Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let me put it in a bit more "modern" context:
> Could Atenism, and the entire Amarna episode, ever
> have been predicted by looking at evidence from
> only the 20th and 17th Dynastic records?
>
> That's my only point. As we found evidence for
> the Amarna period, we had to revise the
> "monolithic" model dramatically. If we had buried
> our heads in the sand and said, "nope... no
> deviations, ever", then we'd have all this weird
> art and a whole city that just didn't "fit". We
> don't know that elements of other dynasties are
> not attributable to such cultural deviations, so
> we can't write off the anomalies or oddities as
> categorical "complexities" of the same old same
> old.

I disagree: even without knowledge of Amarna and Atenism, 19th century scholars were able to see there was a "difference" in Egyptian religion from the 17th dynasty and the 20th dynasties. Certain deities were emphasised more than others, and a certain deity (usually Amun-Ra) seems to have come into a henotheistic pre-eminence [ascription of supreme divine attributes to whichever one of several gods is addressed at the time]. Stela texts after the 19th dynasty show a more "personal" relationship with the deity, i.e., personal piety.

In older works, 19th century scholars claimed such was evidence of a "natural progression" towards monotheism. Then the Amarna area was found, and many referred to Atenism's founder as the first great "monotheist," although Atenism is simply a monolatry [the worship of a single god but without claiming that it is the only god, with other gods are recognized as existing]. But no scholar considered Egyptian religion and/or culture as "monolithic," IMO. Changes were evident, whether it was change of kings with new agendas, or from the empire periods, the more cosmopolitan influence/reaction against such influence. The term "archaising" in regards to ancient conservative reactions to changes in Egyptian religion was used long before Amarna was found, as I recall.

While I tend to agree with the idea that modern though "imposes" certain interpretations on ancient acts or texts that often are not there, when one can find the same belief, myth, or deity expressed in the same way over the course of the ancient culture's history, then I don't think personal (or modern) interpretation comes into play: one is looking at an actual belief expressed consistently from ancient times.

So, if Sutekh/Seth is associated with foreigners as far back as the Pyramid Texts, and you find the same interpretation in Middle Kingdom, New Kingdom, and TIP representations and myths concerning the deity, then by golly, he's probably a deity associated with all things and persons foreign. To extrapolate that Sutekh/Seth becomes a god of foreigners because he was "cast out" by his elder brother Horus for the throne of Egypt, or that he represented desert lands, and desert lands = chaos = foreigners, or that he's an outsider due to his "unnatural" birth from his mother Nut, or as the slayer of Osiris, etc., are all good analysis of Egyptian culture and mindset, IMO, and not "modern" interpretations.

Yet to equate Sutekh/Seth with the imagery of the Devil, however, is a modern interpretation, for no ancient Egyptian texts considered him so (some modern and earlier books so claim, being confused by the Greek/Ptolemaic through Roman periods' interpretation that Sutekh = Typhon (when in fact Sutekh slays the equivalent of Typhon, aka Apep, the enemy of Re). This is where problems of misinterpretation come in, IMO.

Reference:

te Velde, H. 1977. Seth, God of Confusion. A Study of His Role in Egyptian Mythology and Religion. Probleme der Ägyptologie. 6. W. Helck. G. E. van Baaren-Pape, transl. Leiden: Brill. (Most complete study of the imagery and role of Sutekh/Seth in Egyptian myth.)

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Doctoral Programme in Oriental Studies [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom