The Archaeology of Tell el-Dab’a and its use in Relative Dating

With its finely differentiated stratigraphy Tell el-Dab’a is a great asset to the correction of the earlier established historical records.  The archaeology of Tell el-Dab’a offers increasing insight into over three hundred years of history through Strata H to D/2, and is important to the chronology of the second intermediate period and Hyksos rule.  Located in the Eastern Delta covering an area of approximately two square kilometres on natural mounds,[1] Tell el-Dab’a provides evidence which assists in interpreting when and how foreigners established themselves in the Delta, the rise to power of the Hyksos and their end.

The Introduction of Foreign Influence into Tell el-Dab’a

Close-up of a drawing of axe blade depicting Ahmose I striking down a Hyksos Warrior, part of the burial equipment of Queen Ahhotep.

The introduction of the Hyksos into Egypt has often been seen by scholars and archaeologists as a violent intrusion, but was this the case?[2]  Hayes assesses that the introduction of these foreigners was the result of raiding the north-eastern border of Egypt, and that during “periods of internal weakness”[3] they swarmed into the delta region in huge numbers.  More recent excavations by Bietak and the Austrian Archaeological Institute in Cairo, at Tell el-Dab’a, provide a basis for which assessments of this nature can be positively appraised or negatively criticised.

The archaeology at Tell el-Dab’a provides numerous indications of foreigners throughout the stratigraphy which can be used, in addition to previous interpretations, to establish a relative timeline of occupation and migration.  Stratum e/1-3 contains material of a purely Egyptian cultural context dating to the early twelfth dynasty, where as Stratum H = d/2 exhibits evidence of the first newcomers, after a hiatus, who were already egyptianised.[4]  Syrian ‘Mittelsaal’ houses and a ‘Breitraum’ house give an indication of the origin of the inhabitants along with burials yielding foreign weaponry and donkey burials typical of contemporary Syrian traditions.  With finds of distinctive MBIIA Levantine painted ware and jugs of Syrian types such evidence shows interactions parallel to other late 12^th dynasty sites both in and outside of Egypt.[5]

The idea of a smoother introduction of foreigners into the Delta is seen in much of the archaeology of Tell el-Dab’a.  Foreign components are witnessed throughout most pre-Hyksos strata.  For example, Stratum G/4 = d/1 exhibits Asiatic burial customs which continue through to the Hyksos period showing early foreign occupation or influence. Typical Egyptian pottery is still predominant, but sherds of classical Kamares ware and exported ceramics have been discovered within the gardens of the early palace phase.[6]  This indicates an economically fuelled immigration with the rapid cultural development of the Tell el-Dab’a.[7]

The analysis of burials at Tell el-Dab’a provides a relative picture of foreign progression and occupation.  The continuation of Asiatic burials through pre-Hyksos strata illustrates this movement; a key example being Tomb A/II-1/12 no.5 which held five or six donkey sacrifices outside the entrance.[8]  Donkey burials, warrior burials and the inclusion of foreign weaponry show non-Egyptian customs in burials through different stratum at Tell el-Dab’a.[9] With a variety of foreign objects, from the handmade globular jugs of Cypriot influence in Stratum G/1-3 = c to the traditional Mesopotamian vaulted roofs seen in stratum E/1,[10] we see further evidence for foreign migration steadily into the area.  Questions of why this gradual immigration took place remain mostly unanswered but archaeology can suggest a time in the historical record for this migration.  Archaeology of this nature also provides a basis for the analysis of the different cultural groups which Tell el-Dab’a had foreign relations and trade with.

The rise to power of the Hyksos has been a long and widely disputed point.  The analysis of the archaeology of Tell el-Dab’a can not determine any exact process for this rise to power but it can assist in correcting the historical record.  The first indication of a social ranking system can be seen in the early Stratum F = b/3 above the first indication of foreign occupation.  The development of this social stratification continues to be seen throughout Stratum E/3 = b/2 with enlarged villas with kitchens and simple living quarters set apart from them along an enclosure wall.[11] The archaeology, indicating social structure developing throughout a mixed ethnic community at Tell el-Dab’a, is the first suggestion that the Hyksos rise to power was more gradual than Hayes and others initially assessed.  The introduction of structured housing and burials at Tell el-Dab’a within it’s well defined stratigraphy also assists in working out when transitions through egalitarian to state societies took place in the Eastern delta region.[12]

These archaeological features also allow for the assessment of social structure and culture within the Hyksos period. Hayes expresses that there were two stages in the Hyksos rise to power; half a century of waves of Asiatic princes into Avaris and Salatis ousting the contemporary Egyptian ruler from the capital city of Memphis.[13]  The archaeology at Tell el-Dab’a illustrates a far more complex and long term transition into positions of power.

As previously commented, scholars such as Hayes,[14] have blamed raiding and force in the Hyksos’ ‘takeover.’ This is not a theory which generally holds ground in present publications.  Booth disagrees with Hayes’ initial statements, commenting that there is very little archaeological evidence to suggest a violent takeover and variations between pottery of the 14^th and 15^th dynasties at Tell el-Dab’a are subtle and actually suggest a peaceful change-over in political leadership.[15]  The archaeology at Tell el-Dab’a provides more evidence for a political changeover between the Egyptians and the Hyksos.

The Termination of the Hyksos Rule

Scarab bearing the name of the Hyksos pharaoh Apophis. Made of steatite, from the time of the Second Intermediate Period. Now residing in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

The termination of the Hyksos rule is a point in the historical record which remains to be substantially explored. The archaeology at Tell el-Dab’a does though assist in determining when and how this came about.  Stratum D/2 which presents highly egyptianised archaeological material and architecture represents the last occupation of the site by Asiatic influence.[16]  The analysis of this stratum, in comparison to previous underlying strata, assists in correcting when in the historical record the Hyksos rule ended.  Unfortunately D/2’s archaeological evidence for the development which led to the termination of the stratum is largely destroyed by Ramesside foundations and sebbakh digging.[17]  Excavations in Area A/II and Area A/V contemporary with Stratum D/2 have not produced obvious evidence of a violent termination popular in earlier explanations of the Hyksos’ disappearance from Egypt’s historical record.[18]

Most of our evidence for the end of the Hyksos period is wrapped up in the written sources from the Theban side.  The archaeology at Tell el-Dab’a assists in constructing the Hyksos side of the historical record. Kamose stelae and contemporary copies on writing stelae in Theban tombs tell the Theban side of the end of Avaris with an account of Kamose reaching Avaris, but there is limited evidence of how Kamose’s campaign actually effected the site.[19]  The end of Avaris (Tell el-Dab’a) and Ahmose’s campaign is primarily told in three contemporary sources; the biography of Ahmose which focuses on his own involvement, the physical evidence of Tell el-Dab’a, and narrative relief fragments from Ahmose’s temple at Abydos.[20]  The slaughter after Ahmose’s victory as told in the written sources is contradicted partly by the material evidence, creating the picture of mass exodus[21] described by Josephus. The idea of exodus has become widely accepted, as seen in Finkelstein and Silberman who even make comment on the possibility of an exodus becoming more prevalent in comparison to the expulsion of the Israelites from Egypt in the biblical texts and Manetho’s account of the transition of the Hyksos to Israel.[22]

The place and details of the termination of the Hyksos reign of power in the historical record is defined by several aspects of the archaeology at Tell el-Dab’a.  Primarily this end is indicated by a clear cultural break in the gap between the latest Hyksos stratum and the earliest 18^th dynasty throughout the whole site. And after this break there is no obvious evidence of continued occupation by the Hyksos peoples.  Unfortunately the later stratum D/2 has also been damaged greatly by modern ploughing but there is no current evidence of a layer of slain soldiers and destruction leaving it debatable whether D/2 was indeed destroyed by warfare as the written evidence suggests.[23]  This is accompanied by the distinct break in stratigraphy with no occurrences of evidence such as the previously well-represented tombs with a wealth of Asiatic weaponry and traditional donkey sacrifices.[24] Hatshepsut’s boasts of defeating the Hyksos have also been debated due to the work of Bietak and the Austrian institute at Tell el-Dab’a.[25]

Continuation of Hyksos Influence

With the end of the Hyksos reign of power the details of the historical record again fall into debate about whether the Hyksos influence continued in some capacity into the following periods.  Bietak states that we cannot exclude the possibility that a small number of former carriers of the Hyksos rule [26] stayed behind at Tell el-Dab’a and that their influence did not completely dissipate.  Limited assemblages excavated within the temple precinct of Seth in stratum D/1 support Bietak’s proposed possibilities.[27] The ceramic material dating to the mid eighteenth dynasty within this stratum indicates that the precinct continued to be used in some limited capacity after the late Hyksos strata. The evidence of a continuation of Hyksos cultural influence does not appear to continue outside the precinct into the settlement areas yet it does indicate that the important cultic centre was allowed to continue on a restricted scale.[28]  Unfortunately, Bietak appears to see the evidence found at Tell el-Dab’a above the Middle Bronze Age Stratum irrelevant to his hypotheses and has not yet fully explored these post-Hyksos strata.

