Search Results

This chapter discusses aspects of Demotic Egyptian prose narratives of the Greek and Roman periods, viewed against the background of the growing significance of reception theory in the study of ancient Egyptian literature in general. It reviews the development since the nineteenth century of ideas on the ancient audiences for Demotic literature. The problematic evidence for readers and performance is examined, to a very limited extent with reference to the nature of the finds and find-spots of manuscripts, but chiefly by paying attention to their format and their contents. As for the relationship with oral literature, it is suggested that the material essentially belonged to a written tradition, and was designed primarily for oral performance within temple communities.

Although most of the evidence for the history of Ptolemaic Egypt comes from texts on papyrus, Egypt has also produced a large number of inscriptions on stone, the type of document that makes up most of the surviving evidence in other parts of the ancient Greek world. This chapter examines the nature of this epigraphical evidence from Egypt and asks what contribution it makes. There the Greek inscriptions co-exist with a native epigraphical tradition of an entirely different sort, the hieroglyphic texts written on temple walls. There are also inscriptions in Demotic, the late cursive form of Egyptian, which connect more readily with the Greek documents. Some types of Greek inscriptions in Egypt are distinctive, such as the proskynema dedications with which visitors to temples left a permanent mark of their presence in words before the god.The trilingual decrees of synods of Egyptian priests (most famously the Rosetta Stone) are also without close parallel. And the asylum decrees of the late Ptolemaic period concerning temples raise major issues about the relative power of the king and the temples.

This chapter focuses on Memphis and its associated necropoleis. Memphis served as the seat of the satrap, based in the Palace of Apries, which continued its military and administrative functions. The cult of the Apis bull was maintained, and perhaps even expanded. Likewise, the practice of building shaft tombs among the Old Kingdom royal pyramids at Saqqara, Abusir and Giza also continued; some of these tombs are among the most impressive of the Late Period. Thus Memphis remained an important place, both in the physical landscape of Egypt, and also in the cultural memory of the Egyptians themselves. At the same time it was also a great cosmopolis, and Achaemenid rule only added to its diversity. The sealings and bilingual tags recovered from the Palace of Apries attest to a social environment in which multiple traditions of material culture were valued and utilized side by side. Even the names recorded in Demotic and Aramic papyri found at Saqqara feature combinations of Egyptian and foreign names within single families, pointing to a social climate of interaction and diversity rather than strict divisions between Persians and Egyptians.

The final chapter considers the significance of the 26^th Dynasty in relation to the history of ancient Egypt. The dynamic nature of the period, and the achievements of the Saites in the political, economic, administrative and cultural spheres are highlighted. Far reaching administrative changes throughout the country, changes in ownership and tenancy of land, temple reform, the introduction of demotic, religious ideology developments are major factors during this period. On the international front, for a brief period, Egypt occupied territory in Syria-Palestine, although much of the Saite Period was a struggle against her more powerful neighbours to the east. Trade was promoted with the Greeks and Phoenicians and Egypt became part of the wide range trading networks that linked the Mediterranean. Egypt realigned herself in the Mediterranean world - heralding the Hellenistic age; a time of transformation from the Bronze Age to the Classical era.

Talented individuals continued to make major contributions to Egyptology. Even in Britain, where public support was almost non-existent, the attorney Charles Wycliffe Goodwin became a leading scholar of hieratic in his spare time. In France, Emmanuel de Rougé at last took up where Champollion had left off and raised the study of the ancient Egyptian language to a much higher level. In Germany, Lepsius reigned supreme until he reluctantly had to recognize the accomplishments of Heinrich Brugsch who put ancient Egyptian philology, and especially Demotic studies, on a sound footing. Meanwhile, Lepsius’ achievements included establishment of the basis for ancient Egyptian chronology. In Egypt, the archaeological attainments of Joseph Hekekyan Bey and Alexander Henry Rhind, though little recognized at the time, anticipated the careful methods of later excavators. Yet, the outlook for Egyptology in Egypt appeared problematic at best at the time of Mariette's death in 1881. As it turned out, Egyptology in Egypt and Egyptology in general were about to enter some of their most glorious years.

Description of Tsenhor’s family, the archive she left behind, and her social background, also focusing on her profession, viz. that of being a choachyte, a funerary priest bringing libations to the dead in the necropolis of ancient Thebes. Tsenhor married at least twice in her life. Three of her children from two marriages are known to have survived their early childhood, although her eldest son from her first marriage may have died shortly after that. With an excursus on the Persian administration after the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses.

In 556 BCE Tsenhor’s father Nesmin received a sizable portion of land in exchange for his work as a choachyte, which is the technical term for a mortuary priest bringing libations to the dead. His deceased client was a woman also called Tsenhor, who may therefore have been Tsenhor’s name-giver. She would be born only a few years after this agreement was concluded. This chapter provides an in-depth analysis of the Demotic contract describing the agreement involved: Papyrus Louvre E 10935. The text mentions various Late Period dignitaries who are also known from the archaeological evidence.

