017.
The organisers have done all of the hard work by assembling images of Kemite objects and have provided all of the information ready for use. The idea is for barbershops and beauty salons to host a small photographic exhibition, to share knowledge, and to encourage families to learn more about the history of African hair. I fully endorse this project and hope that people will take part, share their experiences and keep the history of African hair and styling alive.
Further information on how to take part is available on the project’s Facebook page: Nswt Bity Experience
In Kemet there were both national and regional deities, sometimes with multiple forms. I thought it might be helpful to write a series of short posts looking at some of these gods and the functions that they served. Where better to start than the inventor of writing?
Probably better known as Thoth, his Greek name, Djehuty was the principal deity at a site called Khemenu in Middle Egypt. However, it is thought that he originated from the Delta because one of the administrative areas there had an ibis as its symbol, and Djehuty was depicted as an Ibis or with the head of an Ibis. One myth relating to his birth was that he sprung from the head of the god Set.
Djehuty played a key role amongst Kemite gods. He was the inventor of writing. He was ‘Lord of the Moon’ and in this capacity he was also seen as the ‘Lord of Time’ and ‘Reckoner of the Years’. This is why he is often depicted holding a scribal palette as seen on the relief below.
His links to the passage to the After Life can be found at the weighing of the heart scenes in tombs and on papyri. Djehuty was also seen as a protector of the god of the After Life: Wsir (Osiris), and this role would later be seized upon by the Greeks.
Djehuty as a Baboon
As noted Djehuty’s centre was at Khemenu, which was also home to a local deity Hedj-wer, who was depicted as a baboon. At some point in the New Kingdom the two deities seem to have merged and from this time we find Djehuty depicted as both an ibis and a baboon. The small faience figure above dates to the Late Period and shows the god holding the Eye of Horus.
Djehuty and the Greek Hermes
Later still, the Greeks saw Djehuty as an equivalent to their god Hermes and in fact the Greeks referred to the city of Khemenu as Hermopolis (the city of Hermes). It is thought that the link between these two deities was that Hermes was seen as a messenger, notably between the worlds of the gods and mortals, and that the Greeks also recognised this role for the more ancient Djehuty.
More commonly known by its Hellenic name of uraeus, the iaret or rearing cobra is synonymous with the goddess of Lower Egypt- Wadjet. The symbol was adopted by the Kemite kings and from the Middle Kingdom the rulers always wore this image on their brows. The iaret served two purposes: first, it referenced the King’s rule over the northern part of Kemet; second, it protected the royal representations and so the king.
On some royal representations from the New Kingdom, the cobra appears with the vulture, representing the goddess Nekhbet, who was the southern counterpart of Wadjet, together the goddesses were referred to as the Two Ladies (Nebet Tawy), which became the title for the Nebty name of rulers. Only one group of rulers wore the double cobra: those of Dynasty 25, who ruled Kemet and Kush simultaneously. It is thought that the dual iaret representing the two regions and that this is why it is only found on male rulers dating to this period.
Royal Women of Dynasty 18
Royal women generally wear a single cobra on their brows; however, when elevated to a goddess, they were awarded the vulture for protection and to recognise their status. This can be seen on the wall painting above where Ahmose Nefertari wears both a vulture and a cobra, representing her royal and divine status.
The first royal female to wear two cobras was Iset, who was the wife of Thutmose (II) Aakheperkare (1492-1479 BCE) and mother of Thutmose (III) Menkheperre (179-1425 BCE). On the statue above the Iset takes the title Mother of the King, and it is possible that the dual cobras were intended to distinguish her in this role as opposed to royal wife; unfortunately not enough statues survive to know whether she consistently wore the dual version of the royal motif.
Royal Wife of Amenhotep Nebmaatra (1388-1351 BCE)- Tiye- wore two cobras and a vulture on her representations. As you can see from the statue above, the cobra and vulture wear their appropriate geographical crowns thus representing the unification of the Two Lands of Kemet. The central figure of a vulture appears because the royal wife wears a full vulture headdress- if you look carefully on the statues above and below you can just seen the feathers of the vulture’s wings sitting on top of her hair.
Even the smallest of representations of this queen bore the same iconography, as illustrated by the small faience figure above. It is possible that Tiye adopted this iconography after the Thirty Year rule of her husband was celebrated- the Heb Sed festival. We know that she initially wore a single iaret and that the famous wooded statue of the royal wife (below) was adapted at some point and the single cobra replaced by two.
Possibly following on from Tiye, Nefertiti who was wife of Akhenaten Neferkheperure-waenre (1351-1334 BCE) in the early part of their reign also adopted the dual cobras, but not the vulture. And on the famous relief (below) the royal wife is shown with 3 cobras around her crown; and one of the royal children plays with one as if it were alive. This changed in the later years when the single cobra was used for her representations.
