(This article is part of an essay written as part of my 2002 MA studies. Hopefully, a fuller version of the article will be published within the next year or so.)
Egyptian references to foreign lands and people come primarily from two types of textual sources. The first is from the view of the Egyptian observing an external foreign land or people from within Egypt, such as can be found in the Instructions to King Merikare (te Velde 1967: 111; Lichtheim 1975: 103-104) , or as a foreigner in a strange land, describing the strange ways of foreign lands and peoples, while defining his hopes and desires to be back in Egypt and amongst his own people, such as the Story of Sinuhe (Lichtheim 1975: 223-235; Redford 1992: 83-85). Both reflect similar apprehensions about the “foreign” nature of lands and people outside of Egypt.
However, what exactly constitutes “foreign” in the ancient Egyptian mind is a far more complex topic. It is important, I think, to define what the Egyptians view as separate from the “norm,” meaning Egypt and Egyptian society, and how such a view characterises whether a people or land is either positive or negative in this regard. In defining some lands or people as “foreign,” there is a tendency to assign such lands or people as being ruled over a specific deity, Sutekh/Seth. This divine association with things “foreign” is worth examining in some detail, I think, as the characteristics of Sutekh also reflects much of the Egyptian attitude towards foreigners during these early periods. Later, after a brief brush with cosmopolitanism in the New Kingdom, the increasing hostility towards foreigners is reflected back into Egyptian culture by the increased deviation of attitude towards these deities, with Sutekh/Seth becoming demonized and the foreign-loved Hathor being enveloped into syncretism with a nationalistic Isis. Examination of these elements, as well as the direct statements from texts, may give a more complete appreciation to what was “foreign” and “foreigners” in the Egyptian mind.
The Vile and Shed Kheru: What Characterised a “Foreigner” in Egyptian Thought?
There is little doubt that the Egyptians viewed their land as the centre of the world; beyond its borders, fluid as they were, lay lands and people not within the concept of the Egyptian universe. This isolationist attitude towards the foreign lands and people appears quite early, as is seen in the
Pyramid Texts. In the following passage, Egypt (addressed as the Eye of Horus) is exhorted to pay homage to the king (addressed as Horus) for protecting it from harm by foreigners, who are identified in the text with the god Seth [Sutekh]. Reflecting the Egypto-centred thought of the time, only the king and Egypt are allowed passage into the divine world, but not foreigners:
The doors which are on you stand like ‘Iwn-mwt-f;
They will not open for the Westerners, they will not open for the Easterners,
They will not open for the Northerners, they will not open for the Southerners…
But they will open for Horus,
It is he who made them, it is he who erected them.
It is he who saved them from every ill which Seth did to them.
It is he who sets you in order, in this your name of ‘Settlement’...
(Faulkner 1998: PT § 1592-1595b)
By implication, foreign lands, under the direction of Seth/Sutekh, are not “in order” and are not “settlements.” They differ from the “norm,” which was the land of Egypt, and this alone made them suspect (Bresciani 1997: 221-222).
By the end of the Old Kingdom, this attitude towards the peoples of foreign lands becomes more hostile, as evoked in the Instruction to King Merikare:
‘But this further should be said because of the Bowman:
Lo, the wretched Asiatic! It goes ill with the place he is,
afflicted with water, difficult from [lack of] many trees,
the ways thereof are painful because of the mountains.
He does not dwell in single place, (but) his legs are made to go astray.
He has been fighting (ever) since the time of Horus, (but) he does not conquer,
nor yet can he be conquered.
He does not announce a day in fighting, like a thief who…for a gang.
But as I live! I am while I am!
The bowmen, however, are a locked wall...
I made the Northland smite them,
I captured their inhabitants
and I took their cattle, to the disgust of the Asiatics against Egypt.
Do not trouble thyself about him:
he is (only) an Asiatic, one despised on his own coast.
He may rob a single person, (but) he does not lead against a town of many citizens.’
(Wilson Translation in
ANET, 1969: 416)
From this, we see the Egyptians’ unyielding characterization of the foreigner, particularly the Asiatic. He is wretched, constantly moving, due to lack of water and lack of permanent dwelling place. To get what he wants, he fights, but even when he does, he does not fight in a “normal” fashion by announcing the day of battle, but comes without warning (likely in raids (see Wilson's N. 32 to translation in
ANET, 1969: 416)). He is unpredictable, violent, outcast from settled areas, and despised even in his own land. Like the land in which he dwells, the “foreigner” Asiatic, as described in the Merikare texts, does not conform to order. He is both physically and psychologically beyond the power of the king to stop him, as observed in the king’s frustrated comment on the foreigner’s impenetrability: ‘...the bowmen, however, are a locked wall...’
