Harrassowitz Verlag

TRAVAUX DE L’INSTITUT DES CULTURES MÉDITERRANÉENNES ET ORIENTALES Travaux de l’Institut

DE L’ACADÉMIE POLONAISE DES SCIENCES des Cultures Méditerranéennes et Orientales
de l’Académie Polonaise des Sciences
TOME 6
formerly

Travaux du Centre
d’Archéologie Méditerranéenne

ANCIENT EGYPT 2017 de l’Académie Polonaise des Sciences

PERSPECTIVES OF RESEARCH

ANCIENT EGYPT 2017 PERSPECTIVES OF RESEARCH

edited by
MARIA HELENA TRINDADE LOPES
JOANNA POPIELSKA-GRZYBOWSKA
JADWIGA IWASZCZUK
RONALDO GUILHERME GURGEL PEREIRA

ISBN 978-3-447-11458-5
ISBN 978-83-952189-5-8

9 788395 218958
Harrassowitz Verlag
 ANCIENT EGYPT 2017
PERSPECTIVES OF RESEARCH
TRAVAUX DE L’INSTITUT DES CULTURES MÉDITERRANÉENNES ET ORIENTALES
DE L’ACADÉMIE POLONAISE DES SCIENCES
TOME 6

ANCIENT EGYPT 2017

PERSPECTIVES OF RESEARCH

edited by
MARIA HELENA TRINDADE LOPES
JOANNA POPIELSKA-GRZYBOWSKA
JADWIGA IWASZCZUK
RONALDO GUILHERME GURGEL PEREIRA

Harrassowitz Verlag
Warsaw – Wiesbaden 2020
Series Editor
BARBARA LICHOCKA

Scientific Editors of the volume

MARIA HELENA TRINDADE LOPES, JOANNA POPIELSKA-GRZYBOWSKA, JADWIGA IWASZCZUK,
RONALDO GUILHERME GURGEL PEREIRA

Proof-reading in English
JO B. HARPER

Cover photo
Official Bes, twenty-sixth dynasty (photo by CATARINA GOMES FERREIRA)
© Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisboa
Museu Calouste Gulbenkian – Coleção do Fundador, Lisboa, Portugal

Layout, typesetting, graphics and technical edition

JANUSZ R. JANISZEWSKI

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the internet at https://dnb.de/.

© Institute of Mediterranean and Oriental Cultures, Polish Academy of Sciences (IKŚiO PAN), Harrassowitz
Verlag and the Authors, Warsaw – Wiesbaden 2020

This work, including all of its parts, is protected by copyright. Any use beyond the limits of copyright law without
the permission of the publisher is forbidden and subject to penalty. This applies particularly to reproductions,
translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. Printed on permanent/durable paper.
Printed in Poland

ISBN 978-3-447-11458-5
ISBN 978-83-952189-5-8

Institute of Mediterranean and Oriental Cultures Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co KG

Polish Academy of Sciences Harrassowitz Verlag
72, Nowy Świat st. Kreuzberger Ring 7 c–d
00-330 Warsaw 65205 Wiesbaden
Poland Germany
www.iksiopan.pl https://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de/
sekretariat@iksio.pan.pl verlag@harrassowitz.de
 Contents
Preface .............................................................................................................................................................. 7
Trindade Lopes Maria Helena
By way of introduction. Remember CECE8 ............................................................................................... 9
Arias Kytnarová Katarína
Beer jar deposits – remnants of cultic activity from the Old Kingdomat Abusir ................................ 11
Blöbaum Anke Ilona
Composition and context: the seated figure of Montuemhat (Berlin ÄMP 17271) ............................ 21
Caramello Sara
Did the scribe… just want to have fun? Funny inscriptions from Kha and Merit funerary
equipment ..................................................................................................................................................... 29
Dulíková Veronika
The reign of king Nyuserre: a time of transformation ............................................................................. 35
Eltze Elizabeth
Comparative displays: the jewels of Amanishakheto in modern German museums ......................... 47
Gomes Francisco B.
Udjat-eye/cow amulets in Iron Age contexts of the Iberian Peninsula: distribution, context
and use ............................................................................................................................................................ 65
Hourdin Jérémy
Study of Kushite architectural programmes: the Taharqa’s columned porches at Thebes ................... 77
Hsu Shih-Wei
A comparison of figurative language in royal inscriptions: a case study of the stelae
of Thutmose III and Pi(ankh)y ................................................................................................................... 85
Incordino Illaria
Brief overview of the pottery assemblage from ‘Monastery of Abba Nefer the Hermit’
in Manqabad (Asyut) ................................................................................................................................... 97
Kapiec Katarzyna
The motif of building activity in the speeches of Amun-Kamutef from the Southern Room
of Amun in the temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari ....................................................................... 101
Kuronuma Taichi
Large jars, small cups: observation of the Predynastic pottery placement in the cemeteries
at Naqada, Upper Egypt ............................................................................................................................. 111
McCarthy Heather
Book of the Dead 161 in a Ramesside queen’s tomb: function and context ........................................ 121
Miranda Catarina
Facing the encounter: an historical ontology of Graeco-Egyptian royal sculpture
of the Ptolemaic period .............................................................................................................................. 131
Moser Susanna
Presents, imports or ‘loot’? Ancient Egyptian artefacts found in Aquileia (Udine, Italy) ................. 139
Mota Susana
Men and gods: divinities’ cult within household religion in ancient Egypt ...................................... 153
Nielsen Nicky
The development of settlement at Tell Nabasha: an overview of the current state of research ........ 167
Noc Éloïse
The SIGSaqqâra Project: presentation of some technical aspects ..................................................... 175
Patrício André
To create an empire: the ancient Egyptian mind and beliefs behind the New Kingdom’s
imperial expansion ..................................................................................................................................... 181
Gurgel Pereira Ronaldo G.
New perspectives on aegyptiaca in Portugal: on Egyptianising scarabs ............................................. 193
Fernández Pichel Abraham I.
Focus on Esna II, 17 and 31: new interpretations and conclusions ...................................................... 201
Carvalho Pinto Marcus Vinicius
Loyalism: an overview of a Middle Kingdom political phenomenon .................................................. 207
Rutkauskas Tadas
(Re)constructing the ancient Egyptian concept of sin ........................................................................... 217
Monteiro Santos Jessica Alexandra
The magical spells as a source to the study of ancient Egyptian children’s magical
protection: an overview .............................................................................................................................. 223
Smoláriková Květa
The nature of the Saite-Persian cemetery at Abusir ................................................................................ 231
Thorpe Sue
The enigma of “He of the Camp” and el-Hibeh – aspects of ancient Egyptian religious belief
and life found in twenty-first dynasty personal correspondence ........................................................ 239
Trapani Marcella
The group-statue of Pendua and Nefertari: from the archaeological context to the M.A.I.
(Missione Archeologica Italiana) archives ............................................................................................... 251
Plates ............................................................................................................................................................. 261
 To create an empire:
the ancient Egyptian mind and beliefs behind
the New Kingdom’s imperial expansion
André Patrício

Abstract: Perhaps one of the most recognisable elements of ancient Egyptian iconography is the depiction
of the smiting of the enemies of Kemet by the Pharaoh. This establishes a direct connection with the
most profound belief, where Egypt was both the maatic centre of the Universe and also should be kept
clean from those who did not follow their “maatic principles” – the others – a central concern in the
Egyptian collective mind. Entering the New Kingdom, the political canvas had changed drastically in
the previous historical period. Maat was no longer circumscribed to Egypt itself. There was, ideologically,
a need to extend it to new territories, previously dominated by isfet. This work analyses how a belief,
accompanied by a political scenario became one possible catalyst for the forging of an imperial dominion.
From the Old Kingdom until then, Egyptians mainly protected Kemet and its most immediate borders,
with the occasional exception. But a change in view and action originated a new approach in terms of
the interaction of Egypt with the outside world that would last for several hundred years and change
the political scenario, geographical frontiers and the sphere of influence that the original Kemet had
established. The main challenge of this essay is to understand whether the Egyptian New Kingdom empire
was a response to protect Egypt and its beliefs or a newfound imperialistic desire?

Keywords: empire, enemies, expansion, protection, New Kingdom

André Patrício, CHAM/FCSH – Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Universidade dos Açores, Lisbon,
Portugal; andrehagpatricio@gmail.com

“The true mark of genius is not perfection but originality, the opening
of new frontiers; once this is done, the conquered territory becomes
common property.”
Arthur Koestler1

An introspective civilisation and the creation of its main constructs

Ancient Egypt had a strategically advantageous location for a civilisation to flourish. In circa 3000
bce,2 its frontiers, tash,3 started to become self-evident. The Mediterranean to the North, the Arabian
Desert, the Red Sea and the Sinai Mountains to the East, the Libyan Desert in the West and in the South
the protection of the granitic formations surrounding the First Nile Cataract and the Nubian Desert
beyond it.4 These very specific conditions made it possible for an evolving civilisation to focus on
1
Cited by Shlain 2014: 1.
2
Shaw 2003: 480.
3
Faulkner 1991: 294.
4
Smith 2005: 207–237.
182 André Patrício

itself5 and create concepts and constructs centred on its thus protected territory and, eventually, to
understand that peace was a consequence of as much isolation as possible from the rest of the world.6
A civilisation based on these principles tends to understand that actions matter, for consequences are not
only reflected on oneself, but also on others, eventually on the many and ultimately on the Cosmos. This
was the Egyptian principle of maat, created earlier and introduced into the core system of beliefs, a result
of the understanding of how it was possible to live in harmony and prosperity and create, as a group,
a nation, that would eventually last millennia.
It is quite understandable that one of the main concerns of the central power would be to maintain the
frontiers protected from outside incursions.7 One can also posit the hypothesis that natural equilibrium
existed inside Egypt’s borders and natural chaos outside them. These would comprise two of the most
fundamental concepts of Egyptian culture and its mentality: maat and isfet.8 Inside Egypt, there was an
equilibrium and harmony, maat, while outside it was only isfet.
Understandably, the danger would come from outside in the form of the ones the Egyptians called
their Enemies. So, the reduced numbers of the Egyptian army9 of the Old Kingdom had three concerns:
to protect the Pharaoh; to accompany expeditions in search of raw materials10 and to protect the Egyptian
Frontiers.11
Although the Egyptians, via their own expeditions, mainly in search of wood12 and other goods, had
the notion that the world was much more extensive than Egypt itself, for they had explored from the cost
of Syria to the Sinai mines13 and even to Buhen, in the South,14 as early as the fourth dynasty, during the
kingdom of Seneferu.15 Despite these expeditions, Egypt seemed to want to maintain its introspective
state of mind, protected from what lay beyond its frontiers. At some point in their belief system, there
was a clear development that what was beyond the frontiers of Egypt was not good and would not benefit
Egypt. From there the dualities of Egypt-Horus and Desert-Seth, Egypt-maat and foreign lands-isfet, and
so on, emerged as constructs. Also, the concern of the Egyptians of the Old Kingdom with the patrolling
of their frontiers to guarantee that no foreigner would enter Kemet is a clear sign of how deeply invested
the central power was in maintaining external influences as far away as possible.
This vision of reticence, or even fear, of what was foreign, did not end with the Old Kingdom. In
fact, it was transversal to the majority of pharaonic Egypt and can be seen, still in place, when Egypt
became less closed in on itself, but continued using superstition and magic to maintain the power of
those foreigners at bay. One of the most recognisable forms of protection against the outside world can
be found in artefacts from funerary paraphernalia. Perhaps the best known objects are the footstools,
with the nine enemies of Egypt represented in a vast array of ways, from iconographic representations of
the enemies themselves16 to the most usual nine bows, specifically designed to keep enemies at bay using
magical protection. Another recognisable iconographic representation with the intuit of magical control
of enemies, as well as serving as a propaganda tool for the people, was that showing the Pharaoh smiting
the enemies of Egypt on the walls of temples – a representation that started with Narmer and become
a canon – and, further down the line, the Warrior Pharaoh – an introduction of the New Kingdom,
which would also become an intrinsic part of the roles of kingship.17 For the Pharaoh was the individual
who, due to his special circumstances, touched everyone’s lives and by doing so, his main function was
to protect his people, through a series of expected actions, roles and ceremonial tasks derived from the
nature of kingship and deeper than the role of ruling itself.18 For all this to have effect, one has to consider
5
Erman 1971: 38.
6
Sales 1997: 133.
7
Assmann 1996: 47.
8
Frankfort 1978: 18. Cf. Teeter 1997 and Wilkinson 2010: 15.
9
Bárta 2010: 21–39.
10
Williams 2002: 6.
11
Bárta 2010: 25.
12
Alfred 1955: 685–703.
13
Breasted 2001: 168, 176, 236, 250, 263, 302, 339 and Mumford 2006: 36–41.
14
Baines, Málek 1987: 33.
15
Killen 1994: 8.
16
One of the best examples is Object Carter 088, a footstool with four captive African and five captive Asians, with bows on
their back, carved on a footstool used by the Pharaoh. Found in KV 62, currently at the Museum of Egyptian Antiquities in
Cairo, JE 62048. The Pharaoh would place his feet on the footstool, crushing, or at least keeping the enemy under control. The
heka of the Pharaoh working for the sake of Egypt.
17
Bonhême 2001: 239.
18
Quigley (Ed.) 2005: 1.
 To create an empire: the ancient Egyptian mind and beliefs... 183