Egyptian Relative Dating Systems

The archaeology at Tell el-Dab’a provides a base from which to correlate breaks and inconsistencies within the historical record, for instance, the correlation of the Egyptian relative dating system comprising of Kingdoms and Dynasties and the Middle Bronze Age chronologies.  The analysis of archaeological assemblages within stratum D/2 indicates that MBIIC cannot have ended with the beginning of the New Kingdom through the absence of piriforms jugs and the continuation of Tell el-Yahudiya types.[29] On the other hand the presence of late Cypriot pottery, especially Bichrome ware, found in Stratum D/2 indicates that this stratum was already of the late Bronze Age.[30] Bietak states that this Cypriot pottery cannot be used as an indicator of the Bronze Age, but its appearance within the stratum helps in drawing up the bigger picture and should not be excluded.

Stratum D/2 also provides evidence for determining whether the destruction and abandonments over a number of sites happened at approximately the same time.  The archaeology in Stratum D/2 is indicative of the end of the Hyksos period, and though the date of this “common phase” is debatable, being raised even to Thutmosis III and by some to the beginning of the eighteenth dynasty, it provides a point of comparison for other sites.  For instance, the existence of base-ring ware found at Stratum D/2 is compatible to wares found in the Stratum XVIII destruction level at Gezer and the temple site of Nahariya.  Oren also agrees with this assistance of Tell el-Dab’a archaeology, assessing that the MB IIC-LBIA development which was previously undisturbed at this site and others became indicative of a break during the second quarter of the fifteenth century BC.[31]  The question ‘who is responsible for such destructions and abandonments?’ remains open, but their possible temporal position can be correlated with the help of the Tell el-Dab’a archaeology.

The succession of kings in Ancient Egypt is a topic which has sparked much debate from Manetho to the current day.[32]  The archaeology of Tell el-Dab’a helps in the relative placing of several kings in the historical record.  This is achieved in relation to the well-defined stratigraphy of the site stretching from the Middle Kingdom through to the start of the New Kingdom.  Henige asserts that in past interpretations of king-lists there has been a common habit of representing individuals and dynasties in succession when they could in fact be occasions of shared time.[33]  Assumptions such as this has long caused king lists to be misinterpreted.

The architecture and archaeological assembly at Tell el-Dab’a assists in correcting some such misinterpretation.  Stratum F = b/3 includes the area of TempleIII which presents a fine example of how Tell el-Dab’a’s archaeology can be used to assign a certain monarch to a certain period.[34]  Two fragments of different limestone jambs with the names of king Nehesy (aA-zH ra) were uncovered in pits in Strata A/2 and B, this evidence along with other associated artefacts suggests that Temple III was constructed under the direction of Nehesy.[35] Through the association of artefacts and architecture is typical of the end of the eighteenth century BC..

Warrior tomb at Tell el-Dab’a

One of the most prevalent artefacts found in the Tell el-Dab’a stratigraphy, which assists with the formulation of a less unlikely arrangement of monarchs, are scarabs.  In Stratum E/3 a scarab was uncovered with a corrupt writing of the name Sebekhotep.  This find can be used to relatively date the stratum as it is terminus post quem.[36]  The Sebekhotep scarab had the second part of the name reversed along with an nwb-sign indicating a date in the second part of the 13^th dynasty.  Scarabs such as this, which are uncovered at Tell el-Dab’a in significant numbers, can be compared to other finds within a stratum and then can be relatively dated in relation to them.  Subsequent information gained from these finds can be cross referenced with Mantheo’s Aegyptiaca, contemporary and non-contemporary royal and private inscriptions, and king’s lists such as the Turin canon to create a more detailed picture of successions.

These scarabs and other artefacts associated with monarchs can also be compared by designs and motifs to assist in placing the named individuals in a particular period.  For instance, the first appearance of scarabs bearing the motif rdy-ra have been founding Stratum E/2 = b/1.[37]  The typical Hyksos rdy-ra motif, with other finds and seriations, can assist in working out when the Hyksos rulers first became established in the region.[38] Dever expresses though that Bietak had a record of misreading scarabs, but with the correct reading of these artefacts dates can then be applied to help place kings more correctly in the historical record.[39]  The Hyksos kings still remain largely unknown in name and period so scarabs, such as found in Stratum D/3 = a/2 showing the name of an unknown Hyksos ruler named zA-Ra SnSk wHm anV, are of great benefit in correcting the line of Hyksos kings within the historical record.[40]

Without confirmation from other sources it seems unwise to use scarab distribution as an indicator of a king’s influence throughout Egypt, the same can be said for the design and shape.[41] But in relation to a time when very little is known of the monarchs and with limited written evidence, such material evidence with the names of individuals is of essential importance to a relative chronological placement of kings.

Tell el-Dab’a as a Chronology Cross-Reference

Tell el-Dab’a allows for a better insight into the correlation of chronologies within Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Near East.  The stratigraphy at Tell el-Dab’a has been used by Bietak in recent years to date finds within periods of around thirty years.  This dating technique created from the archaeology is seen in similar circumstances at Memphis as achieved by the EES and also at Karnak by the French institute; and though it helps little to ascertaining absolute dates it holds significance in its assistance to relative dates.[42]  For instance, Kamares ware obtained during Tell el-Dab’a excavations has been dated to the thirteenth dynasty and holds significance in the correlation of Minoan chronology.  The same is seen with Levantine Middle Bronze Age wares which can be finely dated in relation to Egyptian ceramics assisting the determination of chronology for both Syria and Palestine.[43]  In the case of Tell el-Dab’a the archaeology has become a solid base for cross-referencing.

The ability to define seriation of materials allows the archaeologist to compare similar material from elsewhere which may in the long run lead to a better understanding of the chronology of a location.  The round bottomed drinking cup’s seriation from Tell el-Dab’a allows for comparison of similar cups found throughout the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period in other Egyptian contexts.  For instance, at the excavations of Dieter and Dorothea Arnold at Dashur in the pyramid complex of Amenemhat III where a number of the round bottomed cups have been uncovered.[45] Bietak’s seriation of the round bottomed drinking cup shows that their development at Tell el-Dab’a can be followed throughout twelve Strata, D/2 through to d/2, which can be cross dated with Dashur strata.[46]  This permits for a relative understanding of the chronology of the two sites in reference to this typology.

New data from a range of pottery seriation studies in the area has assisted in the analysis of data for the twelve and thirteenth dynasties and the Second Intermediate Period. A vast array of these typologies have been created by archaeologists from the material evidence at Tell el-Dab’a including beer jar, water jar and Marl-C typologies.  Bietak affirms that the stratigraphy and typologies from Tell el-Dab’a are a ‘precious instrument in transposing both the relative and absolute chronology of Egypt to other regions.’[47]  For instance, the marl C (fabric II-c) shows a change in shape in Stratum G/4 indicating a change from twelve dynasty shapes to those of the thirteenth.[48]  Marl C (fabric II-c) from other localities can then be compared to the typology created from Tell el-Dab’a’s material to correct the dates of stratum within other sites and regions.

Seriations of Tell el-Yahudiya ware is also exemplary of how Tell el-Dab’a’s stratigraphy and archaeology can assist in correcting the historic record as Tell el-Yahudiya ware has distinct chronological connections throughout Egypt. Bietak’s excavations have uncovered a vast number of Tell el-Yahudiya wares first appearing as mainly ovoid vessels between Stratum H and F and then developing through handmade globular forms, piriforms, biconical and combed forms through to stratum D/2.[49]  Occurrences of Tell el-Yahudiya and other wares identified at Tell el-Dab’a can be recognised over a wide area of the Delta, from Tell Fauziya to Tell Geziret el-Faras well to the west of the Tanitic Nile branch.

Tell el-Dab’a’s finely differentiated stratigraphy has released a variety of archaeological material which can assist in the correction of the historical record.  Through the efforts of excavators such as Bietak and the Austrian Archaeological Institute evidence has come to light that can help in correcting previous misinterpretations such as with the successions of kings and dynasties, how the Hyksos people came to the Delta and established a degree of power and how this power came to an end.  The archaeology also assists in the correlation of sites in Egypt and the Near East and provides a vast array of seriations from which to do so.

Remember to like this page on FACEBOOK or TWITTER for updates, news and more

---

[1] Shaw, I., and Nicholson, P., The British Museum: Dictionary of Ancient (London, 2003), p.76

[2] The Hyksos, automatically associated with foreigners as their name to Egyptian contemporaries was Hiq-khoswet – “rulers of foreign countries,” – Hayes, W.C., (New York, 1990), p.3

[3] Hayes, W.C., The Scepter of Egypt: A Background for the Study of the Egyptian Antiquities in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Volume II (New York, 1990), p.3 – Hayes does assert that the opinion of a few instances of invasions led to power gain was no longer held at the time of 4^th edition publishing in 1990 but maintains the view of violent intrusion over a long period of time.

[4] Bietak, M., Egypt and Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age, in Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No.281, Egypt and Canaan in the Bronze Age (Feb., 1991), p.31 – Stratum e/1-3 being the earliest excavated pre-Hyksos stratum, located in Area F (Centre of town)planned orthogonal settlement of Egyptian culture.  Stratum H appears contemporary with d/2 (Area F) and is located in Tell A Eastern Suburb, an open settlement with enclosure walls (Bietak, M., (Oct., 1984), p.476)

[5] Ibid., p.32 – Mittelsaal à Mesopotamian, Syrian middle room house. MBIIA is Middle Bronze Age period 2A – the analysis of the Mittelsaal and Breitraum rooms has been subject to many scholars including Bietak and Giles, the extensiveness of these analyses is great.

[6] Ibid., p.36 – Minoan jewellery from the Middle Minoan period has also been uncovered in one of the palace tombs of this phase providing links to Middle Minoan chronologies.

[7] Shaw, I., The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (New York, 2003), p.176

[8] Bietak, M., (Feb., 1991) op.cit., p.39

[9] Donkey burials – indicative of the differing burial customs of the Hyksos peoples in the Delta, some belief that they were a source of sustenance for the deceased but have also been assessed accompanying weapons and jewellery to be an indication of the deceased place in society (Grajetzki, W., Burial Customs in Ancient Egypt: Life in Death for Rich and Poor (London, 2003), p.61)

[10] Ibid., p.42

[11] Ibid., p.40 – E/3 = b/2 is described as a sacred area surrounded by cemeteries with mortuary temples, the concentration of mortuary cult provides a base for analysis of social stratigraphy but any conclusions made from this material are subject to questions as mortuary evidence provides more of base for the funeral organisers rather than the deceased individuals.

[12] This often believed to have taken with the introduction of the twelve dynasty

[13] Hayes, op.cit., p.4 – Salatis, c.1675BC

[14] Hayes interpretations are subject to the understandings of the period he was writing in (1959) and lack the insight one is able to obtain through the study of Bietak’s and the Austrian Institutes more recent and extensive excavations at Tell el-Dab’a.

[15] Booth, C., The Hyksos Period in Egypt (Buckinghamshire, 2005), p.10

[16] D/2 shows an extensive amount of late Hyksos material and tradition which fails to appear after this level.  These include late Hyksos period burials in family vaults within the structures of houses and evidence of strong trade links with Cyprus (Bietak, M., (Oct., 1984), p.477)

[17] Bietak, M., (Feb., 1991) op.cit., p.47 – sebbakh digging is the digging to provide irrigation to the land

[18] Ibid.,  p.47

[19] Bourriau in Shaw, I., The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (New York, 2003),  p.200

[20] Ibid., p.201

[21] Ibid., p.202

[22] Finkelstein, I., and Silberman, N.A., The Bible Unearthed (New York, 2001), p.55 – the archaeology for the debate between exodus and defeat is wide and cannot be fully accounted here, these examples are primarily to give one an understanding.

[23] Bietak, M., (Feb., 1991) op.cit., p.45 – written evidence provides a bias towards the actions of Ahmose and Kamose, Ahmose’s biography in particular recounting a significant victory against the Hyksos.

[24] Ibid., p.46

[25] Bourriau, op.cit., p.203 – Hatshepsut boasts that it was she that defeated the Hyksos.  The archaeology at Tell el-Dab’a puts the end of the Hyksos rule far before the reign of this 18^th dynasty queen who stated that it was she who “banished the abomination of the gods, and the earth has removed their footprints.”

[26] Bietak, M., (Feb., 1991) op.cit., p.47

[27] Seth (Set, Setekh, Suty, Sutekh) – was worshipped by the Hyksos in the second Intermediate period and previously, associated with the thunder god Baal (A Levantine deity), and retained strong ties to Avaris and the Hyksos throughout their existence. (Shaw, I., and Nicholson, P., The British Museum: Dictionary of Ancient (London, 2003), p.265)

[28] Bietak, M., (Feb., 1991) op.cit., p.47

[29] Bietak, M., (Feb., 1991) op.cit., p.57 – Tell el-Yahudiya wares are named after a site where a vast amount of them have been excavated.  Black-fired wares, often with a lustrous surface and designs of incised zigzag lines commonly filled with white and made only in Egypt and Levant. (Hope, C.A., Egyptian Pottery (Buckinghamshire, 2001), p.38)

[30] Ibid., p.57

[31] Ibid., p.58

[32] Manetho – third century BC Egyptian priest and historian, history survived in fragments, as a priest had access to much of the archives of Egypt’s temples which have failed to survive to the present day (Shaw, I., and Nicholson, P., The British Museum: Dictionary of Ancient (London, 2003), p.169)

[33] Henige, D., Comparative Chronology and the Ancient Near East: A Case Study for Symbiosis, in Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No.261 (Feb., 1986), p.63

[34] Bietak, M., (Feb., 1991) op.cit., p.51

[35] Ibid., p.51

[36] Terminus post quem – no later than; the stratum is dated terminus post quem by such finds as scarabs, in this case the stratum can not have been begun any later than the time of Sebekhotep (Bray, W. and Trump, D., Dictionary of Archaeology (London, 1982), p.240)

[37] Bietak, M., (Feb., 1991) op.cit., p.51

[38] Ibid., p.51

[39] Dever, W.G., Tell el-Dab’a and Levantine Middle Bronze Age Chronology: A Rejoinder to Manfred Bietak, in Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No.281, Egypt and Canaan in the Bronze Age (Feb., 1991), p.76

[40] Bietak, M., (Feb., 1991) op.cit., p.52 – Bietak believes that in relation to the stratigraphy and the situation within Avaris at the time that this ruler was a major rather than a minor ruler.  It is of importance especially because the names of the rulers of the 15^th dynasty are missing and this could provide some insight into at least one of them.

[41] Shaw, op.cit., p.180 – shapes include Hathor heads and concentric circle designs, such scarabs can be used alongside other indicators of monarchs such as bronze plates of King Neferhotep (Bietak 1986).

[42] ISIS Conference Report, High, Middle or Low? The Second International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology (1990) in Egyptology Bulletin, P.90

[43]ISIS, op.cit., p.90

[44] Bietak, M., Problems of Middle Bronze Age Chronology: New Evidence from Egypt, in American Journal of Archaeology, Vol.88, No.4 (Oct., 1984), p.480

[45] Bietak, M., (Oct., 1984), p.480

[46] Ibid., p.481 – strata D/2 and d/2 are actually on opposite sides of the spectrum of stratigraphy though they have similar names, D/2 referring to strata in Tell A and d/2 in Area F (absolute dating according to Beckerath, Helck and Hornung puts strata d/2 just after 1800BC and strata D/2 at about c.1540BC)

[47]ISIS, op.cit., p.90

[48] Bietak, M., (Feb., 1991) op.cit., p.36

[49] Ibid., p.45

[50] Shaw, op.cit., p.184

Differentiation of Christians and Jews in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries

Pontius Pilate asked ‘What is truth?’ Both Christians and Jews viewed themselves as the portrayers of truth; The Romans viewed both as conveyers of false religion.  But how and why did the Christians differentiate themselves from Jews in the second and third centuries and how did the Romans distinguish the Christians and the Jews from each other? This essay will explore the how these groups were differentiated and distinguished in this period and what implications the Roman perspective has for the way we view the relationship between Christians and Jews.

Antonio Ciseri’s depiction of Pontius Pilate presenting Jesus to the people.

In order to assess how and why Christians differentiated themselves from Jews in the second and third centuries it is necessary to explore texts by Christian writers in this period. Unfortunately there is a limited corpus of texts available from the second and third centuries. Despite this, the words of writers such as Aristides, Tertullian, Ignatius and Justin give us some understanding of the differentiation made and why they were distinguished by the Christians.  Regardless of which group is being referred to, the overriding theme is prescription of correct practices.

