This text is based on a booklet sold in the Centre. The text does not have the pictures which are in the booklet. However, the captions have been left in.

Introduction to the Egypt Centre

Trails

Why 'Women In Ancient Egypt' ?

Part I

Bias in presentations of the past – Can you believe what we tell you?

In death as we are in life–What can graves tell us about life?

Rich and poor

Historical evidence and dependence upon the written word

Egyptologists = men?

Themes in Egyptology–Subjects Egyptologists like to study

Gendered language

Women by women

The land that time forgot–Was Egypt really timeless?

The wives of the great and the good

Searching for the individual in the machine

Inside or outside

Obsession with status

All views are equally valid?

Inventions of the past

Does it really matter?

Part II

    State religion

Hathor

Isis

Nephthys

Sekhmet

Mother of the Buchis Bull

Maat

    Religion in the Home

Horus the Child

Bes

Hathor and Isis

Women in the midst of death

Professions – Her Indoors

Women were not administrators

Women as housewives

Women in the fields

The priestess musician

Mourning

Queenship

Sexed Objects

The Little Woman – Power and Status

Fertility and sexuality

Androgyny

Neith

Ptah

Atum

Amun-Re

Sobek

The Bulti fish

The solar disk

Sexual Dualism

Conclusions – The Way Forward?

Further Reading

Since 'women in Egypt' is still a new field of study, we can only glimpse as to where it might lead. Some Egyptologists – Lyn Meskell, Dominic Monserrat and Gay Robins are three examples, and there maybe others, have made great inroads into this.

The aim of this trail is to explore some of the 'taken-for-granted' concepts that appear in popular Egyptological literature and then look anew at items within the Egypt Centre

Bias in presentation of the past - Can you believe what we tell you?

Although the Egypt Centre covers many aspects of Egyptian society, as with all displays, it is important to be aware of bias. Bias comes both from data available (see In Death as we are in Life, etc), research objectives formulated by academics (see section on Themes in Egyptology), and the prejudice we bring from our own cultural backgrounds.

Do the objects in the Centre really represent life in Egypt?

–Most are from élite graves.

–They were selected from other available material by

excavators and grave robbers for their attractiveness

and saleability.

–They range in date from 3000 BC to 500 AD.

Most Egyptological objects in any collection are from the high desert and from funerary remains. This is because fewer settlements than cemeteries have survived. Habitation sites were mainly located in cultivation areas, which are damp and are built upon level by level. Funerary remains are usually in desert areas where the dry conditions are conducive to preservation and where land, not being at such a premium means less likely hood of rebuilding upon the same plot. The fact that attractive material remains, particularly those which may be sold or displayed in museums, have been sought out by excavators in the past has meant that well over nine-tenths of excavations are those of graves. Funerary remains are important BUT, they are hardly a representative sample upon which to base conclusions about the past.

Funerary remains may be more likely to show ideals in society rather than actuality. They may also tend to be more resistant to change than activities associated with life. At Beni Hasan specialist funerary pottery is distinguished by its separate style and lack of change in type in contrast to domestic types. Funerary remains deliberately present a certain view of society and only deal with certain aspects of society. This means that we may get a skewed view of society if we only look at funerary remains.

All this means that a museum display of a past society will only reflect part of that society. Even in the Egypt Centre House Of Life, the pottery on show actually comes from graves. It may be that this type of pottery was rarely used in everyday life. We know that some pieces certainly were, from the few settlements that have been excavated, but other pieces mainly come from graves. For example the predynastic painted wares (D-ware) are rare on settlement sites.

Likewise, there is some evidence to suggest that the stone vessels on display in the House of Life were also mainly used for funerary purposes. Faience, on display in the same gallery, was used in ancient Egypt principally in the temple and the tomb.

In addition, the scenes of ordered prosperity shown on the coffins in our House of Death are perhaps more a reflection of the ideal than the actual.

How does this relate to women? The picture we see of women may not be accurate. It may be idealised. It may represent only part of the picture. Women may have been treated differently in death than in life.

Rich and poor

Most of the objects are from élite, male graves. The poor and women did not leave behind so much material. The owners of private tombs were usually men, women occur as secondary burials in these.

The Old Kingdom statues of tomb owners on display in the Egypt Centre are mainly those of men.

Stelae seem largely to have been put up by wealthier men, although the degree to which this is the case does vary from age to age. In the First Intermediate Period, for example, there are a number of stelae belonging to women. The Egypt Centre has one such example.

Historical evidence and dependence upon the written word

The written evidence for ancient Egypt cannot be ignored and is invaluable in reconstructing the society. However, it often seems that the written word is seen as the only evidence for Egyptian history. This is perhaps partly an accident of the history of the discipline itself and part a sort of self-perpetuating snowball effect. Many Egyptologists have a background in classics and are therefore naturally interested in the written word. In addition, and as a result, much has now been written on ancient Egyptian literature. This means that students wishing to choose a subject of study may in some ways find it easier to look at inscriptions. Therefore, even more is written on the topic.

The over dependence on the written word in Egyptology has been noticed by Egyptologists themselves. For example, Barry Kemp has stated that reliance on inscriptions cannot do justice to Egyptian History (Kemp, 1997). Even those who have made a name in literature have realised its limitations. Sir Alan Gardiner, one of the great authorities of Egyptian history, stated clearly his interest in historical evidence but also its limitations in studying the past. 'What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters' (Gardiner 1961, 53).

Concentration on literature at the expense of uninscribed archaeological evidence may exclude fields which shed light on women's histories. This is because women were not part of the scribal elite and because the written word was usually highly formulaic and idealised and not about actual events. In addition the 'focus on texts, pictures and architecture has led to a concentration on philology, art history and, to a certain extent, political history' (Andrén 1998, 41). (Popular Egyptological 'themes' are discussed below).