the fact that Egyptians’ belief system contemplated the existence of one of the forces used by the demiurge
to create the world, heka, magic, that the Pharaoh also possessed, as well as other people, for example
dwarfs, while the dead also had some kind of heka, or something strange and exotic.19 Both heka or akhu,
enchantments, were neither evil nor good, they could be used either way, and Egyptians might have used
them in an array of ways. However, for this essay, the relevant aspect is that magic was on the core of
Egyptian belief and the Pharaoh was embodied with it – he was a god – and, as superstition dominates
always what is unknown, heka and akhu were used to protect the Two Lands.20

Using a belief system to create an empire

One of the roles of the Pharaoh was to increase the dominion of the gods on Earth, to expand the
cosmic order.21
From the Old to the beginning of the Middle Kingdom, that was not directly related with increasing
territorial domains.
However, during the next historical period, something started to change in terms of the behaviour of
the ruling Pharaohs. And a change in behaviour is always a reflection of a change in mind.
During the first territorial expansions of the Middle Kingdom, to the East with the creation of the
“Way of Horus”,22 an extension of the protective “Walls of the Ruler”23 that were erected by order of
Amenemhat I to provide a protection against further Asiatic incursions into the Delta24 and the advances
to the South by Senwosret I25 and Senwosret III26 eventually almost to the gates of Kerma,27 the Egyptians
seemed to have adopted expansion as: first a protective measure, at the East border; and secondly as
a way to gain control over the gold mines of Kush. This could arguably be understood as the beginning
of something new. One was obviously defensive in nature given an armed conflict on the Delta that
generated a response would today be seen as an expansionist action. However, the second one, the actions
on the South, were something else. They could easily be attributed to an increased need for resources,
something that indeed happened during the Middle Kingdom. What is extraordinary, and deserves to
be retained, is that pharaohs of this period decided to resort to expansionist armed measures to gain
undisputed access to the needed resources. Trade and commercial campaigns seemed not to have been
considered. Was this a reflection of a need to show the power of the central government to Kush or was
it simply aimed to satisfy the necessity of resources that would then guarantee an uninterrupted flow of
goods avoiding the need for a “middle man”?
The reason is not, of course, clear and one can only hypothesise, but what was clear is that there was
a change in the way things tended to be done. That change could not have happened Egypt-wide, but it
most certainly did happen in the mind of the central power, the political mind, not that of the people.
Despite these considerations, something was about to change, deeply, in the way Egyptians would
react, confront and eventually dominate their known world a few centuries later, and it may not have had
anything to do with the, by then, long gone pharaohs of the Middle Kingdom.

The end of another era

The end of the Middle Kingdom was not at all calm. The thirteenth and fourteenth dynasties were
chaotic and probably concurrent. Despite this, the real blow to the Egyptian core belief system did not
come from the inside, as it did at the end of the Old Kingdom.
In the (now termed) fifteenth dynasty, the end of the Middle Kingdom came from the most terrifying
place of all: from outsiders of the new stetted frontiers of Egypt. However, it is today clear that the Hyksos
19
Pinch 1994: 10.
20
Pinch 1994: 12.
21
Bonhême 2001: 243.
22
Hoffmeier, El-Maksoud 2003: 169–197.
23
For further reading regarding this theme, see: Hoffmeier 2006: 1–20.
24
Callender 2003: 148–183.
25
Clarke 1916: 155–179.
26
Williams 2002: 640.
27
Wilson 1941: 225–236.
184 André Patrício