In examining the Christian texts, one of the main points of differentiation relates to the concept of truth.  The Christians saw themselves as the conveyors and students of truth and the Jews as a people who had erred from true knowledge.  Aristides, a second century writer, asserts that the Christians have come nearer to truth and genuine knowledge than the rest of the nations and the Jews have strayed from truth and instead make observances to angels and not to God.[1]  Tertullian, writing from the end of the first century and into the second, in his Apology also makes this differentiation, explaining that with truth comes hatred of truth, Jews are strangers to the truth and hence Christians are the enemies.[2]

The Christians also differentiated themselves from the Jews in terms of origins.  Tertullian explains that the Christians traced the origins of their religion to the reign of Tiberius, from Jesus the ‘son of God.’[3]  Aristides also expresses this in his Apology, saying that the Christians trace their religion to the Messiah.  Aristides explains that this is a significant difference between the Jews and the Christians as the Jews trace their origins of their religion from Abraham, ‘who begat Isaac, of whom was born Jacob. And he begat twelve sons who migrated from Syria to Egypt; and there they were called the nation of the Hebrews, by him who made their laws; and at length they were named Jews…’[4]  The Christians appear to be very determined, moving through the second and third centuries to express that there was little place in the Christian religion for Jewish laws and customs, this may be a significant reason why the Christians differentiated themselves in relation to origins.  But Christian writers in most cases do not attempt to completely divorce themselves from origins from Abraham.  Justin, for instance, asserts that Christians are the true spiritual descendants from Abraham; this terminology though still gives a distinct sense of differentiation between the Christians and the Jews.[5]

Christian texts from the second and third centuries illustrate that customs and laws were also used as a basis for differentiation. Frend assesses that Christians saw themselves as the ‘true Jews’, ‘the true vine’, but rejected Jewish ceremonial law.[6]  It was the rejection of this claim by Jews and Romans alike that led to the Christian’s often precarious situation.[7] One of the most evident of these differences is that of food laws.  Barnabas lays out the food-laws of the Jews; “Ye shall not eat swine, nor an eagle, nor a hawk, nor a crow, nor any fish…”[8]  Jews were also distinguished often by their clothes and dwellings in a separate quarter of the urban community, distinctions that the Christians rejected explicitly.[9]  Aristides also outlines some of these distinctions; he explains that unlike the Christians, the Jews celebrate the beginning of months, feasts of unleavened bread and a great fast, and fasting and circumcision and the purification of meats.[10]  Tertullian again illustrates how the Christians differentiated themselves from Jews in this way, stating that ‘we neither accord with Jews in their peculiarities in regard to food…sacred days…bodily signs, nor in the possession of a common name;’ which he suggests surely the Christians would if their God and religion were the same.[11]  The Didache even lays out the situation in reference to fasting and how Christians should make a point of fasting on days which are not fasting days of Judaism, of ‘hypocrites.’[12]

Justin Martyr

Justin Martyr wrote that the Jews ‘did not recognise Christ even when He came…He was crucified by them.’[13] In examining how the Christians distinguished themselves we see that many saw the Jews’ unrecognition of Jesus as Son of God as a key point. The Jews were seen as having rejected Christ and so were rejected by Christ.  The rejection of Christ by the Jews is an important point when assessing why the Christians took the liberty to differentiate themselves from the Jews so explicitly.  Aristides expressed that the Jews were the murderers of Jesus; pierced and crucified by them.[14]  Not only did the Jews reject the basis for the Christians origins but expressed it as blasphemy as Justin notes with Barchochebas, the leader of the Jewish revolt, who gave orders that Christians alone should be led to cruel punishments unless they would deny Jesus Christ and utter blasphemy.[15]

Melito in relation to the Jews and their rejection of Christ appears to even accuse them of deicide.[16]  The Jews are said not to have understood that which their own prophets predicted and therefore did not recognise Christ when he did come and so in seeing Jesus treated him with contempt.[17] In comparison, the Christians embraced him despite their lack of knowledge and prophecy.  In the minds of the Christians the Jews had killed Christ which is probably why this accusation of deicide appears in the likes of Melito. It seems a fair assessment that this ideology of the Jews would have been a key factor in why the Christians wished to be defined apart from the Jews as they had rejected the saviour, especially since the Christians saw themselves as the chosen people, despite lacking the wealth and the antiquity of the Jews.  Whether this rejection was out of ignorance or divine will is a subject which was debated and questioned even in the period under examination.

Throughout the majority of Christian texts addressing the Jewish religion a recurring theme of differentiation is the idea of old and new.  For instance, Tertullian asserts that the Jews had false trust in their ‘noble ancestors’; and Ignatius advises in his letter to the Magnesians not to be led astray by ‘old fables’ and that the Jewish converts walked in ‘ancient customs’ where as the Christians walked in a ‘new hope’.[18] The Christians did not have the antiquity that the Jews had and differentiated themselves through a sense of newness and regeneration.  Barnabas illustrates this stating that he made us new by the remission of sins he made us ‘another type’, that we should have the soul of children, as though he were creating us afresh.”[19] This idea of Christianity as new is also seen in the Roman texts but is seen in a different, more negative light.  Ignatius in his letter to the Philadelphians expresses that in the end Christianity was seen by the Christians as the superior group and their teachings and religion was to be preferred before all others.[20]  The Jews were seen as the lesser group and should only relate to the Christian teachings to show the superiority of the Christians.

The question remains of how the Romans distinguished the Jews and the Christians in the second and third centuries. The Romans distinguished the Jews as a special people in contrast to other groups due to their imageless worship (ἀθεότης), refusal to participate in the traditional and their exclusiveness (ἀμιξία). This exclusiveness and separation from the rest of society was a key point of differentiation that the Romans made between the Christians and the Jews.  The Jews kept to themselves whereas the Christians interacted with the rest of the community.  Caecilius illustrates this, describing the Jews as a people who ‘skulk and shun the light of day, silent in pubic…the lonely and wretched race of the Jews…but the Christians! What marvels, what monsters to they feign!’[21] This indicates that the Jews were distinguished from the Christians as not only a separate group but as a people who purposely isolated themselves from society.  Tacitus also expresses this idea of isolation, explaining that the Jews sit apart at meals, sleep apart and do not associate with strangers and foreigners.[22]  The exclusivity of the Jews seems to have been also a way that the groups were distinguished.  Jews were exclusive, Christians were not.

There are unfortunately few pagan references to Christianity in the second century but from the few sources available it appears that Romans also distinguished the Christians from the Jews in relation to the idea of a third race the ‘genus tertium’, though this idea is often debated by modern scholarship. The Treatise Scorpiace, for instance, indicates that the designation of Christians as a third race was common in Carthage in the third century.[23]  This designation was made on the grounds of faith and is implicit of a distinction between the Jews and the Christians; the Romans being the first race, the Jews the second, and the Christians the third. Tertullian also refers to this distinction made by the Romans, stating ‘Tertium genus [dicimur] de ritu.’[24] This distinction of Ἕλληνες, Ἰουδαῖοι, and Γαλιλαῖοι is seen throughout literary evidence, both Christian and Roman, and appears to be a key way that the groups were distinguished by the Romans.  This distinction is one that was made in relation to Roman society and is not to be confused with other ideas of race distinction based on locality which was also a common distinction in the period, as the Christians and the Jews were ‘genos’ based within the Roman populace.

The Christians differentiated themselves from the Jews in terms of presenting themselves as a new hope, a new faith.  The Romans also made distinctions between Christians and Jews by distinguishing Christians as new.  Benko explains that Christianity was seen as a new superstition that could not claim the sanction of antiquity like Judaism could.[25]  Even Tacitus who describes the Jews as ‘perverse and disgusting’ admits that ‘Jewish worship is vindicated by its antiquity.’[26]  Christianity, like Judaism, was seen by the Romans as ‘perverse and disgusting’ but was distinguished by also being ‘foreign and new’ and therefore much worse than Judaism.[27]  Frend also asserts that in the second and third centuries the Jews needed not the introduction that the Christians did.  This further suggests that the Romans distinguished the Jews and the Christians as old and new.  The newness of Christianity and that Christians did not offer tangible substitute of loyalty to the Empire like the Jews did was regarded as proof of subversive intent.[28] Saying this, Christianity was seen as a new thing but not necessarily as a new religion in itself but an invading one, new to society, and Christians were seen as people who had turned their backs on the traditions of their forefathers.

Literary sources also indicate that the Romans distinguished Christians and Jews in relation to physical attributes, for instance, circumcision and imagery. The pagan writer Tacitus shows this distinction by asserting that the Jews adopted circumcision as a mark of difference from other men.[29]  A difference between the Jews and the Christians that the Romans also exhibited knowledge of was the idea of imagery and idolatry that was practiced by the Christians but not by the Jews.  Tacitus again alludes to this distinction, stating that the Jews ‘do not allow any images to stand in their cities, much less in their temples.’[30]  This indicates that the Romans, not unlike the Christians, made distinctions between the two groups on a basis of customs as well as beliefs.

The Romans also distinguished Christians from Jews as they regarded Judaism as a genuine faith and Christianity as a subversive counterfeit.[31]  This, along with the distinction of old and new, relates significantly to the large number of stories about the Christians which contributed to the distinctions made.  Tertullian shows this distinction through accusations that the Christians killed children as part of holy rites, practiced incest and impious lusts.[32]  He explains that this was the type of thing that Christians had long been accused of and that no pains had been taken on the part of the Romans to elicit the truth of the accusations.  Frend also alludes to Octavius 150-160 which distinguishes the Christians as users of black magic, initiators of scandal and Bacchanalianism.[33]  Suetonius also accuses Christians of using magic and introducing a new and dangerous superstition.[34]  This is indicative of one means of distinction used by the Romans.  The Jews do not seem to be subject to such explicit accusations in this period as they were regarded as a genuine faith; the Christians on the other hand were distinguished as a superstitio through rumours and ideas created through distinct lack of knowledge.

