Case Studies Ethnicity: Constructions of Self and Other in Ancient Egypt
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Egyptian History 11 (2018) 113–146 brill.com/jeh Case Studies ∵ Ethnicity: Constructions of Self and Other in Ancient Egypt Stuart Tyson Smith University of California, Santa Barbara [email protected] Abstract The construction of ethnic self and other played a central role in ancient Egyptian ideology as well as at a more quotidian level. Ethnic groups are usually seen as self- defined, distinctive entities, often corresponding neatly to political or cultural units, but in reality, expressions of ethnic identity are mutable and socially contingent. Adopting a multi-scalar approach informed by practice theory, this paper examines ancient Egyptian constructions of ethnicity, taking into account ideological and elite expressions of ethnic identity from art and texts and everyday practices revealed by archaeology. A carefully contextualized analysis shows how pejorative constructions of an ethnic other by the state contrast with more positive interactions and patterns of mutual influence at a more individual level. Keywords ethnicity – race – Topos and Mimesis – foodways – burial practice – Nehesi – Sinuhe – Hekanefer – Askut – Tombos © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/18741665-12340045Downloaded from Brill.com10/04/2021 12:23:48AM via free access 114 Smith 1 Introduction I am indeed like a stray bull in a strange land … No Asiatic makes friends with a Delta man. And what would make papyrus cleave to that moun- tain? Sinuhe.1 Ethnicity is a potent force in human societies. As a cultural construction of difference, ethnic identity serves to promote social solidarity but also to divide people into essentialized categories of self and other. Some scholars have argued that ethnicity is a modern concept, a product of the nation- alist movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.2 Sinuhe’s construction of essentialized categories of Asiatic and Delta man, however, shows that the concept has deep origins in the past.3 For ancient Egypt, ethnicity is reflected in ideology, literature, and archaeology. Sinuhe’s worry reflects the central role of difference in the construction and maintenance of ethnic identity. Ethnicity is usually defined as a set of shared cultural practices and primordial attach- ments. Herodotus defined the Greek ethnos as “the kinship of all Greeks in blood and speech, and the shrines of the gods and the sacrifices that we have in common, and the likeness of our way of life.”4 Akhenaton created a strik- ingly modern statement of ethnic difference in the Great Hymn to the Aton: “You set every man in his place … Their tongues differ in speech, their charac- ters likewise; Their skins are distinct, for you distinguished the peoples.”5 As Renfrew points out, modern definitions of ethnicity rely on a similar combina- tion of common descent, language, culture, and beliefs.6 Ethnicity is often described as a self-defined, shared identity, but the ethnic self is inevitably constructed and defined by the ethnic other, who are often given negative attributes. This was certainly the case in ancient Egyptian ide- ology.7 In contrast to Akhenaton’s benign statement of difference, depictions and accounts of foreigners in official contexts presented them in a negative light, as barbarians or even animals to be resisted, conquered and tamed.8 In the broad strokes of Egyptian theology, the Egyptian ethnos was surrounded by 1 AEL I, 227. 2 Kohn, The Idea of Nationalism; Handler, Nationalism; Banks, Ethnicity, 123–31. 3 For a wide-ranging discussion centered on the Mediterranean, see McInerney, Companion to Ethnicity. 4 Rawlinson and Blakeney, Histories of Herodotus, vol. VI, 44. 5 AEL I, 131–32. 6 Renfrew, “Prehistory and the Identity of Europe.” 7 Cf. the approach of Liszka, this volume, who focuses on self-identification. 8 Loprieno, Topos und Mimesis. Journal of Egyptian DownloadedHistory from 11 (2018)Brill.com10/04/2021 113–146 12:23:48AM via free access Ethnicity 115 figure 1 Map showing the four main ethnic groups emphasized in Egyptian ideology and sites mentioned in the text. Images of foreigners after Lepsius, Denkmaeler, Pl. 136 public domain three different opposing ethnic groups, Nubians, Asiatics, and Libyans (Fig. 1). Each group, including Egyptians, was depicted with distinctive dress, cul- tural features including hairstyles, jewelry and body modifications (tattoos for Libyans and scarification for Nubians), and physiognomy (skin color and Journal of Egyptian History 11 (2018) 113–146 Downloaded from Brill.com10/04/2021 12:23:48AM via free access 116 Smith facial features). These negative ethnic stereotypes helped to define a posi- tive Egyptian ethnos. Ethnicity is not, however, inevitably constructed in these negative