did not invade in any way, but nevertheless took control of a great part of Egypt.28 Separating the core of
Kemet in two was an isfetic action. There is no question about that.
There is evidence that during the Middle Kingdom there was a long-term immigration of Asiatic
people into Lower Egypt.29 One of the most significant pieces of evidence for this are the changes that
occurred in burial sites in Avaris from the late twelfth dynasty, which have no parallel to date anywhere
in Egypt.30 Interesting finds in such burial sites include Syria-Palestinian weapons, a famous scarab
bearing the name Aamu, ‘the Asiatic’, written in hieroglyphic, and the Egyptian-style statue of an Asiatic
dignitary,31 aspects that attests the premise that a cultural mixing was, in fact, happening in the Delta, and
clearly in Avaris.32
Based on these facts, it is proposed that the Hyksos merely took advantage of the degrading central
power, establishing an extremely beneficial connection for their empire, that would then cover the Syrian-
Palestinian Corridor, to the Egyptian Delta and subsequently all of Lower Egypt, taking control of one of
the most desirable and fertile lands of the region.
They established their Capital in Avaris, and ruled Egypt from the Delta to well above the line of Middle
Egypt. Waset was destined to be the new capital and last beacon of the royal family of Ancient Kemet,33
after the loss of Itj-tawy, the Royal City of the Middle Kingdom rulers. The Hyksos never advanced to
Upper Egypt, as they realised that it gave shelter to what remained of the once great Nation of the Nile.34
Which is, per se, a very interesting fact, but for another essay.
As if this situation was not complex enough for a strong belief system that tended to be present in
most Egyptian minds, and whose fears had become reality, from the South, a Kushite insurrection pushed
the Egyptians North, losing the territories annexed during the Middle Kingdom.35 In a blink of an eye,
the Southern frontiers of Egypt returned to the pre-Middle Kingdom site, the First Cataract, and the
Northern was almost at the line of Waset.
The Egyptians, or one should say – the elite and royal family – were, to all intents and purpose, boxed
in, surrounded by those they always called enemies and their physical space had been reduced to almost
one third of what Egypt once was.
For a type of people that have always lived with a dual construct of life: the North and the South; the
Upper and the Lower Egypt, maat and isfet, these must have been nightmarish times, for their known
world was completely turned upside down and their base of reference was no longer there.
It would take several men and many years to return the status quo Egypt had once known. But for that
to happen, much would have to change inside the Egyptian mind, mainly the elites’ mind. A new kind of
Pharaoh would have to be created. And eventually, it was.

The imperialist mind and the warrior Pharaoh

For the Egyptians in Waset, the reunification of the Two Lands was a plan always on the table. Despite
the political and diplomatic agreements and eventual relations that Upper Egypt had with the Hyksos,
who dominated both Lower and Middle Egypt, there was no comfort in that unnatural division of Egypt36
for those who ruled Waset. One is referring here not only to the question of the loss of physical resources,
but the incredible chaos that an occupation would have created in such an ingrained belief system that, at
that time, placed the Egyptians as the purest of all people in the centre of the Universe, ruled by the Two,
not the One, Lands.
The first signs of the birth of a Warrior King appeared during the time of the Theban king Seqenenra
Taa,37 himself never a Pharaoh of Egypt, but a King of Waset and a precursor of the ones that would follow
him in history, Kamose and later Ahmose, his sons.
28
Popko 2013: 1–13.
29
Popko 2013: 1–13.
30
Bader 2013: 257–286.
31
Bader 2013: 257–286.
32
For more details regarding the chronology of this continued interaction, see: Dever 1991: 73–79.
33
Morenz, Popko 2010: 101–119.
34
Brönn 2006: 44.
35
Török 2009: 105.
36
Van Setters 1966: 165.
37
Bourriau 2003: 210.
 To create an empire: the ancient Egyptian mind and beliefs... 185

Although there seemed to have been a treaty38 that established a ruler of Lower and Middle Egypt,
named Apophis,39 a ruler of Waset named Seqenenra Taa, and a ruler of Kush,40 Seqenenra Taa eventually
decided to set course from Ballas in a campaign to eliminate Apophis, and bluntly ignore the treaty of the
invaders in the Delta.
That did not go well for the Waset king, for he perished in battle41 and was succeeded by Kamose, the
new king of Upper Egypt.
This new king had his mind set on continuing his predecessor’s work. However, all his actions seem
to have been against the opinions of his royal advisors, for after the demise of Seqenenra Taa a new treaty
with the Hyksos was made,42 that sought to keep Upper Egypt skirmishes at bay.43 This is another one of
those important facts needed to extrapolate what could have been the mindset behind it all.
One assumes that the king seems to have decided to keep on fighting for a principle, a fact that is
understood by the recorded actions of his reign and of those who reigned before him – forming a coherent
dynastic mind: Egypt should be made whole again.
Kamose soon realised that he could not fight an enemy in the North and an enemy in Kush. So, the
only logical course of action would be to annex Kush, and more importantly its gold mines, and even
included Kushites in his army, to take a chance, this time a successful one, on his predecessor’s desire for
reunification. He first conquered the fortresses at Buhen and only three years later was able to subdue
Kerma, finally reconquering Kush for Upper Egypt.
With the gold of Kush once again filling the coffers of the Waset king, and men filling its ranks, a battle
fleet was built to set course to Avaris, for it was there that the most hateful being, and one that Kamose
was taught to hate, lived:
“I will be so close with him (i.e. Apophis) that I may slit open his belly; for my desire is to rescue Egypt
and to drive out the Asiatics.”44
Despite the fact that the element of surprise was on the side of Kamose, and he did indeed reconquer
several key cities along the Middle Egypt, like Nefrusi and Qis, he intercepted a plea for help from
the king at Avaris to the one at Kush, who no longer ruled, ending any hope of help from far South to
the Delta. When arriving at Avaris, Kamose ordered his fleet to create a blockade and surround the Citadel.
But what he found was a heavily fortified place, that would not be conquered by a blockade. And Apophis
simply refused to engage him in battle. Kamose returned to the North without having accomplished his
ultimate mission.45 All he took was plentiful loot from the ships, and the ships that Hyksos had anchored
in their ports.
It was, however, not only this that the attempt of Kamose gained from his incursion. It proved that the
Hyksos were not invincible. Even more, it showed that they too were afraid.46 Eventually Kamose died and
was succeeded by Ahmose, who, probably because of his age, saw his grandmother and then his mother
acting as regent in his name for ten years.47 When Ahmose rose to full power, he set course, with the
Waset armies, to Iwnw, bypassing Avaris and capturing the fortresses of the Sinai, cutting off any chance
of help from the East to the invader of his northern capital. He then blockaded Avaris.48
There is an interesting account of these actions on the reverse side of a completely unrelated papyrus
on these happenings, the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, where it was written, in the Asiatic camp:
“Regnal year 11, second month of shemu – 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.

