Full Ebook of Violence and Power in Ancient Egypt Image and Ideology Before The New Kingdom 1St Edition Laurel Bestock Online PDF All Chapter

Violence and Power in Ancient Egypt
Image and Ideology before the New

Kingdom 1st Edition Laurel Bestock
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/violence-and-power-in-ancient-egypt-image-and-ideol
ogy-before-the-new-kingdom-1st-edition-laurel-bestock/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Before Crown and Kingdom Melissa Wright
https://ebookmeta.com/product/before-crown-and-kingdom-melissa-
wright/
Mummies Magic and Medicine in Ancient Egypt 1st Edition

Campbell Price
https://ebookmeta.com/product/mummies-magic-and-medicine-in-
ancient-egypt-1st-edition-campbell-price/
From the Great Pyramid to the Fall of the Middle

Kingdom A History of Ancient Egypt 2 1st Edition John
Romer
https://ebookmeta.com/product/from-the-great-pyramid-to-the-fall-
of-the-middle-kingdom-a-history-of-ancient-egypt-2-1st-edition-
john-romer/
The Rise and Development of the Solar Cult and

Architecture in Ancient Egypt 1st Edition Massimiliano
Nuzzolo
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-rise-and-development-of-the-
solar-cult-and-architecture-in-ancient-egypt-1st-edition-
massimiliano-nuzzolo/
The Violence Pendulum: Tactical Change in Islamist
Groups in Egypt and Indonesia 1st Edition Ioana Emy
Matesan
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-violence-pendulum-tactical-
change-in-islamist-groups-in-egypt-and-indonesia-1st-edition-
ioana-emy-matesan/
The Oxford History of the Ancient Near East: Volume I:

From the Beginnings to Old Kingdom Egypt and the
Dynasty of Akkad 1st Edition Karen Radner
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-oxford-history-of-the-ancient-
near-east-volume-i-from-the-beginnings-to-old-kingdom-egypt-and-
the-dynasty-of-akkad-1st-edition-karen-radner/
Sex Metaphor and Ideology in Moche Pottery of Ancient

Peru Andrew Turner
https://ebookmeta.com/product/sex-metaphor-and-ideology-in-moche-
pottery-of-ancient-peru-andrew-turner/
The Experience and Fear of Violence in the Public

Realm. Hegemonic Ideology and Individual Behaviour 1st
Edition Charlotte Fabiansson
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-experience-and-fear-of-
violence-in-the-public-realm-hegemonic-ideology-and-individual-
behaviour-1st-edition-charlotte-fabiansson/
Historiography Ideology and Politics in the Ancient

Near East and Israel Changing Perspectives 5 1st
Edition Mario Liverani
https://ebookmeta.com/product/historiography-ideology-and-
politics-in-the-ancient-near-east-and-israel-changing-
perspectives-5-1st-edition-mario-liverani/
Violence and Power in Ancient Egypt
This book is a significant contribution to the study of Egyptology and ancient art
history, delivering the results of cutting-edge research in an area of central importance.
Its essential focus is violence in Ancient Egypt, which is a topic of increasing interest
in current historical and cultural studies, and discusses a large corpus of images of great
value, recognizing the need for a more theoretical approach to the study of Egyptian
artistic expression, and emphasizing the critical importance of context in evaluating
the function of representations. Throughout, the analysis shows a healthy awareness
of the problem of evidence—or lack thereof. The book has a valuable cross-cultural
dimension that makes it relevant not only to the Egyptological community, but also to
art historians, ancient historians in general, and anthropologists. The result is a study
that breaks much new ground and forces the reconsideration of entrenched views.
Dr Alan Lloyd, Swansea University, UK
Violence and Power in Ancient Egypt examines the use of Egyptian pictures of
violence prior to the New Kingdom. Starting with the assertion that making and
displaying such images served as a tactic of power, related to but separate from the
actual practice of violence, the book explores the development and deployment of
this imagery across different contexts. By comparatively utilizing violent images
from a variety of other times and cultures, the book asks that we consider not only
how Egyptian imagery was related to Egyptian violence, but also why people
create pictures of violence and place them where they do, and how such images
communicate what to whom. By cataloging and querying Egyptian imagery of
violence from different periods and different contexts—royal tombs, divine tem-
ples, the landscape, portable objects, and private tombs—Violence and Power
highlights the nuances of the relationship between aspects of royal ideology, art,
and its audiences in the first half of pharaonic Egyptian history.
Laurel Bestock is an Associate Professor of Archaeology and Egyptology at

Brown University (USA). She received her PhD in Egyptian Archaeology and
Art from the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University (USA). She directs
excavations in Egypt at the site of Abydos, where she investigates early kingship.
In the Sudan, she co-directs excavations at the Egyptian fortress of Uronarti,
seeking to understand lifestyles and cultural interactions in a colonial outpost
from nearly 4,000 years ago. For her next project, she hopes to work on a book
focused on food and culture at Uronarti, both in antiquity and in the context of a
modern excavation team camping in tents along the Nile.
Routledge Studies in Egyptology
Available titles:
Women, Gender, and Identity in Third Intermediate Period Egypt:

The Theban Case Study
Jean Li
Ancient Egyptian Temple Ritual: Performance, Patterns, and Practice

Katherine Eaton
Science in the Study of Ancient Egypt

Sonia Zakrzewski, Andrew Shortland, Joanne Rowland
Histories of Egyptology: Interdisciplinary Measures

Edited by William Carruthers
www.routledge.com/Routledge-Studies-in-Egyptology/book-series/RSEGY
Violence and Power in
Ancient Egypt
Image and Ideology before the
New Kingdom
Laurel Bestock
First published 2018
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
 2018 Laurel Bestock
The right of Laurel Bestock to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Bestock, Laurel, author.
Title: Violence and power in ancient Egypt: image and ideology before the
New Kingdom/Laurel Bestock.
Other titles: Routledge studies in Egyptology.
Description: Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge, 2018. | Series:
Routledge studies in Egyptology | Includes bibliographical references
and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017015115| ISBN 9781138685055 (hardback: alk.
paper) | ISBN 9781315543505 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Art, Egyptian. | Art, Ancient—Egypt. | Violence in art. |
Egypt—Antiquities.
Classification: LCC N5350.B39 2018 | DDC 709.32—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017015115
ISBN: 978-1-138-68505-5 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-315-54350-5 (ebk)
Typeset in Times New Roman

by Swales & Willis Ltd, Exeter, Devon, UK
For Lutz
Contents
List of figures ix
Acknowledgments xvi
The chronology and contexts of scenes of violence from Egypt
through the Middle Kingdom xviii
1 Picturing violence 1
The structure of this book 5
Themes 9
2 The origins of violent imagery 14

The earliest images of violence in Egypt 16
The evidence from early Egypt: Naqada I 18
The evidence from early Egypt: Naqada II 24
Order and chaos 33
3 The violence inherent in the system: imagery and royal

ideology in the period of state formation 40
Violence in Egyptian art in the period of state formation 41
Continuity and discontinuity 74
4 To live forever: the decoration of royal mortuary complexes 85

The Old Kingdom 90
The Middle Kingdom 127
Interpreting imagery of violence from royal tombs 143
5 Uniter of the two lands: images of violence in divine temples 154

Egyptian temples as a context for imagery 156
viii Contents
6 The preservation of order: images in the landscape 172
The Early Dynastic Period 175
The Old Kingdom 179
Reading rock carvings of smiting 193
7 Out and about: images of violence on portable objects 201

Images of triumph on portable objects 203
Images of captivity on portable objects 209
Movement and meaning 216
8 Who is who? Private monumental images of war 222

The Old Kingdom 225
The First Intermediate Period 232
The Middle Kingdom 235
Inscriptions and images in private tombs 252
Interpreting private images of war 255
9 Violence, power, ideology 264
Bibliography 269
Index 285
Figures
Note: dimensions are given in captions so as to allow the reader to gauge the size
of any object while viewing it. Dimensions given are those published. Copyright
information can be found in the Acknowledgments and in the endnotes associated
with each image.
1.1 Belgian €2.5 coin issued to commemorate the 200th anniversary

