Second exam review

The FINAL EXAM (Thursday, April 29th, 1-2:20pm in CIT room 165) will be in the same format as the first exam: the first section will give 10 terms, 8 of which you must identify using short answers; the second section will be an essay about an ancient source (text, image, etc. -- two options will be given and you must choose one to write about).

Any questions you have, or material you would like to be reviewed, should be posted on this wiki page.

A REVIEW SESSION will be offered Tuesday, April 27th, 7:30-8:30 pm in Rhode Island Hall (same place as last time).

Here are the sticky questions that were raised last night and Prof. Bestock's clarification:

1) Heliopolis: how prominent was this site during the SIP? What sources of evidence are associated with it?
Heliopolis is largely unexcavated so we don't know much about it for the SIP. We're also really low on textual records from the SIP in general, especially on the Hyksos side, so I don't know of any substantial records referring to it (OK - except the brief mention that it was taken in the Rhind mathematical papyrus which is obviously right on the cusp of SIP/NK). It fell within the Hyksos area of control, but as that doesn't seem to have related to major changes at sites where the majority of the population was Egyptian (see Memphis, for instance) even if they were major cult centers, there is no reason to expect upheaval at Heliopolis in the SIP. However, the ultimate answer is that we don't have much evidence either way.

2) There are some Asian wives whom we have tombs for -- they were married to which king? Thutmose III?
3 foreign wives of Thutmose III were buried together in a single tomb in western Thebes. Our other evidence for diplomatic marriages is purely written.

3) Was it for the SIP reunification that sources make mention of Egyptians fighting with Egyptian towns?
SIP references do talk about fighting Egyptian towns (Kamose, for instance, basically says that Egyptian traitorous local leaders were fighting on the side of the Hyksos - imagine!) But this isn't the first time, since FIP sources also mention such things (think of Ankhtifi).

4) Did Ay and Horemheb take titles of pharaoh? Or just stay very elite generals who controlled things?
Ay and Horemheb absolutely took full titles of kingship and were buried in the Valley of the Kings as kings. Ay wasn't a general, only Horemheb.

5) When Tut died, his widow wrote to the Asiatics to send prince to marry... is this correct?
The request for a Hittite prince is probably (but not 100% certainly) from the widow of Tutankhamun. The Hittites were suspicious enough to send a messenger to verify the request. It was real; they sent a prince; he died on route (the Hittites claimed murdered). We actually have the fragmentary letter from the queen (in Akkadian, found at Amarna I believe but I should check that...) The episode is also recorded in more detail from the Hittite side in a text called The Deeds of Supiluliuma.

6) Did Hyksos take the TITLE of pharaoh or just take Egyptian titles in general while they rule the north?
Yes, the Hyksos took titles of kingship, including King of Upper and Lower Egypt (an obvious misnomer), and wrote their names in cartouches. There are some peculiarities of titles, however, that speak to the mashed-up Egyptian/foreign nature of the way they constituted their rule, so for instance the case of a cartouche preceded by the title Heqa Khasut (Hyksos): ruler of a foreign land.

7) why would scribes dislike soldiers and write satires about them?
Everyone everywhere the world over likes to feel superior. The Satire of the Trades and other similar texts talk about the glory of being a scribe as compared to every other profession, not just military. And in fact scribes were very high class - it was a big education, a non-physical job, etc. White collar. But the texts are basically school exercises. Presumably it was more fun learning to write when you practiced by saying "I am better than everyone else and let me tell you why" than by saying "see Spot run".

8) Did the Heb seb fesitival have anything martial about it?
The heb sed is quite enigmatic. There is nothing about it that I know of that is specifically martial, but it certainly laid a great deal of stress on the physical vigor of the king. As such it is related to the martial qualities of youth and athletic ability that are celebrated aspects of kingship in all sorts of contexts.

Posted at Apr 28/2010 04:29PM:
Jon Casper: What kings do we need to know for the Second Intermediate period? I seem to have very little in my notes about this period other than Seqenenre-Taa and Kamose beginning the expulsion of the Hyksos. Also, who was the first king of the SIP?