The historical information we have about ancient Egypt, the information the Egyptians wrote about themselves, is biased because it is written by a small group of people and because it was generally intended to present an ideal rather than realistic image.

The Egyptian evidence was written by male élites. It has been estimated that only one per cent of people in ancient Egypt could read and write (there are various estimates but this is the most commonly cited one). Very few of these were women. Women were not formally taught in scribe schools, although possibly rich girls were taught at home. Most, though not all, objects in the Egypt Centre with inscriptions are related to males. Only men are ever shown in the pose of a scribe.

There are few intimate letters or diaries to show us what people really thought. Instead the writer was all too aware of writing for an audience. Perhaps only such evidence as court cases, or perhaps letters to the dead, really show an un-selfconscious depiction of life.

In Egyptology, archaeology is often measured against historical evidence. For example, the Hyksos are known from history, so we look for them in archaeology. Archaeological questions may be different from historical ones. Archaeologists, for example might want to know about the trauma, caused by grinding corn which would show on the skeletons of the deceased. This would probably not appear in the historical record.

This dependence upon the written word has greatly straightjacketed the discipline. Literature does have an important part to play but so does archaeology. Egyptology is however increasingly breaking free of its literature-bound tradition, and the wealth of potential archaeological data is providing new insights on the past. Archaeology can ask and answer its own questions and can and does stand alongside history (some archaeologists would argue that history is only a sub-set of archaeology and so to study only history is to miss so much evidence).

Although archaeology has limitations, if properly studied, most aspects of daily life may be found. Social difference may be shown in a more concrete way whereas they may be smoothed over in textual accounts (see Andrén 1998 for the relationships between text and archaeology). Much archaeological evidence may be described as 'unconscious' in that the people who left their traces behind did not always do it with the sense that it would be 'read' in the future (of course this is not the case for the monuments of the great left behind for their forebears, these were built with a clear message). However, unconscious evidence can be seen more clearly in the settlement remains of the majority of the people. Their settlement evidence may have been concious in that it deliberately sought to convey messages to contemporaries but it was not so much a deliberate message for the future.

Egyptologists = men?

Most, although not all, well-known Egyptologists are male. However, this may be changing (B Lesko pers.com. has pointed out that in America the situation is different). A quick look at newspaper from the predecessor of The Egypt Centre reveal that although the first curator was a woman (Dr Kate Bosse Griffiths) the press photographers photographed and interviewed men about the museum. Most are white and middle class. A high percentage are western. They are certainly not 'normal' people! The same applies to the museum curators of the larger museums and 'successful' archaeologists. There are many reasons for this and it would be unfair to blame the Egyptologists, museum curators or archaeologists themselves for being an unrepresentative sample of the population. The fact remains, however, that they are atypical. Sometimes it is a good idea for an atypical group to study a typical group. New insights may be gained on the study group. Yet, if the research group is always composed of a minority atypical group, does that not reinforce bias?

Of course, it is not the case that only men are biased towards gender assumptions and stereotypes. From personal experience, I know that female museum curators are used to getting letters addressed to ‘Dear Sir’ and that that there is an assumption that males in an institution are the senior members of staff. This tendency to assume that all curators are male seems more marked among male visitors but is not exclusive to them. If such assumptions are made by our own society it would be unsurprising if we did not make similar assumptions upon the past. Egyptology is not immune from this.

Obsession with dynasties, the powerful, the technological and with warfare might be seen by some as a reflection of Egyptology's male based methodology (this could also be a criticism levelled at other disciplines). On the other hand, perhaps this view is based on the unfounded assumption that women are not interested in war machines and the minutiae of the family history of the powerful. Interest in the rich and powerful may be a result of concentration upon literature, thus the Egyptologist is led to taking an interest in those subjects which the ancient Egyptians thought were important about themselves. What do you think? It probably doesn't matter if men’s interests are not the same as those of women, but what does matter is if women's interests are not considered 'serious'.

The idea that textiles are not usually considered a suitable, i.e. male, subject for study in Egyptology is discussed under the section of Fertility and Sexuality. Basketry also seems to be a subject that has received little interest. Despite the fact that many thousands of basketry items survive in Egyptian graves, the Egypt Centre has not one example. Perhaps you could guess why this might be.

Archaeological and Egyptological books are still being written in a language which could be described as sexist, for example the use of terms such as 'man' instead of person or human. Much work has been done on how gendered language influences how we look at our own and other societies.

So, if historical sources are the evidence of men, largely interpreted by men, perhaps studies by women might be more satisfactory. Despite a slow start, studies that focus upon women now seem to be more in vogue in Egyptology. Many of the publications are written by women, but this does not make them immune from bias.

Joyce Tyldesley (1994) and Barbara Watterson (1991) take women as a uniform category and describe their lives according to Western concepts: economics, law, love, marriage, dress, etc. This says more about our own attitudes to women than Egyptian attitudes. Sources are decontextualized so that Cleopatra and Hatshepsut may be discussed in the same section. Hatshepsut reigned from 1473 to 1448 BC and Cleopatra from 51 to 30 BC. In time scale, this would be like comparing the society in which the iron-age queen Boudicca lived with that of Mary Tudor.

The idea of a timeless Egypt is perhaps over emphasised. Are we blinded by the abundance of state art, and the great 'achievements' of architecture, the massive piles of 'mankind'? Egyptian 'art' and literature aimed to perpetuate the myth of a timeless society. But beneath this gilded, unmoving façade, we might glimpse geographical and diachronic differences.

Certainly many objects have a geographical bias. For example paddle dolls such as that in the House of Life (Fig. 62) are largely found in Upper Egypt. Geographical variation is frequently underplayed in Egyptological histories with a few exceptions, for example the work of Herman Kees.

Diachronic difference too are often underplayed in Egyptological literature. Women’s roles, throughout the 4000 years of Egyptian history, are often shown as static. Yet there is evidence to support the idea that there were more women involved in temple rituals in the Old Kingdom than in later periods. Also they held more administrative titles and were more able to participate in business transactions in the Old Kingdom than in later periods. In state formation it has been suggested that women’s power is frequently undercut (Silverblatt 1988). Perhaps this is what we witness in the changing status of Egyptian women?

For the Graeco-Roman period the Greek historian Herodotus is often quoted: 'The Egyptians in their manners and customs, seem to have reversed the ordinary practices of mankind. For instance, women attend market and are employed in trade, while men stay at home and do the weaving' (Herodutus Histories, Book II, 35). This statement is frequently quoted in articles about women in ancient Egypt. Firstly, is true that in Hellenised Egypt there was no purdah for Egyptian women and, even though in larger houses there were women's quarters, they were not expected to remain therein. However, we should realise that this was only one period of Egyptian history and one which may have been quite different to earlier periods. Secondly, much work has been done to illustrate that Herodotus was naturally influenced by his own cultural background where women were restricted in cultural life.

The perception of Egypt's great achievements, and its seeming timelessness, are partly due to the monumentality of its material culture. The fact that pyramids are still standing inspires awe and suggests that Egypt was always the land of the pyramid. This monumentality is not only misleading in suggesting an unchanging never-never-land but focuses our minds on kings and great men, the minority.

Timelessness may also be a result of the funerary nature of most Egyptological evidence. Funerary and religious aspects of society are often much slower to change than other aspects.

The illusion of timelessness is also due to the reuse and copying of the styles and art of earlier monuments by later kings in order to legitimise their rights. Egyptian kings, like many other rulers, used family histories to trace lines of descent and each king was not so much an individual but a born-again Horus. As Gardiner has stated, the Egyptian reverence for 'the time of the ancestors' could lead to downright falsification.

In the Old Kingdom at least, the perpetual cycle seems to be more a feature of the king than his people. It is not until the Middle Kingdom that non-royals also present themselves in death as Osiris, although whether they also saw their offspring as themselves reborn is debatable. So timelessness may be more a feature of kingship and the state than of the individual. By looking at non-royals we may see more evidence of change.

The concentration on the 'great and the good', which is also exactly what Egyptian scribes almost formally present to us, has perhaps led to a false sense of security in Egyptology. Knowing the lists of the major kings, does not mean that we really know Egypt. Are the names of individual kings and their queens really all that important in understanding the structuring of society?

Back to women. Many of the studies of women in Egypt are of the 'powerful women in Ancient Egypt' variety, that is, they do not deal with the role of women in general, but only with a small selection of society. Studies of female rulers are perhaps driven by admiration. Joyce Tyldesley writes of an Egyptian queen in the first paragraph of one of her books, Hatchepsut : 'Queen or, as she would prefer to be remembered, King Hatchepsut ruled 18^th Dynasty Egypt for over twenty years. Her story is that of a remarkable woman....' There is not necessarily anything wrong with such studies, but we should be aware that they may not show the whole story.

Historically, archaeology has tended to look for the typical rather than the exceptional. More recently the idea of 'queer theory' has been given more prominence. In Egyptology, the wealth of material evidence should make the search for the individual easier, but there are problems.

In studying the élite we may miss the individual, or at least the 'average' individual. We do have extensive studies of the lives of individual kings and their courtiers. However, in looking at the evidence surrounding them are we seeing individuals or presentations of superstars by the ancient Egyptian 'media'? In the case of burial, for example, for the élite this was a highly visible, public display for the community. With the poorer, it was perhaps a more small scale individual affair, as has been demonstrated for Deir el-Medina by Lynn Meskell (1997). Gardiner too has pointed out that the narratives of the 'lesser' are more illuminating than those of the sovereign (1961, 57).

Individualism may also be hidden in museum displays which attempt to show typical examples rather than unusual types. This is accentuated by the tendency to assume that the atypical is fake.

How does this relate to women? Some feminist writers have seen women as an unchanging monolithic group. Men have been seen in this way too. Such essentialist views ignore differences of race, class, religion, etc. or consider them secondary to the structuring influence of gender. If we search for the individual we can perhaps attempt to reintroduce factors other than gender.

Any study of the past must decide whether to use an emic or etic viewpoint, or both. Do we use the Egyptian King lists to divide up the past in the way the Egyptians did, or should we use our own cultural markers? Bickerman, in Chronology of the Ancient World, (1968), names queens alongside kings whenever they had more power, starting with Cleopatra III. However, later historians ignored the powerful queens. Burnstein (1985) is the first contemporary historian to revise king lists to take such women into account in a book that does not deal exclusively with women. Burnstein names queens before kings in his 'King Lists' where it is clear that she wielded political power.

Establishing the status of women in Ancient Egypt seems to be a current obsession, perhaps rightly so since so much of understanding societies depends on understanding who has 'status'. This introduces further problems. Firstly, what is status? Status is such a relative term. Different social groups may recognise status in different ways. Quite how one can judge whether women saw themselves as of low status, without hearing their words, it is difficult to know.

One definition of lower status might be that although one partakes in production, one is not allowed to partake in decisions regarding that produce. However, this might deny status of individuals within a study group. Certain women might be involved in production, other female individuals might partake in decisions regarding produce. If decision making is a mark of status, what then is the status of the British Queen today? In addition, what is production? A woman might have control of childrearing which one could argue is the most important form of production and yet be considered of low status. Some labour may be more valued simply because it is performed by men. The undervaluing of women's work is often regarded as a result of, or a necessary precursor to state formation (Silverblatt 1988).

Views towards women alter as society alters, so much so that some archaeologists take the extreme relativist view that there can be no one view of the past but that all views are as valuable as others. What do you think?

So we invent the past to suit ourselves. This can lead to extremes. Father-daughter marriages seem to have been relatively common in Egyptian royal families. Modern scholars sometimes seek to deny this because it violates our own taboos. In order to explain such 'abhorrent' behaviour among Egyptian royalty the heiress theory was developed. This stated that kings had to legitimise their claim to the throne by marrying the heiress. There is no proof whatsoever for this (Robins 1983).

It maybe that displays in the Egypt Centre are simply another invention of the past.

Finally, although gender may be an important issue, it may not be the prime structuring principle. Differences between peasant women and royal women seem greater than the differences between Egyptian men and women as a whole. We should not give primacy to gender differences to the exclusion of others nor should we assume that sexed differences structure other differences.

Concentration on gender can lead to the diminishing of other important factors. As Tyldesley (1996) remarks of Hatchepsut, had she been born a man her lengthy rule would have been remembered for its achievements. 'Instead, Hatchepsut's gender has become her most important characteristic and almost all references to her reign have concentrated not on her policies but on the personal relationships and power struggles which many historians have felt able to detect within the claustrophobic early 18^th Dynasty.'

The Egypt Centre intends to produce further trails dealing with other aspects of Egyptian society: trails on childhood, the gods, etc are planned for the future, so hopefully a more rounded picture will be presented.

The religion of the state presented the king as essential to the maintenance of order in Egypt. Through his relationship with the gods, the king, himself a god, would ensure that Egypt was kept safe and its people prospered. As is discussed below the king was essentially male therefore the part played by women in the state religion might be expected to be secondary. This does not mean that at times there were not 'feminine' attributes to kingship. For example, kings legitimised their succession by claiming to be sons of Hathor, and later of Isis. The uraeus serpent on the forehead of the king is a female deity.

We naturally have more evidence concerning the state religion than domestic beliefs and much of the evidence concerning the state religion comes from élite, male graves. While this might reflect the male concern with the state religion it might also reflect other factors such as the status of women with regards to property.

Within the state religion, a number of gods were particularly important. To some extent the gods reflect how the Egyptians saw their lives. Here, the fighters, creators, rulers, etc. tend to be male whereas goddesses are usually, but not exclusively, nurturers, protectors, wives, and child-bearers.

The goddess Isis, for example was regarded as the ideal wife and mother, while Hathor represented female sexuality and fertility. Negative, destructive aspects of women were represented by the eye of Ra, the daughter of the sun-god sent to persecute the human race. In her vengeful aspect she is often associated with the lion headed goddess, Sekhmet.

Men and women could be shown worshipping male and female deities. However, if you look in the Egypt Centre there seems to be a preference for people worshipping the gods or goddesses of their own gender.

Hathor was also known as 'Lady of turquoise' and 'Lady of faience'. She is perhaps the goddess to the Egyptians most frequently erected temples. Hathor is closely connected with royal women. In the Old Kingdom, royal women were frequently priestesses of Hathor.

Caption: Three faience hollow balls (W283).Beads such as these were worn by women in ancient Egypt and have also been found as offerings to Hathor.

We also have an ostracon from Deir el-Medina (W1327). This shows Hathor being worshipped in the form of a cow. Hathor's nurturing and protective qualities may be reflected in her cow form

Isis is the perfect wife and mother. An Egypt Centre nursing mother figure shows hers with baby Horus on her lap. (W1374). Isis was both the sister and consort of Osiris, the god of the dead. When he was murdered by his brother Seth, Isis restored him to life. She gave birth to her son Horus in a marsh in the Delta and protected him from Seth. There are a number of images from about 1000 BC onwards showing her with her young son. Isis was frequently invoked as a protector of children, and it is sometimes stated that statues of her suckling Horus influenced the Christian iconography of Madonna and Child.

Isis and Nephthys are frequently shown as protective goddesses on coffins and other funerary items. They are also shown as mourners since they mourned for Osiris (men are not shown in attitudes of mourning). Women could even be hired as professional mourners (see section on professions).

We have a stone figurine (W496) which may be Bastet or Sekhmet, both feline headed goddesses. As Bastet she would be associated with fertility and protection. As Sekhmet however, she was destructive and was sometimes called 'she who is powerful'.

Mother of the Buchis bull

Maat

Hathor and Isis

Caption: W1283. Vessel sherd decorated with head of Hathor in cow form.

Women in the midst of death

In death women took the same way to the afterlife as did men. Like men, they had to find their way through the perils of the netherworld and could only enter heaven if they were found 'true of voice'.  

Caption: W1982. 21st Dynasty Coffin in the 'House of Death. Here you can see the occupier of the coffin with her hands open across her chest.

You are given to your mother, Nut, in her identity of the coffin,

She has gathered you up, in her identity of the sarcophagus.

You are ascended to her, in her identity of the tomb.

The Pyramid Texts (616 d-f)

The idea of tombs as female is associated with the idea of rebirth (the tomb being a place for rebirth). Although the pyramid (mr) is masculine it is sometimes referred to as 'my mistress'. In addition, one of the names for the large natural mound on the west bank at Thebes was 'the Mistress of the West.'

Coffins were usually made for men. Excavations on the New Kingdom sites of Deir el-Medina show that for the élite, males tended to be buried with more jewellery and other gravegoods and in better coffins than females (Meskell, 1999).

Women would have been restricted in holding administrative posts as they were rarely formally taught to read and write. We have no objects from ancient Egypt which were definitely written by a woman, but many that were certainly written by men (where unusually letters are stated as coming from women it is possible that they were penned by male scribes).

'Women=home; men=outside the home' is a common structural analysis posited by a number of archaeologists. It should not however be assumed that because women tend to be concerned more with child rearing than men, that women are equated with the home either now or in the past. The idea is more a product of Victorian ideals than reality. Until the medieval period in Britain, for example, most men worked close to the home and in Victorian Britain too women as well as men would be equally employed outside the home in agricultural activities.