of the Battle of Waterloo 2
1.2 Line drawing of the reliefs showing Ramses II triumphant at the
Battle of Qadesh, Ramesseum, Thebes 8
2.1 “Skirmish” scene, painting on rock face, near Deaf Adder
Gorge, Arnhem Land, Northern Territory, Australia 14
2.2 White Cross-Lined Ware vase with possible captivity scene.
Provenance unknown. Brussels, E. 3200 19
Provenance unknown. University College London,
Petrie Museum 19
Abydos, Umm el-Qaab, tomb U-239 vessel 1. Cairo JdE 99072 20
Abydos, Umm el-Qaab, tomb U-415 vessel 1. Abydos
SCA storeroom 20
Abydos, Umm el-Qaab, tomb U-415 vessel 2. Abydos
SCA storeroom 21
2.7 Naqada II Decorated Ware pot with boat scene 25
2.8 Detail of the fragmentary Gebelein textile showing boats
and a possible bound captive 26
2.9 Watercolor facsimile of Hierakonpolis Tomb 100, southwest
wall, paint on mud plaster 28
2.10 Detail of the lower left corner of the southwest wall of
Hierakonpolis Tomb 100; smiting 29
x Figures
2.11 Detail of the lower part of the southwest wall of Hierakonpolis
Tomb 100; possible combat 30
2.12 Detail of the upper left of the southwest wall of Hierakonpolis
Tomb 100; royal ritual (?) 32
3.1 The Battlefield Palette 45
3.2 The Libyan Palette 47
3.3 The Bull Palette 50
3.4 Line drawing of the Oxford knife handle showing bound
prisoners 51
3.5 Line drawing of the Metropolitan Museum knife handle
26.241.1 51
3.6 The Gebel el-Arak knife 52
3.7 Detailed view of the two sides of the Gebel el-Arak knife
handle 53
3.8 Line drawing of the relief image on the Scorpion Macehead 56
3.9 Three ivory cylinders, perhaps from a handle, from the
Hierakonpolis Main Deposit 58
3.10 Ivory macehead from the Hierakonpolis Main Deposit 59
3.11 Three figurines from temple deposits at Tell el-Farkha,
possibly showing captives 60
3.12 Figurines from Tell Ibrahim Awad, possibly showing
captivity or submission 61
3.13 Line drawing of the rock carving at Gebel Sheikh Suleiman 63
3.14 Line drawing of the Narmer Palette 65
3.15 Maceheads from the Hierakonpolis Main Deposit 69
3.16 Line drawing of the relief scene on the Narmer Macehead 69
3.17 Line drawing of the ivory cylinder of Narmer from the
Hierakonpolis Main Deposit with the king’s serekh smiting 71
3.18 Line drawing of ivory tag of Narmer with the king’s name
smiting 72
4.1 La Liberté guidant le peuple, oil on canvas, Eugene Delacroix 85
4.2 Sahure pyramid complex plan 87
4.3 Relief of bound captive, detail. Giza, pyramid complex of
Khafre 91
4.4 Relief fragment showing archers firing in unison, probably
from the pyramid complex of Khafre at Giza, Fourth Dynasty 92
4.5 Line drawing of relief showing the Libyan Family Scene,
pyramid temple of Sahure at Abusir, Fifth Dynasty 95
4.6 Line drawing of relief showing bound prisoners, causeway
of the pyramid complex of Sahure at Abusir, Fifth Dynasty 97
4.7 Detail of row of prisoners from the scene of bound prisoners,
causeway of the pyramid complex of Sahure at Abusir,
Fifth Dynasty 98
Figures xi
4.8 Relief fragment showing an Asiatic beard from a trampling
scene, causeway of the pyramid complex of Sahure at Abusir,
Fifth Dynasty 99
4.9 Detail of relief with archers taking target practice, causeway
of the pyramid complex of Sahure at Abusir, Fifth Dynasty 100
4.10 Line drawing of relief showing Sahure as griffin trampling, valley
temple of the pyramid complex of Sahure at Abusir, Fifth Dynasty 101
4.11 Line drawings of relief fragments from smiting scenes,
pyramid temple of Niuserra at Abusir, Fifth Dynasty 104
4.12 Line drawings of relief fragments from trampling scenes,
causeway of the pyramid of Niuserra at Abusir, Fifth Dynasty 105
4.13 Line drawing of relief fragment showing an arm wearing a
bracelet with a smiting scene, valley temple of Niuserra at
Abusir, Fifth Dynasty 107
4.14 Line drawing of a relief fragment showing smiting, pyramid
temple of Unis at Saqqara, Fifth Dynasty 108
4.15 Line drawing of a relief fragment showing a bound captive
herded by a god, pyramid temple of Unis at Saqqara,
Fifth Dynasty 108
4.16 Line drawing of a relief fragment showing bound prisoners,
pyramid temple of Unis at Saqqara, Fifth Dynasty 109
4.17 Line drawing showing the reconstruction of a possible trampling
scene from the causeway of Unis at Saqqara, Fifth Dynasty 110
4.18 Line drawing of a relief fragment showing battle against
Asiatics from the causeway of Unis at Saqqara, Fifth Dynasty 111
4.19 Line drawing of a relief fragment showing battle against
Asiatics from the causeway of Unis at Saqqara, Fifth Dynasty 112
4.20 Relief fragment with an axe-wielding Egyptian, from the
causeway of Unis at Saqqara, Fifth Dynasty 113
4.21 Relief fragment with combat, from the causeway of Unis at
Saqqara, Fifth Dynasty 114
4.22 Relief fragment with possible combat, from the causeway of
Unis at Saqqara, Fifth Dynasty 115
4.23 Line drawing of partial relief showing the Libyan Family Scene,
pyramid temple of Pepy I at Saqqara, Sixth Dynasty 116
4.24 Line drawing showing the reconstruction of a Libyan Family
Scene from the pyramid temple of Pepy II at Saqqara,
Sixth Dynasty 117
4.25 Line drawing showing the reconstruction of a smiting scene
from the pyramid temple of Pepy II at Saqqara, Sixth Dynasty 118
4.26 Line drawing showing bound prisoners and the crown of
Seshat from the pyramid temple of Pepy II at Saqqara,
Sixth Dynasty 119
xii Figures
4.27 Relief with three prisoners from the pyramid temple of Pepy II
at Saqqara, Sixth Dynasty 120
4.28 Line drawing showing the reconstruction of two trampling
scenes from the causeway of Pepy II at Saqqara, Sixth Dynasty 121
4.29 Line drawing showing the reconstruction of two trampling
scenes from the causeway of Pepy II at Saqqara, Sixth Dynasty 122
4.30 Line drawing showing the reconstruction of the presentation
of prisoners from the causeway of Pepy II at Saqqara,
Sixth Dynasty 123
4.31 Line drawing showing the reconstruction of a smiting scene
from the valley temple of Pepy II at Saqqara, Sixth Dynasty 124
4.32 Sculptures of bound, bearded captives from the pyramid
complex of Pepy II at Saqqara, Sixth Dynasty. 125
4.33 Sculpture of a bound prisoner—an Egyptian?—from the pyramid
complex of Pepy II, Saqqara 126
4.34 Relief fragment with yellow-skinned, arrow-shot victims
tumbling next to a ladder, mortuary complex of Nebhepetra
Mentuhotep at Deir el-Bahri, Eleventh Dynasty. 129
4.35 Relief fragment with victims of combat, mortuary complex
of Nebhepetra Mentuhotep at Deir el-Bahri, Eleventh Dynasty 130
4.36 Relief fragment with an archer shooting, mortuary complex of
Nebhepetra Mentuhotep at Deir el-Bahri, Eleventh Dynasty 131
4.37 Relief fragment with archers firing in unison, mortuary complex
of Nebhepetra Mentuhotep at Deir el-Bahri, Eleventh Dynasty 132
4.38 Relief fragment of combat, mortuary complex of Nebhepetra
Mentuhotep at Deir el-Bahri, Eleventh Dynasty 133
4.39 Relief fragment of combat, mortuary complex of Nebhepetra
Mentuhotep at Deir el-Bahri, Eleventh Dynasty. 133
4.40 Relief fragment with mixed troops, mortuary complex of
Nebhepetra Mentuhotep at Deir el-Bahri, Eleventh Dynasty. 134
4.41 Relief fragment with combat and captivity, mortuary complex
of Nebhepetra Mentuhotep at Deir el-Bahri, Eleventh Dynasty. 135
4.42 Relief fragment with a dark-skinned archer firing his bow,
mortuary complex of Nebhepetra Mentuhotep at Deir el-Bahri,
Eleventh Dynasty 136
4.43 Relief fragment with a victim, mortuary complex of Nebhepetra
Mentuhotep at Deir el-Bahri, Eleventh Dynasty 136
4.44 Relief fragment with a woman and child being herded by an
archer, mortuary complex of Nebhepetra Mentuhotep at
Deir el-Bahri, Eleventh Dynasty. 137
4.45 Relief fragment from a smiting scene from the pyramid
complex of Senwosret I at Lisht, Twelfth Dynasty 140
Figures xiii
4.46 Relief fragment with a foreigner throwing a spear from the
pyramid temple of Senwosret I at Lisht, Twelfth Dynasty 141
5.1 Line drawing of relief. Late Classic Maya Stela 11, Yaxchilan,
Chiapas Mexico 154
5.2 Line drawing of an architectural relief fragment from
Hierakonpolis, reign of Khasekhem, Second Dynasty 158
5.3 Limestone statue of Khasekhem from Hierakonpolis,
Second Dynasty 160
5.4 Line drawing of the front of the base of a limestone statue
of Khasekhem showing apparent combat casualties, from
Hierakonpolis, Second Dynasty 161
5.5 Line drawing showing Nebhepetra Montuhotep smiting an
Egyptian on a relief fragment from Gebelein, Eleventh
Dynasty 162
5.6 Line drawing showing Nebhepetra Montuhotep smiting a
Libyan on a relief fragment from Gebelein, Eleventh Dynasty 164
5.7 Line drawing showing Nebhepetra Montuhotep smiting an
abstract emblem from Denderah, Eleventh Dynasty 166
6.1 Relief of Hormizd II, Naqsh-e-Rustam, Iran 172
6.2 Naqsh-e-Rustam, Iran 173
6.3 Line drawing of a relief with the serekh of Djer smiting, Wadi
Ameyra, Sinai, First Dynasty 175
6.4 Line drawing of a relief of Den smiting, Wadi el-Humur, Sinai,
First Dynasty 177
6.5 Line drawing of a relief of Den smiting, Wadi el-Humur, Sinai,
First Dynasty 177
6.6 Line drawing of a relief of a king in the Red Crown smiting,
Wadi el-Humur, Sinai, First Dynasty 178
6.7 Line drawing of a relief of Netjerikhet (Djoser) smiting,
Wadi Maghara, Sinai, Third Dynasty 180
6.8 Line drawing of a relief of Sekhemkhet smiting, Wadi Maghara,
Sinai, Third Dynasty 181
6.9 A relief of Sekhemkhet smiting, Wadi Maghara, Sinai,
Third Dynasty 183
6.10 Line drawing of the second relief of Sekhemkhet smiting,
Wadi Maghara, Sinai, Third Dynasty 183
6.11 Fragment of relief of Sanakht smiting, Wadi Maghara, Sinai,
Third Dynasty 184
6.12 Line drawing of a relief of Snefru smiting, Wadi Maghara, Sinai,
Fourth Dynasty 186
6.13 Line drawing of a relief of Snefru smiting, Wadi Maghara,
Sinai, Fourth Dynasty 187
xiv Figures
6.14 Double-panel relief with Khufu smiting, Wadi Maghara,
6.15 Line drawing of relief showing Khufu smiting, Wadi Maghara,
6.16 Line drawing of relief showing Sahure smiting, Wadi Maghara,
Sinai, Fifth Dynasty 189
6.17 Line drawing of relief showing Niuserra smiting, Wadi Maghara,
Sinai, Fifth Dynasty 190
6.18 Line drawing of relief showing Djedkare Izezi smiting,
Wadi Maghara, Sinai, Fifth Dynasty 191
6.19 Line drawing of relief showing Pepy I smiting, Wadi Maghara,
Sinai, Sixth Dynasty. 192
7.1 Ivory armlet from Benin showing warriors 201
7.2 Line drawing of an ivory tag with a smiting serekh from the
tomb of Aha at Abydos, First Dynasty 204
7.3 Ivory tag showing Den smiting, from his tomb at Abydos,
First Dynasty 205
7.4 Top: gold and inlay pectoral with symmetrical images of
Senwosret III smiting. Bottom: gold and inlay pectoral with
symmetrical images of Amenemhat III smiting. Both from
the tomb of Mereret at Dahshur, Twelfth Dynasty 208
7.5 Ivory rod, possibly for gaming, with a relief carving of a
bound prisoner. From the tomb of Qa’a at Abydos, First Dynasty 210
7.6 Clay execration figurine with schematically rendered bound arms,
Saqqara, Twelfth Dynasty. 212
7.7 Line drawings and photograph of mud stamp sealings from
Nubian fortresses showing captives and captors, Twelfth Dynasty 214
8.1 The Alexander Mosaic from the House of the Faun, Pompeii 222
8.2 Line drawing of an attack on a settlement from the tomb of
Khaemhesy at Saqqara, Fifth Dynasty 226
8.3 Line drawing of an attack on a fortified place from the tomb of
Inti at Deshasha, Fifth Dynasty 228
8.4 Painting from the tomb of Setka at Aswan showing dark-skinned
bowmen in combat, late Old Kingdom (?). 231
8.5 Line drawing of a fragmentary scene from the tomb of Iti-ibi at
Asyut, First Intermediate Period 233
8.6 Line drawing of fragmentary figures from the tomb of Ankhtifi
at Moalla, First Intermediate Period 234
8.7 Watercolor facsimile of the attack on a fortified place, tomb of
Intef at Thebes, Eleventh Dynasty 236
8.8 Line drawing of three boats with soldiers brandishing weapons,
tomb of Intef at Thebes, Eleventh Dynasty 240
Figures xv
8.9 Line drawing of Beni Hasan Tomb 15, belonging to Baqt, east
wall of the main chamber, showing a complex battle scene,
early Middle Kingdom 243
8.10 Line drawing of Beni Hasan Tomb 17, belonging to Khety, east
wall of the main chamber, showing a complex battle scene,
8.11 Detail of the fortress and its defenders from the east wall of the
tomb of Khety at Beni Hasan, early Middle Kingdom 245
8.12 Line drawing of scenes from the damaged east wall of Beni
Hasan Tomb 14, belonging to Khnumhotep I, early
Middle Kingdom 246
8.13 Line drawing of Beni Hasan Tomb 2, belonging to Amenemhat,
north half of the east wall of the main chamber, showing a
complex battle scene, early Middle Kingdom 248
8.14 Detail of the attack on the fortress shown in Amenemhat’s tomb,
Beni Hasan, early Middle Kingdom 249
8.15 Line drawing of Beni Hasan Tomb 2, belonging to Amenemhat,
south half of the east wall of the main chamber, showing a
complex battle scene, early Middle Kingdom 250
8.16 Detail of the combat in the tomb of Amenemhat, Beni Hasan,
Acknowledgments
I am grateful for the intellectual and personal support of many people during the
process of writing this book. Foremost among them is Luiza Silva, whose help
editing the manuscript, tracking down sources, gaining image permissions, and
generally being a model of both organization and critical thinking has been essen-
tial. I quite literally could not have finished the book without her. I am fortunate in
my students, and others also served as research assistants at critical periods: thank
you Kathryn Howley, Simon Hochberg, and especially Jessica Tomkins, who first
imposed order on my chaos. Three reviewers of the book proposal gave comments
that shaped the project, and I would particularly like to thank Alan Lloyd, who not
only gave very constructive criticism but also signed his review. Adela Oppenheim
generously gathered and then discussed with me unpublished relief fragments from
Middle Kingdom pyramid complexes, for which I am thankful. The larger group of
my colleagues and students at Brown has been so long supportive and is so numer-
ous that I will not name you all, but thank you—and particularly to the participants
in the seminar on violence in Egyptian art in the Spring of 2015, during which many
of the ideas in this book were tested. I would be remiss not to mention, too, the two
different classes of Egyptian Warfare that I have taught at Brown University—
you guys did marvelous reconstructions of the Battle of Qadesh, and teaching you
helped me realize how much I wanted to write this book. The Howard Foundation
generously supported a sabbatical semester during the beginning stages of research
for this project, and further support from the Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology
and the Ancient World and the Department of Egyptology and Assyriology at
Brown University has also been helpful. Finally, some friends and family have
been so consistently supportive that I wish to mention them particularly. David
Sherry, Ralph Bestock, Donna Bestock, Simon Sullivan, and especially my daugh-
ters, Rose and Norah, thank you.
It was clear to me from the first that this book could not work without thorough
illustrations, and the process of getting them has not been easy. Ben Tyler and Ann
Caldwell at the Rockefeller Library at Brown University scanned images when
files could not be obtained elsewhere; most of the drawings and photographs illus-
trated here from old excavations are thanks to their help, which was considerable.
Jessica Porter’s assistance with logistics of image acquisition was also critical.
Endnotes for images that come from texts give their citations. A large number
Acknowledgments xvii
of figures were given by scholars and artists, and I would like to thank them and
acknowledge the copyright for the following (figure numbers given after names):
Paul Taçon: 2.1; Stan Hendrickx: 2.2; Royal Museums of Art and History: 2.2,
7.6; Barbara Adams: 2.3; Daniel Polz and the German Archaeological Institute
Cairo: 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.18, 8.7, 8.8; Günter Dreyer and Christiana Köhler: 2.4,
2.5, 2.6, 3.5, 3.18; Metropolitan Museum of Art: 2.7, 4.4, 4.46; Museo Egizio di
Torino and the photographer Pino Dell’Aquila: 2.8; British Museum: 3.1, 4.34,
4.35, 4.38, 4.39, 4.40, 4.41, 4.42, 4.44, 6.11, 7.1, 7.3; Ashmolean Museum: 3.1,
3.8, 3.16, 5.3; Jürgen Liepe: 3.2, 7.4; The Louvre Museum: 3.3, 3.6, 3.7; Krzysztof
Ciałowicz: 3.11; Willem van Haarlem: 3.12; Barry J. Kemp: 3.14; Miroslav
Bárta: 4.8, 4.9; Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale: 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17,
4.18, 4.19, 4.23, 4.24, 4.25, 4.26, 4.27, 4.28, 4.29, 4.30, 4.31, 4.32, 4.33, 6.3,
8.6; Peabody Museum of Natural History: 4.36; Egypt Exploration Society: 4.37,
4.43, 6.7, 6.10, 6.12, 6.13, 6.14, 6.15, 6.16, 6.17, 6.18, 6.19, 7.2, 7.5, 8.9, 8.10,
8.12, 8.13, 8.15; Los Angeles County Museum of Art: 5.1; Elisa Fiore Marochetti:
5.5, 5.6; Pierre Tallet: 6.4, 6.5, 6.6; American School of Oriental Research: 6.8;
Francis Lankester: 6.9; Josef Wegner: 7.7; Ann McFarlane: 8.2; Naguib Kanawati:
8.3; Deborah Vischak: 8.4; Jochem Kahl: 8.5; Brigitte Jaroš-Deckert: 8.7, 8.8;
Linda Evans: 8.11, 8.14, 8.16.
Laurel Bestock
The chronology and contexts of scenes
of violence from Egypt through the
Middle Kingdom*
Mortuary Mortuary Divine Landscape Object

