The Ptolemaic Sea Empire (2019)

2008

Introdu,ct'ion: sef-def,nit'ion an,d. the ,irnperi.ol con.cept in Egypt There can be litde doubt rhat the Egyptian pharaohs and the elite of the New I(ngdom viewed themselves as rulers of an empire. This universal rule is clearly expressed in royal imagerv and terminology (Grimal f986). The pharaoh is styied as the "Ruler of all that sun encircles" and from the mid-f 8th Dynasry the tides "I(ing of kings" and "Ruler of the rulers," with the variants "Lion" or "Sun of the Rulers," emphasize pharaoh's preeminence among other monarchs. The imagery of krngship is of the all-conquering heroic ruler subjecting a1l foreign lands. The lcing in human form smites his enemies. Or, as the celestial conqueror in the form of the sphinx, he tramples them under foot. In the reigns of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten this imagery was exrended to the king's wife who became the conqueror of the female enemies of Egypt, appearing like her husband in both human and sphinx forms (Morkot 1986). The appropriate terminology also appeared; Queen Tiye became "Mistress of all women" and "Great of terror in the foreign lands." Empire, for the Egyptians, equals force-"all lands are under his feet." This metaphor is graphically expressed in the royal footstools and painted paths decorated \Mith images of bound foreign rulers, crushed by pharaoh as he walked or sar. This imagery and terminologv indicates that the Egyptian attirude to their empire was universally applied irrespective of the peoples or countries. Their response to their subjects was not distinguished in racial terms; all were foreign. Practically, however) there is evidence that the E,gyptians did have d.ifferent responses to the control, integration, and administration of African and Asian regions. The Egyptian response to Nubia differed from the response to Asia for a number of reasons) both historic and geographic. In this chapter, however, I will limit my discussion to the relations berween Egypt and Nubia.

Cambridge University Press eBooks, 2001

Introdu,ct'ion: sef-def,nit'ion an,d. the ,irnperi.ol con.cept in Egypt There can be litde doubt rhat the Egyptian pharaohs and the elite of the New I(ngdom viewed themselves as rulers of an empire. This universal rule is clearly expressed in royal imagerv and terminology (Grimal f986). The pharaoh is styied as the "Ruler of all that sun encircles" and from the mid-f 8th Dynasry the tides "I(ing of kings" and "Ruler of the rulers," with the variants "Lion" or "Sun of the Rulers," emphasize pharaoh's preeminence among other monarchs. The imagery of krngship is of the all-conquering heroic ruler subjecting a1l foreign lands. The lcing in human form smites his enemies. Or, as the celestial conqueror in the form of the sphinx, he tramples them under foot. In the reigns of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten this imagery was exrended to the king's wife who became the conqueror of the female enemies of Egypt, appearing like her husband in both human and sphinx forms (Morkot 1986). The appropriate terminology also appeared; Queen Tiye became "Mistress of all women" and "Great of terror in the foreign lands." Empire, for the Egyptians, equals force-"all lands are under his feet." This metaphor is graphically expressed in the royal footstools and painted paths decorated \Mith images of bound foreign rulers, crushed by pharaoh as he walked or sar. This imagery and terminologv indicates that the Egyptian attirude to their empire was universally applied irrespective of the peoples or countries. Their response to their subjects was not distinguished in racial terms; all were foreign. Practically, however) there is evidence that the E,gyptians did have d.ifferent responses to the control, integration, and administration of African and Asian regions. The Egyptian response to Nubia differed from the response to Asia for a number of reasons) both historic and geographic. In this chapter, however, I will limit my discussion to the relations berween Egypt and Nubia.

From an Encyclopedia of Ancient History that Dare not Speak its Name

The Egyptian World, 2007

Oxford History of the Ancient Near East: vol. II: From the End of the Third Millennium BC to the Fall of Babylon. eds. K. Radner, N. Moeller and D. Potts. , 2022

Contact me!

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022

During the period 500-1000 CE Egypt was successively part of the Byzantine, Sasanian and Islamic empires. All kinds of events, developments and processes occurred that would greatly affect its history and that of the eastern Mediterranean in general. This is the first volume to map Egypt’s position in the Mediterranean during this period. Drawing on a wide range of disciplines, the individual chapters detail its connections with imperial and scholarly centres, its role in cross-regional trade networks, and its participation in Mediterranean and Near Eastern cultural developments, including their impact on its own literary and material production. With unparalleled detail, the book tracks the mechanisms and structures through which Egypt connected politically, economically and culturally to the world surrounding it.

Egypt and the Levant: Did Changing Times Change Lives?

Nechao was of Berber origin, but modern Orientalists and Egyptologists avoid this term, because it is supposed to be politically incorrect ( ! ); they therefore keep using the term found in Manetho´s Aigyptiaka, namely "Libyan" dynasty. This is absolutely ridiculous, because the term Libya had a very different connotation in the Antiquity, and only today it is confusingly associated with the colonial pseudo-state of Libya. In the Antiquity, the Ancient Greek name Libya originated from Lebu, an Ancient Egyptian name of a Hamitic, Berber ethnic group that lived throughout North Africa. It is therefore imperative to name the 26th dynasty of Egypt "Hamitic Berber" (not ´Libyan´) in order to avoid falsifications of colonial character. This pro-Assyrian act initiated a long tradition, because after a few years, Nechao´s son, Psamtek (Pisamilku in Assyrian; Psammetichus in Ancient Greek), moved to Nineveh and was properly educated as an Assyrian in order to return and implement in Egypt as local administrator (under the supervision of an Assyrian general) policies coping with those of the Assyrian monotheistic universalistic establishment. Assarhaddon´s famous inscription from Samal gives an epic character to his achievements, those in Egypt included. First published on 27th March 2010 in AfroArticles, Buzzle and American Chronicle Republished in the portal of the Oromo Parliamentarians: https://www.oromoparliamentarians.org/English/Facts%20about%20Oromo/Kush%20-Oromo%20real%20history%20book%20soon%201.htm

in: Birgitta Eder – Regine Pruzsinszky (eds.), Policies of Exchange. Political Systems and Modes of Interaction in the Aegean and the Near East in the 2nd Millennium B.C.E. (OREA 2), Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press 2015, 157–165

In order to obtain a better understanding of the real nature of the political, economic and legal elements dominating the relations between the Egyptian states and the client kingdoms of the Levant during the time of the 14th century B.C.E., the Amarna letters are usually employed as a primary source of data. Contrary to the general view this subset is far from a homogenous unit, although its main topics consist of security, economic and administrative issues. During the Late Bronze Age the relations between two political entities or states were personified by their rulers – the Pharaoh on the Egyptian side and the client kings of the Levantine kingdoms on the other. On a daily basis the interests of the Pharaoh were however represented by his respective officials. It might be slightly simplifying to see these relations as relations between two individuals, but this very piece of knowledge enables us to better understand the economic factors as well as the administrative and legal practice employed throughout the region in the mid-14th century B.C.E.

Frontiers_of_Colonialism, 2017