Royal Women of Dynasty 18
Nefertari, Principal Wife of Rameses Usermaatre-setpenre (1279-1213 BCE) in Dynasty 19 continued the tradition of wearing the double cobra, as seen on the colossal statue below and most of her other sculptures. During this period the double form seems to have been used to distinguish her as the Principal Wife.
Royal Women of Dynasty 25
As noted the Kings of Dynasty 25 wore two cobras on all of their representations, and were the first royal men to do so. The royal women during this period who were associated with the motif also had the elevated role of being the wife of the God Amun/Imen. On the tomb chapel of Amenirdis she and her successor Shepenwepet both wear the crown of the god (above). As goddesses on the relief the two women are shown with the divine vulture and headdress. However, on statuary they were shown with two cobras and a vulture. It seems likely during this later period that the double cobra and vulture were associated with title and role of God’s Wife of Amun/Imen.
Meaning of multiple representations of the iaret
For the male rulers of Dynasty 25 the dual iaret seems to be associated with the two kingdoms of Kemet and Kush, and this is certainly the conclusion that most Egyptologists draw, not least of all because it appears on sculptures in both kingdoms.
The dual iaret seems to have been reserved for royal women who fulfilled a particular role and is actually not at all commonly found. It can be associated with the roles of God’s Wife, Principal Wife of the King, and King’s Mother. Later in the Ptolemaic Period a triple form appeared. What this tradition shows is the careful consideration that went into representing members of the royal family and that this practice was ever-evolving, through until the last resident rulers, their wives and mothers.
My first degrees were in Classical (Greek and Roman) archaeology. I studied at King’s College, which is part of the University of London. Much of my undergraduate degree was spent in the British Museum looking at material culture from Greece and Rome, and this training played an important part in my subsequent decision to work in museums, to focus my research on archaeological material and what it could tell us about the past. Out of all of the categories of objects that I have studied, I have always had a preference for sculpture, irrespective of its culture of origin.
I was recently asked if early Greek statuary had been influenced by Kemite sculpture. My response, because I was taught this when I did those first degrees, was that yes- there was no question that that the Greeks had been influenced by the statues they had seen in Egypt.
Early Greek sculpture
Two types of figure are represented in early life-size Greek sculpture: Kouroi (singular kouros) and Korai (singular Kore). These words mean youth/boy and girl in ancient Greek, and these statues functioned as votive offerings or funerary markers. One of the earliest fully preserved is now housed in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (below). Believed to be from Attica, it dates from around 600-590 BCE and has a number of features in common with statuary from Kemet.
The statue strides forward onto its left leg.
The hands are clenched at the sides.
The proportions are similar to statues that were produced in Kemet during during the seventh century BCE.
Kemite sculpture of the seventh century BCE
The statue on the left represents an Kemite official named Mentuemhat, who lived around the time the Twenty-sixth and Twenty-fifth dynasties. He was a priest of Amun. The proportions of Kemite sculpture changed depending on the period that it was made. We know that artists used a grid system on a block of stone to ensure that the correct proportions were adhered to. You can see on this statue the striding stance and fists that early Greek sculptors copied. There were differences, as would be expected when one culture is influenced by another: Greek statues do not have a back pillar (see below) a feature of all striding Kemite statues, which was often inscribed. Also, the Greek statue is naked. This is not something that is found in Kemite sculpture. Mentuemhet, wears a kilt on the statue here.
Studies have shown that Greek sculpture was also created on a grid system, and that the proportions are similar to those on Kemite sculpture dating to the seventh century BCE. There is also the more practical question of contact and alternative influences. Prior to the appearance of the life-size kouros figures, Greek sculpture had only been produced on a much smaller scale. Some scholars (R.M. Cook for example) have tried to argue that the striding stance and clenched fists are coincidental. The transfer of artistic style from one culture to another is rarely coincidental and we have no evidence for this pose prior to the Greeks having contact with Egypt.
And when making associations it is of course essential that contact and influence was possible. There was considerable contact between the two cultures during the 26th Dynasty (664-525 BC) in the form of Greek mercenaries and later colonists, at sites such as Naukratis in the Delta. Around the same time that the new sculptural style emerged in Greece.
Some scholars have suggested that Greek sculptors were influenced by statues from the Ancient Near East. There is influence on some Greek art, from this region, perhaps most notably on pottery and small scale figures. However, there are no close parallels for the early statues.
Greek artists adopted and then adapted a style of Kemite sculpture for their own cultural needs. Even during the early phases of its development there were regional differences that were found throughout the Greek world. In many respects, and this was a conclusion that I made based on my doctoral thesis, Kemite artists were much more skilled at incorporating outside influences onto their sculpture, whether it was a portrait or costume. This is not something that Greek and Roman sculptors did. Perhaps because they didn’t have thousands of years of a sculptural tradition.