It is often stated that since there is an obvious link between women and childcare that this is a reason for women's non participation in activities outside the household. However, ethnographic evidence shows that women are not limited by childcare in this way (Boserup 1970, Rogers 1978, Leacock 1978, Oakley 1974). Children can be moved! Besides, children may be looked after by elderly relatives or older siblings (Tronick et al., 1987). There are depictions of women in agricultural settings cradling children and the New Kingdom scene from the tomb of Neferrenput shows children running around in a weaving workshop (Capel and Marke, 16).

As in Victorian Britain, and elsewhere in the ancient Mediterranean world, Egyptian élite women are depicted with paler skin colour on statues and tomb painting than the men. Perhaps this is because they tended to stay more in-doors than their men. However, the skin colour convention does seem to break down to some extent during the 18^th Dynasty. We do not know if lower class women also spent more time indoors than their men.

Women are sometimes shown in tomb scenes as working in fields (interestingly women are not shown cutting grain but winnowing and collecting fallen ears, there seems to have been some sort of taboo against showing them using knives). But we do not know whether this represented an ideal or reality. The fact that upper-class women are shown in their 'Sunday Best' working in the fields suggests that this is an ideal, not a reality. Cutting grain was also a part of certain ritual activities and so these tomb paintings may not be showing everyday 'work'.

It is possible that women did not contribute greatly to farming. Ester Boserop has stated that where work is centralised under a bureaucracy and where cultivation of land is intense requiring that short fallow and plough agriculture is practised, the level of women's participation in farming is low (Boserup 1970). However, there is a letter from the 21st Dynasty written by a man to his dead wife, Ikhaty. Lesko interprets it as reminiscing about how she used to attend the couples' fields and cattle and carry all kinds of heavy loads (Lesko 1994, 26). This is particularly surprising as the man belongs to a middle class scribal family. Alexandra Velten, on the other hand says the interpretation of cattle may be correct but the loads were not carried by the lady. The pronouns show that this refers to her funerary procession, not the lady herself (Velten, A. pers. com. and Frandsen 1992, 31-49).

In religious professions, in general, men were in charge of temples and administration but women could hold offices as priests, particularly of goddesses such as Hathor. However, this situation changed over time. In the Old Kingdom it seems that women could hold very many more titles than in the New. By the New Kingdom, the priesthood had become such a part of state bureaucracy that women, with the exception of priestess musicians and God's Wife of Amun and Divine Adoratrice were largely excluded. Of course it could be argued that women were simply not interested in priestly professions and their non-inclusion does not therefore represent lack of status.

There is however the exception of lack of women in administrative roles in the form of the holders of the title of God's Wife of Amun and Divine Adoratrice. The two titles were held by the same person by the Third Intermediate Period when the God's Wife was practically the sovereign of Upper Egypt and at times more important than the High Priest of Amun himself.

A great many of Egyptian élite women are associated with temples as priestess musicians. Shemayet (musician) was a common title for élite women. Except for 'Lady of the house' it is the most common title for women in Theben tombs. At Thebes the title was usually 'Musician of Amun', elsewhere the local deity was chosen. In the Egypt Centre a number of items display this title. You can see it for yourself on a number of objects. It is often written

The shemayet served in four rotating groups with three periods off and one in service. There are also male musicians depicted on tomb walls but since the title musician does not appear in the titles of officials it has been suggested that female musicians were not drawn from the same ranks as male ones. Male musicians may not have been of such a high rank.

Caption: W1050. Detail from a side panel of New Kingdom anthropoid coffin. The central figure shown here is the dead woman shaking a sistrum to placate the god. The object on her head is a perfume cone. It was either a cone of perfumed wax which would melt, or as some Egyptologists argue, simply a hieroglyphic representation to show that the woman was wearing perfume

It is noticeable that the objects belonging to women in the Egypt Centre are largely élite women and not the general population. Élite women, who could afford to allow other people to look after their children naturally, perhaps had more time to partake of life outside the home.

Figure 23 shows a Cartonnage foot covering made for Shebenwepet, priestess of Horus the Child, Third Intermediate Period. She too would have been a musician, as would the lady owners of the items depicted in Figures 33 and 36.

It seems that only women were hired as mourners, though this is not to say that both men and women did not openly display grief. Isis and Nephthys are frequently shown as mourners.

Caption: Coffin fragment. Female mourners with dishevelled hair and body, are perhaps linked to ideas of chaos and denial of bodily existence associated with death. Hair is loaded with meaning revolving around sex and death in various societies (Eilberg-Schwartz and Doniger 1995).

Women may occasionally be buried with weapons. For example the Tomb N3915 at Naga-ed-Der belonged to Lady Myrt and yet contained a segmented bow. The queen Ahotep, whose tomb was found ar Dra Abu el-Naga in western Thebes, (perhaps the wife of Kamose, there is some doubt about her identity) was buried with various types of military equipment including axes and daggers and a necklace of golden flies, given as an award for valour in battle.

Beaded collars have no proven provenance and yet for many years have resided in the University of Wales Swansea stating that they were from a princesses' grave. The idea that these collars come from a princesses' grave derives largely from the fact that they are obviously from a rich tomb, that the style of some of the beads and amulets are similar to those from Amarna and that a rich tomb was pillaged in the Amarna area in the 1880s. The collars were purchased by Berens in the 1880s.

However, the 1880s tomb itself not only contained fragments of sarcophagus with the names of Amarna princesses but also the name of Akhetaten and Amenophis III (Martin, Geoffrey, 1974). That the collars belonged to females is supported by the fact that some of the amulets particularly the Bestet, fish, nasturtium/melon seeds(the type of seed is not clear) and oyster shell are associated with females, although since there are so few comparable pieces of jewellery statistically the associations may be meaningless. Nasturtium/melon seed beads and fish amulets were found associated with burials of the wives of Tuthmosis III. Gold oyster shells have been found on the jewellery of Princess Khnumet from Dashur and among the treasures of Meret, Sithathor, Senebtisy and Nubhotepti. They are also usually shown in Egyptian representational art around a woman's neck (Andrews 1994, 43). However, the pectoral of Tutankhamun has fish amulets on it so these are not exclusively female associated objects. Other amulets upon the collars, such as the heart amulet can be associated with either men or women.

Caption: Jewellery in the Egypt Centre. Did these belong to men or women? Meskell (1997) has shown that in the 18^th to early 19^th Dynasty at Deir el Medineh at least, men were usually buried with more jewellery than women.

Caption: W1499. Cosmetic Jar. This cosmetic jar was possibly made by a man and perhaps used by a man. Men as well as women wore eye make-up.

Mirrors too are found more commonly in female graves. This is despite the fact that men must have used palettes and mirrors in applying make-up. In the Predynastic cosmetic palettes were often found in women's graves. Perhaps palettes were considered 'female' as, like women, they are 'containers' of sorts. The pestle may have been considered masculine. But perhaps this is taking Freud too far! We are still left with the question of why mirrors should be considered 'female'.

It is commonly held that in past societies women made the pots. However, depictions on tomb walls show us that in Dynastic Egypt at least, the men manufactured some pottery vessels. Whether they manufactured all is a matter for debate, perhaps they were only involved in production of those associated with temples or large households. There is a limestone figurine dating to the New Kingdom which is now in the Petrie Museum, London, showing a woman burnishing or adding a handle to a pot (Capel and Markoe, Fig 4). It is also possible that the gender of the potter varied through time. Some ethnographers have stated that female pottery production is more common in societies where there is a low degree of occupational specialisation and division of labour, while others suggest it is more likely to be a female occupation whatever level of complexity (Wright 1991).

Status is difficult to judge from archaeological and historical sources. Differences do not necessarily imply lack of status and we should be aware of forcing our own symbols of status upon other cultures. The fact that western women usually spend more time than their men in child rearing can be seen either as a measure of their inferior status, or only that their roles may be different from those of men. However, stressing the importance of Egyptian women in myth, regeneration and rebirth does not hide the fact that political power was in the hands of men.

Caption: W1982. The inscription on the coffin talks of the Osiris Iwesemhesetmwt.

The feminist literature examining how the woman is considered 'the other' is vast (e.g. de Beauvoir 1953, Gilligan 1982). Standards are set by the norm, that is the male, and therefore that associated with the female is inferior. That the Egyptians saw man as the norm does seem to be given some weight by the fact that funerary items are all geared to the rejuvenation of the male. Women do not have their own funerary rites but instead are to be metaphorically resurrected as the male god Osiris, pictorial representation seems to show iconography designed for the male afterlife and most objects found in graves are associated with males.

The status of women probably varied through time and was certainly related to their social class. Queens led very different lives to the mass of the population, male or female. By 'queens' I mean royal women, not women who held real power in the way kings did. Although Cleopatra and Hatchepsut are now famous, their roles as rulers are quite unusual.

Of over 500 rulers in Manetho's list, only four are women (there are naturally no objects in the Egypt Centre directly associated with them). Nitocris was the first Queen of Egypt of which we know c. 2180 BC. According to Herodotus she committed suicide after taking vengeance on the men who had murdered her brother in order to put her on the throne. She was the last 'king' of the Old Kingdom. Even when women such as Hatchepsut and Sobeknesferu attained kingship they were effectively portrayed as men, since the king was intrinsically male. Gender and power were shown in items such as beards, crowns etc.

For the middle class woman, her role and status was largely that of wife and mother. Most of the objects associated with women in the Egypt Centre are from the graves of such women.

Upper-class women rarely had their own tomb chapels or funerary stela but were usually included in those of their male relatives (Robins 1992, 163-175). A study of grave goods in tombs at New Kingdom Deir el-Medina suggests there is no support for egalitarian treatment in terms of possessions for the middle and upper-classes (Meskell 1999, 155). However, for the lower classes, the majority of the population, there is very little differentiation in the number of grave goods. It is in the middle and upper classes that sexual differentiation occurs. This then shows the danger of assuming that women are a homogenous group. It also suggests that gender was not the primary structuring principle.

Caption: W460. Wooden shabti figure belonging to a woman. We know to whom the figure belonged by the hieroglyphs down the front

Caption: W769 Paddle doll. This wooden doll on display in the Egypt Centre may be more a fertility figure than a child's plaything. It has been suggested that the enlarged section at the base represents an emphasised pubic area. However, maybe we should be aware that emphasising female genitalia need not be associated with male titillation but perhaps a female desire for fertility. We need to look at the context in which they are found. Such dolls are after all found in female graves. The shape of the paddle doll is similar to the other female objects such as the 'menit' counterpoise.

However, the representations of sexuality do show that the woman was supposed to make herself attractive to the man and not the other way round. The sexual needs of women in the afterlife seem to have been completely ignored in tomb paintings. Of course, we do not know what Egyptian women considered attractive in their men. 

Caption: Fertility dolls or concubine figurines? In the past clay dolls such as these were described as 'concubine figurines' for the afterlife of dead males. However they are also found in female graves and on settlement sites such as el-Amarna and Piramesse. Like the paddle doll they may well be fertility dolls for women.

Caption: Cowrie shell. Cowrie shell amulets may have been worn as symbols of female genitalia and thus a symbol of sexuality/fertility. They are usually associated with women. This gold example is on loan from Swansea Museum

Caption: W 765 Swimming girl motif. The motif of the naked adolescent girl is common on tomb chapels, cosmetic pots, mirrors and bowls. In the case of items such as these their shape has solar connections which might provide a link to the goddess Nut. It has been suggested that items such as these are spoons though their function is not entirely certain.

The creator gods of Egypt may be represented as androgynous (Troy 1986, 15-19; Zandee, G. 1992). Usually these are the primeval creator gods, considered to be alone in the beginning and hence without consorts.

Neith a female goddess is shown as androgynous in that although she lacks a partner she is able to give birth. At Esna she is described as 'the male who acts the role of the female, the female who acts the role of the male.' Unusually for female goddesses, Neith also has warlike characteristics.

Although outwardly a masculine deity. Ptah has also been seen as androgynous (Troy 1986, 16-17). He is a god of crafts and as such is concerned with creating.

Atum, although male, could give birth. Atum the creator god who was alone in the beginning impregnated himself with his own semen and gave birth via his mouth.

Caption: W2051. This is the back segment of a Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure on which it is written '...hail to thee, heir who proceeded from this god, spittle which came forth from Atum, divine body that returned.'

Amun-Re

Similarly, Amun or Amun-Re is a father who gives birth,

Sobek

Sobek, the crocodile god, is also stated to be a primeval god who gave birth to all existence.

The bulti-fish, Tilapia nilotica seems to have been a manifestation of the sun-god. The bulti keeps the fertilised eggs in its mouth until they are fry and then spits them out. It therefore appears to be swallowing and then 'giving birth' to them and as such is therefore a symbol of rebirth. Why cosmetic palettes such as this should be in the shape of such a fish is not entirely known. It could be that such palettes were made for rituals such as anointing a statue or may be connected with a funeral. In either case rebirth symbolism would be used. Eyepaints and ointment were essential to resurrection. Before appearing in the 'Hall of Justice' the individual had to purify her/himself, dress in white clothing, make up their eyes and anoint themselves. Applying eyepaint also seems to have been part of everyday cult rituals. Depictions of cows destined for ritual slaughter are sometimes shown wearing eye-paint! There are even depictions of eye make-up being put in the graves of ritually slaughtered bulls.

The sun is composed of the disk and its rays. The disk is given the masculine designation itn and the rays are personified by the cobra. Cobras are usually identified as female in the Egyptian mythology. In the Amarna period the rays are shown as hands, and the hand functions in myth as the consort of the god.

In the Amarna period a well known hymn to the Aten refers to it as father and mother of his creation.

The idea that it is right and natural that male and female come together seems to be pervasive in ancient Egyptian art. Gods and mortals are frequently mirrored, one male, one female. However, there are exceptions and the it is clear from the Egyptian literature that same-sex desire was known and articulated by the Egyptians.

Archaeologists frequently appear to want to underscore the normative heterosexist narratives of our own culture by forcing it on the past. For example, it is usually assumed that when a woman and man are buried together that some sort if intimacy existed between them. No sort of intimacy is assumed for the frequent burials of same-sex individuals. This is not to say that same-sex burials were those of homosexual individuals but merely to state that we have a tendency to accept that which fits in best with our own cultural views.

Most of the discussion above has largely been a critique of androcentric, Eurocentric Egyptology and uses a small collection, the objects in the Egypt Centre, to illustrate the point. To actually construct new theory and to present a feminist Egyptology is much more difficult. Various options are available:

- We might simply use contextual approaches taking archaeology as well as inscriptions and historical evidence to look for women in the past. Of course, there is a need to understand the historiography of all types of evidence before making any use of them. This approach has been successfully achieved by Egyptologists such as Gay Robins (1993). This is perhaps by far the most balanced interpretation of women in ancient Egypt.

- We might also use contemporary social theory to look at the data available. Egyptology has largely lacked theoretical approaches for social archaeology (Janssen 1975, 128), instead falling back on the historical narrative approach. However, there are some exceptions, for example, Dominic Montserrat who uses Foucault to examine gender in Graeco-Roman Egypt (1996). Adopting theories from other disciplines has been criticised in archaeology. Prehistory in particular has recently witnessed a rash of largely untestable ideas taken from various 20th century continental philosophers interpolated upon its data. But at least such methods consciously frame the subject area, unlike the usual uncritical application of our own culture based, unconscious bias to the past.

- We might examine new areas of data, such as has been achieved by Lyn Meskell on her work on the body in ancient Egypt (various articles). The objects themselves are not new but the use of them is.

Meskell, Lynn. 1999. Archaeologies of Social Life. Age, Class ‘et cetera’ in Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Blackwell.

Robins, Gay. 1993. Women in Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum Press.

Arnold, Dorothea. 1996. The Royal Women of Amarna. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Pomeroy, Sarah B. 1984. Women in Hellenistic Egypt. From Alexander to Cleopatra. New York: Schocken Books.

Roberts, Alison, 1995. Hathor Raising: The Serpent Power of Ancient Egypt. Totnes: Northgate.

Troy, Lana. 1986. Patterns Of Queenship In Ancient Egypt Myth and History. Uppsala: University of Uppsala.

Tyldesley, Joyce. 1994. Daughters of Isis Women of Ancient Egypt. London: Penguin.

Tyldesley, Joyce. 1996. Hatchepsut The Female Pharaoh. London: Viking.

Gero, J.M. and M.W. Conkey, eds. 1991. Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell

Gilchrist, Roberta. 1999. Gender and Archaeology. London: Routledge.

Nelson, Sarah Milledge. 1997. Gender in Archaeology. Analyzing Power and Prestige. Walnut Creek: Altimira Press.

Andrén, A. 1995. Between Artifacts and Texts: Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective. New York: Plenum Press.

Andrews, C. 1990. Ancient Egyptian Jewellery. British Museum Press.

Andrews, C. 1994. Amulets of Ancient Egypt. British Museum Press.

Arnold, Dorothea.1996. The Royal Women of Amarna. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Boserup, Ester. 1970. Women's Role in Economic Development, pp 32-33. New York: St Martin’s Press.

Brumfield, Elizabeth, M. 1991. Weaving and Cooking: Women's Production in Aztec Mexico. In Gero and Conkey, eds., Engendering Archaeology Women and Prehistory. 224-251.

Burnstein, Stanley, M. 1985. The Hellenistic Age from the battle of Ipsos to the death of Kleopatra VII.

Capel, A.K. and G.E. Markoe, eds., 1996. Mistress of the House Mistress of Heaven. Women n Ancient Egypt. New York:Hudson Hills Press.

Carroll, D. L., 1986. Looms and Textiles of the Copts. University of Washington Press

Dark, K.R. 1995. Theoretical Archaeology. London: Duckworth.

De Beauvoir, Simone. 1953. The Second Sex. H.M. Parshley, trans. New York: Knopf.

Eilberg-Schwatz, H. and W. Doniger, eds. 1995. Off with her Head: the Denial of Women’s Identity in Myth, Religion and Culture. Berkley: University of California Press.

Engelstad, Erika. 1991. Images of power and contradiction: feminist theory and post-processual archaeology. Antiquity 65: 502–14.

Fischer, H.G. 1976. Varia. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art

Fransden, P.J., 1992. The letter to Ikhtay's Coffin'. In R. Demarée, Village Voices. 31-49,

Gardiner, Sir Alan. 1961. Egypt of the Pharaohs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice. Cambridge, Mass.:Havard University Press.

Gero, Joan M. 1992. Genderlithics: Women’s Roles in Stone Tool Production. In J. M. Gero, and Margaret W. Conkey. Engendering Archaeology Women and Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Gilchrist, Roberta. 1991. Women's archaeology? Political feminism, gender theory and historical revision. Antiquity 65 : 495–501

Gilchrist, Roberta. 1999. Gender and Archaeology. London: Routledge.

Hall, Rosalind. 1986. Egyptian Textiles. Shire Publications.

Hodder, I., 1995. Theory and Practice in Archaeology. London and New York: Routledge.

Janssen, J. 1975. Prologomena to the study of Egypt’s Economic History during the New Kingdom. Studien zur Altägyptishe Kultur 3 : 127-85

Kemp, B.J. 1977. The early development of towns in Egypt: Antiquity 51: 185-200.

Leacock, E.B. 1978. Women’s Status in Egalitarian Societies: Implications for Social Evolution. Cultural Anthropology 19(2):247-275.

Leacock, E. and J. Nash. 1981. Myths of Male Dominance. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Lesko. B., 1989 ed., Women's earliest records from ancient Egypt and Western Asia: Atlanta

Lesko, L.H., 1994. Pharaoh’s Workers. The Villagers of Deir el Medinah. New York: Cornell University Press.

Manniche, L. 1987. Sexual Life In Ancient Egypt. London and New York: Kegan Paul.

Martin, Geoffrey, T. 1974. The Royal Tombs at el-'Amarna, I. London

Meskell, L.M., 1997. Engendering Egypt: a review article. Gender and History: a review article, Body and Gender in the Ancient Mediterranean 9(3): 597-602.

Meskell, L.M. 1997. Egyptian Social Dynamics: The Evidence of Age, Sex and Class in Domestic and Mortuary Contexts. PhD thesis Archaeology Department, Cambridge.

Meskell, Lynn. 1999. Archaeologies of Social Life. Age, Class ‘et cetera’ in Ancient Egypt.

Montserrat, Dominic, 1996. Sex and Society in Graeco-Roman Egypt. London: Kegan Paul International.

Nelson, Sarah Milledge, 1997. Gender in Archaeology. Analyzing Power and Prestige. Walnut Greek: Altamira Press.

Oakley, A., 1974. Women’s Work: The Housewife, Past and Present. New York: Vintage Books.

Pomeroy, Sarah B., 1984. Women in Hellenistic Egypt. From Alexander to Cleopatra.New York: Schocken Books.

Roberts, Alison, 1995. Hathor Raising: The Serpent Power of Ancient Egypt. Totnes: Northgate.

Robins, Gay. 1983. A critical examination of the theory that the right to the throne of Egypt passed through the female line in the 18^th dynasty. Göttinger Miszellen, 62: 67-77.

Robins, Gay. 1993. Women in Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum Press.

Rogers, S.C. 1978. Woman’s Place: A Critical Review of Anthropological Theory. Comparative Studies In Society and History. 20(1)

Silverblatt, Irene. 1988. Women in States. Annual Review of Anthropology 17: 427-60.

Stacey, J. and Thorne, B. 1985. The missing feminist revolution in sociology. Social Problems. 32: 301-316.

Toivari, J. 1998. Marriage at Deir el Medinah. In C.J. Eyre, ed., Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists.

Tronick, E.Z., G.A. Morelli and S. Winn. 1987. Multiple caretaking of Efe (Pygmy) infants. American Anthropology. 89: 96-106.

Troy, Lana. 1986. Patterns Of Queenship In Ancient Egypt Myth and History. Uppsala.

Tyldesley, Joyce. 1994. Daughters of Isis Women of Ancient Egypt. London and New York: Penguin

Tyldesley, Joyce. 1996. Hatchepsut The Female Pharaoh. London: Viking.

Tyldesley, Joyce. 1998. Nefertiti. London: Viking.

Watterson, B. 1991. Women in Ancient Egypt. Stroud: Alan Sutton Publishing.

Wright, Rita P. 1991. Women’s Labor and Pottery Production in prehistory. In Joan M. Gero and Margaret W. Conkey, Engendering Archaeology Women and Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell, 194-224.

Wylie, A. 1991. Gender theory and the archaeological record: why there is no archaeology of gender? In J.M. Gero and M.W. Conkey, eds., Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell, 31-34.