terms, instead varying from positive to negative depending on the social context of interactions between ethnic groups. In spite of Sinuhe’s trepidation as a Delta man amongst Asiatics, he was nonetheless welcomed by Ammunenshi, the ruler of upper Retenu (Canaan). More prosaic Egyptian texts and archaeology reflect a more positive interethnic dynamic, where difference still played a role but not necessarily a negative one. In the end Sinuhe even became an Asiatic, marrying one of the Ammunenshi’s daughters and adopt- ing Canaanite lifeways. His experience, even though likely fictional, reflects a common dynamic of ethnicity. In spite of its construction as an essential cat- egory acquired at birth, studies show that ethnic identity is both mutable and socially contingent. 2 Ethnicity, Race, and Ancient Egypt Ethnic identity is a powerful phenomenon. It is powerful both at the affective level, where it touches us in ways mysterious and frequently unconscious, and at the level of strategy, where we constantly manipu- late it.9 Ethnic identity is a specific kind of cultural phenomenon, a creation of a consciousness of difference. As with Herodotus’s definition, ethnicity is con- structed as a set of primordial, distinctive traditions handed down from time immemorial and bounded in space. In spite of this essentializing self-defini- tion, ethnic identities are in praxis surprisingly fluid and socially contingent. Ethnic identity is subjectively constructed and has the potential to shift and adapt as individual actors confront different social contexts.10 This fluidity means that ethnic groups are not as clearly bounded as one might expect and thus can be difficult to track in both the historical and archaeological record. Jones resolves this issue through the use of practice theory, arguing that eth- nicity derives from a selection of features drawn from the habitus, the habitual cultural practices shared by a group, roughly equivalent to the general con- cept of culture.11 The habitual patterns that make up the thread of daily life 9 Royce, Ethnic Identity, 1. 10 Royce, Ethnic Identity; Knapp, “Mediterranean Archaeology and Ethnicity”; Siapkas, “An- cient Ethnicity and Modern Identity.” 11 Jones, Archaeology of Ethnicity, 92–94. Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice. Journal of Egyptian DownloadedHistory from 11 (2018)Brill.com10/04/2021 113–146 12:23:48AM via free access Ethnicity 117 are largely unconscious, but can become self-conscious and evolve through innovation and when confronted with difference. The features selected to rep- resent the essential qualities of different ethnic groups, both self and other, are drawn from the reality of the habitus, but should not be equated directly to his- torical or archaeological cultures.12 Instead, ethnic identities are constructed from a subset of cultural features meant to emphasize difference and are often distorted and/or exaggerated, particularly in the case of other-ascription. As a social construct, ethnicity can thus be defined through narrow differences and partly or even completely fictive primordial ties, regardless of the “objec- tive” reality of ancestry or cultural similarity.13 Since social practices relating to ethnic identity are expressed materially, they can in principle be found in the archaeological record.14 Competition and conflict sharpens ethnic polarization, reflected by Sinuhe’s trepidation upon reaching Upper Retenu and in the ideological constructs of “barbaric” foreigners found in Egyptian ideology. Loprieno’s distinction between topos and mimesis in the representation of foreigners in Egyptian text and art provides a useful lens through which to examine the ethnic dynamics of Egyptian society, one which will be explored further below.15 Ancient Egyptian and Near Eastern celebratory texts and imagery created and juxtaposed a posi- tive ethnic self against negative ethnic others in order to legitimize the power and authority of their kings.16 But this sharply polarized picture breaks down in more prosaic textual sources and archaeological evidence that points to pos- itive intercultural and ethnic interaction. For example, Liszka notes an initial fluidity in the application of the ethnonym Medjay in different social contexts, sometimes as a sub-set of Nehesi (Nubian), sometimes differentiated as a sepa- rate group. Created by Egyptian bureaucrats as an ethnic stereotype, she argues that what began as an other-ascription of ethnicity was accepted, or co-opted, by semi-nomadic desert groups as positive connotations began to characterize the ethnonym in the context of day to day interactions with Egyptians dur- ing the Middle Kingdom. By the New Kingdom, the term referred to an elite paramilitary force,17 but this in itself does not mean it had completely lost its connotation as an ethnonym. This