First published 2015
Amberley Publishing
The Hill, Stroud
Gloucestershire, GL5 4EP
www.amberley-books.com
Copyright © Charlotte Booth 2015
The right of Charlotte Booth to be identified as the Author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without the permission in writing from the Publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN 9781445642857 (PRINT)
ISBN 9781445642987 (eBOOK)
Typesetting and Origination by Amberley Publishing.
Printed in the UK
All photographs and drawings are by the author unless otherwise stated.
Dedicated to my mum, who encouraged my love of Egyptology from a young age.
Margaret Dorothy Hanna
22 April 1939 – 23 May 2014
CONTENTS
Map
Timeline
1. Living with the Ancient Egyptians
2. Passing the Time
3. Household Religion
4. Love, Sex and Marriage
5. Childhood
6. Working for a Living
7. Legal Matters
8. Disease and Medicine
9. Death and Burial
Picture Section
Notes
Map of Egypt courtesy of Peter Robinson.
TIMELINE
Pre-Dynastic Period
Before 3150 BCE
Early Dynastic Period
Dynasty 0: 3150–3050 BCE
Dynasty 1: 3050–2890 BCE
Dynasty 2: 2890–2686 BCE
Old Kingdom
Dynasty 3: 2686–2613 BCE
Dynasty 4: 2613–2500 BCE
Dynasty 5: 2498–2345 BCE
Dynasty 6: 2345–2181 BCE
First Intermediate Period
Dynasty 7 and 8: 2180–2160 BCE
Dynasty 9 and 10: 2160–2040 BCE
Middle Kingdom
Dynasty 11: 2134–1991 BCE
Dynasty 12: 1991–1782 BCE
Second Intermediate Period
Dynasty 13: 1782–1650 BCE
Dynasty 14: exact dates unknown
Dynasty 15: 1663–1555 BCE
Dynasty 16: 1663–1555 BCE
Dynasty 17: 1663–1570 BCE
New Kingdom
Dynasty 18: 1570–1293 BCE
Dynasty 19: 1293–1185 BCE
Dynasty 20: 1185–1070 BCE
Third Intermediate period
High Priests (Thebes): 1080–945 BCE
Dynasty 21 (Tanis): 1069–945 BCE
Dynasty 22 (Tanis): 945–715 BCE
Dynasty 23 (Leontopolis): 818–715 BCE
Dynasty 24 (Sais): 727–715 BCE
Dynasty 25 (Nubians): 747–656 BCE
Dynasty 26 (Sais): 664–525 BCE
Late Period
Dynasty 27 (Persian): 525–404 BCE
Dynasty 28: 404–399 BCE
Dynasty 29: 399–380 BCE
Dynasty 30: 380–343 BCE
Dynasty 31: 343–332 BCE
Graeco-Roman Period
Macedonian Kings: 332–305 BCE
Ptolemaic Period: 305–30 BCE
1.
LIVING WITH THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS
‘Seven houses, forty-nine cats, 343 mice.’1
In a book of this type, which investigates the everyday lives of the Egyptians, it is easy to present the ancient Egyptians as a homogenous society who were easily categorised into particular behaviours, beliefs and practices. The ancient Egyptian society was as diverse as any modern one, and making generalisations about them is as misleading as making generalisations about a society or nation today. A statement like ‘the British eat fish and chips every day’ or ‘the Spanish enjoy bullfighting’ will be followed by a barrage of questions and comments: ‘What about the vegetarians?’, ‘In modern Britain we are more conscious of our health and avoid fried food,’ and ‘There are many Spaniards who are against animal cruelty.’ Any ancient Egyptian reading an average book (including this one) about their ‘everyday lives’ would no doubt make similar comments and objections. All humans, ancient and modern, are comprised of conflicting emotions and characteristics, and cannot be categorised so simply. We are only able to unravel some of these contradictions of personalities from the evidence available, showing that people in ancient Egypt really were not much different from those in the modern world.
When approaching a book like this we are limited by the available evidence, although with ancient Egypt we are extremely lucky as a great deal of information has been drawn from archaeology, human remains and the written record. However, the majority of evidence only provides information about the top 10 per cent of society: the middle classes, elite and royalty. The majority of ancient Egyptian society, the farmers, peasants and thousands of lower-class women and children, is simply anonymous. Rarely, the name of a servant will be preserved in the tomb of their employer, ensuring they will be available to the tomb owner in the afterlife. One such servant was Ptahsankh, who tended land belonging to the scribe Ramose from Deir el-Medina. In one of Ramose’s tomb chapel paintings he is depicted ploughing with West and Beautiful Flood, Ramose’s cows. Ptahsankh states, ‘The fields are in a good state and their grain will be excellent.’2
Most of these anonymous ancient Egyptians lived a pastiche of the life discussed in the following pages, or at best aspired to live such a life. Unfortunately, until the evidence of the lives of the anonymous 90 per cent is found, there is little that can be done to address this imbalance.