triumph battle temple
Naqada I
(c.4000–3500 bce)
Naqada II
(c.3500–3200)
Naqada III
(c.3200–3000)
Early Dynastic
Period
(c.3000–2686)
First Dynasty
Narmer x
Aha x
Djer x
Djet x
Den x x
Semerkhet ?
Second Dynasty
Khasekhem(wy) x x
Old Kingdom
(c.2686–2160)
Third Dynasty
Djoser x
Sekhemkhet x
Sanakht x
Fourth Dynasty
Snefru x
Khufu x
Khafre x
Fifth Dynasty
Userkaf ?
Sahure x x x
Chronology of Egypt through the Middle Kingdom xix
Niuserra x x
Djedkare Izezi x
Unis x x
Sixth Dynasty
Pepy I x x
Pepy II x
First Intermediate
Period
(c.2160–2055)
Middle Kingdom
(c.2055–1650)
Eleventh Dynasty
Nebhepetra ? x x
Mentuhotep
Twelfth Dynasty
Senwosret I x x
Senwosret III x x x
Amenemhat III x
* Only those kings from whose reigns we have images of violence are listed. The chart shows the
contexts within which we find those images, excluding private tombs as those are often difficult
to date precisely and the imagery is quite different. Question marks indicate uncertain readings or
scant evidence. The purpose of this chart is to show relative chronology within Egypt and to track
changes in use of violent imagery in the historic periods. Dates given are approximate and based on
Shaw (2000); that the chronology of the earlier Naqada should be significantly shortened has been
convincingly demonstrated by Dee et al. (2014).
1 Picturing violence
This is not a book about violence. A reader could be forgiven for thinking it so;
a flip through its pages will give numerous images of soldiers firing arrows, of
kings preparing to bash in the heads of opponents, of fortress walls being stormed.
But this is a book about pictures of violence, and where and why Egyptians made
them for the first half of pharaonic history. Many societies made or make images
of or related to violence, and their use is often complex. An example from our
own time, and another not much older, serve to demonstrate some of the ways in
which such images can function, some of the reasons why it is important to distin-
guish pictures of violence from the practice of it, and thus some of the questions
that will structure the examination of Egyptian pictures of violence that follows.
2015 was the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. To commemorate
the battle, Belgium, where Waterloo lies, decided to issue a coin with a schematic
image of the battlefield on its reverse (Figure 1.1). The most prominent visual
component of the scene is the lion-topped commemorative mound erected on the
site; the dirt for the mound was excavated from what had been a key position
during the battle. Represented schematically against this on the coin are the roads
and troop positions of the battlefield from a contest in which a coalition composed
primarily of British and Prussian troops decisively defeated Napoleon Bonaparte
and put an end to French ambitions for European hegemony.
Belgium is part of the eurozone. Countries in the eurozone issue their own
coins, which may be decorated with images of national significance, but the
coins are legal tender throughout the zone and so become dispersed. While the
importance of Waterloo for shaping European history is universally acknowl-
edged, the emotional relationship to that battle is different in different places,
and has itself changed over time. No better understanding of the changes in emo-
tional impact of the battle can be achieved than by recalling the celebration of its
100th anniversary. There was no celebration. 1915 was not a good time for any
of the parties involved to recall a battle in which combined English and German
troops kept Europe from being overrun by a violently expansionist France.
In 2015, conversely, the shaping of modern Europe could be celebrated, if not
without some ambivalence.
The coin itself proved to be a point of more than ambivalence—it became
a point of active anger. The first issue struck was a €2 coin. France, which is a
Figure 1.1 B
elgian €2.5 coin issued to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the
battle of Waterloo, in which a British and German coalition defeated the
armies of Napoleon. The reverse of the coin shows the monument erected at
the battlefield and the field itself, with dotted lines indicating the position
of troops.
member of the eurozone and so a place where the coin would be legal tender, was
insulted and required the withdrawal of the issue as a matter of national pride.1 In
the end, a commemorative €2.5 coin was issued. This, as an irregular denomina-
tion, is legal tender only within Belgium (which did not exist in 1815). Rather
than a European piece of money that commemorated an event of international sig-
nificance, the coin became national and almost entirely symbolic, as well as much
more limited in distribution. It was packaged in a cardboard sleeve decorated with
a reproduction of a painting of the battle and sold for more than its face value.
Picturing violence 3
Several points raised by the Belgian coin picturing the Waterloo battlefield
help us question the relationship between images and violence more generally.
At its most basic, what constitutes an image of violence? No overt violence is
shown on the coin itself, though the sleeve in which it was sold was more direct,
but even the reference of the schematic image is to an extremely violent event.
Without the historical knowledge of what Waterloo was, would we interpret this
as an image of violence at all? When are we looking at pictures of violence, or
pictures about violence, and how can we tell where the boundaries are when we
lack specific knowledge?
Another issue raised by the coin is that of authors and audience. One point
of concern in revoking the first issue was that viewing the coin would not be
voluntary, but would rather be forced on the audience by its circulation. France
itself has issued commemorative images of the 200th anniversary of Waterloo, so
in this case it was a combination of the author and audience that was toxic: for
Belgium to force the French to be confronted with an image that elicited memories
of French defeat was more of a problem than the French-controlled commemora-
tion of that defeat. This not only suggests that we need to pay attention to who
makes and who sees images referring to violence, but also that we should be alert
to restrictions placed on viewership. That states are directly concerned with the
ideological import of circulating such images is also clear in this case.
In the case of the coin, it is not the image itself but rather, as already sug-
gested, the relation of that image to a real and historically well-attested event that
is effective. The image tells us nothing of the event. If it were not labeled, it is
unlikely that any but a select audience of military history enthusiasts would rec-
ognize it. The image does not say anything about who won, or even who fought.
It works only in a context where its audience has other means of understanding
what happened at Waterloo and what that meant. As such, while the image relies
on a relationship to an actual event, it does not show a picture of that event or
directly communicate through visual means any information about it. How can
this help us approach Egypt?
In part because we lack the same kinds of detailed historical records for Egypt
that we have for Europe, we generally cannot know if we have an image that
refers to violence unless it directly shows it. Nonetheless, many of the ques-
tions raised above are relevant to a study of the fairly large number of remaining
pictures from Egypt that do directly show violence. The first question raised by
the coin, that of “what is an image of violence?” is a good starting point. From
Egypt, I have identified two basic types of images that I am confident speak about
violence: triumph scenes that either show the king smiting an enemy with a
weapon or, in the form of a fantastical beast, trampling him; and battle images,
which show troops in combat. These categories are not necessarily intrinsic to the
material, and we must recognize that there may have been additional visual refer-
ences to violence that we now cannot see as such. Furthermore, even though the
pictures that we can study as images of violence are overt in their imagery, can we
really use them as the basis of an understanding of royal actions, weapons and bat-
tlefield organization, friends and foes, specific campaigns, and booty? Or are their
references as oblique as the battlefield image on the €2.5 coin? The temptation to
read Egyptian imagery of violence as a direct report on the practice of violence
has been strong in scholarship, for the understandable reason that if these pictures
do not answer questions about historical violence, we have very little evidence to
answer them at all.2
An argument against giving in to this temptation of expecting violent imagery
to communicate clearly and directly about war and the practice of violence can
be advanced on two fronts. This whole book will offer a sustained discussion of
specificity and what we might call reliability, and will show time and again that
there are internal details of the images, either present or deliberately left out, that
make reading them as 1:1 reports on actual events impossible. This does not make
them entirely divorced from history, as we will repeatedly see, only unreliable
guides. But beyond this, even if real events were pictured, though perhaps not
with total accuracy, an attempt to understand them primarily as historical docu-
ments misses an essential point. The act of picturing violence is necessarily an act
of recasting that violence, of making it tell a story that fits a bigger narrative, one
that is ideologically driven rather than true to history—even if we were to assume
something so simplistic as the existence of a history. The €2.5 coin—with its de-
peopled imagery and surrounding political kerfuffle—demonstrates one way in
which an image could be caught up in conflicting ways to remember and interpret
a war, but a further example serves to demonstrate that issues of reinterpretation,
context, audience, and reference to reality are present even with pictures that more
realistically and directly present acts of violence.
In the 1880s, there was a craze in America (and elsewhere) for cycloramas
showing various battles of the American Civil War. These enormous panoramic
canvases were painted on the basis of photographs, displayed in cylindrical halls
built for the purpose of making an audience feel immersed in the experience of
the battlefield, and augmented by the presence of artifacts—even dummies of
dead soldiers—carefully arranged before the canvas. They were the nineteenth-
century precursor to IMAX. No “realer” art of war has ever existed. Yet, as Yoni
Appelbaum has written,
[Their] stunning rendition of a battle utterly divorced from context appealed

to a nation as eager to remember the valor of those who fought as it was to
forget the purpose of their fight. [Their] version of the conflict proved so
alluring, in fact, that it changed the way America remembered the Civil War.3
Only 20 years after it had been fought, with Reconstruction a demonstrable disas-
ter, many Americans wanted to remember a different war than had happened. They
wanted it to have been a shared national traumatic birth in which the valor and
bravery of both sides shone—not the moral opposition it was largely understood
to be at the time. With an exodus of black Americans leaving the still-repressive
south, the role of slavery in the war was actively erased. The memory of the
war was simplified and cleansed and images of Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg
could be refashioned into a moment—a single moment to represent a bloody four
years!—of valor and courage that failed, but in failing birthed a new era for the
prosperous emergence of America on the world stage. The most visually realis-
tic imagery could be employed to tell a story different from the one understood
by the protagonists at the time. Pickett hated that his name was attached to the
charge, about which there had been serious disagreement among the Confederate
generals.4 Meade and Lee did not do battle to give rise to rampant industrialized
capitalism. But the context and audience for the display of this image, much more
even than what it particularly depicted, drove home the new message.
The coin and the cyclorama together illustrate the starting point behind this
study: committing violence and making pictures of it are fundamentally differ-
ent tactics of power, regardless of the “realism” of the image. Both can be used
as means of control. They can be exercised at vastly different times, and by very
different people, to widely different ends. Even when exercised by the same
people at the same time, they function differently and produce different outcomes.
Pictures, even realistic ones, are so prone to manipulation and are so context-
dependent in their meaning that they must be approached in their own light rather
than as direct evidence of the practice of violence. Pictures can show violence
differently than it happened. Pictures can show violence that never happened.
Violence that did happen is also certainly not always turned into a picture. As
such, studying the images left to us from Egypt allows us to better understand one
tactic of pharaonic power: that of imaging it. These images do not give us reliable
insight into the practice of violence itself any more than the coin tells us about
Waterloo or the cyclorama lets us understand Gettysburg. This is first surprising,
then disappointing. But, once accepted, it frees us to consider the images and their
power on their own.
The structure of this book