38
Van Setters 1966: 165.
39
It is of an immense interest to refer here the name of the Hyksos’ king of the South. The fact that it shared a name with the
mythological serpent Apophis almost seems to turn these facts in something more mythical than real. But so is history written,
always by the victor.
40
Redford 1993: 125.
41
Redford 1993: 128.
42
Allowing the peaceful passage in both territories for the purpose of commerce prosperity.
43
Redford 1993: 127.
44
See: Bourriau 2003: 184–217.
45
Brönn 2006: 45.
46
Redford 1993: 127.
47
Bietak 2001: 136–143.
48
Brönn 2006: 45.
186 André Patrício

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.”49
By then, Avaris was ruled by Khamydy, the next king in line, and although it is not known how long
the siege to the capital of the Hyksos took, it is his thought that the royal Hyksos’ family fled via Sinai to
Sharuhen, prompting Ahmose to that location and another three years of blockade and battles,50 that were
eventually won by the now Pharaoh of all Egypt. Several other Palestine cities were also engaged in war
or abandoned due to Ahmose presence in the area.51 After having to sail back to successfully subdue the
ever challenging Kushites,52 the Pharaoh left the seeds of an Empire in the making.
Avaris was eventually abandoned and its people fled, leaving the city to decay.53 As Bourriau describes
it, “There is evidence of destruction and violence in the citadel, and Bietak’s excavations show that in the
last Hyksos stratum (D/2) at Avaris occupation ended abruptly. The tombs were looted, and the area was
largely abandoned until the end of the Eighteenth dynasty.”54
The rule of the Hyksos had ended, and Egypt had a warrior Pharaoh who had fought off an outside
invader and reunified the Two Lands. Moreover, Egypt now had a foot on the Syrian-Palestinian Corridor
and dominated Kush once more. It is here, at this exact moment that one may hypothesise that the thinking
emanating from the Throne of Horus started a process of reshaping its constructs and comprehending
that freedom and absolute sovereignty would need more than wishful thinking, magic, superstition,
border control and introspective vision. Ahmose was undoubtedly raised, one has to suppose, in a closed
circle with a unification objective and an intrinsic hatred for the Hyksos. He, as Kamose before him, held
a profound and dogmatic strand of ancient Egyptian core beliefs in his mind. And although even the royal
advisors did not agree with the plans for reunification, that did not matter for either king. Absolute power
needs only one mind to believe in an objective.
The times were new, and the Pharaohs that would follow Ahmose would certainly make it visible to
the entire world.

The New Kingdom

The New Kingdom developed based on the knowledge that an external threat was real,55 possible at
any time, and that even Kemet, being the centre of the Universe and a realm protected by ancient and
powerful gods, was not protected at all times. The Second Intermediate Period had just proven that.
This realisation, one proposes, must have been a major motivation for what was to come next. But
one may also posit that another, more idealistic, motivation was eventually entered into the equation that
would allow all Egyptians to support the launch of full-scale imperial actions and desires. The Egyptians
had, above all, a constant preoccupation with equilibrium. And maat was the perfect reason to expand.
Their belief system had always been based on the fact that the fate of the Universe depended on
a delicate balance between maat and isfet. Perhaps one of the now more important missions of Egypt was
meant to be the maatic propagation over the barbarians.
The enemies were, for the first time, both to be kept at bay from the heart of the empire and to be
introduced to Egyptian rule, for that was the only way to achieve a maatic existence in the long term.
This is, one can call it, the genesis of the Egyptian imperialistic movement.
Amenhotep I kept his focus on Kerma,56 expanding the southern frontier to the Fourth Cataract of the
Nile. His interest was not that of land acquisition, but of insurance of access to the gold mines of Kush,
an extremely safe investment, from his point of view.57 To this Pharaoh, the lands of the North were not
at all important.

49
Redford 1993: 128.
50
Weinstein 1997: 13–136.
51
Weinstein 1997: 13–136.
52
Baines, Málek 1987: 42.
53
Brönn 2006: 45.
54
Bourriau 2003: 201.
55
Assmann 1996: 199.
56
Baines, Málek 1987: 42.
57
Spalinger 2005: 49.
 To create an empire: the ancient Egyptian mind and beliefs... 187

Tuthmosis I pushed the southern frontier to Hagar el-Merwa, halfway to the Fifth Cataract,58
demonstrating that the Egyptians were using these new annexed lands to show the world their might
had been regained. The gold of Kush was, after all, a weapon of propaganda. This was a clever political
manoeuvre and shows, once again, the mind-set of this dynasty of Pharaohs in changing how to deal
with the outside world. He also took notice of a new threat in the East, the Mittanni,59 a new enemy, an
imminent problem that had to be dealt with. The Pharaoh sailed through the Mediterranean Sea from
the Delta to Kebny,60 entered Syria via the Euphrates61 and confronted, with considerable success, the
Mittanni in their own kingdom, Nahrin. Returning to Egypt, by land, he reaffirmed his power in the area
and reinforced commercial routes62 that benefited Egypt for decades to come.63
But here one is looking to the beginning… the genesis. The moment where the future started to take
form. The expansion of the empire continued. The collective Egyptian mind eventually did adapt to this
new relation with the outside World, but only after its elites had already done it far earlier.
The annexed territory grew with the following Pharaohs, but more important, the sphere of Egyptian
influence on the world incremented immensely, mainly during the reign of Tuthmosis III.64 In his defence,
the Pharaoh was reacting to the Mittanni interference in the Palestinian corridor, which was destabilising
the area and inciting revolts against Egypt and damaging the valuable commercial routes established
there. Tuthmosis III responded in kind and launched a military campaign from Tjaru to Gaza, by the
“Ways of Horus”65 in the direction of Meggido.66 After several years, the Pharaoh established an alliance
with Assur,67 the capital of the Assyrian empire, to keep the Mittanni at bay.68 However, an almost yearly
military campaign was taken by the Pharaoh to maintain peace and order in this geographic zone.

The new Egyptian role in the world

The Egyptians started to directly influence other empires, making alliances and profiting from the
regions they dominated both via tribute and now more easily accessible commercial routes.
For instances, almost immediately it was realised that Sharuhen, Tjaru and Gaza were in a strategic
position to facilitate the commercial routes with Phoenicia and Lebanon. And immediate profit from
these routes was promptly established.
The Amenhotep I view of the importance of the gold of Kush shows the birth of a new type of mentality.
There was no longer the “Ahmosian” concern for creating a buffer zone for Egypt’s protection.
The drive was different. However, one can posit that the perception of what Egypt was at that point in
time, even for the Pharaoh, was no longer a nation trying to protect itself, but an empire in the making.
The southern gold mines would provide an immense income of gold that would finance the return,
which Ahmose had started, to the old ways, symbolising the much needed stability of the central power
that the people needed to see: the construction of massive buildings69 to remind the Universe of the power
and position of Two Lands and its Pharaoh.
Moreover, the gold would introduce a surplus of riches never before handled by Egypt, that would
sustain and help to increase the size of the empire. And that is exactly what happened.
The following Pharaohs extended Egypt to its largest occupation during the eighteenth dynasty and
part of the next two dynasties. This was translated into almost 500 years of peace in the place that really
mattered: the centre of the empire, Egypt itself, the land around the Nile river.
58
Morris 2005: 73.
59
The Mittanni formed their kingdom from a unification of small states united by Indo-Europeans. With their military
superiority, they conquered Anatolia during the kingdom of Ahmose and claimed several territories from the kingdom of the
Hittites, keeping the majority of Syria under their rule. Wilkinson 2010: 227.
60
Wilkinson 2010: 15.
61
Astour 2001: 422–423.
62
Gabriel 2009: 118.
63
Wilkinson 2010: 15.
64
Gabriel 2009: 118.
65
Morris 2005: 116.
66
Spalinger 2005: 83.
67
Morris 2005: 121.
68
Gurney 1973: 659–685.
69
Snape 2014: 203; Goelet 2003: 19–29. See: Harvey, Adams 2001: 52–55.
188 André Patrício

Now, much can be said regarding motivation, action and intention. One may posit that there were two
different mind sets during the related events and its period spam that will now be analysed.

Navigating the Egyptian mind during the New Kingdom: a view

Let us hypothesise the following:
At the beginning, during the time of Ahmose, intention, motivation and action were clear: the invader
enemy must be expelled from Egypt and all the other enemies maintained as far from Egypt as possible. The
fact that the Kushites have always been perceived as an isfetic people, and to be truthful, to the Egyptians
they were a constant problem, helps understand the action of Seqenenra Taa and all his successors to push
them as far back as possible. They were just too close to Egypt itself and were not to be trusted, for they
had crossed the “safety line”, the Egyptian borders, one time too often. So, from a mentality point of view,
this set of pharaohs of the seventeenth dynasty had not changed an inch regarding how they perceived
their cosmos and their place in their cosmos on Earth. It is almost as if a direct line from the beginning
of the formation of constructs and beliefs existed and linked them directly.
What is interesting here is the supra mentioned disapproval of the immediate royal advisors in
a repetition by Kamose of an insurrection like the one Seqenenra Taa had attempted.70 As it was described,
even the elite seemed satisfied with the status quo found with the Hyksos. So, not all were as close to the
“original mentality”, which viewed the Two Lands as united, as one, as the Pharaohs. More so, the belief
system that ruled all that lived in Egypt seemed to have find a point of equilibrium that made it tolerable,
and even desirable, to live life in a fragmented Egypt. For this to have happened, and it did, one finds
proof in the phenomenon described by Brönn, where the cities that would help Avaris regain control
of the Oasis route that Kamose had seized control of, as if they wished to return to the dominion of
the Hyksos instead of that of a supposedly legitimate claimer to the Throne of Egypt.71 It is almost as if
the Egyptians had their eyes set on those who ruled the North instead of those who personified the
past long gone that predated the Second Intermediary Period. But if this is true, only one thing can be
deduced: the mind of the Egyptians had changed.72 There had to be an adaptation to a new reality. So, for
the general population there had been some type of natural evolution, and it makes sense to suppose and
advance this idea. Life in general tends to be complex, even in our days. It is only natural that the masses
would find a way to cope that would reduce further levels of dissatisfaction. This is how the Human mind
tends to work. And all this did not happen in only a few years, it was extended for over a century, which
is the same, in those days, as the lifespan of three or four generations.
So, here one seems to approach the idea that there must have existed two very different sets of Egyptian
minds: those that adapted and those that did not. The ones that did not adapt could be considered as
having a type of political mind, which was very different from the more commonly referred to “Egyptian
mind,” which evolved, as one can extrapolate from the Egyptian way of seeing and dealing with the
external environment. By “Egyptian mind,” one is referring to elements reflected in texts, iconography
or historical events,73 from which one can extract the significance of mentality, and behavioural meta-
references are a clear indictor of a mind-set shared among people, and in opposition to the elite.
The curious fact is that those minds that stayed faithful to the letter of the doctrine were in Waset,
reigning the remains of a logical, dual and maatic country, that was no more. So, it is on those specific
people that one will now focus.
After Ahmose, and the Pharaohs who came after him and forged the empire, there seems to have been
an extraordinary generational amnesia. The objective of Ahmose was the reconstruction of Egypt as it
was during the Middle Kingdom. But then, he died and his successor kept going.
To put it simply, the focus was no longer only on protecting Egypt, although that never left the
pharaonic ideology (even when dynasties changed). The real purpose eventually, here, became expansion,
creating an empire. With it, two things would be accomplished eventually: its heart, the original Land of
Egypt, would be very well protected by a large buffer zone; also, an empire with a large sphere of influence
70
Brönn 2006: 44.
71
Brönn 2006: 45.
72
See: Assmann 1996.
73
Assmann 1996: X.
 To create an empire: the ancient Egyptian mind and beliefs... 189

had the opportunity to control its own destiny and have access to riches beyond imagination. Political had
clearly supplanted cultural principles.
The actions of Seqenenra Taa, Kamose and Ahmose aimed to reunify Egypt were eventually clouded
by new interests that emerged as crises were being resolved and time passed.
A new way of life emerged. Even the role of the Pharaoh changed quite a lot.
Egypt, eventually, forgot that the empire had begun just to keep foreigners out of the Throne of Horus.
The day arrived when Pharaohs married princesses from foreign empires and the eternal enemies of Egypt
were, once again, allowed to live inside Egypt, although superstition continued to exist in the back of the
elite’s minds, and magic, amulets and even furniture were used to try and control those who eventually
even made up part of the pharaoh’s personal guard.

Changing constructs and accepting a new order

The Warrior Pharaoh is, for the New Kingdom mentality, the most expressive side of the ruler. He
enforced by fear and force, alliances and marriages, protecting Egypt and maintaining maat.
But this Pharaoh was born from the political mind of a select few and not from all Egyptians. Probably
a limited number of unifiers who wanted to re-conquer Middle and Northern Egypt, members of a royal
family and its supporters, those with means to assemble and sustain an army, as was discussed above
happening during the seventeenth dynasty, simply wanted to retake what had once belonged to an idyllic
world. And so, they eventually went North, then South and North and the heart of the empire was then
made stable.
However, the creation of a Warrior Pharaoh had emerged,74 and the people accepted a new change in
the regime, while those that succeeded the unifier simply kept on going, understanding the power Egypt
could really have. Eventually Egypt evolved into a divine mission: the land of the Gods occupied an area
bigger than it had ever occupied. And that surely pleased the Gods.
The question of “When might the people have fully accepted the restoration of the new Egypt?” could
have had something to do with propaganda, mainly with the restart of the monumental constructions and
the beginning of a new golden age, with riches entering Egypt like never before. It was certainly at this
point that what had once been restricted to some of the political minds, made its way into the national
arena, becoming a unified Egyptian mind.
And the empire lasted for centuries. Even when the western frontier started suffering persistent attacks
by the Libyans, Ramesses II faced them and held them on the other side of the Egyptian frontier.75 He
could be named one of the last Pharaohs of the New Kingdom to understand that holding the frontiers of
the empire was vital to the survival of Egypt.
So, eventually, that “prime directive” that stated that the original Egypt must be forever protected,
with its origins stretching as far back as the first dynasties before the Old Kingdom, had after all been
maintained. Sometimes in the collective mind, an elite few would subsequently make it their mission to
restore the ancient beliefs with which the pharaonic state had emerged.
The dynasty that predated the advent of the New Kingdom stood true to dogma, and somewhere down
the line, imperial expansion was the result of a political situation that had been caused by an invader,
benign or otherwise, with constant treaties. That would never have sat well with the ancient Egyptian
“enemy” construct.
The will to expand ended in the collective domain, for to annex and expand was to please the gods,
and the Warrior Pharaoh was venerated, appreciated and desired. Such an expansionist intent does not
happen for 500 years. Something had to be fuelling it and that was the elite, eventually alongside the
people.
However, in the end, and despite the eventual closure of the New Kingdom, it is a remarkable
accomplishment how the centre of what truly formed the Two Lands was kept safe for so many centuries.

74
Once again. For it could never be forgotten that Egypt had been forged by Warrior Pharaohs twice before, Narmer and
Montuhotep II [and Ahmose], rightly depicted on the Ramesseum. See: Bonhême 2001: 243.
75
Morris 2005: 621.
190 André Patrício

In conclusion
Social evolution is always difficult and often takes time.
This essay covers a span of several centuries and a gradual evolution of mentality, as seen by historical
actions and reactions, decisions and the creation of something that was different from the previous model
– an empire. In ancient Egypt, several centuries, as previously stated, would mean generations. The main
goal of any population is to guarantee its own survival. It is common to see, in history, insurrection by
the people, if the people are generally oppressed or discontented. That, historically, does not seem to
be the case of the population of the Middle and Lower Egypt. However, Upper Egypt lived in a state of
complete oppression, surrounded by land governed by foreigners, the Kushites and the Hyksos. It is here
that one finds the ingredients for the perfect storm, although for many there was a sense of satisfaction
with the appearance of normality and the payment of tributes to the Delta kings. Despite this, the elite had
a millennium and a half of history supporting the claim of unification. Upper Egypt had dogma, history
and a claim over all Egypt.
What happened from the first tentative invasions of Seqenenra Taa to the complete unification of
Ahmose and all that followed, was both a consequence of oppression, of a century old history that was
not forgotten in the Egyptian mind of the South, and the sense of right that was passed from father to son
in Waset.
After the initial phase of reunification, a new world suddenly appeared. There were campaigns to the
Syrian-Palestine corridor and immediately after to Kush. There was a quick adaptation needed to keep
the motto “how to survive” in a new world. Survival and adaptation with a new set of rules seems to
be one of the Egyptians more impressive skills. However, despite the might of war shown by Ahmoses,
Tuthmosis I, Tuthmosis III or Amenhotep III, not all the actions of the Egyptians on their empire and the
world beyond led to expansion and war, for example Tuthmosis III made a treaty with the Hittites and
the Assyrians to maintain the Mittanni under control, Tuthmosis IV made peaceful arrangements with
the Mittanni to maintain peace in the region, as did Ramesses II with the Hittites to stop the perpetual
war with Qadesh. These treaties were as important as the creation of the empire to maintain peace and
increase prosperity for years and years to come. It was all this capacity for adaptation of a paradigmatic
mind to a fluidic one that allowed the formation of the New Kingdom as it is studied today, via the records
and archaeological information left behind and preserved through time, which allows a view of faraway
minds.
It is with no surprise that Egyptian civilisation is the only one known, until today, that was able to
maintain a regime, a central land location, a core of history, principles and values that spanned millennia,
although eventually also faced its end.
None other has lasted as long, so far.