In order to truly understand the scale of this imbalance it is essential to understand the structure of ancient Egyptian society. There was a very strict hierarchy, like a pyramid, with the king at the top, followed by a small number of officials, then the middle classes and finally the peasants forming the base of the pyramid. Most of the evidence we have comes from royalty, the elite and the middle classes.
Although there are numerous written texts from ancient Egypt, these refer to an even smaller proportion of the Egyptian society as estimates for literacy range between 1 and 4 per cent.3 Even for someone holding an elite position in society, such as a vizier or an entrepreneur running a large estate, literacy was not considered essential as any written records could be produced by a professional scribe. Therefore, the number of elite, administrative positions skews the perceived level of literacy in Egypt. It should also be considered that, for the most part, girls were not educated and therefore literate women were unusual, although not unheard of. In some instances where female literacy is discussed, the prejudices of the Egyptologists themselves influence the interpretation of the evidence. For example, in the tomb of Menna (TT69), in Luxor, a scribal kit is depicted under the chair of Menna’s wife. If this was under Menna’s chair it would automatically be interpreted as evidence of his literacy. However, as it is under his wife’s chair some suggest it does not show literacy but is simply a sign of revered status. Even in the case of four Middle Kingdom women who held the title of scribe it is suggested the titles were honorary.4 However, why this should be the case is never adequately explained.
Whereas illiterate elites could employ the services of a
scribe should they need to record something, this may be beyond the financial means of an illiterate labourer. However, such workers were still able to communicate in written form, as is demonstrated by New Kingdom laundry lists. The laundry men at Deir el-Medina each collected clothes from approximately eight households daily to wash along the Nile edge. In order to record what they had collected they drew the items (e.g. loincloths, fringed shawls and tunics), and marked each with a dot corresponding to the number which had been collected.5 This raises a further issue of a scale of literacy. Does a laundry list constitute literacy or merely communication? Either way, it is just as important to Egyptologists reconstructing the lives of the lower classes and provides an insight into their daily activities.
The most valuable information we have about the day-to-day lives of the ancient Egyptian community can be found in their villages, and excavations have uncovered a number of villages, including (but not limited to) the Middle Kingdom town of El-Lahun (Kahun), the Second Intermediate Period city of Tell el-Dab’a and the New Kingdom towns of Deir el-Medina and Tell el-Amarna.
There are two types of village structure: the organic and the purpose built. Deir el-Medina is an example of a purpose-built village, constructed to house the workmen who built the Valley of the Kings. It was constructed as a single project within a non-expandable village wall, and the only adjustments made were within the designated footprint of each of the houses within the wall. On the other hand, Tell el-Dab’a was an organic town which was first inhabited in the Middle Kingdom and expanded until it was elevated to capital city during the Second Intermediate Period, and again during the reign of Ramses II (1279–1212 BCE) when it was known as Pi-Ramses.
El-Lahun was originally built to house the workmen who constructed the pyramid of Senusret II (1897–1878 BCE) in the Middle Kingdom, and is the largest known settlement from this period. It was originally called Hetep-Senusret (‘Senusret is Satisfied’) and had an approximate ground-plan of 260 x 260 metres square. Initially it housed the workmen and their families, and once the pyramid was complete it housed the priests who maintained Senusret II’s funerary cult.
The village was surrounded by an enclosure wall, and the streets and houses were laid out in regular lines and arranged so the western block, which was on higher ground, could be guarded by a single watchman. This western area was divided from the eastern block by a large mud-brick wall, and there is some discussion as to whether the two sides of the settlement were able to communicate with each other.
The western block was comprised of back-to-back terraced houses.6 Although they were unable to deviate from the basic footprint of their home, the inhabitants renovated their houses within the basic external walls to accommodate their family needs, to the extent that they sometimes bought the house next door and knocked through.
The streets were wide in El-Lahun, some as much as five metres across and the side streets between three and four metres wide.7 Evidence of channels between the houses was discovered by Petrie, which were used to drain water from flash floods and household waste. This is the earliest known drainage system of this type and Petrie assumed all settlements had such systems.
To the west end of the northern extreme of the town was an elevated platform which Petrie called the acropolis, or ‘high city’.8 This platform accommodated a large, palatial house, which he thought may have housed the guards when the king visited; others believe it to be an administrative centre, religious building or even the home of the mayor. There were also a number of large, palatial buildings (42 by 60 metres) to the east of this palace and it seems that some of the highest officials in the land lived here. This could have included the vizier, treasurer and secretary of royal documents. It is suggested that these large houses are better described as urban estates, which acted as administrative and economic hubs in the city, accommodating the needs of the family as well as serving a business function.9 There also seems to have been a prison in the city, although this is thought to be situated in the part of the settlement now lost.10
During the New Kingdom reign of Amenhotep III (1386–1349 BCE), El-Lahun was re-inhabited, although only the western workman’s village was reoccupied and there were many abandoned buildings. At this time the temple of Senusret II was being dismantled in order to reuse the blocks, and the reoccupation may have been related to this project. In the Roman Period, when the area was dug for limestone, the town was once more temporarily occupied.11
The village of Deir el-Medina has provided most of the information we have about New Kingdom daily life. It was called ‘The Place of Truth’ and was built to house the workmen who carved and decorated the Valley of the Kings. Situated on the west bank of the Nile, at Luxor, away from Theban life, it comprised a village, temples, chapels and an extensive cemetery with more than 400 tombs. The inhabitants here were therefore socially isolated and reliant on the government for staples (food and water), which were transported to the village on a daily basis. However, they were not prisoners, and moved freely to the markets on the east bank and visited relatives in other parts of the country.