I have gathered and present here all extant images of violence from Egypt that
I know of dating prior to the New Kingdom. One goal of this book is that it
be a sourcebook for anyone else who wishes to address how and why Egyptians
visualized violence, and this is the reason I have striven both to include as much
evidence as I know to exist and to illustrate as much of it as I could. The inclusion
of images themselves is critical to allowing the reader to accept or challenge my
own observations of each piece and the interpretations I suggest. Dimensions given
are those published. Every piece for which I could obtain permission to publish is
illustrated, and all, including the few I was not able to illustrate, are described.
Because my goal is not to illuminate historical events but rather to examine
how pictures of violence in Egypt communicated what to whom, I have chosen
to organize this material primarily by context. It has become clear to me that the
same image could work differently in different places—that the king smiting an
Asiatic on the walls of his tomb does something else than the same picture on a
rock face in the Sinai. Context and audience were deeply entwined and often heav-
ily regulated in ancient Egypt. “Where,” or perhaps more precisely “on what,” was
thus the guiding principle followed in organizing this book.
The material of pharaonic date is divided into contextual chapters, addressing
the royal tomb; divine temples; the landscape; portable objects; and private tombs.
The chapters are of wildly uneven length because these contexts are represented
by vastly different amounts of material. The kings of the first half of Egyptian his-
tory spent much more time and effort on decorating their tombs with violence than
anywhere else. The variety as well as the number of violent pictures from royal
tombs is overwhelming even in its very fragmentary current state.
That a contextual organization makes sense can be seen from a simple chart,
such as the chronological table in the front matter. Trends of scene type by context
are very consistent and support the argument that the relationship between image
and context was meaningful and controlled. For instance, battle scenes are known
only from tombs, both royal and private. Smiting scenes are found in all contexts
except private tombs. Smiting is the only scene type found in the landscape., etc.
While I thus thought the Dynastic material would be best organized contextu-
ally, the issue of the origin of violent imagery is not easy to treat in the same way.
This is in part because the types of contexts on which we have violent imagery—
the contexts arguably more than the images themselves—changed fundamentally
both during the period of state formation in the late fourth millennium and
between that period and the Old Kingdom. Consequently, the first two chapters
of the book are organized chronologically and present the early occurrences of
themes of violence and domination in Egyptian art. The most significant sugges-
tion I have made on the basis of this material is that we cannot observe a coherent
development of such imagery with a defined relation to nascent power structures
prior to the very late Predynastic Period.5 The reign of Narmer at the start of the
First Dynasty is the reign from which we have the greatest variety and number
of such pictures, and it is only with his reign and perhaps the generations imme-
diately preceding it that we see the kinds of specificity and historicity combined
with general statements that we expect from later violent images. I do not think
this is an accident; I think both kingship itself and visual means of depicting and
upholding its ideology underwent a very rapid growth and transformation, and
that pictures of violence are a good illustration of how exceptional this period
was. The pivot between a chronological and a contextual discussion is thus the
reign of Narmer, whose imagery looks more like that which followed but whose
contexts for using it were more like those of his predecessors. Still, there is no
neat dividing line and the inclusion of First and Second Dynasty material in the
contextual chapters has often been awkward, though I felt it to work better than
attaching it to the chronological chapters.
Another point of structure is the opening of each chapter with a comparative
image. I have tried to use these as I have used the coin and cyclorama here in the
introduction: to raise questions about the ways in which violent pictures, or pic-
tures of domination in some cases, could work. In no case have I attempted to write
an interpretation of the comparative image itself, nor to be comprehensive in citing
bibliography about it. In the end, some of these comparisons have proved more
useful than others, but they all at some point made me stop and step back from
assumptions I was making about how Egyptian images must have functioned.
Two major omissions, both intentional, must be explained: I have not dealt
with texts in much detail, and I have not included New Kingdom or later mate-
rial. The decision to leave out texts would be insupportable if this were a book
about violence, rather than a book about pictures of violence. But texts can com-
municate differently, sometimes to different audiences and in different contexts
than images, and my primary aim has been to ask how the imagery functions.
When images and texts are together and I am confident they rely upon one
another to communicate, I have usually noted the text. This primarily means
image captions where those are present. In a handful of instances where texts
about violence and images of violence are found in the same context but not
directly together, I have brought in quotes from these texts. However, in these
cases it has usually seemed to me that the texts and images are demonstrably
different in intent, and this has supported rather than undermined the decision
to consider imagery separately. For instance, in the most completely considered
example, the private tomb of Amenemhat from Beni Hasan has both an auto-
biographical account of his participation in military campaigns and an image of
troops attacking a fortified place (Chapter 8). They do not match; the picture
is not an illustration of the text. The text can be read, to oversimplify a bit, as
an indication of the close relationship between the king and his trusted official
Amenemhat, and as a celebration of Amenemhat’s personal qualities. The image
is doing something else entirely, and not only does it not include the king, but
it also does not even include Amenemhat. This type of mismatch itself helps
us understand what both the texts and the images were intended to do; here my
focus is on the images, but a similarly contextual examination of texts that speak
of violence would complement this study.
The decision to consider only the first half of pharaonic history has three bases,
one of overwhelming importance and the other two not negligible. The smaller
reasons are simpler: later Egyptian imagery has been quite extensively studied,
including from the perspective of power and ideology;6 it also would have made
the book much too long. But the most important reason is that I do not think it
belongs in the same study. The material from the New Kingdom is much richer
but it is also quite different, both in terms of content and in terms of context. This
makes it on the one hand very tempting to use it to explain the earlier material,
since it is much better understood, and on the other dangerous to do so. By way of
an example we can look at the famous Qadesh reliefs of Ramses II (Figure 1.2),7
which show the king triumphantly riding his chariot and firing his bow, person-
ally snatching victory from the jaws of defeat as his army reels in chaos during a
massive battle against the wily and well-organized Hittites.
Superficially, this image has a great deal in common with what will be exam-
ined in this study. Here we have a scene of violence from the royal mortuary
temple, which shows the king acting in unique splendor and the chaos of a bat-
tlefield. But neither in context nor in content are the similarities as close as
they appear. The outside of a pylon, where the Ramses image is located, is a
more or less public space, visible to everyone. The inside of a mortuary temple,
where reliefs of violence in the Old and Middle Kingdoms are located, had a
Figure 1.2 R
amses II of the New Kingdom rides his chariot and fires his bow in
attacking the Hittites at Qadesh, Syria. From the second pylon of his mortuary
temple at Thebes.
much more restricted audience. Qadesh scenes were also carved for Ramses in
divine temples—a context that is so ill-represented prior to the New Kingdom
that Chapter 5 of this book cannot come to any reasonable conclusions at all
about how or even if images of violence regularly worked there. The Qadesh
scene combines royal action and the battlefield; this is not known from earlier
imagery, where icons of royal violence appear to have been separated from war
itself and where battle was not utilized to demonstrate personal valor of the
king or anyone else. For Qadesh, elements of landscape are present—a sense of
place is given. This is never true in earlier imagery. This image tells a story: it
does so itself, and it does so in combination with extensive texts. The image is
not a perfect illustration of the story, but the two are very closely tied and are
explicitly related to actual events—they say so, and we have other documentary
evidence for the events. We may laugh about how “true” the picture is, how
heroic Ramses really was or if he really won, but that it purports to represent a
series of actual events is unquestionable.
Earlier images are much less obviously narrative and do not have this relation-
ship to texts, as suggested above. In part because of this, they also have a much
less direct interest in appearing historical. We will find specificity and historicity
regularly as elements of earlier images, but no attempt—and I think even a deliber-
ate avoidance—to claim that a picture is a report in the way Qadesh claims to be.
The coin and the cyclorama were used to suggest that it would be a mistake to use
any image as a straightforward report on an event, and indeed no scholarship of the
scenes of Qadesh fails to make the point that this is not pure historical reporting.
But if we cannot use scenes of Qadesh as a simple report on Qadesh, it is equally
true that we cannot use them as a simple guide to understanding earlier images of
violence in Egypt. Some visual elements of violent imagery were incredibly static
over time, particularly the so-called smiting scene, in which the king prepares
to bash an enemy on the head with a weapon. Because of contextual changes,
however, we should not assume that even such an icon—which like Qadesh could
appear on the pylons of New Kingdom temples—had a static function over the
whole course of Egyptian history.
Themes
Several themes appear across different contexts with images of violence from
Egypt. First and foremost is scene type; this is limited, and has already been noted
above, with due caveats about our creation of categories. It was noted that explic-
itly violent imagery, in which a person or people are shown in the act of damaging
other persons or people, can be grouped into two categories in this material: tri-
umph (smiting, trampling) and battle. Triumph in our periods is exclusively the
province of the king. Trampling is accomplished by the king in the form of a
mythical animal. Smiting, in which he clubs one or more prostate prisoners with
a mace, is performed usually by the king in human form but very occasionally, in
early periods, by the king’s name. Is this a moment of violence or a preparation
for violence, given that the mace has not yet hit the head, and is that distinc-
tion meaningful? Battle scenes include both hand-to-hand combat and ranks of
soldiers attacking in unison. Often, including in all completely preserved cases,
the battle occurs outside the walls of a fortified place. There is, as noted above,
no evidence that battle and triumph were closely linked scene types during this
period, though they became so in the New Kingdom.
Given differences in their use and apparent meaning, and remembering the
questions raised by the €2.5 coin, we must question if these categories or even
the category “images of violence” are inherent to the material or our own. Even
the boundaries of the category as thus defined are difficult to find. Aside from the
explicit images, there are several cases of imagery showing bound captives who
are not being actively damaged that I have included in this study; these could be
used beside images of violence or independently. I have not attempted to gather
such images comprehensively. Images of captivity are included here when I have
felt that they can help us understand either the presence or the absence of explicit
violence in specific contexts.
The theme of the relationship between depiction and event is one that
is inherent to the topic, and while I used two more recent images above to
show how problematic it would be to assume a one-to-one correspondence
between the two, “reality” also cannot be avoided entirely. If I have tried to not
be trapped by an expectation that real events are depicted realistically, I have
not tried to avoid thinking about what might have actually taken place as
well as how images might relate to that. Here it is important to recognize that
images might influence future events as well as reflect past events. This is
abundantly clear with figurines of bound captives used ritually to damn poten-
tial enemies, but might also be a factor with other types of imagery. When is
an image intended to show, and perhaps recast, what has happened, and when
is it intended to influence what will happen? In fact, the relationship of such
images to time seems particularly critical to me. If I were to accord them a
single overarching purpose, I would say that they take events, real, ritual, or
imagined, past, present, or future, and cast them timelessly, so that they tie the
practice of violence to a theory or an ideal.
Another constant theme already mentioned is that of audience. I argue that
most of the contexts in which we find violent imagery before the New Kingdom
were highly restricted, meaning that in most cases these pictures spoke to a
selected audience. This is particularly true for triumph scenes, which would have
been seen, I think, by a limited number of largely divine and perhaps priestly
eyes. To such an audience, such images are reassuring rather than threatening; it
is an audience that is supported rather than hurt by royal violence. The opposite
may be true of the same image when deployed in the landscape; there it might
have been seen by a broader audience, including people who were threatened
by its promise. It is worth remembering, too, that images in ancient Egypt were
often considered to have considerably more agency than we are used to accord-
ing them. It may have mattered not only who could see an image, but also what
the image itself could have seen and what it could have done in response to what
it saw. Images as audiences themselves would likewise have played different
roles in different contexts.
Related to the theme of audience is that of transmission of imagery. The smit-
ing icon in particular is so entirely canonical from so early in pharaonic history
that we can be certain it was known and seen even in periods from which we have
no extant evidence. Those periods can be significantly long, such as the entire
Second Dynasty. Someone in some context must have seen images of smiting that
we do not have during these reigns, and made new ones. I have tried to show in
Chapter 7 why I think portable objects are unlikely to have been the main carriers
of such imagery, as I think they themselves were quite restricted in circulation,
but I remain uncertain of what filled the gap. The one place where mode of trans-
mission may be reasonably reconstructed is the landscape, where the images were
available to be seen and could be copied directly from one another, but this is also
in many ways the least typical context we have and it seems unlikely that it had a
larger role in the process of transmission.
A final theme that comes up repeatedly is that of the visual representation of
stereotypes of groups of people. It is a difficult topic to treat for several reasons.
That there are visual ethnic stereotypes is so abundantly obvious, from all peri-
ods of Egyptian history, that it is easy to simply accept them as present, identify
“peoples,” and move on. But in the nitty-gritty it is much more complicated, in
terms of which attributes are static and which change, which attributes belong to
which peoples, and which peoples play what roles. Furthermore, that there was
an element of ideology to identifying others is clear, and some of the mismatches
between visual attributes, texts, and what we know of “foreigners” on the ground
may result from a different rate of change between ideological markers and actual
interactions between peoples.8 Identifying “who” is thus not straightforward, par-
ticularly early on when visual stereotypes were in greater flux, and in fact I am
not so confident that ambiguity was always meant to be absent; plurality and
differentiation mattered more than accuracy. Even if the Egyptians did mean to
designate static and bounded groups of people with these visual stereotypes, it is
not so clear that they are meant to be representative of places, or that we should
understand them territorially.9
Despite real misgivings about terminology and a recognition that the issue is
more complex than I had originally thought, I have used the terms common in
scholarship to refer to broad groups of people: Libyans, Asiatics, and Nubians.
To avoid them seemed more complicated than to use them. All deserve more
attention and qualification than I can give, and many issues will be raised within
discussions of individual depictions, but a few observations here will help the
reader navigate what follows. “Libyans” are by far the most consistent of the
visual depictions but are also the hardest to identify with a people, polity, or
place known from other sources for the period considered here—an interesting
combination. “Asiatics” are a group within which there are subgroups that are
sometimes specified in texts and perhaps in imagery as well. Notable here are
the Mentiu, a group of Asiatics who are named in inscriptions in various con-
texts and are the only named group of people in the images in the landscape,
which themselves are restricted to the Sinai. We may see here a very deliberate
and pointed reference to a particular ethnicity instead of the “all” common in
other contexts. “Nubians,” who are also frequently differentiated into subgroups
in texts, surprised me the most. I expected and did not find a static visual repre-
sentation for people from the south, and I expected southerners to be common.
This was not the case. I remain uncertain of how and when Egyptian imagery of
violence includes Nubians, and which Nubians. They do not seem ever to be the
victims of attack in battle in the periods under study here. A final critical note
about the “who” of ethnicity is that Egyptians were given visual stereotypes, too,
and that people with Egyptian stereotypical features could appear as victims in
all types of scenes of violence, though they are less common than “foreigners.”
Whatever else these stereotypes are doing, they are not creating a binary world
in which Egypt is the good and foreigners the evil. If there is a binary at all, it
is that the Egyptian king is in power and everyone else is, at least potentially,
violently subject to him.10
I have tried to keep ethnic stereotypes from taking over the book, and I have
not at all tried to be comprehensive in tracing the rise of visual stereotypes or
including all iterations of them; like captivity, they are here only if and when they
contribute to our understanding of active scenes of violence.
In the end, scenes of violence may not be straightforward historical documents,
but they are rich sources for helping us understand the ways in which their contexts
functioned and the ways in which ideal kingship was conceived. The ideology
expressed in this imagery seems to me quite simple. Theoretical Egyptian kingship
required that the king be violently physically dominant over everyone. Events,
whether ritual or not, were cast in line with this theory and displayed in contexts
that helped to maintain this ideal of kingship. The king’s right, even requirement,
to be shown smashing heads was exclusive to him. Much less exceptional was the
imagery of war, which—perhaps surprisingly—does not seem in these periods
to have been closely tied to royal ideology at all. If triumph was exclusive and
spectacular, warfare was rather ordinary and conflict an assumed part of life.11
But if these strains of ideology and worldview are themselves simple and far from
unexpected or previously unexamined, there is no simple and single answer to the
question of how images of violence worked, and we should not expect one. They
worked differently, and the same image could do different things, depending on
where it was and who could see it.
Notes
1 Michaël Torfs, “Belgium withdraws ‘Controversial’ Waterloo Coin under French
Pressure, but has a Plan B,” FlandersNews.be, March 12, 2015, http://deredactie.be/
cm/vrtnieuws.english/News/1.2267618.
2 Schulman, for example, has used imagery of violence to examine both supposed his-
toric events and tactics of war: Alan R. Schulman, “Siege Warfare in Pharaonic Egypt,”
Natural History Magazine 73, no. 3 (1964): 12–21; Alan R. Schulman, “The Battle
Scenes of the Middle Kingdom,” Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian
Antiquities 12, no. 4 (1982): 165–183. Spalinger deals extremely briefly with early
periods from a quite traditional military–history perspective: Anthony J. Spalinger,
War in Ancient Egypt: The New Kingdom (Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell, 2005);
Anthony J. Spalinger, Icons of Power: A Strategy of Reinterpretation (Prague: Charles
University in Prague, Faculty of Arts, 2011). Alberto Giannese, “Conflict-Related
Representations in the 4th Millennium Egypt. A Study on Ideology of Violence”
(Master’s thesis, University College London, 2012), provides an examination of vio-
lent imagery from the Naqada I-III in hopes of analyzing the relationship between
ideology and Egyptian state formation. Gregory has studied war in early Egypt, rely-
ing on material culture but also pictorial representations: Gilbert Gregory, Weapons,
Warriors and Warfare in Early Egypt (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2004). Juan Carlos
Moreno García, “War in Old Kingdom Egypt (2686–2125 bce),” in Studies on War in
the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays on Military History, Ed. Jordi Vidal (Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag, 2010), discusses different aspects of Old Kingdom warfare. Shaw has
dealt with the relationship between economy and war: Ian Shaw, “Battle in Ancient
Egypt: The Triumph of Horus or the Cutting Edge of the Temple Economy?” in Battle
in Antiquity, Ed. Alan B. Lloyd (London: Duckworth in association with the Classical
Press of Wales, 1996); Ian Shaw, “Socio-Economic and Iconographic Contexts
for Egyptian Military Technology: The Knowledge Economy and ‘Technology
Transfer’ in Late Bronze Age Warfare,” in The Knowledge Economy and Technological
Capabilities: Egypt, the Near East and the Mediterranean 2nd Millennium bc–1st
Millennium ad Proceedings of a Conference Held at the Maison de La Chimie Paris,
France 9–10 December 200, Ed. M. Wissa (Barcelona: Aula Orientalis, 2010), 77–85.
Popular treatments of war in ancient Egypt have tended to be broad in scope: Robert
Partridge, Fighting Pharaohs: Weapons and Warfare in Ancient Egypt (Manchester:
Peartree Publishing, 2002); Bridget McDermott, Warfare in Ancient Egypt (Stroud:
Sutton Publishing, 2004).
3 Yoni Appelbaum, “The Great Illusion of Gettysburg,” The Atlantic, February 5, 2012,
www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/the—great—illusion—of—gettysburg/
238870/.
4 James Longstreet, for example, was against making the charge at all: “I do not want
to make this charge. I do not see how it can succeed. I would not make it now but that
Gen. Lee has ordered it and is expecting it,” Edward P. Alexander, Military Memoirs
of a Confederate: A Critical Narrative (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1907), 424.
Pickett was left frantic with grief after the charge and the deaths of so many of his men.
In a letter to his wife, he wrote:
Well, it is all over now. The battle is lost, and many of us are prisoners, many are
dead, many wounded, bleeding and dying. Your Soldier lives and mourns and but
for you, my darling, he would rather, a million times rather, be back there with his
dead, to sleep for all time in an unknown grave.
Letter sent by Pickett to LaSalle Corbell Pickett on July 4, 1863:
George E. Pickett, Soldier of the South: General Pickett’s War
Letters to His Wife, Ed. Arthur C. Inman (Boston, MA and
New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1928), 59–62.
5 Most studies of early imagery of domination and violence have concluded rather the
opposite. The development of my point of view with full references to those who would
argue otherwise can be found in Chapter 2.
6 Most recently and in most depth, Spalinger, Icons of Power: A Strategy of
Reinterpretation. Also G.A. Gaballa, Narrative in Egyptian Art (Mainz am Rhein:
Philipp von Zabern, 1976).
7 James Henry Breasted, The Battle of Kadesh: A Study in the Earliest Known Military
Strategy (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1903), pl. 3.
8 Dominique Valbelle, Les neuf arcs: L’égyptien et les étrangers de la préhistoire à la
conquête d’Alexandre (Paris: Armand Colin, 1990), 46.
9 That foreign people rather than foreign places are the focus of Egyptian domination
has also been suggested in analyses of the Pyramid Texts, inscribed in the interiors
of late Old Kingdom pyramids. See a discussion in Eric Uphill, “The Nine Bows,”
Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatische—Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 19
(1967): 394, where he cites Kurt Sethe, Die altägyptischen Pyramidentexte, nach den
Papierabdrücken und Photographien des Berliner Museums, neu Herausgegeben und
Erläutert (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1960), spell 202b.
10 The inclusion of Egyptians as enemies appears in texts, too. For instance, Uphill
reminds us that the developed list of the Nine Bows, the traditional “others” who
needed to be crushed by the king, included Upper and Lower Egypt. Eric Uphill, “The
Nine Bows,” 394–395.
11 Whether or not there even was a notion of “peace” in ancient Egypt is an interest-
ing question that has received recent attention. Bickel notes that a state in which
conflict existed was more or less assumed as the baseline normal; she also finds that
in discussing peace in ancient Egypt it is important to recognize that worldview and
actual political behavior were “intensely interwoven but did not always coincide,”
an observation quite in line with the discussion of violence here. Susanne Bickel,
“Peace in the Ancient World: Concepts and Theories,” in Peace in the Ancient
World: Concepts and Theories, Ed. Kurt A. Raaflaub (Chichester and Malden, MA:
John Wiley & Sons, 2016), 44.
2 The origins of violent imagery
In the Northern Territory of Australia, in a shelter on the Arnhem Land plateau

