Product not received yet.
or share an image.
The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Purchased on 02/21/2010) This has not be received yet!
by Ian Shaw
I received alot of value by reading this book
The book covers the different time periods and kingdoms of Egypt. "Ancient Egypt" highlighted many of the interesting issues associated with each Pharaoh and the personal history. At the end of each profile, a brief summary of the Pharaoh's achievements are listed.
Dsojer: 2635 to 2610 BC (First Pharaoh)
1. Dsojer had Imhotep build the first step pyramid in Saqqara
2. Dsojer has restoration of Khnum, the Nile God was remember for a millennium.
3. A Limestone Statute of himself was created.
4. Dsojer built a Mastaba over his burial tomb. The step pyramid was thought to be multiple mastaba layers over the burial tombs in the proceeding Pharaoh tombs.
5. Rebuilt the temple of Khnum on the island of Elphantine.
6. Had Imhotep build grain pits for the seven year famine.
7. Imhotep is said to have administered the contracts and transactions between Dsojer and Upper and Lower Nile. A free market seems to have existed allow free trade and business between both the Upper and Lower Nile.
However, Menes was credited for the unifying of the Upper and Lower Nile. "Ptolemy V Epiphanes was no doubt actually referring to himself in the guise of Djoser, having to struggle with the effects of a famine. Regardless of whether there was a famine in Djoser's time, this stele is evidence of Djoser's continuing fame throughout Egypt's dynastic period."
Imhotep
Did Imhotep build grain storage buildings?
1. Surrounding the Step Pyramid is an elaborate wall containing 13 false entrances and one real one. The main entrance is on the East wall.
2. One enters a hall of 40 columns and come upon a series of pits extending deep into the earth.
3. The pits are centrally connect by a tunnel and extend to a well about ground level.
4. One pit has a staircase that extend down to the bottom. The staircase leads to a central exit point for the grain storage bins
5. Djoser is believed to have ordered the building of the 11 pits for grain storage. Grain was found on the floor of the pits.
Does the facts that the Well pits have grain residue prove that Dsojer stored grain near the Step Pyramids?
When did Imhotep build the step pyramid?
1. Imhotep designed the Pyramid of Djoser (the Step Pyramid) at Saqqara in Egypt in 2630-2611 BCE
2. Imhotep built/designed The Pyramid of Sekhemkhet or Buried Pyramid
Was Imhotep, Joseph "Sold into Egypt"?
1. Imhotep was a great healer.
Sir William Osler said, "he is the first figure of a physician to stand out clearly from the mists of antiquity." Imhotep diagnosed and treated over 200 diseases, 15 diseases of the abdomen, 11 of the bladder, 10 of the rectum, 29 of the eyes, and 18 of the skin, hair, nails and tongue. Imhotep treated tuberculosis, gallstones, appendicitis, gout and arthritis. He also performed surgery and practiced some dentistry. Imhotep extracted medicine from plants. He also knew the position and function of the vital organs and circulation of the blood system."
The Encyclopedia Britannica says, "The evidence afforded by Egyptian and Greek texts support the view that Imhotep's reputation was very respected in early times. His prestige increased with the lapse of centuries and his temples in Greek times were the centers of medical teachings"
2. Djoser asks Imhotep, "Where is the birthplace of the Nile? What diety rules there?" Imhotep provides Djoser information about the rise of the Nile and Imhotep's information influences Djoser too believe the Nile-God lives as the Diety figure Khnum near Elephantine Island. What had Djoser failed to do? Djoser had not worshipped Khnum properly and a famine resulted. Khnum appears to Djoser in a dream and announced the Nile will rise and the famine will end. Djoser decreases that land and gifts will be given to the temple of Khnum. Djoser orders every farmer, fisherman, hunter, and artisan to pay one-tenth of the income to the Khnum temple.
Joseph was Hebrew. Tithes would have been a part of his belief system. Likewise, a Hebrew history of tithes had proceeded Joseph sold into Egypt:
Abraham paid one tenth tithes to Melchizedek. Malachi declares one tenth tithe is required to restore abundance.
Name: Hatshepsut
Time Period: 1493-83 BC
Information: 1. Hatsheput was the Egyptian step mother of Moses. Hatsheput father was Thutmose I and in direct line to rule the kingdom.
2. Thutmose III remove markings with Hatsheput name.
3. Hapshepsut was married to her half brother, ThutMose II
4. When Amenmose and Wadjmose died and Hapshepsut was in line to became ruler.
5. ThutMose II succeeded his father Thutmose I to the throne. ThutMose II had limited leadership exposure in the military campaign in Nubia.