They were kept informed of what was happening in the wider world by messengers coming to the village. For example, in ‘year one, first month of winter, day sixteen, the scribe Paser came with good news, saying “Sety II has arisen as ruler”’.12 Although many of these messengers were anonymous, one, Amenemheb, was the father of Ramose, who was to become the scribe at Deir el-Medina during the reign of Ramses II (we learnt about his cows above). Amenemheb was responsible for carrying messages and reports between the officials of Thebes13 and clearly educated his son in administration, enabling him to rise to such an important position.
Of course, such a message system meant the villagers were reliant on the government and scribes for accurate information, and there was always the danger of information being censored or spun.
The village which now stands was initially constructed during the reign of Thutmose I (1524–1518 BCE), although most of the surviving evidence is from the nineteenth and twentieth dynasties, when the village was at its prime. Although Deir el-Medina was built as a single project, over the centuries houses were extended, knocked through or remodelled, all within the non-expanding enclosure wall. The absentee record shows that workmen took days off work in order to construct or decorate their houses. One entry claims Paneb paid the draftsman one sack of an unknown produce ‘for the construction work he did in my house; a workroom and another wall’.14
Deir el-Medina remained inhabited for over 400 years, with only a brief abandonment during the reign of Akhenaten, when the capital city moved to Tell el-Amarna (see below). The village comprised approximately sixty-eight houses and housed only the tomb workmen and their families. Workmen included sculptors, engravers, coppersmiths, carpenters, plaster-makers and masons.15 Auxiliary staff serving the village, such as wood cutters, fishermen, carriers of vegetables and gardeners, lived outside the walls. The original village had one main street running north to south, with smaller narrow alleys running between the houses. These alleys may have been covered with reeds, providing shade from the sun. Each house had its own water jar, and records show each family received between 96 and 115 litres per day. It is likely that water carriers delivered the water to a centralised water storage point and the families collected it from here.
Both Ramses III (1182–1151 BCE) and later Ramses VI (1141–1133 BCE) tried unsuccessfully to dig a well on the northern edge of Deir el-Medina. The hole that remains is 52 metres deep, and when it was clear they were not going to reach water it was slowly filled up with rubbish and ostraca (fragments of limestone or pottery used as notepaper). These ostraca have proved essential to our understanding of New Kingdom daily life, as they include information on economic transactions, letters, administrative records, humour and literary texts. The written evidence coupled with the archaeological evidence of the houses, tombs and household items means we are often able to recreate the life of named individuals, know where
they lived and where they were buried and are able to hold their possessions.
An extremely fragmentary papyrus from the village, currently in the Turin Museum, lists the occupancy of thirteen houses. It is surprising that none of the houses list more than five people living in them and there are seven houses occupied by single men. It is not clear why such a census was compiled, although it has been suggested it was connected with ration distribution or a wider monitoring of the village inhabitants. This list has proven interesting, as it outlines some of the social dynamics within the town. For example, Thutmosis, son of Khaemhedje, lived only two doors away from his sister Tenetpaip and her husband Amennakhte. More interesting is Tarekhan, who lived in her husband’s house and then moved to the house of her son and his wife,16 perhaps following her husband’s death or maybe even their divorce.
The cemetery serving Deir el-Medina was situated in the western cliffs and is particularly interesting. The tombs were constructed by the craftsmen who cut and decorated the royal tombs, but less rigidity in the artwork means scenes of daily life dominate over religious imagery.
The men residing at Deir el-Medina all had a role to play in the construction of the royal tomb, so during the week all except the elderly and very young were absent from the village, working in the Valley of the Kings on the other side of mountain. The working week was eight days long and the men were absent from the village for this duration,17 before coming home for a two-day weekend. The workmen were divided into two gangs, the left side and the right side, although how this connected to their placement in the tomb is uncertain. It is assumed the right side gang was responsible for working on the right side of the tomb, and the left side gang on the left side of the tomb.18 There was one foreman on each side, and like most occupations in Egypt it was hereditary, meaning it was common for one family to hold the position for many generations.
The foreman and the chief scribe acted as intermediaries between the workmen and the government, as well as keeping extremely detailed records of the workmen and their movements. From these records we learn that some roles were worked in shifts, such as doorkeeper, and one of the records states, ‘There was no doorkeeper here [today] except Psarpot, for Sanehem slept and the doorkeeper Sunero came only at noon.’19
Lost Voices of the Nile: Everyday Life in Ancient Egypt Page 1