The majority of points of distinction made by the Romans are of a particularly negative nature during this period, especially in regards to the Christians, who they regarded as new and dangerous.  Examination of some texts though illustrates namely two things; firstly that little was known about the Christians and so many distinctions were made in relation to rumours or other groups such as the Jews, and secondly that in this period there appears to have been a sense of leniency towards the Christians that distinguished them from the Jews on behalf of the Romans. For instance, under Hadrian in the second century the Roman imperial powers appear to have made a distinction in favour of the Christians.[35] Granianus thought it unjust to kill Christians without accusation or trial, to appease popular clamour. Hadrian wrote back saying that petitions and popular accusations should not be recognised.[36]  In light of the suppression of Jews in Asia Minor at the time this presents a distinction lenient to the Christians, despite Hadrian leaving the general question of Christianity rather vague.  It also expresses that while popular view was that Christians were a threat, Roman imperial powers saw them more as just a nuisance.

This sense of distinction is also seen in Pliny and Trajan’s correspondence.  These letters display a lack of knowledge in regards to the Christians and a leniency by imperial powers.  Pliny shows this lack of knowledge, stating that he does ‘not know what offenses it is practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent.’ Whether it is the name itself, even without offenses or only the offenses associated with the name that are to be punished.’[37] Pliny and Trajan do not appear to believe that Christians constituted a threat to the security of the State, though popular belief was that Christians detracted from the unified empire.[38]  Trajan almost seems tolerant and tells Pliny that Christians aren’t to be hunted but if denounced put to trial.[39]  The Roman perspective in many cases appears to be that the Christians were not a religious problem but one of disloyalty where as the Jews still paid their due to the Empire.  This suggests that the rulers were mostly acting on the demands of the pagan majority and common opinion.  In a period where the Jews were revolting and causing extensive problems, these ideas indicate a differentiation between groups.

The list of ways that the Romans distinguished Jews and Christians is diverse and variable throughout time and localities, so what is discussed above is a collection of some of the most widely spread and explicit ideas.  The way that the Romans saw the Jews and the Christians in the second and third centuries cannot be fully recognised in the present day, even when one attempts to fully explore these ideas and the branches of information and ideologies that spring from them.  Like the modern scholar, the writings of the second and third centuries were greatly hampered by bias and influence, and this again makes it difficult to assess how and why differentiations were made.  In order to create a better picture of how and why, a more extensive study needs to be made than is possible here.

The Roman perspective that we can reproduce from texts does have a variety of implications on the way we view the relationship between Christians and Jews in this period.  At first thought one might think that the Jews and Christians were both groups separate from Roman society and so understood each other’s predicaments.  This is the kind of idea the Roman perspective often implies.  There is the distinction of races; Romans as the first, Jews as the second and Christians as the third; despite this being a somewhat clear distinction by the Romans, the idea remains of there being the Romans and then the others.  The implication here is that the relationship between the Jews and the Christians was not a bad one, as they both fell into the category of degraded foreign cults.[40]  Other distinctions though are implicit of bad relations between Jews and Christians.  The distinction of old and new which is often imposed by the Romans has the implication that we view the relationship between Christians and Jews in this period on those terms, as a contest between old Israel and the new.[41]

As you can see, there are several ways that the relationship between Christians and Jews in this period can be viewed.  This is particularly influenced by whether one is looking at the Roman perspective as seen through the eyes of the Romans or of the Christians and Jews.  For instance, when looking at the Roman perspective of Christians in relation to accusations of magic, from the Roman writings we see mainly ignorance and rumour; but from looking at the Roman perspective from Christian writings we see an accusation of spreading rumours and hatred, accusations spread by the Jews to downsize and hurt the Christians, displaying a very negative relationship.  When looking at Roman writings, the implication is that we look onto the relationship between Jews and Christians with a limited knowledge and habit of distinguishing groups only to a certain point. When looking at the Roman perspective from Christian and Jewish texts, the way we view the relationship is fairly different, more severe and distinct but is influenced by the perspective of the groups in question themselves.  The Roman perspective in general implies a sense of ignorance or subjective thought in the way we view the relationship between Jews and Christians.

1250 French Bible illustration depicts Jews (identifiable by Judenhut) being massacred by crusaders

The Christians differentiated themselves explicitly from the Jews in the second and third centuries as can be seen in numerous Christian texts from the period.  This was done in relation to differences in customs, ideologies and philosophies such as origins, physical differences like circumcision and the idea of truth.  This differentiation was made based on ideas of competition and rivalry of old and new as well as clashes in ideology.  The Romans also took time to distinguish them on the basis of antiquity, origins, customs and accusation and this Roman perspective, which is seen in Roman, Christian and Jewish texts, has implications on how we view the relationship between Christians and Jews as the Roman perspective presents a different picture of the relationship than the Christian and Jewish perspectives and is generally a more available perspective due to the limitations of sources.

 

Bibliography

Modern Sources:

Adler, M., The Emperor Julian and the Jews, in The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol.5, No.4 (Jul.1893), pp.591-651

Barnes, E.W., Rise of Christianity (London, 1948)

Barnes, T.D., Legislation against the Christians, in The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol.58, Parts 1 and 2 (1968), pp.32-50

Benko, S., Pagan and the Early Christians (London, 1984)

Bickerman, E.J., The Name of Christians, in The Harvard Theological Review, Vol.42, No.2 (Apr., 1949), pp.109-124

Cochrane, C.N., Christianity and Classical Culture (London, 1968)

Frend, W.H.C., Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (Oxford, 1967), pp. 155-172, 461-466

Hazlett, I., Early Christianity: Origins and Evolution to AD 600 (Nashville, 1991), pp.52-64

Janssen, L.F., ‘Superstitio’ and the Persecution of the Christians, in Vigiliae Christianae, Vol.33, No.2 (Jun., 1979), pp.131-159

Keresztes, P., The Imperial Roman Government and the Christian Church, I: From Nero to the Severi, in ANRW II 23.1, pp.247-315

Keresztes, P., The Jews, the Christians, and Emperor Domitian, in Vigiliae Christianae, Vol.27, No.1 (Mar., 1973), pp.1-28

Lane Fox, R., The Spread of Christianity: Pagans and Christians (Canada, 2006), pp.428

Macmullen, R., and Lane, E.N., Paganism and Christianity 100-425CE: A Sourcebook (Minneapolis, 1992), pp.74-78

Macmullen, R., Christianizing the Roman Empire (A.D. 100-400) (London, 1984), pp.25-42, 132-138

Momigliano, A., The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (Oxford, 1963), pp.17-37

Poteat, H.M., Rome and the Christians, in The Classical Journal, Vol.33, No.3 (Dec., 1937), pp.134-144

Sanders, J.T., Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire: A Conversation with Rodney Stark, in Sociological Analysis, Vol.53, No.4 (1992), pp.433-445

Sherwin White, A.N., The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford, 1966)

Sordi, M., The Christians and the Roman Empire (London, 1986), pp.57-60

Wilken, R., Pliny: A Roman Gentleman, in idem., The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven, 1984), pp.1-30

Wilken, R., The Christians as the Romans saw Them (Michigan, 1984)

 

Ancient Sources:

Aristides, The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher, (Trans. From the Syriac Version, by Kay, D.M., University of Edinburgh) [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/aristides-kay.html]

Barnabas, Epistle of Barnabas, from: Apostolic Fathers, Kirsopp Lake, (Loeb Classical Library) (1912)

Caecilius (in Minut. Felix, viii. f.), [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack/mission.iv.viii.html]

Diadache (Trans. Roberts and Donaldson) [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html]

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, trans. J. E. L. Oulton, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass. 1932)

Ignatius, The Letter to the Magnesians (Trans. Roberts and Donaldson) [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm]

Ignatius, The Letter to the Philadelphians (Trans. Roberts and Donaldson) [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm]

Josephus, trans H. St. J. Thackeray et al., Loeb Classical Library, Vols 1-10 (Cambridge, Mass, 1926)

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (Trans. Roberts and Donaldson) [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html]

Justin Martyr, The First Apology of Justin (Trans. Roberts and Donaldson) [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html]

Melito, From the Discourse on Soul and Body (Trans. Roberts-Donaldson) [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/melito.html]

Pliny, Letters, Book X, 96-97 (Trans. Melmoth, W., Harvard Classics Series, reproduced from: Internet Medieval Source-Book, ed. P.Halsall [www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html])

Polycarp, The Epistle of Polycarp (Trans. Lightfoot, J.B.,) [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-lightfoot.html]