The attitude towards the “stranger” grows worse with time: foreigners are perceived as being reprehensible in their actions: they are given to drink, are quarrelsome and murderous; their sexual practices are reprehensible (te Velde 1967: 111). In short, the comportment of foreigners are the converse concept of the Egyptian ideal person, the /
nb sgr/ or the controlled “silent” man (te Velde 1968: 38; Hannig 2000: 1235b). It is not surprising, therefore, to find when foreigners begin to intrude upon the areas which do comprise the “settled” areas of Egypt, they also bring with them their “strange” and reprehensible ways, in opposition to the Egyptian concept of both political and moral order, /
mAat/. It then becomes necessary to make them into the “enemies” of Egypt, so beginning the definition of the foreign stranger as an “other” who must be destroyed. Execration Texts of the Middle Kingdom give long lists of rulers and their retainers, seen as being in opposition to Egypt, naming the lands and associated tribes with particularity. Their manner in giving opposition to the Egyptian world is particularly condemned:
“
(those) who rebel, who may plot, who may fight, who may talk of fighting, or who may talk of rebelling – in this entire land...every evil word, every evil speech, every evil slander, every evil thought, every evil plot, every evil fight, every evil quarrel, every evil plan, every evil thing, all evil dreams, and all evil slumber.”
(
Execration of Asiatic Princes, Wilson Translation, in
ANET, 1969: 329)
While Sutekh/Seth has previously been associated with foreign lands due to their “remote” status (Sutekh being the quintessential outcast in the Egyptian pantheon (te Velde 1967: 31-32)), his connection with peoples foreign becomes more closely linked by mutual characteristics. Sutekh is disorderly and uncivilised, inimical to control, like the foreigner; he is unpredictable and inscrutable, “[taking] no account of order or meaning” (te Velde 1968: 37, 40).
Because of his ultimate crime in slaying Osiris, he is without a “home” (read: in a “settled” /
tAS/ land), and is on the move constantly, taking what he wants, like a /
Dr/ foreigner. Like the foreigner, Sutekh’s sexual nature is abnormal (to Egyptian eyes) (te Velde 1967: 111-112; te Velde 1968: 39) , and his comportment is that of a
shed kheru, derived from /
aSA xrw/, literally, one with a “loud voice.” However, a
shed kheru is also one who “behaves incorrectly,” “makes mischief,” who “stirs up strife,” and “cause a commotion”, and more specifically, one who “deceives” (te Velde 1968: 37-38). In short, he is the reverse of Horus (which is often identified as Egypt, and thus, “settled” lands), the enemy of /
mAat/, and the reverse counterpart to the /
nb sgr/, the true and “silent man,” the desired ideal of Egyptian culture. Sutekh is thus an apt representative for foreigners and foreign lands – not only by his dominion of “outside” lands (where he was driven after his crime), but also by his unpredictable “trickster” qualities. Foreigners are consistently referred throughout the pharaonic period as “people of Seth,” which reflects both Egyptian trepidation and lingering suspicion attached to strangers.
This low opinion of foreigners, outside control of Egyptian authority, remained the official position for most of the pharaonic period, and if anything, was exacerbated during times of foreign rule of Egypt. When such rulers did not reign within Egyptian traditions, as occurred during the Hyksos, Persian, and Assyrian occupations, feelings against foreigners grew even stronger.
Attitude Changes Towards Foreigners: From /Dr/ to /tAS/, Chaos to Control
Yet, as Egyptian control expanded, many of the former uncontrolled /
Dr/ lands became vassal states; with it, attitudes toward these foreigners changed. Brought into control, their lands redefined as part of “settled” /
tAS/ lands under Egyptian leadership, these foreigners could participate by, and even benefit from, adherence to the Egyptian concepts of order and administration. Egyptian tolerance of the foreigner was expressed thusly in the “loyalist” philosophy of Senwosret I in the Wadi el-Hudi inscriptions of Nubia:
“
Every Iunti [/[b]iwnty[/b]/ “nomad”] of Nubia who is recognized as a servant acting in accordance with the power of this perfect king will see his descendants live eternally.” (Bresciani 1997: 223)
Similarly did the view of foreigners change within Egyptian culture, as reflected in
The Story of Sinuhe. As the Egyptian courtier Sinuhe wanders from land to land in self-exile after the death of King Amenemhet (I), he speaks of encounters with a different sort of foreign leader – one familiar with the internal events within Egypt and who know the affairs of state intimately. These are not rulers of /
Dr/ lands, beyond the limits of the Egyptian world; rather they are rulers whose states communicate in formal relationship with Egypt. These characters are thus identified as adhering to Egyptian order, assisting Sinuhe as a representative of Egypt and her king, much in the fashion described in the “loyalist” philosophy,
supra.
Yet, even within Sinuhe does the uncontrollable and violent /
Dr/ type of stranger from Retenu appear, only to be defeated in battle with Sinuhe. This character’s inclusion in a story, with otherwise sympathetic treatment of foreigners, indicates the lingering dread towards the foreigner deep within the Egyptian psyche. The challenger’s defeat, and Sinuhe’s subsequent plundering of his property, mirrors victory statements of kings in battle with the /
Dr/ foreign peoples (Cf.
Senwosret III's Semna Boundary Stela in Lichtheim 1975: 119).
While it is arguable that a more sympathetic view of foreigners during the pre-Hyksos period may simply reflect the well-known Egyptian tolerance and adaptation to new situations, which come from contact with foreigners, it is notable the more “positive” aspect of foreign relations between the Egyptians and foreigners is overseen by another deity, Hathor. Hathor’s dominion over foreigners is assigned to lands which, while outside Egypt proper, have long-term relationships with the Egyptian state (such as Byblos), or where she acts as patroness of lands which are thoroughly within Egyptian hegemony (such as the Sinai region). Her pre-eminence in these lands appears to be directly traced to nascent imperialism of the Middle Kingdom (te Velde 1967: 110-111), which was brought up short only during the Hyksos period and the reversal of Egyptian hegemony. Hathor’s later syncretism within Isis, as nationalistic tendencies arose during the foreign-occupied periods, in my opinion, confirms the suggestion her independent cult was tied directly to fostering assimilation of foreign peoples within the /
tAS/ lands within Egyptian control.
Conclusion
The Egyptian view of foreign lands and foreigners appears to have been established quite early in Egyptian culture, defining what is truly “foreign” being linked to the political boundaries of Egypt. When boundaries changed, so changed the Egyptian attitude towards which land or people could be considered “foreign.” From Old through Middle Kingdoms, what was “outside” Egypt and what was “inside” Egypt, exemplified by the /
Dr/ and /
tAS/ lands, respectively, subtly changed. Association of the archetypal “outsider” trickster deity, Sutekh/Seth, with the uncontrolled lands, and Hathor as the tutelary deity of controlled foreign lands, indicates a developing maturity of the ancient Egyptians to the political realities of life in the ancient Near East.
These actions also indicate the development of the ancient Egyptian thought to break free of its Egypto-centric frame of mind, which defined all things “other” as “chaos,” but all things “Egyptian” as “controlled, ordered” and “normal.” In applying indigenous deities to oversee foreign lands, as well as constantly redefining /
Dr lands to the limits of the universe, the Egyptians encountered a new world of possibilities and opportunities. As is often the case, not all outcomes were positive. Egyptian reaction to setbacks in its world was to demonize the deities which represented the “foreign,” collapsing into archaic styles which evoked memories of a simpler time – to render all things again “Egyptian,” and thus, “normal” – to establish again the precepts of /
mAat/, defined as the only “true” feature of Egyptian culture.
---------
Bibliography
ANET = Pritchard, J. B., Ed. 1969.
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Third Ed., with Supplement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bresciani, E. 1997. Foreigners. In S. Donadoni (ed.),
The Egyptians: 221-253. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Faulkner, R. O. 1998.
The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press.
Hannig, R. 2000.
Die Sprache der Pharaonen: Großes Handwörterbuch Deutsch-Ägyptisch (2800 - 950 v. Chr.) Lexica 3. Mainz: von Zabern.
Lichtheim, M. 1975.
Ancient Egyptian Literature.
Volume I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms. Berkeley: University of California.
Redford, D. B. 1992.
Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
te Velde, H. 1967.
Seth, God of Confusion. G. E. v. Baaren-Pape. Leiden: Brill.
___________. 1968. The Egyptian God Seth as a Trickster.
Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 7: 37-40.
© Katherine Griffis-Greenberg 2002
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2007 10:35AM by Katherine Griffis-Greenberg.