Prof. B answers... Good question. First off, the beginning of the SIP is extremely confused. We cannot talk with much certainty about even dynasties (14 in the north and 16 in the south); we know almost no names of kings from the early SIP and certainly none of them are well enough documented for you to care about in the context of this exam. The succeeding dynasties (15 at Avaris and 17 at Thebes) are better attested, though we're still not entirely certain about the names or deeds of all the kings. It's really only once we get to the period of the war of reunification that we can talk about specific people. For the Hyksos, the kings we know to have been involved are two or three: Aauserre Apepi (often just called Apepi, and in some sources given the Greekified version of his name: Apophis) and Khamudi (who is the one who gets beat finally). Some argue for a different Apepi before Aauserre and this is plausible. For the Theban 17th Dynasty you're spot on: Seqenenre-Taa and Kamose. Their work, of course, isn't done, and in some ways the division between Dynasty 17 and 18 is arbitrary since Ahmose is probably the brother of Kamose and definitely is not from a new family. But he rules a united Egypt and his forebears didn't, and this explains the split.

Another interesting question came to my inbox regarding the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus. I copy my answer below. The papyrus is mostly devoted to mathematics (it was actually commissioned by the Hyksos ruler as a compendium of Egyptian mathematical knowledge - just another way the Hyksos really constituted themselves as Egyptian in some ways and took part in aspects of high Egyptian culture). There's an insert, almost like a diary entry, that has a reference to the Theban armies coming north. It reads:

"Regnal year 11, second month of shomu, Heliopolis was entered. First month of akhet, day 23, this southern prince broke into Tjaru. Day 25 – it was heard tell that Tjaru had been entered. Regnal year 11, first month of akhet, the birthday of Seth – a roar was emitted by the majesty of this god. The birthday of Isis, the sky poured rain."

The regnal dates in question are for the Hyksos king, though given in purely Egyptian style. So we have here records of the same campaign from both sides, and they agree about what a disaster it was for the Hyksos.

Posted at Apr 28/2010 07:41PM:
Ken Ettinger: What is the importance of the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus besides that it is the only existing Hyksos document (is this correct?) and that it shows the mathematical expertise of the Egyptians?

Posted at Apr 28/2010 07:49PM:
Jon Casper: The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus is the only Hyksos evidence that documents Ahmose's campaign through Heliopolis to Tjaru during his defeat of the Hyksos, marking the beginning of the New Kingdom.

Posted at Apr 28/2010 07:50PM:
Jon Casper: Also, it I believe it was written in Cuneiform, or Akkadian

Posted at Apr 28/2010 08:15PM:
Prof. B: Right on the the more important point that it's our only evidence form the Hyksos side about Ahmose's campaign (see above, too), but it's actually in Egyptian. A good way to guess about the language and script something is written in is actually its medium. So Egyptian, when it's not on architecture or something else intended to be permanent, is written in a kind of cursive script with a reed pen and ink. That's easy on papyrus - if you see a papyrus from Egypt, 99.9% of the time the language is going to be Egyptian. Cuneiform, though, is written with a pointed stick that's impressed into wet clay, leaving little wedge shaped marks. So if you see a clay tablet, chances are it's in cuneiform (which is a script that's used to write several languages, including Akkadian). The Amarna letters are cuneiform tablets in a few different languages, but mostly Akkadian. The Rhind mathematical papyrus isn't the only Hyksos document we have (depending on how you count "documents" - we don't have other long papyri but we do have things like inscribed artifacts and architectural fragments and, archaeologist that I am, I tend to consider those documents too).

Posted at Apr 28/2010 08:15PM:
Russell Huang: What exactly were the significance of Thutmoses III's gold lions?

Posted at Apr 28/2010 08:34PM:
Prof. B: Gold lions get mentioned in some private autobiographies as well as the annals of Thutmose III. They appear alongside the flies of valor, and apparently are just a more elaborate form of the gold of valor awarded for military exploits. Perhaps they had something to do with service especially to the king, as lions are definitely royal symbols, but I'm speculating there and would have to collect more data to be sure. Oh and a slight clarification: I don't know of any of these that we have physical remains of, just the textual mentions.

Posted at Apr 29/2010 08:31AM:
Prof. B: And for clarity, the episode related in the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus refers to Ahmose's campaign north, not the earlier battles of S-T or Kamose.