Tacitus, The Histories [http://www.novaroma.org/camenaeum/tacitus5.html]

Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews (Trans. Rev. Thelwall, S., (Canterbury)) [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian08.html]

Tertullian, Apology (Trans. Rev. Thelwall, S., (Canterbury)) [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian01.html]

Tertullian, Scorpiace (Trans. Rev. Thelwall, S., (Canterbury)) [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0318.htm]

The Martyrdom of Saint Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (Trans. Hoole, C.H., (1885))

---

[1] Aristides, The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher, (Trans. From the Syriac Version, by Kay, D.M., University of Edinburgh) [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/aristides-kay.html] Chapter XV

[2] Tertullian, Apology (Trans. Rev. Thelwall, S., (Canterbury)) [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian01.html] Chapter 7

[3] Ibid., Chapter 7

[4] Aristides, op.cit., Apology

[5] Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (Trans. Roberts and Donaldson) [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html]

[6] Frend, W.H.C., Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (Oxford, 1967), p.130

[7] Ibid., p.130

[8] Barnabas, Epistle of Barnabas, from: Apostolic Fathers, Kirsopp Lake, (Loeb Classical Library) (1912), Chapter 10 – the food-law of the Jews

[9] Frend, op.cit., p.146

[10] Aristides, op.cit., Apology

[11] Tertullian, Apology, op.cit., Chapter 21

[12] Diadache (Trans. Roberts and Donaldson) [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html] 8:1

[13] Justin Martyr, The First Apology of Justin (Trans. Roberts and Donaldson) [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html] Chapter 36

[14] Aristides, op.cit., Apology

[15] Justin, Apology, op.cit., Chapter 31

[16] Melito, From the Discourse on Soul and Body (Trans. Roberts-Donaldson) [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/melito.html] II 224-44

[17] Justin, Apology, op.cit., Chapter XLIX

[18] Tertullian, Apology, op.cit., Chapter 21 and Ignatius, The Letter to the Magnesians (Trans. Roberts and Donaldson) [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm] 8.1 and 9.1-2

[19] Barnabas, op.cit., 6.11

[20] Ignatius, The Letter to the Philadelphians (Trans. Roberts and Donaldson) [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm]

[21] Caecilius (in Minut. Felix, viii. f.), [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack/mission.iv.viii.html]

[22] Tacitus, The Histories [http://www.novaroma.org/camenaeum/tacitus5.html] Book 5

[23] Tertullian, Scorpiace (Trans. Rev. Thelwall, S., (Canterbury)) [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0318.htm] x.: a word to heretics who shunned martyrdom

[24] Tertullian, Apology, op.cit., I.xx

[25] Benko, S., Pagan and the Early Christians (London, 1984), p.21

[26] Ibid., p.22

[27] Ibid., p.22

[28] Frend, op.cit., p.192

[29] Tacitus, op.cit., Book 5

[30] Tacitus, op.cit., Book 5

[31] Frend, op.cit., p.208

[32] Tertullian, Apology, op.cit., Chapter 7

[33] Frend, op.cit., p.187

[34] Ibid., p.124

[35] Ibid., p.169

[36] Ibid., p.168

[37] Pliny, Letters, Book X, 96-97 (Trans. Melmoth, W., Harvard Classics Series, reproduced from: Internet Medieval Source-Book, ed. P.Halsall [www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html]) Book X, 96

[38] Sordi, M., The Christians and the Roman Empire (London, 1986), p.58

[39] Trajan in Pliny, op.cit., Book X, 97

[40] Benko, op.cit., p.21

[41] Frend, op.cit., p.133

Women in the Ancient Record: A Brief Discussion of Ideas

George Eliot wrote that ‘the happiest women…have no history’; such a philosophy embodies that for women in the ancient world there is a great lack of communication from women themselves.  So to what extent is the historian thwarted by this lack of communication?

One of the biggest problems facing the historian of women in the ancient world is that there are very few sources that are written by women themselves; there is a general lack of communication.  So is it possible to trace their history even without their own sources? Gould describes women in the ancient world as a muted group, made inarticulate by the lack of a language in which to communicate their particular sense of society and its relationship to the totality of experience.  While other academics believe that the history of women can be interpreted through numerous sources contributed by males, such as tragedies and comedies, this lack of communication that Gould alludes to leading to a great sense of ignorance about women appears to be far more realistic.  After all, Pericles stated, according to Thucydides, that the greatest glory of a woman is to be least talked about by men.  If this was the general accepted train of thought in the ancient periods then is seems likely that historians of women are only presented with evidence about women in unusual circumstances.

The lack of communication from women themselves leaves the historian faced with the vast amount of evidence which is presented by male figures.  This in itself creates further issues for the historian.  Gould explains that the material is derived from the male portion of society and from a male world.  As Ben Jonson asserts ‘women are men’s shadows.’  This thwarted the historian as the majority of evidence for women in basically all ancient societies comes from a male perspective and is written for a primarily male audience.  It is often argued, for instance by Gomme, that we do in essence have a women’s voice; this though is more so seen as a mirage.  Through such texts we see the men’s perspective only; such as how Pomeroy explains that the beliefs of a patriarchal society maintained that men are born to rule, and women to obey.  This presents a great challenge for the historian to work out what in these texts allude to the truth and what are the result of male thought and opinion.

Despite the general lack of communication by women, especially in Greece and Rome, there are a few examples of women’s voice which can be used by the historian to help interpret the lives of women.  In Egypt, a large number of papyri have been uncovered over the last few centuries which include private letters and diaries written by or for women.  These papyri have proven prime sources for the lives of women especially in the later eras and illustrate that while the historian is thwarted by a lack of communication there are exceptions to the rule.  These papyri are from women of Greek as well as Roman and Egyptian culture in Egypt.  However, compared to the vast amount of evidence detailing women written by males, this group of evidence is particularly small in comparison and so historians have often in the past overlooked this information as they have the archaeology relating to women.

The historian in light of a lack of sources by women is also prone to oversimplification, antagonism and ambivalence when interpreting the lives of ancient women.  Gould discusses this in relation especially to the works of Gomme and his attempts to evaluate women through Greek Tragedy.  He assesses that the historian of faces problems in methodology and are prone to a definite oversimplification.  Gomme says there is nothing remarkable, for instance, about the position of women in Athens except perhaps the special honour paid to them.  While Gould thinks that Gomme’s conclusion is a simplistic fantasy.  As the historian is faced with using evidence that only presents certain sides or opinions of women, it is a fair assertion that they settle for oversimplifying or makes assumptions based on the evidence that they do have, without taking into account other possibilities and assessing how much their conclusions are influenced by the male ordered society from which they have gathered evidence.

The historian also faces problems in relation to the evidence which is available to them in light of women’s lack of communication.  Many scholars believe that in imaginative literature of classical Athens we have what seems to be a highly articulate and prominent, not marginal, presentation of women, and their role in society.  Pomeroy and Gould though again agree that this is a mirage of women’s voice.  In light of this a constant effort of thought and imagination is required by the historian to remember that the words of a Lysistrata or a Medea, for example, are in fact a product of the imagination of men and addressed to men, as S.Ardener perceives.  Pomeroy explains that different investigators have drawn on quite different, indeed mutually exclusive, categories of evidence to support their case; including myth and imaginative literature and orations of the fourth century and inscriptions.  Each category presents problems in itself and historians must be aware of counter examples and the danger of making assumptions. For instance, Le Gall on the proof of female heritage makes assumptions on the basis on only a few pieces of evidence and overlooks the one piece of text that does actually does make his conclusions plausible which is presented in Glotz-Cohen.

The biggest way that the lack of communication by women seems to thwart the historian of women in the ancient world is that the historian often gives in to the danger of deducing things that lack cogency.  There is a characteristic marked tendency to demonstrably false assertion. For instance, Gomme and the question of seclusion in relation to fifth century tragedy concludes that women had freedom to come and go on stage and hence did so in reality; ie. Ismene does not censure Antigone for appearing outside the gynaikonitis.  Gomme’s assertion ignores a fair number of counter-examples from tragedy itself such as in Euripides’ Electra, where her husband criticises her for talking to strange men outside the house.  Pomeroy asserts that the question of seclusion and social status on women in both Greece and the Roman Empire is part of a larger dispute concerning the appropriate source of evidence for women’s life.  A number of scholars find relations between women in myth and tragedy and real women, from these theories they deduce that real women were neither secluded nor repressed.  Pomeroy explains that these theories lack cogency like many other theories concerning women, in this case due primarily to the fact that scenes in tragedy are usually outdoors and the female characters could scarcely interact or be portrayed if they had kept indoors.