6. Hatshepsut and ThutMose II had one child together, Neferure.
7. Neferure was married to her half-brother, Thutmoses III (Isis son's - son from Thutmose II Harem)
8. Hatshepsut became regent and kept power
9. Hatshepsut went to the Nubia battlefields, according to record.
10. Hatshepsut proclaimed herself king and not Thutmose III.
11. Hatshepsut established herself by Amun and Khnum a divine connection.
Amum link of Divine kingship Myth
1.Amun-Re made himself into the form of Thutmose I
2. Amun and Ahmose had a child, a daughter, named, Khnemet Amun Hatshepsut, "she shall exercise great kingship in this whole land."
3. Amun asks Khnum to use his potters wheel to create his new daughter.
Moses (Gift from the Nile to Hapshepsut)
Time Period: 1425 - 1405 BC
Information: 1.Ahmose I would have reign from Moses birth till he was probably fourteen. Mose was discovered by Hatshepsut, who received Moses, as a gift from the Nile God, Khnum.
2.Hatshepsut and Thutmose II would have reign from Moses fourteenth birthday till he became forty this would have probably during the time. Moses slew an Egyptian and fled.
3.Thutmose l reigned would have occurred the time when Moses was in Midian. Moses would have been forty to sixty when this pharaoh died.
4.Thutmose III would have been the pharaoh that experience the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt . Also he would have been the Pharoah that Moses had the conflict with. Moses would have been sixty when he went back to Egypt and eighty when he lead his people from Egypt. His reign over Egypt was twenty years.
5. Moses would have been eighty till hundred and twenty when he died.
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive"
First we must not allow ourselves to be awed by the "prestige" of OXFORD UNIVERSITY. Then we must strip away layers after layers of Victorian scholarly rhetoric until we expose the racialist Hegelian core of this volume of essays about an "Ancient Egypt" that only existed in the narrow and neurotic minds of many Western scholars.
Unable to ignore the stubborn facts that indicate that "Ancient Egypt" was a distinctly Black African culture , Mr. Shaw and his cronies now say with painful reluctance that they were mixed Black African, Mediterranean(what exactly does this mean?) and European(what elements of ancient Egyptian culture is European?)!!!(p.315) The word "suggest" is used often in this work. Shaw goes on to "suggest" that a"different physical type" from "Syria-Palestine ,via the Eastrn Delta" gradually moved into Egypt.This is simply Shaw's fear of deviating from the "party line" formulated largely by Hegel,Stuhlmann and a host of others who asserted that Black African people were "non-historical peoples". See (UNESCO) GENERAL HISTORY OF AFRICA Vol. I,p.271.
This is pure dogma, but many Westrn scholars know the price they will have to pay if they dare step outside the Eurocentric intellectual paradigm: no job, no money, no tenure and no respect!! They will be ostracized.
So this is another vague assertion offered with no evidence. Just a "suggestion" that the first civilization had its origin in the "East". Just as Hegel asserted.
It is interesting to note that Mr. Shaw comments on the "distinctive facial features" of Rameses II without telling his readers that the mummified head DID NOT HAVE A NOSE WHEN IT WAS FOUND(P.8). The face has been restored.Euro-centric scholars decided how they wanted the face to look!! They wanted a "Mediterranean" look to fit the theory. And this passes for OXFORD scholarship.......
For the ancient writers of antiquity,( Roman,Arab and Greek,etc.):Black Africa was not outside of human history. None of these ancient writers said that the ancient Egyptians of their time came from the "East", none of them said that the ancient Egyptians were Asian or white. All said that the ancient Egyptians were black. The series of ancient African civilizations that we call "Ancient Egypt" was part of the great Black African cultural complexes that originated in the heart of Africa then slowly moved down the Nile Valley towards the delta area. We now know that the delta area was under water during the predynastic period.
Many German thinkers, especially Hegel, asserted that Black African people were not a "historical " people and that Black people played no part in human civilization. Any thing that could be considered "culture" or any signs of civilization came from "waves of immigrants" from Asia. This has become European intellectual dogma. There is not one bit of evidence to support this.
The attempt was to separate Egypt from the rest of Africa and assert that ancient Egypt was a part of the "East", a part of Asia or even a European inspired culture!! Yet no one has ever presented any evidence that the culture of the Tigris/Euphrates predated ancient black African Nile Valley cultures.
Thus this Euro centric fantasy was born, nurtured and taught worldwide.
But many African thinkers begin to point out that all over Africa there are river valley civilizations and that the Nile river first flooded land far to the south of Egypt, then Nubia and finally Egypt. These African writers stated that Nubia and ancient Egypt were part of the same cultural complex-they shared the same black African cultural universe.
