The Pennsylvania State University Schreyer Honors College
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS AND ANCIENT MEDITTERENEAN STUDIES EARLY STATE FORMATION AND THE MARGINS OF IDEOLOGY DANA PIRROTTA SPRING 2020 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for baccalaureate degrees in Political Science and Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies with honors in Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies Reviewed and approved* by the following: Gonzalo Rubio Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies Thesis Supervisor Erin Hanses Lecturer in Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies Honors Adviser * Electronic approvals are on file. ii ABSTRACT To ensure perpetuation, states recognized the power of manufacturing an ideology that sustained the perception of royal legitimacy. An ideology enveloped copious potential for power, but was also naturally fragile, requiring constant maintenance and fodder. Preservation was revealed through the fabrication and dissemination of a royal genealogy, used to legitimize the institution of royal kingship. In a competitive environment, it was not enough to rely on divine rule, and the state often focused on deploying extensive propaganda campaigns against entities that threatened them; the peripheral “others.” These campaigns were influential within the state, noted through iconographic representations, but failed to accurately portray what are described as mutually beneficial economic relationships across administrative records. This juxtaposition is nestled deeply within the elusive historical narrative and cannot alone pronounce the true influence peripheral peoples exerted over their settled counterparts. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v CHAPTER ONE LEGITIMIZING THE STATE: DIVINE KINGSHIP 1 Divine Kingship as the Root of State Legitimization 1 Conceptualizing Ideology and the Discrepancies of Divine 5 Divine Kingship in Pre-Dynastic Egypt 12 Classical Maya Divine Kingship 16 Divine Kingship in the Ancient Chinese State 19 Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East 26 CHAPTER TWO 36 LEGITIMIZATIONTHROUGH XENOPHOBIC ICONOGRAPHY 36 Iconography and the Relationship of Portrayal 36 The Narmer Palette 38 The Garden Party Relief 43 The Victory Stele of Naram-Sîn 47 Standard of Ur 52 CHAPTER THREE 60 A BAD REPUTATION: MOBILE PASTORALISM 60 Origins of Perspective 60 Mobile Pastoralists as Relational Figures 69 CHAPTER FOUR 79 EVOLUTION IN PERCEPTION 79 Fallacy and Fallacy: Exploring Perceptions of the “Amorites” 79 Old to Middle Kingdom: Asiatics as the Ideal “Other” 93 CONCLUSION: Kingship and Kinship 104 BIBLIOGRAPHY 108 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Drawing of the Cairo Colossus.. .............................................................................................. 13 Figure 2. Ānyáng Divination Texts CUL 52. ......................................................................................... 24 Figure 3. Weld Blundell Prism ................................................................................................................ 28 Figure 4. Photograph of the Narmer Palette ............................................................................................ 39 Figure 5. Drawing of the Narmer Palette’s Carvings .............................................................................. 40 Figure 6. Garden Party Relief. ............................................................................................................... 45 Figure 7. Drawing of the Garden Party Relief. ...................................................................................... 45 Figure 8. Victory Stele of Naram-Sîn, King of Akkad ........................................................................... 48 Figure 9. Drawing of Victory Stele of Naram-Sîn .................................................................................. 48 Figure 10. Royal Standard of Ur. “Peace Side.” .................................................................................... 54 Figure 11. Royal Standard of Ur. “War Side.” ....................................................................................... 54 Figure 12. Asiatics at Beni Hasan. .......................................................................................................... 96 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude for the Pennsylvania State University and the Schreyer Honors College for providing me the opportunity to academically achieve as a proud Nittany Lion. I thank my parents and family, who supported me throughout the entirety of my accomplishments and failures, and know the best is yet to be. I am indebted to my professor of four consecutive years, and endearing collegiate role model, Professor Gonzalo Rubio. You were there to commend my proudest moments, and an advocate in times of complete defeat. Thank you for investing time and energy into my personal success and making Penn State a home where I knew I was cared for. You have reinvigorated my adoration for learning in a climate that emphasizes performance, and I will be forever grateful for the impact you have had on my life. For the Glory, Dana C. Pirrotta 1 CHAPTER ONE LEGITIMIZING THE STATE: DIVINE KINGSHIP Divine Kingship as the Root of State Legitimization In the modern world, it might be initially challenging to quantify the value of a list. With abundant sticky-notes and accompanying ballpoint pens, lists are associated with the grocery store, “To-do’s”, and daily planners. While seemingly mundane, lists were utilized for a far more staggering function in the ancient world; to legitimize the status of a divine king and the institution of kingship itself. While social orders vary cross-culturally, the elite class was typically the most dependent on the legitimization provided by the social order. For this reason, the primary goal of the elite class was to transmit information to the masses in a manner that supports and would perpetuate their legitimate status. Assmann states, “the basic principle behind all connective structures is repetition.”1 Repetition, as a powerful tool in both ancient and modern times, instills a permanence that refutes potential curiosities of variation, and instead deepens patterns that will be viewed as the backbone of a shared culture. This backbone is known as “memory culture” and is a reference to the external application of conditions on behalf of a society that are passed down intergenerationally. (Assmann 2011: 3-15) When mimetic memory becomes ritualized, the sequences of imitation, “assume a meaning and significance that go beyond their practical function.”2 This allows ritual to become part of a society’s cultural memory, functionally dissipating meaning to present and future 1 Assmann 2001: 3 2 Ibid., 6 2 generations. This process is applied to symbols, iconography, and other communication methods. As these representations eventually extended their existence beyond the physical realm, they are in turn incorporated into a cultural identity.”3 (Assmann 2011: 5-12) This process eventually extended beyond the physical and came to influence the role of writing. For a system of communications to become pronounced, it must pass through a phase of external storage and development. Within this theoretical area of storage, communications that concern culturally valued information are refined through what Assman describes as a series of “coding, storage, and retrieval.”4 This process demands the careful touch of institutional power to uphold high levels of specialization. For these reasons, Assman concludes that writing in part developed as a result of the state’s hyper focus on releasing idealized cultural messages. (Assmann 2011: 8-12) Assman asserts that the economic and political spheres were perfect theatres for symbolic representation. Though the development of writing in the ancient world is still subject to fervent debate, writing as a technological advancement is understood as unprecedented. Writing provided to be capable of completely revolutionizing communications, and cultural memory could stretch across the confines of its original, archaic context. However, the discovery of retention through writing was countered in a balance centered around manipulation and suppression. Writing incorporated various aspects of identity while exerting a cyclical relationship within the influence of socio-cultural traditions and institutions. (Assmann 2011:7- 11) 3 Ibid., 5 4 Ibid., 8 3 Cultural memory tied with rising levels of political power allowed otherwise complacent symbols to be manipulated in manners that would create an elite foundation for legitimacy. The maintenance of these symbols correlates with the maintenance of the elite class’s place in a society. (Yoffee 2005: 4-18) While states convey the expected social order and legitimation techniques through writing and iconography, how a state chooses to communicate these priorities differs culturally. In order to exert the idea of legitimized government, the fabrication of a so-called elite class must be accepted by willing constituents who will then feed into a stratified social order. The transmission of information was necessary in order to maintain both a royal, and elite class. One of the most frequent texts encountered in the records of early states is the royal genealogy. This is because, “A dynasty needs an ideology to legitimize its rule, every ideology invokes a version of history that illustrates it… and the simplest form of that legitimizing history is a list of king’s names.”5 (Wang 2014: