Sunday, 17 September 2023

Horus and Mandulis

1. Similarities between Horus and Mandulis:

Horus and Mandulis are both ancient Egyptian deities with significant roles within their respective contexts.

Firstly, both 

Secondly, both deities have connections to falcons. Horus is famously depicted with a falcon head or wearing a falcon-shaped crown, emphasizing his association with this bird of prey. The falcon is often seen as a representation of speed, strength, and keen vision, attributes that align with Horus' role as a protector and warrior god. Mandulis, too, is depicted with a falcon head, emphasizing his connection to the sun and its qualities.

Furthermore, both Horus and Mandulis are regarded as guardians and protectors. Horus, as the falcon deity, is believed to safeguard the pharaoh and the land of Egypt, ensuring its prosperity and stability. Mandulis, as a solar god, is associated with protection against malevolent forces and is invoked for safety and security.

2. Etymology:

The name "Horus" is derived from ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics and is transliterated as "ḥr". The exact etymology of the name is uncertain, but it is believed to be related to the ancient Egyptian word for "falcon," referencing his falcon-headed appearance and association with this bird.

The name "Mandulis" has its origins in the Meroitic language, an ancient Nubian language, and is transliterated as "mn dwl s." The etymology of "Mandulis" is not fully understood, as our knowledge of the Meroitic language is limited. However, some scholars propose that it may relate to the concept of kingship or divine rulership.

3. Rise and Fall:

In terms of their rise and fall, the mythological narratives surrounding Horus and Mandulis have different trajectories.

Horus, in ancient Egyptian mythology, had a complex origin story and was involved in the famous conflict with Seth, his uncle. This conflict resulted in Horus becoming the legitimate ruler of Egypt, avenging his father Osiris' murder and establishing his reign. Horus, through various iterations, continued to be an important god throughout ancient Egyptian history, particularly in association with the pharaoh and the concept of kingship.

Mandulis, on the other hand, primarily enjoyed popularity and worship in Lower Nubia during the Meroitic period, which lasted from around 300 BCE to 350 CE. His worship declined with the rise of Christianity and the subsequent decline of traditional polytheistic religions. The specific reasons for his decline are not fully known, but the spread of new religious beliefs and changing political dynamics likely played a role.

In conclusion, while Horus and Mandulis share certain similarities in their association with the sun and falcons and as protectors, their mythological narratives and historical trajectories differ significantly. Horus maintained prominence throughout ancient Egyptian history, while Mandulis experienced a decline in worship with the rise of new religious beliefs in Nubia.
 📷 Tangopaso, Horus offers life to the pharaoh, Ramesses II. Painted limestone. c. 1275 BCE, 19th dynasty. From the small temple built by Ramses II in Abydos, Louvre museum, Paris, France.

 📷 Karen Green, Mandulis in Kalabsha


Sunday, 21 February 2021

Peasant and the Workmen


In the Salt Country there dwelt a sekhti (peasant) with his family. He made his living by trading with Henenseten in salt, natron, rushes, and the other products of his country, and as he journeyed thither he had to pass through the lands of the house of Fefa. Now there dwelt by the canal a man named Tehuti-nekht, the son of Asri, a serf to the High Steward Meruitensa. Tehuti-nekht had so far encroached on the path- for roads and paths were not protected by law in Egypt as in other countries- that there was but a narrow strip left, with the canal on one side and a cornfield on the other. When Tehuti-nekht saw the sekhti approaching with his burdened asses, his evil heart coveted the beasts and the goods they bore, and he called to the gods to open a way for him to steal the possessions of the sekhti.

This was the plan he conceived. "I will take," said he, "a shawl, and will spread it upon the path. If the sekhti drives his asses over it- and there is no other way- then I shall easily pick a quarrel with him." He had no sooner thought of the project than it was carried into effect. A servant, at Tehuti-nekht's bidding, fetched a shawl and spread it over the path so that one end was in the water, the other among the corn.

When the sekhti drew nigh he drove his asses over the shawl. He had no alternative.

"Hold!" cried Tehuti-nekht with well-simulated wrath, "surely you do not intend to drive your beasts over my clothes!"

"I will try to avoid them," responded the good-natured peasant, and he caused the rest of his asses to pass higher up, among the corn.

"Do you, then, drive your asses through my corn?," said Tehuti-nekht, more wrathfully than ever.

"There is no other way," said the harassed peasant. "You have blocked the path with your shawl, and I must leave the path."

While the two argued upon the matter one of the asses helped itself to a mouthful of corn, whereupon Tehuti-nekht's plaints broke out afresh.

"Behold!" he cried, "your ass is eating my corn. I will take your ass, and he shall pay for the theft."

"Shall I be robbed, cried the sekhti, "in the lands of the Lord Steward Meruitensa who treateth robbers so hardly? Behold, I will go to him. He will not suffer this misdeed of thine."

Monday, 13 April 2020

Alexandria,Patriarchate of


The patriarchate of Alexandria flourished as one of the premier centers of Eastern Christian intellectual, ecclesial, and political life until the middle of the 7th century.Initially, the patriarchate of Alexandria was ranked second to Rome in ecclesial priority.

In 381 the third canon of the Second Ecumenical Council declared that the patriarchate of Constantinople would henceforth rank higher than Alexandria and thus it assumed precedence in the whole East, a state of affairs initially resisted in Egypt. In 451 the 28th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council reaffirmed the priority of the patriarchate of Constantinople over that of Alexandria. Despite being overshadowed by the sees of Rome and Constantinople, the patriarchate of Alexandria undoubtedly set the foundational framework and trajectory for Christian theology. For example, the Logos theologians of Alexandria, most notably Clement (ca. 150­-215) and Origen (ca. 185­ca. 251), significantly shaped future patristic reflections upon the person and nature of Jesus Christ. Also,
Alexandrian hierarchs such as St. Athanasius of Alexandria (ca. 293­373) and St.Cyril of Alexandria (ca. 378­444) advanced what would become the classical Orthodox expression of the mystery of the incarnate Lord.

 Within the Roman Empire, theological and political allegiances often aligned together in ways that could either strengthen or weaken any given patriarchate, whether Rome, Constantinople, or another major see. In this volatile context, the patriarchate of Alexandria managed to grow into a significant political force.
Further, in the 3rd century, Egyptian monasticism developed into a burgeoning movement that indelibly shaped Alexandrian Christianity (Chitty 1999). In brief, the convergence of the ecclesial, political, theological, and monastic streams into one dynamic confluence infused Alexandrian Christianity with long-lasting vitality. The following summary begins with a brief historical sketch of the city of Alexandria,followed by a list of the patriarchs of Alexandria from the 1st century up to the 8th. There then follows an overview of the most influential bishops, pivotal councils,and exceptional theological and spiritual movements that bear witness to the enduring significance of the patriarchate of Alexandria.

THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

Alexandria, founded by Alexander the Great (356­-323 BCE), is strategically situated at the mouth of the Nile. The city boasted two harbors and was a hub of trade routes that provided access to the Mediterranean and Southeast Asia. As an international commercial port city, Alexandria attracted merchants from all over the known world,who in turn brought their religious and philosophical traditions into the Hellenistic city. Upon his conquest of Egypt, between 332 and 331 BCE, Alexander drew up plans for the layout of a new metropolis.Alexandria was divided into five neighborhoods, identified by the Greek letters A to E.

The indigenous Egyptians (known by the Greek abbreviation of Copts) lived in the section called Rakotis, which was located in the southwest section of Alexandria.
The native Egyptians usually belonged to one of the Hellenistic religions and likely participated in the rites of one of the nearby pagan temples. The great Temple of Serapis (founded by the early Ptolemies) was located in the heart of Rakotis. The Jews predominantly inhabited a separate sector in Alexandria. Since the Jewish quarter was afforded a significant amount of autonomy, the Jews were able to maintain, at a high level, a distinct cultural and religious identity (Haas 1977: 91­127).

Jewish intellectuals, most notably Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE-­50 CE), were influential forerunners that shaped later Christianity, especially through the persons of Clement and Origen of Alexandria.

Alexander the Great’s successor was his childhood friend and general, Ptolemy I Soter (ca. 367­ca. 283 BCE). Under Ptolemy’s governance, Alexandria grew into a great Hellenistic center. Hellenism continued to blossom under Ptolemy Philadelphus (309­-246 BCE), his son. Ptolemy Philadelphus founded the Great Library in Alexandria, which was first burned in 48 BCE when Caesar defeated Antony and Cleopatra. In 391 the second iteration of the Great Library was partially destroyed during the tenure of the anti-Origenist Patriarch Theophilus (384-­412). Rather than seeking the total annihilation of the library, Theophilus only ordered the destruction of the pagan library holdings associated with the Temple of Sarapis. Consequently, many of the larger cultural Hellenistic writings remained extant after the anti-Origenist movement of the 4th century. In 641 Islamic invaders captured Alexandria and possibly destroyed some of the holdings within the Alexandrian library, but undoubtedly (since the Byzantine emperor arranged a year-long truce to allow cultural and religious artifacts to be shipped to Rome and Constantinople for safe keeping) the vast majority of materials were safely transferred. In brief, the Alexandrian library was one of the finest collections in all Antiquity. The existence of the Great Library positioned Alexandria to be the leading Hellenistic intellectual center.
Origen, the first internationally respected philosopher among the Christians, based his exegetical mission on the literary tradition of the library (McGuckin 2001).
Hellenism was a significant intellectual and cultural force that, to one degree or another, influenced Christianity, Judaism,
and other religious movements of Late Antiquity. Ancient Alexandria has been described as a multicultural milieu, where Judaism, Christianity, Gnosticism, and the Egyptian indigenous religions coexisted with one another in an international milieu. According to some ancient observers, the lines between one religion and another were often blurred in Alexandria. In a letter attributed to Hadrian (Vita Saturnini 8), Christian worshippers are depicted as if they were giving reverence to Sarapis, the popular Egyptian God. Further,
Hadrian observed pagans who worshipped Sarapis in a style that resembled the Christians. The blurring of lines is further revealed by Alexandrian religious leaders,
whether Christians, Jews, or others,
who experimented in astrology (Vita Saturnini 8).

 The so-called multiculturalism of Alexandria was complex and dynamic;
consequently, it is difficult to fully depict the overall situation in a comprehensive manner. At times, the various religious groups coexisted in a symbiosis where in
Hellenism provided an overarching matrix that promoted assimilation among the religious subcultures. Yet, on numerous other occasions, religious enclaves asserted their group identities over and against one another and the dominant Hellenistic culture (Haas 1977: 45­90).
The Gnostic Christian Basilides was the first notable Alexandrian biblical exegete,
who blossomed into a prominent figure during the reigns of the Emperors Adrian and Antoninus Pius (ca. 120­40). Basilides probably studied with Glaukios, reputed to be a confidant and translator for the Apostle Peter. Following Basilides, the influential Alexandrian Gnostic Valentinus (ca. 100­ca. 160) was almost installed as a bishop of Rome. From what we know of inchoate Alexandrian Christianity, Pantaenus was the first orthodox pedagogue residing in Alexandria. According to the church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (H.E. 10), sometime around 180 Pantaenus founded the first Alexandrian catechetical school. Clement of Alexandria succeeded Pantaenus as the leading Christian pedagogue in Alexandria. Clement was one of the first formidable early philosophertheologians to develop Christian doctrine through reading the Holy Scriptures,adhering to the rule of faith (regula fidei),and strategically appropriating Hellenistic thought and culture. Clement advanced Logos theology while at the same time highlighting a spiritual culture of knowledge (gno¯sis) that would have been resonant with his Gnostic contemporaries.

Origen of Alexandria further developed the Logos theology of his antecedents. Without a doubt, Origen stands as the most influential theologian of the early church.
Origen, even more so than Clement, was keenly aware of the usefulness and apparent dangers inherent within Greek philosophy.

In Origen’s Letter to Theodore (also known as his Letter to Gregory), he explains his approach to his disciple Gregory Thaumatourgos, the later apostle of Cappadocia. In this correspondence Origen admonishes Gregory carefully to employ Greek philosophy in the spirit of the Exodus Jews spoiling the Egyptians. Christian theologians should take from the Greeks whatever is useful for the worship of God and the interpretation of Scripture.
However, Christians need to be prayerful and diligent, or else they may easily become infected by the “poisons” of paganism (see Origen, Letter to Theodore). Origen’s strategic appropriation of Greek philosophy became paradigmatic for future generations of Christian theologians.

THE PATRIARCHATE OF ALEXANDRIA 

There is little information regarding the patriarchate of Alexandria from the first two centuries of the Common Era. The shared tradition of both the Greek East and Latin West affirms that St. Mark the Evangelist founded the Church of Alexandria. In a letter attributed to Clement of Alexandria, we are told that St. Mark’s witness and theology became influential in Alexandria by the 2nd century. The first attestation of Mark’s connection with Alexandria is not explicitly recorded until the 4th century (Eusebius, H.E. 2.16).

In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius provides a list of the early Alexandrian patriarchs. However, Eusebius’s list provides minimal information about the early patriarchs other than simply providing their names; further, the accuracy of his early account is controverted. Apart from Eusebius, Jerome’s Chronicle also provides information concerning the patriarchate of Alexandria. In chronological order,
with the approximate dates of each tenure set in parentheses, these early leaders of the Alexandrian Church are as follows: Mark the apostle (?); Annianus (62-­84/85);
Avilius (84/85­-98); Cerdon (98­-110),
who was a presbyter ordained by Saint Mark; Primus (110-­22), also called Ephraim; Justus (122-­30/32); Eumenes (132­-43); Mark II (143-­53); Celadion (153­67); Agrippinus (167­-79); Julian (179­89/90). After Julian, Eusebius provides a little more detail concerning the Alexandrian bishops; the successive list of bishops comprises Demetrius (189/190­233);
Heraclas (23-3­47); Dionysius (24-7­64);
Maximus (26-4­82). Following Maximus,
the Alexandrian bishops, with verifiable dates of tenure, are Theonas (282­-300);
Peter the Martyr (300-­11); Achillas (311­12); Alexander (312-­28); Athanasius (328­73); Peter II (373-­80); Timothy I (380-­4); Theophilus (384­-412); Cyril (412-­44); Dioscorus (444­-51); Proterius (451-­7); Timothy II Aelurus (457­-60),
a Miaphysite; Timothy II Salofaciolos (460­75), a Chalcedonian; Timothy II Aelurus (475­7), his second time as bishop;
Peter III Mongus (477), a Miaphysite;
Timothy IISalofaciolos(477­-82),hissecond time as bishop; John I Talaia (482),
a Chalcedonian; Peter III Mongus (482­9),
his second tenure; Athanasius II Keletes (489­-96), a Miaphysite; John I (496-­505),
a Miaphysite; John II (505­-16); Dioscorus II (516­-17); and Timothy III (517-­35),
a Miaphysite.

After the Council of Chalcedon in 451,
a schism erupted between the Miaphysite and the Chalcedonian theologians. As a result of the schism, from 535 up through the Arab conquests of Alexandria, there existed two lines of Alexandrian patriarchs.

The Melkite (Greek Byzantine) party supported Chalcedonian Christology; conversely, the Coptic party supported protoCyrilline or Miaphysite Christology. The Melkite patriarchal line runs as follows:

Paul of Tabenn (537-­40); Zoile (540­-1);
Apollinarius (541­70); John II (570­80);
Eulogius (580­608); Theodore the Scribe (608­9); John III the Almoner (609­19);
George (620­30); Cyrus (630/631­43/44);
Peter III (643/644­51); uncertain gap in the patriarchate; Theodore (655 Synod);
Peter IV (680 Council); Theophylact (695 Council); Onophes (711); Eusebius (?);
Cosmas I (742­68); and Politian (768­813).
The Coptic patriarchal line (with Julianists noted) runs as follows: Theodosius (535­66);
the Julianists: Gaianus (535); Elpidius (?­565); Dorotheus (565­ca. 580); Theodore (575­85), who was not received by the majority; Peter IV (575­-8); Damien (578­607); Anastasius (607­19); Andronicus (619-­26); Benjamin (626­-65); Julianists:
Menas (634); Agathon (665­-81); John III (681­9); Isaac (689-­92); Simon I (692-­700);
Julianist: Theodore (695); vacancy for three years; Alexander II (704-­29); Cosmas (729­30); Theodore II (730­42); one year vacancy; Michael I (743­-67); Menas (767­75); and John IV (776­-99).
Under the episcopate of Demetrius (189/
190­-233) the Alexandrian see increased in power and prestige. At this time, every other Egyptian bishop was subordinated to the see of Alexandria. Beyond extending control over his suffragan bishops, Demetrius seized internal control within the city of Alexandria. His well-known conflict with Origen eventually led to the dismissal of the controversial Alexandrian theologian, and his relocation to Caesarea of Palestine. Without a doubt, the Church of Alexandria increased in power on account of Demetrius’astuteness and energetic zeal.

Demetrius’ successor, Origen’s disciple Heraclas (233-­47), continued to advance the unity and prestige of the Egyptian Church through his disciplinary action.
Heraclas deposed Ammonius the bishop of Thmuis, and refused to reconcile Origen.

Dionysius (249­-65) succeeded Heraclas as the leader of the Alexandrian Church. From
Dionysius onward, the Alexandrian Church and its powerful bishop served in the dual role of both ecclesial and political leader in Eastern Christian affairs (Hardy 1952: 19).

Under the Edict of Decius, delivered in January 250, the Alexandrian Church endured harsh persecution. Many citizens,
or at the very least those citizens suspected of being Christian, were required to show their certificate (libelli) in order to prove they had sacrificed to the Egyptian gods.

The Decian persecution (250­-1) was shortlived; nonetheless it significantly impacted the Christian imagination,
Christian self-understanding, and the Egyptian ecclesiology specifically. The Decian persecution produced Alexandrian martyrs who served as models of piety for their fellow Christians. Following the cessation of hostilities, the Alexandrian Church needed to develop a strategy for readmitting those Christians who lapsed under the weight of the Decian persecution.

Ultimately, the Patriarch Dionysius adopted a moderate position, whereby he permitted the receiving back of the lapsed after they had served an appropriate penance.

Furthermore, the Christian confessors,
who had often endured imprisonment and punishment during the Decian persecution,
were significant actors in the reconciliation of the lapsed. In order to usher in the reconciliation of the lapsed, Christian confessors prayed on behalf of their weaker co-religionists. Archbishop Maximus (265-­82) succeeded Dionysius; and Theonas (292-­301) assumed the see of Alexandria after Maximus. By the end of the 3rd century, the Coptic language was used widely throughout Christian Egypt in preference to Greek (Hardy 1952: 34). The 4th century ushered in the momentous age of Constantine’s Christian Roman Empire.

The Arian crisis was probably the most significant theological controversy of the 4th century. It derived its name from Ariu
ca. 250/256­336), a priest of Baukalis, the dockland district of Alexandria, a charismatic presbyter who gained numerous followers throughout the city during the early decades of the 4th century. Arius’ Christology was an outgrowth of the earlier Alexandrian Logos theology which failed to declare the full equality of the Logos with the Father, the supreme God.Ariusandthosewhosharedsimilartheological leanings subordinated the Logos (and de facto Jesus) below the Father, who alone was confessed as the true God.

 The Patriarch Alexander (322-­8) declared Arius guilty of heresy and excommunicated the popular Alexandrian presbyter. In 325, at the Council of Nicea, Arius was officially condemned. However, the condemnation of Arius only signaled the beginning of the series of ongoing theological debates that dominated the 4th-century ecclesial landscape. In 328 Athanasius of Alexandria succeeded Alexander and soon emerged as the leading proponent of Nicene theology.
Athanasius’s adherence to the Nicene confession (though his own preference was not for homoousion but for the more explicit tautotes tes ousias ­ identity of essence between Father and Son) would eventually emerge as the international definitive statement of Orthodox Christology.

 However,before the victory of Nicenism at the Council of Constantinople in 381, there was intense debate throughout the era over the Orthodox expression of the mystery of Jesus Christ. In all the debates Alexandrian theologians set the tone. Following the Council of Nicea, Athanasius’s steadfast refusal to compromise adherence to the homoousion, in the face of imperial changes of policy, led to his expulsion from Alexandria on several occasions. In 335 Athanasius was condemned and deposed at the Council of Tyre. He returned from exile after Constantine’s death in 337. Athanasius soon fled again, this time to Rome, where he was welcomed as a defender of

Thursday, 26 March 2020

Yusuf ibn Tashfin: Almoravid Empire: Maghrib: 1070-1147

After the death of their ideologue, Ibn Yasin, in 1059, the Almoravids ceased to be simply a reform movement bent on religious proselytism and gradually took the shape of a dynastic state. The loose ties that kept the movement together were replaced by new political alliances between the Almoravid leadership and subject groups, such as non-Sanhaja Berbers and Andalusian Muslims. The power structure of the nascent state was hierarchical; it contrasted greatly with the absence of a centralized authority and lack of tribal cohesion that characterized the formative period of the movement. Political power was monopolized by Lamtuna chiefs from whose ranks both rulers (known as emirs) and court dignitaries were selected. The title of murabit (Almoravid) was reserved for members of the three constituent communities of the movement: the Lamtuna, Guddala, and Massufa, who filled the Main administrative posts. The bottom echelons were occupied by tribes such as the Jazula and Lamta that, though grudgingly at first, had finally embraced the Almoravid reformist program. They formed the backbone of the army and were known as “the followers” (al-hasham).



The rise of Yusuf ibn Tashfin to political prominence was somehow fortuitous. While Abu Bakr bin ’Umar, nominal ruler, was busy trying to bring restive tribes in the south back to the fold, Yusuf had served as his deputy, actually in absolute charge of the territories north of the High Atlas. Aware that any attempt to oppose Yusuf’s political ambitions would result in the fragmentation of the state, Abu Bakr decided to abdicate in favor of his protege in 1072.

Most of the Almoravid conquests took place during Yusuf’s reign (1061-1107). Marrakech, the new capital founded by Abu Bakr in 1070 because of its strategic location, constituted an ideal springboard for future campaigns in the north. Fez was taken in 1075 and the occupation of the Rif, the mountain range that runs parallel to the Mediterranean coast, was completed within less than a decade. Although Almoravid troops reached the mountains of Kabylia, the extent of their rule did not go beyond present-day Oran, in western Algeria. Ceuta, taken in 1083, served as the gateway to the annexation of the Iberian Peninsula (Al-Andalus).



Yusuf ibn Tashfin is favorably portrayed in Muslim sources. The fact that he abstained from adopting the title of amir al-mu’minin (XXXX, theoretically reserved for the Abbasid caliph in Baghdad), thus avoiding a religious schism in Sunni Islam, enhanced his reputation among contemporary chroniclers as a pious and selfless ruler. The adoption of Malikism as the state legal doctrine was also one of Yusuf’s main policies. At his behest, Maliki scholars were allocated official stipends and granted numerous privileges, such as access to his privy council. The monopoly exerted by Maliki jurists (fuqaha’) over legal matters is often regarded as a mixed blessing by later authors. The existence of an officially sponsored school of law helped homogenize legal proceedings in a vast geographical area that included Muslim Spain and North Africa. It gave too much power, however, to a single category of legal experts, thus opening the way to nepotism, abuse of office, and other pernicious practices commonly associated with corporate-like institutions. Reliance on a single legal code is blamed, moreover, for the “intellectual impoverishment” and rigidity that, according to most modern scholars, marked the Almoravid period. The excessive use of manuals of legal casuistry (furu') and the subsequent neglect of the traditional sources of Islamic law (Qur’an and prophetic traditions), a propensity to follow existing legal precedents (taqlid) rather than exercise individual powers of jurisprudence (ijtihad), and, finally, the use of literal Qur’anic exegesis even when the latter might engender anthropomorphic views, are some of the most frequentlymentioned signs of this alleged ideological decline.

The influence of Maliki jurists became even more overpowering during the reign of Yusuf’s successor, ‘Ali ibn Yusuf ibn Tashfin (1107-1143). Although his asceticism and piety are not in dispute, chroniclers are unanimous in their portrayal of this ruler as a wellmeaning but cowardly monarch, unfortunate enough to be faced with the task of tackling three simultaneous dangers: the resurgence of the Christian kingdoms in Spain (a constant drain in terms of financial and military resources), the rebellion of Ibn Tumart from 1125 onward, and the increasing stranglehold of the Maliki establishment on the Almoravid state. The surge of military activity in Al-Andalus forced ‘Ali ibn Yusuf to increase the amount of troops dispatched there and to impose dubious taxes on his Maghribi subjects. This latter measure caused considerable discontent and it was viewed as a betrayal of the Almoravid programme of abolishing non-Qur’anic taxes. To compound matters, military shortages in Morocco were offset by recruiting Christian mercenaries. This unpopular decision benefited the Almohads, Ibn Tumart’s followers, as it confirmed their claims that the ruling elite no longer enjoyed religious legitimacy. Almohad pressure became ever more intense and the walls of Marrakesh had to be reinforced in 1129.

Among the criticisms against ‘Ali ibn Yusuf’s rule, none seems more damaging than his incapacity to rein in the excesses of the Maliki legal establishment. Jurists took advantage of their position to extract more privileges and financial perks from the Almoravid court. Although anti-Maliki propaganda must be treated with caution, it seems certain that some judiciary-instigated measures such as the ban on Al-Ghazali’s mystical works, the official clampdown on Sufi circles and, more generally, the endorsement of heavy fiscal policies caused widespread popular discontent.



‘Ali ibn Yusuf spent most of the second half of his reign (from 1125 to his death in 1143) combating both the Christians of the Iberian Peninsula and the fledgling Almohad movement. A series of military setbacks in Spain weakened the Almoravid army. This, coupled with growing restiveness among the populace due to heavy taxation, explains his inability to subdue the Almohad rebels before they were numerically superior. His two successors, Tashfin (1143-1145) and Ishaq (1145-1147), inherited a kingdom that would inevitably disappear.



Francisco Rodriguez-Manas See also: ‘Abd Allah ibn Yasin: Almoravid: Sahara.



Further Reading



Abun-Nasr, J. M. A History of the Maghrib in the Islamic Period. Cambridge, 1987.



Laroui, A. The History of the Maghrib: An Interpretive Essay, Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1977.



Norris, H. T. The Berbers in Arabic Literature. London, 1982.



Yusuf Pasha Karamanli: See Libya: Yusuf Pasha Karamanli and the Ottoman Reoccupation, 1795-1835.

https://www.worldhistory.biz/sundries/39296-yusuf-ibn-tashfin-almoravid-empire-maghrib-1070-1147.html

The Almoravid reform movement and the rise of 'Islamic' kingdoms

The splendid successes of the Almoravid movement in North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula have somehow covered up its Saharan origin and far reaching repercussions on the Islamisation of the Stidan. Within forty years (Awdaghusht was taken in 446 / i054f. and Ghana c. 468 /1076) the veiled Sanhaja camel riders, the dreaded mulaththamUn of the Arabic sources, brought the western Sahara under their control and then disappeared from the West African map as abruptly as they had appeared. This short lived political success and its lasting impact on the modes of Islamic self articulation in the Stidan cannot be explained without the characteristic fusion of nomadic mobility and religious austerity that the movement was based upon. Wondrous stories are told about how Ibanhaja pilgrims were transformed by North African Maliki scholars into rigid believers and ideological leaders. 'Abd Allah ibn Yas'in, son of a Jaztila mother of Ghana, was one of them. He managed to unite a confed eration of!5anhaja tribes, among them partly Islamised and neophyte Gudala, Lamtuna, Jazitla and Masttfa, under a reformist message that was vividly depicted in the following description of his newly founded headquarters at Aratnanna: all dwellings of the ribat (hence 'al Murabithn’) were to be of equal height; lying, drinking and music were forbidden; neglect of prayer and improper behaviour were punished with the whip and the bride price was made affordable for everybody. Religious and social reform went hand in hand. Its legal reference was the Miliki school of law; its operational field was West Africa. The Almoravid movement set off what ended ultimately in the com plete orientation of the Sridiin towards the Miliki rite. Later reported 'con versions' to Islam, in reference to the people of Gao around 47i/i078f., may simply refer to conversion from Ibaciism to Milikism.



'Abd Allah himself set the example for another central notion in West African Islam. He withdrew to the desert, refrained from consuming meals of legally doubtful origin, and wore the sUf, the woollen garment of the Sufis.



Thus the figure of 'al Murabit’ entered the scene. The maraboutism of both medieval and modern Islam in Africa tells the story of the thorough Africanisation with a French accent of this figure.



Even when the short political adventure of the Almoravids ended, their influence continued to work. Their Sahaja followers, Judala in the south, Mastifa in the east, entered regions that had hitherto come into contact with Islam only superficially, or not at all. South of the Senegal river, the king of Takrur together with his people, the sedentary Tukulor and the adjacent nomadic pastoralist Fulbe, converted to Islam. So did the king ofMalal, who was fascinated by the magical powers of a passing Muslim scholar (mallam), although his Mandingo speaking common subjects were not. Both kingdoms formed part of Ghana which did not recover from the Almoravid attack. All that can be gathered from the hearsay stories collected over the next two centuries and combined with the earlier reports in the Arabic sources points to a slow expansion of the Muslim faith among the Fulbe, Malinke, Bambara and Dyula populations in the regions between the rivers of Senegal, Volta and Upper Niger. Islam was thus imported into the areas from where the much coveted gold and cola nuts were exported. The rise of the empire of Mali in the late seventh/thirteenth century must be seen in the light of this steadily expanding system of economic and social relations between the savannah and forest regions in the south of Mali, and the growing trading centres of Walata, Timbuktu, Gao, Tadmakkat and Takadda along the southern fringe of the Sahara. To the west ofTimbuktu were the Sanhaja tribes of Madaasa and Masuafa, and to the east the Tuareg Berbers who controlled the salt mining and organised the profitable exchange of goods with their Suadaanic counterparts. Trade and religion intermingled. Profit depended on legd security, communication and the mutual acceptance of cultural norms. The prosperity of the empire of Mali rested on the integration of Islamic norms and the consequent opening up to the wider Islamic world.

Saturday, 28 December 2019

Egyptian Mythology

The development of Egyptian myth is difficult to trace. Egyptologists must make educated guesses about its earliest phases, based on written sources that appeared much later.One obvious influence on myth is the Egyptians' natural surroundings. Each day the sun rose and set, bringing light to the land and regulating human activity; each year the Nile flooded, renewing the fertility of the soil and allowing the highly productive farming that sustained Egyptian civilization. Thus the Egyptians saw water and the sun as symbols of life and thought of time as a series of natural cycles. This orderly pattern was at constant risk of disruption: unusually low floods resulted in famine, and high floods destroyed crops and buildings. The hospitable Nile valley was surrounded by harsh desert, populated by peoples the Egyptians regarded as uncivilized enemies of order. For these reasons, the Egyptians saw their land as an isolated place of stability, or maat, surrounded and endangered by chaos. These themes—order, chaos, and renewal—appear repeatedly in Egyptian religious thought.

Another possible source for mythology is ritual. Many rituals make reference to myths and are sometimes based directly on them. But it is difficult to determine whether a culture's myths developed before rituals or vice versa. Questions about this relationship between myth and ritual have spawned much discussion among Egyptologists and scholars of comparative religion in general. In ancient Egypt, the earliest evidence of religious practices predates written myths. Rituals early in Egyptian history included only a few motifs from myth. For these reasons, some scholars have argued that, in Egypt, rituals emerged before myths. But because the early evidence is so sparse, the question may never be resolved for certain.

In private rituals, which are often called "magical", the myth and the ritual are particularly closely tied. Many of the myth-like stories that appear in the rituals' texts are not found in other sources. Even the widespread motif of the goddess Isis rescuing her poisoned son Horus appears only in this type of text. The Egyptologist David Frankfurter argues that these rituals adapt basic mythic traditions to fit the specific ritual, creating elaborate new stories (called historiolas) based on myth. In contrast, J. F. Borghouts says of magical texts that there is "not a shred of evidence that a specific kind of 'unorthodox' mythology was coined... for this genre."

Much of Egyptian mythology consists of origin myths, explaining the beginnings of various elements of the world, including human institutions and natural phenomena. Kingship arises among the gods at the beginning of time and later passed to the human pharaohs; warfare originates when humans begin fighting each other after the sun god's withdrawal into the sky. Myths also describe the supposed beginnings of less fundamental traditions. In a minor mythic episode, Horus becomes angry with his mother Isis and cuts off her head. Isis replaces her lost head with that of a cow. This event explains why Isis was sometimes depicted with the horns of a cow as part of her headdress.

Some myths may have been inspired by historical events. The unification of Egypt under the pharaohs, at the end of the Predynastic Period around 3100 BC, made the king the focus of Egyptian religion, and thus the ideology of kingship became an important part of mythology. In the wake of unification, gods that were once local patron deities gained national importance, forming new relationships that linked the local deities into a unified national tradition. Geraldine Pinch suggests that early myths may have formed from these relationships. Egyptian sources link the mythical strife between the gods Horus and Set with a conflict between the regions of Upper and Lower Egypt, which may have happened in the late Predynastic era or in the Early Dynastic Period.

After these early times, most changes to mythology developed and adapted preexisting concepts rather than creating new ones, although there were exceptions. Many scholars have suggested that the myth of the sun god withdrawing into the sky, leaving humans to fight among themselves, was inspired by the breakdown of royal authority and national unity at the end of the Old Kingdom (c. 2686 BC – 2181 BC). In the New Kingdom (c. 1550–1070 BC), minor myths developed around deities like Yam and Anat who had been adopted from Canaanite religion. In contrast, during the Greek and Roman eras (332 BC–641 AD), Greco-Roman culture had little influence on Egyptian mythology.

 

Definition and scope


Scholars have difficulty defining which ancient Egyptian beliefs are myths. The basic definition of myth suggested by the Egyptologist John Baines is "a sacred or culturally central narrative". In Egypt, the narratives that are central to culture and religion are almost entirely about events among the gods. Actual narratives about the gods' actions are rare in Egyptian texts, particularly from early periods, and most references to such events are mere mentions or allusions. Some Egyptologists, like Baines, argue that narratives complete enough to be called "myths" existed in all periods, but that Egyptian tradition did not favor writing them down. Others, like Jan Assmann, have said that true myths were rare in Egypt and may only have emerged partway through its history, developing out of the fragments of narration that appear in the earliest writings. Recently, however, Vincent Arieh Tobin and Susanne Bickel have suggested that lengthy narration was not needed in Egyptian mythology because of its complex and flexible nature. Tobin argues that narrative is even alien to myth, because narratives tend to form a simple and fixed perspective on the events they describe. If narration is not needed for myth, any statement that conveys an idea about the nature or actions of a god can be called "mythic".

 

Content and meaning

Like myths in many other cultures, Egyptian myths serve to justify human traditions and to address fundamental questions about the world, such as the nature of disorder and the ultimate fate of the universe. The Egyptians explained these profound issues through statements about the gods.

Egyptian deities represent natural phenomena, from physical objects like the earth or the sun to abstract forces like knowledge and creativity. The actions and interactions of the gods, the Egyptians believed, govern the behavior of all of these forces and elements. For the most part, the Egyptians did not describe these mysterious processes in explicit theological writings. Instead, the relationships and interactions of the gods illustrated such processes implicitly.

Most of Egypt's gods, including many of the major ones, do not have significant roles in mythic narratives, although their nature and relationships with other deities are often established in lists or bare statements without narration. For the gods who are deeply involved in narratives, mythic events are very important expressions of their roles in the cosmos. Therefore, if only narratives are myths, mythology is a major element in Egyptian religious understanding, but not as essential as it is in many other cultures.

The true realm of the gods is mysterious and inaccessible to humans. Mythological stories use symbolism to make the events in this realm comprehensible. Not every detail of a mythic account has symbolic significance. Some images and incidents, even in religious texts, are meant simply as visual or dramatic embellishments of broader, more meaningful myths.