References
Alfred, C. 1955: Fine Wood-Work, [in:] Singer, C., Holmyard, E.J., Hall, A.R. (Eds), A History of Technology,
Oxford, 685–703
Assmann, J. 1996: The Mind of Egypt: History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs, London
Astour, M.C. 2001: Mitanni, [in:] Redford D.B. (Ed.) Oxford Encyclopaedia of Ancient Egypt, vol. 2, Oxford,
422–423
Bader, B. 2013: Cultural Mixing in Egyptian Archaeology: The ‘Hyksos’ as a Case Study, Archaeological Review
from Cambridge 28, 257–286
Baines, J., Málek, J. 1987: Atlas of Ancient Egypt, Amsterdam
Bárta, M. 2010: Borderland Dynamics in the Era of the Pyramid Builders in Egypt, [in:] Zartmanz, W. (Ed.),
Understanding Life in the Borderlands: Boundaries in Depth and in Motion (Studies in Security and
International Affairs), Athens, 21–39
Bietak, M., Hyksos, [in:] Redford, D.B. 2001 (Ed.), Oxford Encyclopaedia of Ancient Egypt, vol. 2, Oxford,
136–143
Bonhême, M.-A. 2001: Kingship, [in:] Redford, D.B. (Ed), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, vol. 2,
Oxford, 238–244
 To create an empire: the ancient Egyptian mind and beliefs... 191

Bourriau, J. 2003: The Second Intermediate Period (c. 1650–1550 BC), [in:] Shaw, I. (Ed.), The Oxford History of
Ancient Egypt, Oxford, 184–217
Breasted, J.H. 2001: Ancient Records of Egypt, vol. I, Champaign
Brönn, J.A. 2006: Foreign Rulers on the Nile – A reassessment of the cultural contribution of the Hyksos in Egypt,
unpublished PhD thesis, University of Stellenbosc
Callender, G. 2003: The Middle Kingdom Renaissance, [in:] Shaw, I. (Ed), The Oxford History of The Ancient
Egypt, Oxford, 148–183
Clarke, S. 1916: Ancient Egyptians Frontiers Fortresses, JEA 3/2–3, 155–179
Dever, W.G. 1991: Tell el-Daba and Levantine Middle Bronze Age Chronology: A Rejoinder to Manfred Bietak,
BASOR 28, 73–79
Erman, A. 1971: Life in Ancient Egypt, New York
Faulkner, R.O. 1991: A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, Oxford
Frankfort, H. 1978: Kingship and the Gods. A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society
and Nature, Chicago
Gabriel, R.A. 2009: Thutmose III. The Military Biography of Egypt’s Greatest Warrior King, Washington D.C.
Goelet, O. 2003: Memphis and Thebes: Disaster and Renewal in Ancient Egyptian Consciousness, The Classical
World 91/1, 19–29
Gurney, O.R. 1973: Anatolia c. 1600–1380, [in:] Edwards, I.E.S., Gadd, C.J., Hammond, N.G.L., Sollberger, E., The
Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 2, Cambridge, 659–685
Harvey, S.P., Adams, M.D. 2001: Tribute to a Conquering King, Archaeology 54/4, 52–55
Hoffmeier, J.K., El-Maksoud, M.A. 2003: A New Military Site on the “Way of Horus”: Tell el-Borg 1999–2000, JEA
89, 169–197
Hoffmeier, J.K. 2006: “The Walls of the Ruler” in Egyptian Literature and the Archaeological Record: Investigating
Egypt’s Eastern Frontier in the Bronze Age, BASOR 343, 1–20
Killen, G. 1994: Egyptian Woodworking and Furniture, Oxford
Morenz, L.D., Popko, L. 2010: The Second Intermediate Period and the New Kingdom, [in:] Lloyd, A.B. (Ed.),
A Companion to Ancient Egypt, Oxford, 101–119
Morris, E.F. 2005: The Architecture of Imperialism. Military Bases and the Evolution of Foreign Policy in Egypt’s
New Kingdom, Leiden
Mumford, G. 2006: Tell Ras Budran (Site 345): Defining Egypt’s Eastern Frontier and Mining Operations in South
Sinai during the Late New Kingdom, BASOR 342, 36–41
Pinch, G. 1994: Magic in Ancient Egypt, London
Popko, L. 2013: Late Second Intermediate Period to Early New Kingdom, [in:] Grajetzki, W., Wendrich, W. (Eds),
UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles, http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/
zz002hgq2r, accessed 25th October, 2017
Quigley, D. (Ed.) 2005: The Character of Kingship, Oxford
Redford, D.B. 1993: Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton
Sales, J. 1997: A Ideologia Real Acádica e Egípcia. Representações do Poder Político Pré-Clássico, Lisboa
Shlain, L. 2014: Understanding Da Vinci’s Creative Genius, Lanhan
Smith, S.T. 2005: To the Supports of Heaven: Political and Ideological Conceptions of Frontiers in Ancient Egypt,
[in:] Parkery, B.J.B., Rodseth, L. (Eds), Untaming the Frontier in Anthropology, Archaeology, and History,
Tucson, 207–237
Snape, S. 2014: The Complete Cities of Ancient Egypt, London
Spalinger, A.J. 2005: War in Ancient Egypt, Oxford
Teeter, E. 1997: The Presentation of Maat. Ritual and Legitimacy in Ancient Egypt, Chicago
Török, L. 2009: Between Two Worlds. The Frontier Region Between Ancient Nubia and Egypt 3700BC – 500AD,
Leiden
Van Setters, J. 1966: The Hyksos: a new investigation, New Haven
Weinstein, J.M. 1997: Hyksos, [in:] Meyers, D.E. (Ed.), Oxford Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in the Near East,
vol. 3, Oxford, 13–136
Wilkinson, T. 2010: The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt, London
Williams, B. 2002: Ancient Egyptian War and Weapons, Oxford
Wilson, J.A. 1941: The Egyptian Middle Kingdom at Meggido, AJSL 58/3, 225–236