deep above Deaf Adder Gorge, there lies a painted rock face that has been under-
stood as showing a skirmish, with several figures wounded by spears (Figure 2.1).
The image belongs to the “Dynamic Figures” tradition, which has been dated to
approximately 10,000 bc;1 this tradition is the earliest utilizing figural imagery
in this region, and its violent images are the oldest pictures of humans inflicting
harm on one another known anywhere in the world.2 Images of fighting are rare
in hunter-gatherer societies at all, and are not the most prevalent type of Dynamic
Figure 2.1 “ Skirmish” scene, painting on rock face, near Deaf Adder Gorge, Arnhem
Land, Northern Territory, Australia. Figures are shown ducking spears, lying
on the ground, and reaching to help one another. No indication of spear
throwers is evident in the image, but that it represents a moment of violence is
suggested by the spears evidently still in flight.
The origins of violent imagery 15
Figures imagery in Arnhem Land, where male figures in ceremonial headdresses
predominate, though domestic and hunting scenes are also not uncommon.3
Understanding the figures of this scene and their relation to each other is
difficult. They appear to have been added in at least three phases. The clearest
grouping is of six figures at the left rendered in the same pigment and style as
one another.4 Immediately to the right of the scale in the image above, faint and
difficult to see, is a prone figure reaching up and a second figure bending down
toward it. This leaning figure, who faces to the left, has three almost vertical lines
coming out the back of its leg; these lines have many shorter lines coming out of
them, making them look like feathers. In the middle of the scene a figure ducks;
there are three more lines of the same fletched nature to the right, not in contact
with anything else. Beneath these lines is another figure leaning forward, to the
right, not as severely stooped as the middle figure. The darker and more easily
seen figure at the right was a later addition, indicating continued changing of and
interaction with the image over time.
The Deaf Adder Gorge image does not make much immediate sense to an
uninitiated viewer. It appears relatively simple, with only a small number of
figures and objects shown, but reading it and advancing possible interpretations,
even understanding that it is an image of violence, require knowledge of a broader
corpus of images, including some that date to later periods.5 For example, would
I have read the fletched-looking lines as spears if I had not been told by an expert
to do so? On the leaning figure at the upper left, might I have read them instead
as elements of clothing indicating the role of the figure, an iconographic device
indicating power that is repeated elsewhere in the scene?
The type of spear shown here is present in other Dynamic Figures Period
images, which include several cases of figures with similarly barbed shafts stick-
ing out of different places in their bodies. There are also cases of opposed figures
brandishing weapons, but this is the sole Dynamic Figures image of anything
like mass combat, and groups of figures at all are quite rare in this tradition.6
This scarcity is one reason it is difficult to determine what is meant by this scene,
and again one reason comparison to later scenes seems helpful. In the later Stick
Figure Period, violence is a much more prevalent aspect of imagery. At that time,
the scope of violence in individual images is much greater, with the introduction
of large battle scenes; new motifs including different weaponry are present; and
the corpus of imagery as a whole shows much greater regional variation. The
interpreters of the violent imagery of Arnhem Land rock art have correlated the
changes in the corpuses of these periods to substantial shifts in social and eco-
nomic structures and suggest that they are reflective of actual changes in who
fought, how, and why.7 From our perspective it is equally of interest that chang-
ing social and economic realities resulted in changing modes of representation,
even within the same medium of expression. This rock art is no more a simple
report on wars fought than is a Belgian €2.50 coin with an image of Waterloo a
simple report on that battle.
Some questions about the development of early imagery of violence as well
as reasonable approaches to it, which are suggested on the basis of the Arnhem
Land skirmish scene, are also applicable to Egyptian art. When do such images first
occur? In what media and to what end? How do those images relate to contemporary
images that are not violent? How can we tell that violence is pictured? What relation
might such imagery have to actual violence or other aspects of social and economic
structures? Who is shown? Why were such images made? And as has already been
made clear, we must ask what level of knowledge is needed to read such images,
and to what degree is it safe to build on knowledge of later images—knowledge we
have, but that the creators of the images in question did not.
The earliest images of violence in Egypt

Imagery of physical domination in Egypt is known from the first major tradition
of figured representation in the Nile valley: painted pottery from the Naqada I
Period of the Upper Egyptian Predynastic. There is no clear relationship between
the practice of violence in early Egypt and these depictions of domination. The
first occurrence of such images is many thousand years after the first archaeologi-
cally attested evidence of violence on more than an interpersonal scale.8 More
critically, the first attested images are extremely limited and known only from
one site and in a small handful of examples, while violence itself was probably
much more widespread. They are also part of scenes that include postures and
iconography that suggest they are ritualized in nature rather than reportorial;
the degree to which these images intended to picture either violence or accurate
reports is questionable. In the subsequent Naqada II Period images of violence
are even more poorly attested, though richer in content. They, too, are impossible
to divorce from their ceremonial settings. From the first, then, it seems important
to examine such images not as simple indications of the presence or roles of vio-
lence in Egyptian society, but rather as deliberately deployed messages intended
to function in specific contexts.
Understanding the meaning of the messages in these earliest images of vio-
lence seems simpler than it is, particularly if one tries to consider such art within
its own contexts, without reliance on later pharaonic traditions. Such an attempt
should be made. The chief reason for caution in relating Predynastic images of
violence to later periods is a lack of continuity, notable in chronological gaps, in
changes of context for the display of such images, and in both modes and motifs
of representation. A tendency in much recent scholarship has been to see ever-
greater continuity between early Predynastic and pharaonic Egypt, particularly
in terms of artistic motifs and their ideological meanings; an effect of this has
been to see the ideas of Egyptian kingship, particularly about violence, as nascent
in even the earliest periods.9 Especially with the earliest material, this tracing of
continuity has relied primarily on presumed concepts embedded within images
rather than on visual similarities, but to me the risk seems great that we only see
the concepts as continuous because we expect them to be. While a focus on con-
tinuity has been a welcome corrective to earlier ideas of pharaonic Egypt’s rise as
due to the invasion of a “Dynastic race,”10 there is room for more consideration
of dynamism and difference within the indigenous traditions of the Nile valley.
This chapter will deal selectively with some images of domination and
violence from the Predynastic Period, in particular Naqada I-II, and the fol-
lowing chapter will focus on art of the Naqada III and the transition to the
Early Dynastic Period. These chapters together will show that the relation-
ship between power, violence, and iconography was flexible, though also
uncommon, before the enshrinement of violence as an icon in the pharaonic
smiting scene. This suggests that the development toward that scene was not
linear, and that we should be quite cautious in assuming that the specifically
pharaonic conceptions of violence and order communicated by that icon were
already present in Predynastic power structures. Because the contexts we
have in general from these early periods are not always directly compara-
ble to later contexts—for instance, there is no standardized royal tomb, and
royal involvement with divine temples is not clear—this material is organized
roughly chronologically rather than contextually in the way of later chap-
ters. However, as even relative dating is not always particularly precise, and
as some categories of evidence are themselves fairly restricted chronologi-
cally, there are clusters by medium within the chronological framework. I also
include a few pieces of unknown provenance.
The images treated in this chapter are found exclusively in relation to
tombs and, with one exception, are found on objects in tombs rather than on
the tombs themselves. It is not clear how much this mortuary prevalence is
an accurate reflection of early use, since tombs in general are far and away
the best-preserved type of context we have from Egypt. The mortuary context
raises immediate questions about the audience for such images: who could have
seen them? In the case of pots or textiles painted with images of violence, they
might well have had a use in life before their interment. The case of a subter-
ranean burial chamber with a painted wall cannot have been intended primarily
for a living human viewership. Either its audience was the buried individual,
and perhaps other beings in the afterlife, or its function relied most on knowl-
edge among the living that it was there, not on them actually seeing it. Some of
the early graves containing such images may have belonged to local rulers; all
were unquestionably burial places for members of the emerging elite. But the
relation between the people pictured in the imagery and the occupants of the
tombs in which it has been found is never clear in these periods. We can never
be certain if we are looking at a specific person or event, at the representation
of cosmic processes, or at some combination of the two. The move from such
ambiguous, perhaps general, images in the early Predynastic to exceptionally
specific, labeled images in the Protodynastic and Early Dynastic is one of the
most dramatic developments of Egyptian art. This is particularly the case as
it accompanies in lock-step the development of what is often called the artis-
tic canon of Egypt, that typical mode of representation that sees, among other
things, Egyptians “walking like Egyptians.” No such canon, no such specificity,
can be demonstrated in the early art of Egypt. But those few images of vio-
lence we have from such periods do suggest that some of the general ideas and
universal forces that would be important later were in play back then as well.
The evidence from early Egypt: Naqada I
Domination on White Cross-Lined Ware