Like all historians, the historians of women in the ancient world face bias and issues of interpretation which are exacerbated by the lack of female written texts and the reliance on a male centred ideology concerning women.  Pomeroy explains that for a start there is a great tendency to focus on only a small group of women in societies; an emphasis on the upper classes as well as a tendency to focus on famous women.  The papyri before mentioned in Egypt tell us something about more ordinary women but as discusses, they are not used as frequently as they should be over other male sources.  Cicero and Pliny highlight women in the Roman period through their knowledge of women in their classes but it must be remembered that yet again these were women belonging to the wealthy or intellectually elite groups of society.  As Dixon discusses, there are few sources for the lower tiers of the social pyramid in relation to females.  In danger of being too general one sees hat scholars do not give equal weight to all sources and in recent centuries there has even been a broad range of scholarly opinion based on the treatment of women as an undifferentiated mass which blurs the interpretations. In short there is a tendency for the modern ideologies to impress on the ancient.

The historian of women in the ancient world in very thwarted by the lack of communication from women themselves.  The lack of sources makes it difficult to interpret and understand the lives of women in all Greece, Roman and Egyptian society and though there are a few sources by women they are often overlooked in favour of those more available and more defined which are written by men.  In attempting to interpret women in light of this, the historian is in danger of deducing things with a lack of cogency as well as oversimplifying and submitting to objective arguments created by bias and modern opinions.  In a male world there is a mirage of women’s voice but hardly do they really have a voice of their own, by this the historian is greatly thwarted in their studies of women in the ancient world.

Related articles

• Women in Roman Religious Life (graecomuse.wordpress.com)
• Greek Women Classical to Hellenistic: A Brief Discussion of Changing Factors (graecomuse.wordpress.com)
• Priestess: Handmaids of Gods (hedgeconfessions.com)
• Recreating the Vestal Hairstyle (rogueclassicism.com)

Greek Women Classical to Hellenistic: A Brief Discussion of Changing Factors

With the loss of political autonomy and the change of men’s relationships to their societies and each other it is hardly surprising that the position of women was also effected in both family and society in the Hellenistic period.  But to what extent does our image of the position of women in Hellenistic societies offer a contrast to that of women’s positions in classical Greek societies? Remembering that the Hellenistic period was not in actual fact a transitional period, this post will look at briefly answering this question by exploring women in relation to their place in Hellenistic societies and their representation, growing competence in public realms and the philosophies associated with them. It will explore aspects also of education, sexuality and women of respectable and supposedly morally bankrupt natures.

Statues of Kybele; Hellenistic period; Museum of Anatolian Civilizations; Ankara, Turkey

The contrast between the position of women in Hellenistic societies and Classical societies is especially seen in relation to royal women in the Hellenistic period.  Pomeroy explains that with the conquests of Alexander the Great there was a significant introduction of new ideologies and views.  For instance, royal women among the Macedonian ruling families began to compete in a traditionally male arena with the power struggle created from the significant relationships between mothers and sons and polygamist nature of the kings.  In this period a number of royal women came to the forefront of political and imperial power such as Olympias the mother of Alexander who would look after the court of Macedonia in her son’s absence.  Women also began to use their talents to gain political power where they could not have in the classical period and they were also more so used in passive roles, for instance in political marriages, such as that between Berentice and Antiochus.  While this was done throughout all preceding periods the political aspirations of the female are more so illustrated in the Hellenistic period rather than those just of the men.  Women could gain a politically power through their marriage.

Our image of the position of women in Hellenistic societies offers a contrast in relation to the growing competence of women in public realms.  Pomeroy explains that during the Hellenistic period the legal and economic responsibilities of women dramatically increased and women more frequently received honours for their services, especially in religious spheres.  Even in Athens, Pericles idea that the greatest glory of women was to be least talked about by men was no longer prevailing.  Tarn and Griffith explain that honourary citizenship and rights of proxeny were more commonly given to women by foreign cities for their services.  This is in contrast to the social standings of women in the classical period where they were only associated to citizenry through their husbands.  We even have evidence in the Hellenistic period of women holding offices such as Phile of Priene who was the first woman to build a reservoir and aqueduct which is task usually done by magistrates!

The evolution of woman’s legal rights in contrast to the classical period is seen in many documents of the Hellenistic period, for instance, papyri from Egypt that have recently been studied by Preaux.  Such documents show that for at least Egyptian women it was not necessary for them to have a guardian, though for Greek women it still was.  Egyptian marriage contracts such as one from 311BC also show a contrast from the classical traditions as they illustrate a sense of mutuality and an expansion of rights and protection for the bride. Gleeson asserts that these contracts show a contract between husband and wife rather than with the wife’s guardian and insurance was made in terms of the dowry in favour of the bride.

The Hellenistic period also saw a marked gain in economic responsibility on the part of women.  For instance, inscriptions from Delos illustrate that the women were in charge of their own debts and funds in many regards and had a control over slaves and property. In Sparta we see also that women could now hold property and funds more in their own right compared to the classical period.  The mother and grandmother of King Agis were remarkable wealthy women and in Sparta women owned and controlled two fifths of the land.  Aristotle and Pausanias also indicate an increase in female economic freedom with the exhibition of wealth and property.  They show that the exhibition of horses at the Olympics was one such form of showing this, with Bilistiche of Argos exhibiting horses and winning races.  In comparison to the classical period though, in Athens there was still little emancipation of citizen women as seen with Demetrius’ regulation of women; his gynaikonomoi.

With the Hellenistic period we also see a vast improvement of female education which is not so pronounced in Classical society, and with this we see an altered ideology of the position of women in society.  For instance, in this period we see a number of female philosophers, poets and writers who show the increased value of female education.  Hippachia for one was a cynic philosopher woman who went around in public with her husband and was proud of her education, as Diogenes recounts. Erinna of Talos is also a prime example of the educated female with her writing of her ‘Distaff’ being a feat of poetry.  Erinna and Hippachia are two of a host of women which also includes the like of Cleopatra VII who were distinctly educated.  Physical education also became more available to women in the Hellenistic period with a focus on athletics such as in the games of Hera.  Moretti illustrates this move towards female athleticism with the account of Hedea who won foot-races at Nemea and horse racing at Isthmia.  These pieces of evidence are indicative of the movement of the position of women since they show that women now had a more distinguished place outside the home and were more of a prominent part of culture and society than in the classical period.

The philosophers and philosophies of the time also illustrate a marked contrast between the position of women in classical and Hellenistic periods.  The large retention of traditional roles shows that women’s positions were altered as society changed during the Hellenistic period.  With the fluctuating mores of the Hellenistic period the Neopythagoreans in particular were concerned about the proper behaviour of women.  Pomeroy explains though that there were a number of philosophies which were on the side of the changing position of women such as the Epicureans and the cynics who were oriented towards happiness of the individual rather than that of the state and community.

Art and New Comedy provide us with another medium with which to compare the ideologies and values of the classical period with those of the Hellenistic period.  New Comedy for a start provides us with insight into sexual experiences and everyday life of women in this period which was not illustrated by the works of the Classical period and shows a new interest in the eroticism of women in the Hellenistic period.  Ovid also shows that the position of women in society as sexual creatures is more defined in the Hellenistic period with his advice for personal gratification.  Pomeroy also explains that there was a marked shift in poetry and that it was now acceptable for female narrators to appear.  This indicates a change in the position of women within the mind set of society.

Art and representation of women also is indicative of the contrast between the two periods as Webster asserts we see a startling increase in the number of depictions of women in the latter period and a marked change in how women are represented.  Art has always been a good indicator of changing social attitudes and this is particularly true in this case as we witness a re-evaluation of the aesthetics of the female body.  The increase in depictions of women in sculpture, a distinctly public form of art, illustrates a marked change in the general mind set towards the female body; it is no longer seen as second rate but rather art-worthy. In Greek art female nudity is for the first time introduced starting with depictions of goddesses before moving towards ordinary women and fully naked women (most likely prostitutes) depicted on more private forms of art such as vase paintings.  The Capitoline Aphrodite is a prime example of this change in ideology as though naked she is making a token effort to cover herself up showing a modest nature.  Even not so perfect women are considered art worthy, which is a very significant change to how women were viewed and their position in society.  One such example of this is a sculpture of a female dwarf show dancing with a great sense of fun.

Through the image we get of women in Hellenistic societies we are able to distinguish a marked contrast to women in classical societies.  We see a growing competence in public realms as well as a change in ideologies seen throughout the representation and depiction of women in art and New Comedy.  We also we a change in relation to education and philosophy and how women were seen and used in political realms as well as in economic and legal realms.  New questions are brought up about women which also show that the view of women has suffered change between the periods, such as Plutarch’s question of the arête of the female in comparison to the male.