Somewhere between 530 and 526 BCE Tsenhor’s second-husband-to-be, Psenese, received his share of the parental inheritance, which probably means that he was to start his own household. Excursus on the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses and his alleged criminal behavior, including a reassessment of the evidence purporting that the well-known Egyptian dignitary Wedjahorresne was a collaborator. Description of one day in March 517 BCE on which Tsenhor and her husband Psenese had four Demotic contracts written to arrange their marital property and the shares their children would receive. Excursus on the 4,500-year-old contract of Wepemnefret, one of the sons of Pharaoh Kheops.

In 517 BCE Tsenhor bought a male slave, probably a young boy. The purchase included a transfer of the original title deed to the new owner and a contract to the name of Tsenhor herself. Remarkably, this boy features in the second written contract, assenting to the sale through an oral statement in the notary office, which was then recorded in writing. Excursus on the right of ancient Egyptian women to own property including slaves, using sources from the Middle Kingdom.

This chapter examines the absence of Coptic in legal texts. One explanation for the absence of legal acts could be the fact that there was no court operating in Egyptian and therefore capable of settling the disputes related to these acts. The use of Coptic in legal acts must have appeared to be perfectly useless—especially since these acts were written by professionals who were accomplished in Greek and who had mastered the intricacies of Roman law, in a state context confined to the exclusive use of Greek. The chapter then assesses the obstacles related to multidialecticism and the diglossic situation of Egypt, which were reinforced by the authoritative role of Greek. Egyptian was not only hindered by the competition of Greek, the language of the conquerors, but it was also the victim of a genuine policy implemented by Greek-speaking authorities (whether Ptolemaic or Roman) to restrict the field of action of Egyptian and to exclude it from the sphere of regulated writing. Completely absent from the government, which was strictly Greek-speaking, and increasingly limited to unregulated private communication, written Demotic ended up dying out in the company of the decline of the temples that ensured its teaching.

This chapter deliberates on Evans Chan’s critical vision in The Map of Sex and Love’s absurd connections while at the same time refracting theoretically through Paul Gilroy’s conception of “demotic cosmopolitanism.” The film, which shows a moment when three Hong Kong lives intersect, allows Chan to marry the local with the global, in ironic resistance to and contestation of unrelenting transnational capitalist strategies, to envision a world of codependence, connection, and conviviality. The film does not eschew political complicities and human failings, for it embraces the notion of shared responsibility and critique, to create a roadmap guiding us into an uncertain global future.

This chapter provides a critical analysis of Demotic and Greek sources concerning private associations of Hellenistic Egypt, putting them into perspective in order to overcome the traditional divide into Greek and Egyptian associations. Apart from language choice—which in the case of Greek does not necessarily imply specific cultural identity—associations in Egypt display no fundamental features to uphold the traditional view, which should therefore be discarded. This chapter argues that instead of being forcefully segregated into Egyptian and Greek, associations should simply be treated as ‘associations of Egypt’: they were embedded in the local society and culture, while at the same time also drew elements—exclusively or inclusively—from various cultural and associative traditions (Greek, Egyptian, as well as others besides).

This introduction discusses the character of the different epigraphic traditions in Egypt under the Ptolemies (332–30 BC), Greek and Egyptian, in both Hieroglyphic and Demotic. The book is intended as a complement to the complete collection of editions of these monuments. It summarizes the way in which the following chapters discuss and analyse many aspects of the format, content, and presentation of these Greek and bilingual or trilingual inscriptions. It sketches some of the main themes addressed by the authors and indicates what value the collection adds to our appreciation of the cultural and monumental landscape in which the Greeks absorbed features of the indigenous religion and the Egyptians adapted to the introduction of dynastic royal cult. Rather than offering novel arguments or radical innovations in interpreting the monuments, the chapters in this volume contribute to a deepening understanding of the social and cultural complexities of this bicultural landscape.

Soldiers are heavily represented within the corpus of Greek inscriptions from Egypt, sometimes acting individually—especially officers—and sometimes as a group. The most common types of documents are dedications, along with signatures and proskynemata (acts of adoration)—generally simply graffiti. Smaller in number are the funerary inscriptions (mostly from Alexandria), and finally a few honorific decrees and petitions involving soldiers. The aim of this chapter is more generally to explain why there were so many inscriptions concerning soldiers and why their number increased over time, through the analysis of their content, form, and functions. Dedicatory inscriptions offer the clearest evidence for investigating this increase and therefore are the focus of the chapter, though some of the new habits are also reflected in other types of inscriptions. A number of inscriptions set up by members of the military were also preserved in hieroglyphs and Demotic Egyptian on statues and stelai and sometimes concern individuals who are also known from the Greek documentation.

This chapter focuses on how the Christians of Egypt and Ethiopia were closely connected by ecclesiastical bonds for nearly 1,700 years. The connection lasted from the time when Ethiopia's first bishop was consecrated by the Patriarch of Alexandria in the 340s, until the dependence of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church on the Coptic Orthodox Church ended formally in 1951. As a consequence of this long allegiance of the former Church to the latter, contacts in the cultural sphere developed strongly. The chapter shows how Coptic literature was written in two languages: in Coptic itself, written in an original alphabet that was based on the Greek, but expanded with seven letters borrowed from the Demotic writing system to represent sounds that did not exist in Greek; and in Arabic, as after about AD 700 Coptic began to lose its position as the language of the Egyptians.