Identifying the earliest Egyptian images of violence between people is not
straightforward as the content and particularly meaning of some early repre-
sentations are often unclear; a viewer without knowledge of later Egyptian art
might not read these as violent at all. The first images usually discussed in this
context come from pottery vessels dated to the Naqada IA-C Period (roughly
3800–3400 bc).11 The pots in question belong to a tradition variously called
White Cross-Line Ware or C-Ware; this pottery is characterized by its deep red
surface decorated with white lines. Five vessels of this type have been inter-
preted as showing larger figures dominating smaller captives, and these have
been accepted by many as scenes of triumph or victory, though captivity or
domination might be less loaded terms.12 The Naqada I itself was a period of
increasing social stratification, read from tomb sizes and differential amounts of
grave goods, but we are uncertain of its structures of power.
Naqada I material culture is limited geographically to a relatively small area
in Upper Egypt. White Cross-Lined Ware, while one of the type-materials of the
Naqada I, has been found in a limited number of graves. Its motifs include geo-
metric designs, grazing animals, and hunting. There may be regional variations
in the painting style and content of images.13 Images appear on multiple different
types of vessels, including both open and closed forms; they are known to us
almost exclusively as grave goods, though a relatively large percentage of known
examples of this type is unprovenanced. White Cross-Lined Ware is the first regu-
larly decorated type of artifact in Egypt. As such, if we accept that some White
Cross-Lined Ware vessels show domination, possibly as an aftermath of violence,
this motif is present as soon as objects carry images at all.14
Three of the five White Cross-Lined Ware vessels with possible captivity
scenes were excavated in the Predynastic cemetery at Umm el-Qaab, Abydos,
two from the same grave; the other two are unprovenanced (Figures 2.2–2.6).15
Given regional variations in the corpus, it may be reasonable to assume that these
two were from Abydos. All five are tall, narrow jars with flaring rims, though the
shape of their bodies varies. The representations are in all cases schematic, with
figures heavily abbreviated and unrealistically depicted; arms in particular are
not clear and in many cases seem to be absent.16 Where the figures have obvious
markers of sex, they are male, indicated by what appear to be penis sheathes.
Four of the five scenes have clear visual means of distinguishing between the
protagonists, and in all cases they employ at least two of the same methods of
distinction: size and headgear. The headgear itself is not entirely consistent, but
in three cases the larger figures wear what seem to be rather tall headdresses com-
posed of multiple upright elements, perhaps feathers or branches. The heads of
the smaller figures on all five vessels seem to have rather wavy long hair that goes
back behind their heads, or else headdresses that give this impression. Two of the
scenes further distinguish the larger figures by giving them some sort of tail, and
this may be indicated on a third by the presence of dots going down the back legs
of the two larger figures. On three of the vessels, one or more of the large figures
raises his curving arms above his head; this is a pose that will become familiar
on later Naqada II Decorated Ware pottery and on ceramic figurines, and that is
generally recognized as ritual in nature though its precise meaning is debated.17
Figure 2.2 A
vase of the White Cross-Lined Ware tradition with eight figures shown
on its side. The larger two, with arms raised, have often been interpreted as
dominating the smaller figures. Provenance unknown. Height: 28.6 cm.
Width: 11.8 cm.
Figure 2.3 A
nother White Cross-Lined Ware vase interpreted as showing domination,
with a raised-arm figure apparently connected by a line to a smaller person.
Provenance unknown. Height: 31.5 cm.
Figure 2.4 W
hite Cross-Lined Ware vase with large and small figures, possibly in poses
of domination. On the left of the rolled-out scene the large figure can be seen
to clutch an object that has sometimes been called a mace. Abydos, Umm
el-Qaab, tomb U-239 vessel 1. Height: 29.8 cm. Rim diameter: 11.5 cm.
Figure 2.5 W
hite Cross-Lined Ware bulbous vase with a possible domination scene as
well as captive animals. Abydos, Umm el-Qaab, tomb U-415 vessel 1.
Height: 50.6 cm.
Figure 2.6 W
hite Cross-Lined Ware bulbous vase with animals and figures akin to
those in “domination” scenes shown above, but without the presence of a
captor. Abydos, Umm el-Qaab, tomb U-415 vessel 2. Height: 46.6 cm.
Each one of these vessels has been said to show domination of the smaller
figures by the larger (implied, in the case of Abydos U-415/2, since there are no
larger figures). This has been asserted on the basis of the differences in size of the
figures; the attachments between smaller figures, and sometimes between larger
and smaller figures, which have been interpreted as binding ropes; and analogy to
later scenes in which domination and binding are more unambiguously present.18
The number of people in these scenes ranges from 2 to 16 and some vessels
also depict animals or vegetation and geometric motifs. The Brussels vessel
(Figure 2.2) and Abydos U-239/1 (Figure 2.4) include both multiple large and
small figures. It is not clear if these scenes show different episodes of a narrative
with a single set of actors, who are then repeated in the image, or a single scene.
If a general rule can be observed in such a small corpus, there seems to be a prefer-
ence for grouping the smaller figures in twos. In several places small figures seem
to be bound by the neck. On those vessels with clear dominant figures, at least
some of the captives are always physically tied to their captors, either because he
holds them with an outstretched arm or because the lines that can be interpreted as
ropes that bind their necks lead back to the larger figures. In no case is the means
of domination given particular visual emphasis, and no one stands in a posture
that is either overtly threatening or abjectly cowed.
The bottom sections of two of the vessels include human figures who are not
obviously part of the main scene. In Figure 2.5, the bottom and bulbous part of
the vessel is covered with a scene of three people holding leashed and apparently
pregnant hippopotami. An unleashed bovine is also present. One of these people
is rendered with a tail, and one with the hairstyle of a captor; this and the fact
that they hold animals captive suggests a conceptual relationship with the scene
of human captivity above.19 In Figure 2.4, four figures at the bottom bear quite a
different relationship to what is over their heads. These figures, all small and one
possibly held by another figure, have the hairstyle of the smaller figures. They are
not obviously distinguished with regards to sex. Their relationship to the groups
above them is not clear, but if they are part of the same scene at all they are there
as observers rather than participants.20
In Figure 2.4, three of the four large figures hold long implements with
bulbous heads that are sometimes interpreted as weapons among the scene of
captivity. In one case this implement has a split tail, but in the other two it has
only a straight handle. A similar object may be represented as coming from
the shoulder of the large figure on U-415/1 (Figure 2.5). The bulbous-headed
implement has often been interpreted as a mace, presumably both because of
its shape and because it is held by figures who are thought to be dominating
others.21 The forked tail of the implement is not known from any definitive
depiction of a mace and would seem to make the implement more like a stand-
ard or staff than a weapon. These implement-holding figures are each attached
to two smaller figures.
How should we interpret the scenes of large and small people, physically con-
nected, on Naqada I White Cross-Lined Ware? Many of the questions we might
ask were raised already with regard to the Arnhem Land skirmish scene: questions
about first appearances, about prevalence of the motif when it appears, about the
relationship of motifs of violence to social and economic structures and changes
in them. But all such questions, when put to Naqada Egypt, must come after the
most basic one: do these White Cross-Lined Ware scenes even show violent dom-
ination of a person or people over others? Our ability to answer that question also
shows parallels to the Arnhem Land case. Can we, and should we, try to filter out
our knowledge of what would come? Would Egyptologists read this as violence
if we did not know a broader corpus, did not know that canonical Egyptian art
would use differences of size to indicate differences of importance? That the mace
would be a fundamental image of royal control several hundred years later, that
the very site where these pots were found was itself the place where the first kings
to rule a unified Egypt would be buried?
I am cautiously willing to accept that these images on Naqada I White Cross-
Lined Ware show domination of the larger figures over the smaller ones. I think
the strongest argument in support of this comes from the images themselves, not
on the basis of later, far from close, parallels.22 The differential size and accou-
trements do seem to me to make a clear and consistent distinction between the
large and small figures.23 I see no reason to think that we have here adults and
children, meaning that the difference in size most likely relates to a difference in
importance, not physical stature.24 I acknowledge that this reading does depend
on my own awareness of a hierarchy of size in later Egyptian art, but I think this
is at least a fairly straightforward way of establishing meaning. Another feature of
the images that goes some way toward convincing me is the lines linking figures.
They seem to me in most cases most easily read as ropes, particularly where they
seem to come from the necks of the smaller figures. I am less certain of this; it
relies in part on the understanding that the smaller figures are not shown with
arms. In some places this is clearly the case, such as the two leftmost figures
shown in Figure 2.2, but in others where the connecting line is lower than the
neck it is not so clear. It gives me pause that the larger figures do not hold the
ropes—definitively not, as their arms are elsewhere. My daughters have not seen
ropes at all, and their reading of the scene in Figure 2.3 as showing a small figure
sticking a spear into a larger figure, who throws his arms up in response, gives me
pause enough to include it here. I am unconvinced about the “mace,” particularly
because of the spikes on its bottom in one iteration.
If these are scenes of dominance, the coherent and consistent, if very small, body
of evidence suggests a defined relationship between a general concept—physical
control—and a type of image. The group is clearly a group. The provenanced
examples all come from one site, and their images include repeated visual motifs
that are not present on other contemporary pots. The general idea that impor-
tant people are in physical control over subject people seems supported by the
imagery, and the elevation of this to ideology can be argued on the basis of the
consistent differences of clothing, hair, size, posture, and relationship between
large and small figures. The corpus is too small to assert with any confidence that
iconographic differences are meant to reflect ethnic differences, but they serve as
identifiers of groups within the specific context of dominator/dominated.
The images themselves can be said to make a claim about dominance, but they
do this generally. The only thing that might be said to link an individual to any one
of these images is its context in his grave, not inherent in the image itself. As we
will see repeatedly with pharaonic scenes, the link between the general and the
specific can be critical to the functioning of the image. Here we have only the gen-
eral. Finally, there is no evidence that an established underlying idea about power
and captivity and its depiction in imagery was broadly shared in either space or
time, since all provenanced examples come from Abydos with two from a single
tomb. It has been argued that the motif must have been more often used on other
media, now missing, allowing both its greater dissemination in the Naqada I and
its communication across time.25 But such an argument is only necessary if these
scenes are seen as a direct linear precursor to the smiting scene, meaning a bridge
that is not extant must once have existed. If they are a more general statement about
physical domination as an aspect of power for important people at Abydos in the
Naqada I Period, it remains an open question as to whether the deployment of this
motif in art was a broader tactic for demonstrating and exerting that power.
In part because scenes on these vessels cannot, I think, be clearly connected
to later images of smiting, I am not comfortable calling the captors here kings.
The visual discrepancies between these images and pharaonic smiting scenes are
far more notable than any similarities, and include everything from posture to
iconography to the context of painting on a pot. Even the differences in modes of
representing the human figure, so schematized here, are relevant: the developed
pharaonic mode of representing humans is extremely consistent and it is accepted
that this is because the mode as well as the content of the images played a role
in conveying its meaning.26 That mode is absent in Naqada I. Naqada I art was
complete in and of itself; it was not a half-baked anticipation, imperfectly capa-
ble of achieving its own goals, of what was to come. Even though this is not a
proto-smiting scene, there is in its own right a relationship between imagery and
power here, deployed in a way and context that suggest it had a codified meaning.
The further development of this relationship was far from linear.
The evidence from early Egypt: Naqada II