Related articles

• Hellenistic Statue from Izmir (rogueclassicism.com)
• Hellenistic Art (hellenisticromangreekart.wordpress.com)
• Archaeologists discover shipwrecks, ancient harbor on coast of Israel (scienceblog.com)

The Understanding of Hieroglyphs from Roman Times Onwards: An Overview

Egyptian hieroglyphics have always been seen as a mysterious and exotic script that has captured the interest of society from the Roman occupation of Egypt, right down to the present day.  Though they have always been a subject of interest, people’s understandings of this ancient script have been forever influenced by aspects that limited their understanding.  This report looks into those influences passed down from generation to generation of scholars and within everyday society, from the days of the Roman tourists in Egypt, where Egyptian guides purposely gave the Romans misinformation, and the interpretation of hieroglyphs was mistaken by the Roman views. Through the renaissance and classical periods, scholars were still influenced by early writings and the society,  right down to the eighteen hundreds, until Champollion decided to take a different view. But before this sudden change, he, like hundreds of others was unable to accept any other possibilities.  These early influences included the effects of Hor-Apollo’s writings, Kircher and Young, plus many others.  There are however some historians who don’t believe these writings were major influence.

The scholarship associated with the translation of hieroglyphs have greatly influenced the general interpretation of their meanings even in the Roman times.  Hilary Wilson demonstrates that the writings of early translators influenced the understanding of the script until the nineteenth century AD.  Robinson evaluates that the understanding of the Romans was misguided by an Egyptian priest by the name of Hor-Apollo.  Hor-Apollo wrote a book in Coptic which had a dramatic effect on the study of Hieroglyphs.  Hor-Apollo’s work insisted that each sign had a single pictorial or symbolic meaning, this indicates that he completely misunderstood the writing system used by his ancestors.  Unfortunately, because it was considered to have been written by someone informed, Hor-Apollo’s work was used as a guide for all future students of hieroglyphs.

Though the translations of Hor-Apollo were meant to be correct and did not intentionally lead people into thinking incorrectly, there were other influences on the Roman understanding of hieroglyphs that were purposely trying to lead them astray. Montet asserts that in the Graeco-Roman period it gave the Egyptian community great satisfaction to mislead foreigners.  They did this by concocting unintelligible documents, of which the foreigners could make nothing.  Perrottet explains that because of this misinformation; it was misguidedly thought that hieroglyphs were only magical riddles, enchantments and spells.  Perrottet however disagrees with Hor-Apollo being the original major source of the misinterpretation.  He assesses that the Roman tourists were misled by spell books supposedly written ten thousand years earlier by Hermes Trismegistus.  These writings however were nothing more than items to entice tourists. With the Roman’s great depth of superstition and with nobody to contradict the Egyptian guides’ explanations; they had no reason to doubt what they were being told.

Hoijer is one of a group of historians who believe differently.  Hoijer evaluates that the Romans were not influenced by the writings and misinterpretations of others, but by the fact that like the majority of historians and society, they viewed the land and its culture through the distorted prism of their own culture.  Due to this, we can evaluate that as a result they misinterpreted almost everything.  Parkinson agrees with the point relating to culture, but also attributes the misinterpretation to the before-mentioned point concerning historians in the ancient world fueling the beliefs of the Romans, mentioning that the Egyptians also contributed to this, by fueling the disinformation.

The understanding of the Romans set groundwork for future scholars.  Robinson outlines that with the renaissance, the revival of classical learning, came a revival of the Roman belief in Egyptian hieroglyphic wisdom.  Due to this revival, renaissance writers continued to write and translate hieroglyphs to the standards set out by the Roman beliefs.  This led to the first book, written in the sixteenth century by Pierius Valerianus, on hieroglyphs, being basically fictitious.  This is because Valerianus took a narrow-minded view in his translations, taking his cue directly from Hor-Apollo’s incorrect translations and not attempting to look at them in any other way.  Sacks assesses that because the translations of text were flawed and made no logical sense, classical scholars continued to believe long after the time of the Romans, that hieroglyphs were nothing more than riddles and enchantments.

Scholars and philosophers continued to attempt to translate the hieroglyphs as they believed they would find ancient wisdom and long-forgotten truths, confirmation of biblical stories and some proof of the existence of figures such as Abraham, Joseph and Moses.  This is another example of how the writing of history affected the understandings of hieroglyphs.  In this case, the religious scholars were taking their experience and trying to link it to the translation of the hieroglyphs.  This was mainly because of the Egyptian connection to the biblical stories; so scholars alleged that the Bible would be confirmed by the ancient script.

In the late seventeenth century, the Coptic language was revived and would later be essential in the deciphering of the hieroglyphs.  But scholars were still under the impression that the writing of Hor-Apollo and Valerianus held the key to translating the hieroglyphs.  In the renaissance, scholars were interested in Egypt and were anxious to discover the meaning of the hieroglyphic writing.  The Jesuit, Kircher, was the best known of these pioneers. Kircher outlined that Egyptian hieroglyphs only expressed ideas rather than sounds and ideas.  Due to this misinterpretation, Champollion was still possessed by this idea in the nineteenth century. In the mid seventeenth century, Athanasius translated a cartouche for a priest and came out with a long rambling paragraph, however the cartouche really only read the name ‘Psamtik’ spelt phonetically. This mistake is an example of how the ideas and experiences of others have caused distortion.

Robinson evaluates that it was only later that the enlightenment made by the revival of the Coptic language brought about questions of the classical views of hieroglyphs.  Though the views did start to be questioned by the few, the original views were still held by the majority.  It was the few who made progress towards the actual deciphering of hieroglyphs.  This shows progress could only be made by those who took a more impartial view over their work.  For instance, Barthélemy discovered that the cartouches contained the names of Egyptian Kings and Queens only by looking outside society’s understandings and beliefs drawn from Hor-Apollo’s writings.  However it was Zoëga who finally commented that some hieroglyphs might be phonetic signs.  This was only because, unlike other academics, Zoëga thought more on his own terms.

The demotic language scripts on the Rosetta Stone, year 196 BC.

Napoleon Bonaparte played a large role leading up to decipherment.  When he traveled to Egypt he took with him a large number of scholars.  These scholars studied and measured every site and every visible monument, finally publishing their findings in ‘La Description de l’Egypt’.  However the influence of past work in the decipherment of hieroglyphs prevented them from deciphering the elements they studied.  Scholars in the case of the Rosetta stone immediately concluded that the inscription was wholly non-phonetic, its symbols expressing ideas in the manner of Hor-Apollo.

In the decipherment efforts in the early nineteenth century, it was noted that there was a difference between the hieroglyphic and the Egyptian Demotic writings found on the Rosetta stone.  It was Thomas Young who first noted a striking resemblance between some demotic symbols and the corresponding hieroglyphs, he noted that ‘none of these characters could be reconciled, without inconceivable violence, to the forms of any imaginable alphabet’.  Young put a step forward but came unstuck.  The influence of the early work of Hor-Apollo and Young’s experience and teachings, made Young unable to accept anything but that all hieroglyphs (apart from foreign names) were non-phonetic.

Even Jean-Francois Champollion, the final decipherer of the hieroglyphic script, at first continued to believe that the hieroglyphs were entirely non-phonetic.  Champollion was not only influenced by Hor-Apollo and other past historians and translators, but also by the scholars of his own time.  He was mostly influenced by Young’s work.  Unlike Young, Champollion had an originality and rigour, which was based on a knowledge of Egypt and its languages far superior to his predecessors.  This was a key component in translating hieroglyphs, as it allowed Champollion to look at a far bigger picture, yet he was still caught in the webs of disinformation from the past.  Robinson outlines that the early efforts of Champollion in 1822 were based on the premise that only non-Egyptian names and words in both demotic and hieroglyphic were spelt alphabetically. Champollion did not expect that this decipherment would apply to the entire hieroglyphic system.

Champollion, though for unknown reasons, later changed his mind about the phonetic issues with hieroglyphs, this was most likely due to yet another outside influence.  A contemporary French scholar of the Chinese language suggested that there were phonetic elements even in the indigenous spellings of the Chinese script with its thousands of characters.  This outside influence, though not directed at hieroglyphs, could have made Champollion wonder whether the same philosophy could be assumed for deciphering Egyptian Hieroglyphics.

Champollion also realized that among the one thousand four hundred and nineteen signs in hieroglyphs on the Rosetta stone it contained only sixty-six different signs.   His experience told him that if the signs were truly and only semantic symbols, there would logically expected to be more than sixty six signs on the Rosetta stone, each one representing a different word as they would have been logograms.  It was only through Champollion’s change of mind that we today understand the true nature of hieroglyphics, that the writing system is a mixture of semantic symbols, phonetic signs, phonograms and determinatives.

Related articles

• Ancient Princess’ Tomb Discovered In Egypt (news.sky.com)
• The History of Hieroglyphics (socyberty.com)
• The Decipherment of Hieroglyphs and The Rosetta Stone (circa71.wordpress.com)
• Demotic Dictionary Translates Life in Ancient Egypt (theepochtimes.com)
• The Origin of Writing (espliego.wordpress.com)
• Daily Lives of Ancient Egyptians Translated in New Dictionary (livescience.com)