The Eurocentric supporters shouted:But the Egyptians despised "the negro", they enslaved Nubians and killed them on sight...etc.
African scholars point out that Europeans fought,killed enslaved and "despised" other Europeans. How many times have the Germans fought the Poles? Or the Russians battled the Finns? Or the English and the Irish? Not to mention the Balkans!! Are they not all Europeans who share a common culture?
Evidently they spoke the same or a very similar language.
The language spoken by the ancient Egyptians is genetically related to many black African languages spoken today!! On page 315. Mr.Ian Shaw deliberately misleads his uninformed readers when he writes that the language of the ancient Egyptians:"Linguistically, they belonged to the Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic)family(is this linguistics based on biblical mythology?), but this is simply another way of saying that, their geographical position implies, they had some similarities to contemporary languages both in parts of of Africa and in the Near East." But the language of the ancient Egyptians could not be a black African language!! You mean Coptic is genetically related to Black African languages....!!!
This is what passes for Oxford scholarship!! Shaw even uses the outdated and flawed classification of J. H. Greenberg: the so-called Afro-Asiatic.
I am certain that Mr. Shaw knows, or he should know that no linguist using valid linguistic methods has ever established a genetic linguistic relationship between ancient Egyptian and any Semitic language. The language of those ancient Africans is closely related to many modern African languages. For example, Ancient Egyptian is genetically related to Wolof(spoken in mainly Senegal) on just about every level of the grammatical structure!! Those who wish to look into this further can read Dr. Theophile Obenga's work . "Origin Commune De L'egyptien ancien du copte et des langues negro-africaines moderne." L'Harmattan, 1993. Or the UNESCO GENERAL HISTORY OF AFRICA V.II p.27-58.
Mr. Shaw avoids Egyptian religion. There is a simple reason for this: He knows that it was an Black African religion,the ka and the ba are found everywhere in Black Africa today. The use of libations,clan structures,divine kingship,mythologies, the use of dance, matrilineal social organization, even the hair combs, the meaning and place of cattle in the culture,the use of headrest, orders of priest and priestesses ,GOD and GODDESSES all point to the fact that "ancient Egypt was a series of Negro-African civilizations. Egypt was perhaps the greatest of the African river valley civilizations.
Ancient Egyptian culture becomes more and more understandable only if it is viewed within its original Black African cultural context as one of many Black African Nilotic cultures.
But one must also realize that Eurocentric scholars have slandered and distorted Black African peoples and cultures to such an extent that many people see nothing of Africa in "Ancient Egypt". That is due in part to the fact that African culture is known mostly in caricature or in gross negative stereotypes.
But if one seriously studies the other Nilotic(relating to the Nile) cultures of Black Africa and the non-Nilotic African cultures one will come to understand that Ancient Egypt was a Black African culture.
One reason this book stays in the upper stratosphere linguistically is to avoid speaking plain English that would surely expose the "tangled web" of erudite jargon which is meant to awe and conceal more than to inform.
Just as the sun has sat on the British Empire; so is the sun setting on Oxford scholarship that remains trapped in deep euro centrism. If one wants to read a Victorian version of a mythical "Ancient Egypt" that never existed on land nor sea-then read this "tangled web" of nationalistic dogmatic fantasy- if you need that kind of thing.
Good but Very Dense
This book is a collection of essays by various authors, and the quality of them varies tremendously from chapter to chapter. While it covers all of Egyptian history from prehistoric times to the Roman era, this book is not a particularly good introduction. Here's a typical sentence from the first chapter: "The Nubian Middle Paleolithic is characterized by the Nubian Levallois technique and by bifacial foliates and pendunculates." If you know what the Levallois technique and pendunculates are, great. If, like me, you have no idea what this means, you have a problem because there is a maddening lack of definition throughout. For me, the book's major drawback is that it fails to balance the larger picutre of historical development with this kind of astonishingly particular language. The main problem is that the editor has not sought any consistency among the various contributions. For example, the chapter on the Ptolemeic period spends an inordinate amount of time examinging the Egyptian military, a topic only fleetingly touched on in earlier chapters and ignored completely in the following chapter on the Roman period. The final Roman essay almost completely ignores the political structure of Egypt, even though that topic is central to almost all earlier contributors. Finally, anyone interested in Egyptian religion will find little information in this book. Some chapters touch on the topic, often pointing out that religious ideas evolved significantly over long periods of time. Other chapters ignore it altogether or merely present religious ideas as if the reader fully understood them. There is, however, an excellent array of maps and high quality pictures of art and architecture.
EGYPT
I agree with the other reviewers. A very good book!
"If you only want to read one book on Egypt, then read this one."
AGREE!
/Torbjörn Jerlerup
(19 reviews)