Like the Naqada I, the Naqada II Period is notable from our perspective chiefly
for the near total lack of violent imagery. At a time when Upper Egyptian Naqada
culture was growing more stratified and expanding territorially, there is very little
evidence that making and displaying pictures of violence were deliberate tactics of
asserting power. In terms of numbers, we have only one artifact and one decorated
tomb to consider. What little Naqada II imagery of violence we have does show
again the Naqada I motifs of domination and binding of figures; however, addi-
tional motifs are also present, and the connection to later imagery is clearer than
any continuity with the Naqada I. The Naqada II imagery of violence (and in gen-
eral) is considerably denser than that from Naqada I, but like the images considered
above it continues to be general rather than inherently specific in its references.
A break with the past is evident in Naqada II art. White Cross-Lined Ware, the
main extant vehicle for images of people from the Naqada I, was not produced
after this period. The subsequent decorated ceramic tradition of the Naqada II
does not seem to be a direct descendant of it in any way, from fabric, to form,
to motifs of decoration; there is also a gap in time between the two. Violence
is not shown in the figural scenes on the Decorated (D-Ware) vessels of the
Naqada IIC-D Period (roughly 3500–3300 bc). The Decorated Ware images as
a corpus are unambiguously related to ritual action and appear to display a con-
sistent and developed worldview (Figure 2.7).27 Decorated vessels are clearly
elite artifacts that played a role in social display during a period when social
stratification seems to have increased dramatically. Why is captivity not present
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Min muistoa nyt viettäin kukan heitimme
Me hänen ammoin kätketylle tomulleen.
Mut hänen hengen-rikkaudestaan tuulahdus
Käy vielä kautta rintamme ja herättää
Ne aamutoiveet, jotka siellä uinuvat.
Hän lempi maatansa; ja käsin mahtavin
Hän verhon nosti muinaisuuden silmiltä
Ja manas esiin yöstä muistot hämärät.
Hän katsoi kautta menneisyyden harmaan yön,
Ja isiemme kehdon näytti meille hän
Ja piirteet syvät selitti, jotk' uurretut
On synnyinmaamme ja sen kansan kasvoihin.
Niin hengellään hän muinaisuuteen valon loi
Ja koteutti meidät omaan maahamme,
Ja koteutti, veikot, omaan rintaamme.
Ei ilman muinaisuutt' oo vastaisuuttakaan.
Kuin lapsi kirkassilmä, tukka hajallaan,
Meit' tulevaisuus katsoo, kutsuu hymyillen —
Kuin lapsi, veljet, muinaisuuden harmajan,
Sen imettämä, ja sen rinnoill' elänyt.
Ja joka kaunis kuva, jonka vastaisuus
Vaan meidän katseillemme, toivollemme luo,
Se on kuin virvatuli, kaunis kangastus,
Jos ei sen pohja ole harmaa menneisyys.
Ja siksi rakastamme niitä miehiä,
Jotk' esiriput nostaa muinaisuutemme
Ja tutkein tunkeutuu sen satumaailmaan.
Ja siksi olet, Porthan, meille kallis niin,
Sä isä laakeroitu Suomen historjan!
Sun nimes kuullen sykkii monta sydäntä.
Sun oli saturikkaan ajan maailma,
Sun muinaisuus, mi meitä katsoo vakaana
Ja meille sanat syvät lausuu; entisyys
Sun oli — vastaisuus se meidän, meidän on!
Mut ymmärrämmekö me oikein sanan tuon,
Me tajuammeko sen määrän ylevän?
Oi eikö aate tuo jo valtaa mieltämme,
Se eikö salamana iske sieluhun,
Ja eikö liekkiin syty voimat sisäiset?
Tää aika tuleva on meidän, meistä siis
Nyt riippuu, vaipuuko se ilman kunniaa
Ja ilman muistoakaan mereen unholan;
Vai nouseeko se voimassa ja hyveissä
Ja ikikunniaa maaraukallemme suo;
Ja nostaako se vapaan, laakeroidun pään
Ja riemuin viittaa tulevia polvia,
Ett' iloisna ne kulkis tietä kunnian.
Meill' onpi vaali; veljet, kumpi valitaan?
Maan päällä nuoren valta, — oi, se suuri on!

Mit' onpi suurta tehty, mitä tehtäköön,
Se iti nuorukaisen innostuksesta,
Hän nuorin verin sitä juotti, rinnassaan
Vapaassa kupunsa se aukoi kultaisen.
Hän ihmishenkeen ummehtuvaan ilmaa tuo;
Kun vanhaa vaivaa uni, silloin tulee hän
Ja säälimättä puistaa eloon jälleen sen,
Maast' ettei kaikki toki turtuis, kuoleutuis.
Hän myrskyn lailla rohkeana rynnistää,
Mut vanhuus seuraa jälessä ja siloittaa
Sen tien, min rohkein, vahvoin käsin raivas hän.
Oi elon kevät, kirkas päivä nuoruuden,
Sä olet meidän, sulle kuulumme taas me.
Siis terve, nuoruus, joka rinnassamme lyöt,
Oi lennä, nuori kotka, viuhdo siipiäs!
Sua kutsuu elo, morsiona hunnussaan
Se seisoo vapaan silmäs eessä — riennä siis,
Pois tempaa huntu, paina nuoreen sylihis.
Me miehiks saamme, veikot, elon sulhasiks;
Me hallitkaamme se, ettei tää morsian
Vaan heikkouttamme naarain ryöstäis valtaamme.
Kas, vaiti vartoo, katsoo kallis synnyinmaa,
Mit' toivomist' on meistä hällä, millaista
Voi voimaa kasvaa povi poikain nuorimpain.
Oi äiti synnyinmaa, sua emme petä me!
Ei meidän laaksoin rauhass' asu urhotyöt,

Ei taivas luonut väliin valkovuortemme
Tuot' ulkoelon kilpakenttää myrskyisää.
Ei täällä viihdy voiman hurja leikki, ei,
Ei täällä maineen laakereita niittää voi.
Mut entäpä jos niinkin? Vaikk'ei saatukaan
Me ranskalaisen verta kuumaa, riehuvaa,
Ei uljast' ylpeyttä britin vapahan;
Niin saimme sisällisen elon rikkauden,
Ja hengen maailma on meille avoinna
Ja tarjoo meille maansa, kirkkaat, valoisat,
Miss' aina kukkii, loistaa kevät ikuinen.
Oi jos sen mailman oikein tuntisimme vain,
Kuin rikas on se ikuisuuden valossaan!
Sit' elon virrat kastelee ja ainainen
Käy siellä Pyhän Hengen raitis tuulahdus;
Me emme silloin toivois sieltä syöksyä
Pois elon pauhuun, sekasortoon, turhuuteen,
Joss' usein sammuu tunne inhimillinen.
Tään elämän, tään mailman luonto suopea
Soi meille; onnellinen se, ken huomaa sen!
Siis hälle, veljet, koittaa tiellä valoisa
Ja katoomaton sulo; raitis rohkeus,
Mi vaaraa halveksii, ei tunne pakoa,
Ja jalo voima, mustan valheen surmaaja,
Kuin vuorituuli vapaa siellä hengittää.
Se mailma meille avoin on; siis riemuiten
Nyt valloittamaan se ja sinne luomahan
Suur' vapaa valtakunta meidän hengelle! —
Viel' eikö Suomalaisen rinnass' uljuus se,
Mi taistelee ja kestää, voima muinainen,
Mi pohjass' onpi niinkuin rautaperustus?
Tuoll' eikö sydänmaill' oo monta sielua,
Min unest' armonääni herättänyt on,
Mi elon valon näkee silmin avoimin,
Ja uskoss' evankeliumin sotii kruunustaan?
Oi eikö vielä uskollisin sydämin
Hän tunne tulta runon jaloon taitohon,
Mi kukkasia hänen lumitielleen luo
Ja hälle näyttää aamun pilvet kultaiset,
Miss' enkel' katsoo takaa joka hattaran?
Ei köyhät olla me, ei kaikki mennyttä,
Oi veljet, ellemme me vihdoin menetä
Meit' itseämme, sydämemme maailmaa!
—————
—————
Vaan kesken Suomen kansan, Suomen kinosten,
Se vielä korkeana kukoistaa; ja ken
Sit' epäilis, — niin riemulla me näytämme
Sua, Runeberg, sua, Suomen runon ruhtinas.
— Sun maljas, lyyrys malja, veli Runeberg!
Mun oma Suomenmaani.
Ja murhemielin, katsein katkerin

Nuor' runoniekka läksi vuorihin;
Siell' aukes hänen allaan kaunis Suomi.
Mut rakkaus ja harmi rinnassa
Hän kaihoin etsi synnyinmaatansa
Ja omaa Suomeaan.
Ol' etsinyt hän kautta kaupungin,

Mut outo oli, kunne kulkikin,
Ja kuoren kulta hänen mieltään kalvoi.
Ja pyyteen pyörtehistä löysi hän
Muun kaiken, mut ei maata syntymän,
Ei omaa Suomeaan.
Ja kun hän kulki kauvas kylihin,

Niin edessänsä maa oi' ihanin,
Mut mätä sivistys sen ilmaa painoi.
Pois oli Suomen henki haipunut,
Ja turhan loiston valtaan vaipunut
Ol' oma Suomenmaa.
Näin rakkaus ja murhe rinnassaan
Hän harmin kulki yli vuorimaan
Ja kautta korpien hän kauvas riensi.
Mut kuule, kuinka kuuset huminoi!
Mit' on se? Herättääkö tahtois, oi,
Ne omaa Suomeaan?
Hän kulki, kulki — rauhass' sydänmaan

Hän kansan löysi turvemajoissaan,
Ja terveys avosilmistä sen hohti.
Se tuttu oli, vilvas, pohjaton,
Ja sydän tunsi taas, ett' talless' on
Viel' armas Suomenmaa.
Se taasen rintaan hälle laulun loi,

Ja linnun lailla taasen äänens' soi;
Ja harmaat vuoret kuuli riemun kaiun:
Mä synnyinmaani löysin jällehen,
Tuoll' elää varjoss' salon mökkien
Viel' oma Suomenmaa!
Tähti.
Tähti tuikkiva taivahan

Yötä katsovi maailman.
Soihtu siintävän holviston,
Tähti kirkas ja tahraton,
Miksi rintasi jäätä on!
Ihmisrintahan huokaavaan
Et suo lohtua konsanaan;
Vailla lempeä ainian
Katsot kannelta taivahan
Tuskaa, riemua maailman.
Ellet, ylpeä tähtönen,

Loistais linnassa ilmojen,
Ehkä voisit sä vapaana
Suoda, nauttia onnea.
Mutta kylmänä kuljet sa.
Juhana Vilhelm Snellmanille.
1837.
Veikko, kun totuus sai kirkkaana ilmin

Meille, kun näimme sen säihkyvin silmin,
Riemuin vannoimme kuollakin,
Sen puolest' taistella, kuollakin.
Kun sitä kallista palvellen toimme

Sille, min parhainta uhrata voimme,
Työmme määrän ja sielumme,
Oi kuin oi' lämpimä sielumme!
Pettäisimmekö, minkä me innoin

Vannoimme kerta, ja horjuvin rinnoin
Sorrumme uupuen multaan maan,
Ah, voitettuina me multaan maan?
Ei, mutta vaarojen, taistojen tiellä

Totuus se suurena kulkevi vielä;
Vihdoin voittaa se kuitenkin,
Vaikk' kuollaan, voittaa se kuitenkin.
Rohkea rintani ollos sen tautta!

Selvänä riemun ja tuskien kautta
Loukkaamatta se eespäin käy,
Se pyhää määräänsä kohti käy.
Veikko, nyt vannoen annamme kättä

Totuutta palvella pelkeämättä;
Ikuinen on se kuin ennenkin,
Ja voittaa aina kuin ennenkin.
II.
Oi milloin Runo nousee Tuhkastansa
Ja Herran lapseks nostaa hengen jalon?
Kuin kauan karttaa tietä Isän talon
Kuin enkel' langennut se uhkallansa?
Kons' samean se hylkää maailmansa
Ja tanssins' öisen kesken virvain palon?
Kons' avosilmin nähdä saa se valon
Ja uskon Kristukseen saa rintahansa? — —
Mit' ihmislapsi lempii kuolevaista,
Myös hänet tahtoo kuolemaan se niellä
Ja autuuttansa riistää taivahaista!
Oi, kell' on silmät, näkee murhemieliä:
Vaikk' uskovasta runoilija kulkee,
Niin pakanan hän sydämeensä sulkee!
Öisiä säveleitä.
1. Juomingit.
Antaos mulle
Maljani jälleen,
Tänne mun lämmin
Viinini tuo,
Juoda mä tahdon
Pohjahan asti;
Riemuhan maljan
Pohjassa on.
Terve, sa karmas,
Kärsivä rinta,
Ystävä ylin,
Maljasi juon!
Haarikot täydet
Kutsuvat meitä;
Bakkus ja Venus
Vuottelevat.
Heistäpä helkkyy
Laajalti laulut,
Kaikilta myös he
Kunnian saa.
Auterepilviks
Luovat he elon,
Heräävän sielun
Tuutivat taas.
Kas lasin luona

Säihkyvän, täyden,
Ihmiset istuu
Kuin minä myös.
Juoden ja naurain,
Naurain ja juoden —
Hei, sydän, terve!
Maljasi juon!
Norjana tuolta,
Sorjana rientää
Kukkea tyttö,
Kaunis hän on.
Viereeni istu
Kaunehin immyt;
Polvelle istu,
Oi simasuu.
Haa, miten katsot

Silmiini suoraan,
Haa, miten rintas
Rintaani lyö!
Oi! yhtä hellään
Äitini hurskas
Helmaansa sulki
Muinoisin mun.
Äitini hurskas
Helmaansa sulki —
Kiehtova käärme
Pois poveltain!
Saatana oonko
Paatunut, röyhkä?
Konna ma oonko
Säälimätön?
Synnin ja kuolon
Liekkivän leiman
Otsallas kannat,
Oi simasuu!
Oi, mua saartaa
Yölliset äänet,
Helvetin naurut
Kaikki nyt soi.
Pois sinitaivaan
Tähtien alle,
Pois vihamyrskyn
Mylvinähän!
Saatana oonko,
Paatunut röyhkä?
Konna mä oonko
Säälimätön?
2. Huokaus.
Kuin synkkä koto kuoleman on tää!

Mun taivaani on ijäks suljettuna.
Sen kultahohdett' en mä enää nää,
On riemu mailman multa murjottuna.
Mut niinkuin varjo kulkee kenttää pitkin,
Niin rauhatonna vaellan ma vain,
Vain varjo olen aikain parempain.
Ja ihmislapset pitkään katsahtaa,

Mikähän tuokin lienee, miettii kansa.
Ei kukaan ymmärtää voi kulkijaa,
Ei kukaan selittää voi murhettansa.
Hän heidän pikkurauhaa häiritseepi,
Hän riemuhuudot räikeet pelottaa;
Se, kautta Herran, onhan surkeaa!
Oi, miks on koskaan rintan' paisunut,

Sen miksi suuret aavistukset täytti?
Miks riemuin laulun äänt' oon kuunnellut?
Miks siitä valonsäde mulle näytti
Valaisten syömen syvät, mailman piirin
Ja rintani sai ilmitulehen,
Mut hetken vain, oi hetken lyhyen?
Tuo säde tunki sielun syvyyteen,

Se entisaikaan oli elämäni;
Kuin kirkkaan kevätnurmen kukkineen
Näin elon valoisana edessäni.
Mut päivä laski, yö on noussut musta,
Ja tallattu on mailma syömeni,
Kuin tyhjä, hävitetty temppeli.
Jos joskus kuva kultaloistossaan

Kuin ennen sielun ohi liihoittelee,
Niin virvatulta on se vieraan maan,
Vajonnut enkeli, mi vaikertelee.
Kun kaihoin itkeä sen kanssa tahdon,
Niin sekin luotain liitää huoaten,
Ja synkkyyteen ma sorrun jällehen.
Oi kolkko köyhyys sielun palaneen,

Miss' entisriemuin kylmät ruumiit makaa!
Oi perintöni, saatu aikaiseen,
Sun häijyt henget lahjanaanko jakaa,
Vai ootko taivaan rangaistus sa mulle,
Ansaittu, vaikk' en tunne syytä sen,
Mut pantu kantaakseni kärsien?
Haa, kärsivällisyys! En hiukkaakaan

Omista lahjaa, jota kaikki kiittää.
En elää tahdo horroksissa vaan,
Ei kärsimys voi lohdukseni riittää;
En tahdo, että keväästäin, mi loisti,
Tää musta muisto nyt vain jäljell' on
Ja rinnan rauhattomuus rajaton.
Mut — vielä toivo mua viekoittaa,

Tuo pettävä, mi loistaa, katoaapi.
Kuin ukkossalama, mi leimahtaa,
Niin joskus miehen kuva pilkoittaapi,
Jonk' karvaan tuskan salaliekit polttaa,
Hän kunnes vapauden ja rauhan saa
Ja sieluns' aarteet riemuin paljastaa.
3. Murheelle.
Yön kalvas sisko, murhe lempeä,

Oi, mulle tähtilinnas avaa sä;
Mua mustat hornanhenget vainoaa,
Sun luonas enkö rauhan majaa saa,
Oi hellä äiti murhe?
Sä nostat huntus tummansinisen,

Ja kruunu kiiltää mustain kutrien;
Sä laupeaana kätes ojennat
Ja rauhan maahas mua viittoat,
Oi hellä äiti murhe.
Kas, yli maan ja vetten lepää yö,

Ja taivahalla tuikkaa tähtivyö.
Kaikk' äänetönnä uinuu, minä vain
Nyt valvon, ja sä valvot kerallain,
Oi mulle selitä — sä tiedät sen —

Mi synkkyys täyttävi mun sydämen'.
Oi sano kaikki nyt, nyt juuri sa
Suo mulle huoneessasi valoa,
Sa oothan kuningatar elämän

Ja lohtu sydän raukan särkyvän?
Kai luona kehtoni sä seisoit jo,
Ja lauloit, mik' ois mulle kohtalo,
Oi hellä äiti murhe?
Maan rauhattuus jo raukee lepohon,

Sen hurjat äänet valjenneet jo on;
Mut kun mä silmät nostan, havaitsen
Sun kasvoillasi kiillon taivaisen,
Oi, silmissäni pilvet hajoaa,

Ja valon maihin katse vajoaa!
Ikuinen toivo tunkee rintahain
Salaman lailla, loistain, lohduttain,
Oi hellä äiti murhe!
On katse hellä, loisto kirkas sun,

Sä siivin lumivalkein kannat mun;
Siis ylös! mukanas mua, armas, vie,
Käy valon, kultavalon maille tie,
Oi hellä äiti murhe!
4. Hyvää yötä.
Oi pyhä seutuni mun, miss' säde auringon

Seulovi loistettaan lehdistä koiviston
Äitini talohon;
Hyv' yötä!
Noussut on taivaaseen rukous armaiden,

Puolesta minunkin; loistossa tähtien
Nukkuu he jokainen;
Hyv' yötä!
Taivas on huntunsa pois heittänyt kasvoiltaan

Katsovi, enkeli kuin kumpua vanhurskaan,
Ääret taivaan ja maan,
Hyv' yötä!
Illan rauha se näin tuskani karkoittaa;

Siedä ne tähtien ei katsetta rauhaisaa.
Aamukin kerran saa!
Hyv' yötä!
5. Katumus.
Oi, mua seuraa, vainoo synninvalta,

Se valon riistää elon taivahalta,
Se kauheana minuun tuijottaa,
Jos minne käyn, en siltä rauhaa saa.
Sua, Herra, loukannut ma olen yhä,
Vihaani kilpistyi sun armos pyhä,
Sai sieluraukka runon haaveihin
Ja ilman sua viihtyi kuitenkin.
Yön, valheen valtaan vaipui elämäni,

Ja elon valo väistyi edestäni,
Mun sielun' rauhaa kyll' on huutanut,
Mut synnist' erota ei tahtonut.
Niin, synnist' ei se raukka enää erii,

Siks kuolo, helvetti sen kurjan perii.
Ei sillä lohduttajaa päällä maan,
Ei ystävätä taivahassakaan.
Sa tuomar' ylhä oikean ja väärän

Nyt kirjaas panet syntieni määrän.
Kun mitta täys' on, silmistäs sä mun
Pois ajat katalan ja kirotun.
Oi minne pakenen? Miss' saanen kerran

Mä voimaa kantaa pyhää vihaa Herran?
Oi minne piilen? Mull' ei päällä maan,
Oo toivoa, ei kuolemassakaan.
Kaikk' ilo, toivo, turva multa puuttuu,

Mi mulle voitto oli, mullaks muuttuu,
Ja paljastettuna mä syntinen
Nyt Herran tuomiota vapisen.
Tok' ensipäivinäni mulle loisti

Sun rauhas, joka synnin pilvet poisti;
Hyv' enkel' silloin ain' ol' lähelläin
Ja Herra Jeesus oli ystäväin; —
Jumalan poika, suuri sovittaja,

Ja armon, lohdun luoja, vapahtaja;
Mi synnit kaikki kantoi maailman
Ja voitti helvetin ja kuoleman;
Sun helmaas riennän, lapsuusystäväni,

Mua armahda ja auta hädässäni!
Voit vihollistas vielä vapahtaa
Ja vastustajaasi voit armahtaa.
Vaikk' oonkin paha, vaivun ristis juureen;

Ja luotan lujasti sun armoos suureen.
Oi, kiitos soikoon sulle taivaan, maan!
Sun tähtes syntinen viel' armon saan.
Aamu.
Taas rannalt' aamutaivahan

Käy valon välähdys,
Mut alla pilven kaamean
On vanha pimeys.
Kanss' auringon
Yön varjot ryhtyi taistohon.
Mut lintu pieni oksallaan

Tuoll' laaksoss' uneksui,
Ja näki, kautta öisen maan
Kuin aamu murtautui.
Tuo kirkas koi,
Yön valta sit' ei voittaa voi!
Ja lintu lentää, ihastuu

Ja laulaa ilmassa:
„Oi, kaikki kerran kirkastuu
Viel' taivaan rannalla.”
Ja lintunen
Se lauloi aamuss' iloiten.
Sointuja.
1.
Olen Jumalan laps';

Oi autuas rauha ja riemu!
Olen Jumalan laps';
Oi kelle mä riemuni kerron?
Oi Luojalle riemuni kerron.
Olen Jumalan laps';
Oi autuas rauha ja riemu!
2.
Mä vaivun Jeesukseni luo,

Luo sydämensä aivan;
Hän elon, valon mulle suo
Ja poistaa tuskan, vaivan.
Hän armon runsaan lohdun suo,

Ja poistaa synnin vaivan,
Luo sydämensä aivan.
Pois kutsui tuttu ääni tuo

Mua kuilust' tuskan, vaivan,
Luo sydämensä aivan.

Luo sydämensä aivan;
Hän elon valon mulle suo,
Ja poistaa tuskan, vaivan.
3.
Oi Kristus, ystävä ja auttaja, miss' oot sä?

Mun kaikkein päällä maan ja taivaassa, miss' oot sä?
Pois käänsit surren kasvos, etkö kuule,

Kun jälleen langenneena huudan, ma: miss' oot sä?
Saa puhdas sydän nähdä Herran, synti vaan on

Mun rinnassain, oon siihen hukkua; miss' oot sä?
Oi Herra, hukun jo, oi auta, kätes anna

Ja tempaa minut ylös kuilusta; miss' oot sä?

Full Ebook of Violence and Power in Ancient Egypt Image and Ideology Before The New Kingdom 1St Edition Laurel Bestock Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Ebook of Violence and Power in Ancient Egypt Image and Ideology Before The New Kingdom 1St Edition Laurel Bestock Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Ebook of Violence and Power in Ancient Egypt Image and Ideology Before The New Kingdom 1St Edition Laurel Bestock Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Violence and Power in Ancient Egypt

Image and Ideology before the New

Before Crown and Kingdom Melissa Wright

Mummies Magic and Medicine in Ancient Egypt 1st Edition

From the Great Pyramid to the Fall of the Middle

The Rise and Development of the Solar Cult and

The Oxford History of the Ancient Near East: Volume I:

Sex Metaphor and Ideology in Moche Pottery of Ancient

The Experience and Fear of Violence in the Public

Historiography Ideology and Politics in the Ancient

Laurel Bestock is an Associate Professor of Archaeology and Egyptology at

Women, Gender, and Identity in Third Intermediate Period Egypt:

Ancient Egyptian Temple Ritual: Performance, Patterns, and Practice

Science in the Study of Ancient Egypt

Histories of Egyptology: Interdisciplinary Measures

ISBN: 978-1-138-68505-5 (hbk)

Typeset in Times New Roman

2 The origins of violent imagery 14

3 The violence inherent in the system: imagery and royal

4 To live forever: the decoration of royal mortuary complexes 85

5 Uniter of the two lands: images of violence in divine temples 154

7 Out and about: images of violence on portable objects 201

8 Who is who? Private monumental images of war 222

9 Violence, power, ideology 264

1.1 Belgian €2.5 coin issued to commemorate the 200th anniversary

Mortuary Mortuary Divine Landscape Object

[Their] stunning rendition of a battle utterly divorced from context appealed

The structure of this book

In the Northern Territory of Australia, in a shelter on the Arnhem Land plateau

The earliest images of violence in Egypt

Domination on White Cross-Lined Ware

The evidence from early Egypt: Naqada II

Maan päällä nuoren valta, — oi, se suuri on!

Ei meidän laaksoin rauhass' asu urhotyöt,

Mun oma Suomenmaani.

Ja murhemielin, katsein katkerin

Ol' etsinyt hän kautta kaupungin,

Ja kun hän kulki kauvas kylihin,

Hän kulki, kulki — rauhass' sydänmaan

Se taasen rintaan hälle laulun loi,

Tähti tuikkiva taivahan

Ellet, ylpeä tähtönen,

Juhana Vilhelm Snellmanille.

Veikko, kun totuus sai kirkkaana ilmin

Kun sitä kallista palvellen toimme

Pettäisimmekö, minkä me innoin

Ei, mutta vaarojen, taistojen tiellä

Rohkea rintani ollos sen tautta!

Veikko, nyt vannoen annamme kättä

Kas lasin luona

Haa, miten katsot

Kuin synkkä koto kuoleman on tää!

Ja ihmislapset pitkään katsahtaa,

Oi, miks on koskaan rintan' paisunut,

Tuo säde tunki sielun syvyyteen,

Jos joskus kuva kultaloistossaan

Oi kolkko köyhyys sielun palaneen,

Haa, kärsivällisyys! En hiukkaakaan

Mut — vielä toivo mua viekoittaa,