Few complete stories appear in Egyptian mythological sources. These sources often contain nothing more than allusions to the events to which they relate, and texts that contain actual narratives tell only portions of a larger story. Thus, for any given myth the Egyptians may have had only the general outlines of a story, from which fragments describing particular incidents were drawn. Moreover, the gods are not well-defined characters, and the motivations for their sometimes inconsistent actions are rarely given. Egyptian myths are not, therefore, fully developed tales. Their importance lay in their underlying meaning, not their characteristics as stories. Instead of coalescing into lengthy, fixed narratives, they remained highly flexible and non-dogmatic.

So flexible were Egyptian myths that they could seemingly conflict with each other. Many descriptions of the creation of the world and the movements of the sun occur in Egyptian texts, some very different from each other. The relationships between gods were fluid, so that, for instance, the goddess Hathor could be called the mother, wife, or daughter of the sun god Ra. Separate deities could even be syncretized, or linked, as a single being. Thus the creator god Atum was combined with Ra to form Ra-Atum.

One commonly suggested reason for inconsistencies in myth is that religious ideas differed over time and in different regions. The local cults of various deities developed theologies centered on their own patron gods. As the influence of different cults shifted, some mythological systems attained national dominance. In the Old Kingdom (c. 2686–2181 BC) the most important of these systems was the cults of Ra and Atum, centered at Heliopolis. They formed a mythical family, the Ennead, that was said to have created the world. It included the most important deities of the time but gave primacy to Atum and Ra.The Egyptians also overlaid old religious ideas with new ones. For instance, the god Ptah, whose cult was centered at Memphis, was also said to be the creator of the world. Ptah's creation myth incorporates older myths by saying that it is the Ennead who carry out Ptah's creative commands. Thus, the myth makes Ptah older and greater than the Ennead. Many scholars have seen this myth as a political attempt to assert the superiority of Memphis' god over those of Heliopolis. By combining concepts in this way, the Egyptians produced an immensely complicated set of deities and myths.

Egyptologists in the early twentieth century thought that politically motivated changes like these were the principal reason for the contradictory imagery in Egyptian myth. However, in the 1940s, Henri Frankfort, realizing the symbolic nature of Egyptian mythology, argued that apparently contradictory ideas are part of the "multiplicity of approaches" that the Egyptians used to understand the divine realm. Frankfort's arguments are the basis for much of the more recent analysis of Egyptian beliefs. Political changes affected Egyptian beliefs, but the ideas that emerged through those changes also have deeper meaning. Multiple versions of the same myth express different aspects of the same phenomenon; different gods that behave in a similar way reflect the close connections between natural forces. The varying symbols of Egyptian mythology express ideas too complex to be seen through a single lens.




Maat

The Egyptian word written m3ˁt, often rendered maat or ma'at, refers to the fundamental order of the universe in Egyptian belief. Established at the creation of the world, maatdistinguishes the world from the chaos that preceded and surrounds it. Maat encompasses both the proper behavior of humans and the normal functioning of the forces of nature, both of which make life and happiness possible. Because the actions of the gods govern natural forces and myths express those actions, Egyptian mythology represents the proper functioning of the world and the sustenance of life itself.

To the Egyptians, the most important human maintainer of maat is the pharaoh. In myth the pharaoh is the son of a variety of deities. As such, he is their designated representative, obligated to maintain order in human society just as they do in nature, and to continue the rituals that sustain them and their activities.

 

Shape of the world

In Egyptian belief, the disorder that predates the ordered world exists beyond the world as an infinite expanse of formless water, personified by the god Nun. The earth, personified by the god Geb, is a flat piece of land over which arches the sky, usually represented by the goddess Nut. The two are separated by the personification of air, Shu. The sun god Ra is said to travel through the sky, across the body of Nut, enlivening the world with his light. At night Ra passes beyond the western horizon into the Duat, a mysterious region that borders the formlessness of Nun. At dawn he emerges from the Duat in the eastern horizon.

The nature of the sky and the location of the Duat are uncertain. Egyptian texts variously describe the nighttime sun as traveling beneath the earth and within the body of Nut. The Egyptologist James P. Allen believes that these explanations of the sun's movements are dissimilar but coexisting ideas. In Allen's view, Nut represents the visible surface of the waters of Nun, with the stars floating on this surface. The sun, therefore, sails across the water in a circle, each night passing beyond the horizon to reach the skies that arch beneath the inverted land of the Duat. Leonard H. Lesko, however, believes that the Egyptians saw the sky as a solid canopy and described the sun as traveling through the Duat above the surface of the sky, from west to east, during the night. Joanne Conman, modifying Lesko's model, argues that this solid sky is a moving, concave dome overarching a deeply convex earth. The sun and the stars move along with this dome, and their passage below the horizon is simply their movement over areas of the earth that the Egyptians could not see. These regions would then be the Duat.

The fertile lands of the Nile Valley (Upper Egypt) and Delta (Lower Egypt) lie at the center of the world in Egyptian cosmology. Outside them are the infertile deserts, which are associated with the chaos that lies beyond the world. Somewhere beyond them is the horizon, the akhet. There, two mountains, in the east and the west, mark the places where the sun enters and exits the Duat.

Foreign nations are associated with the hostile deserts in Egyptian ideology. Foreign people, likewise, are generally lumped in with the "nine bows", people who threaten pharaonic rule and the stability of maat, although peoples allied with or subject to Egypt may be viewed more positively. For these reasons, events in Egyptian mythology rarely take place in foreign lands. While some stories pertain to the sky or the Duat, Egypt itself is usually the scene for the actions of the gods. Often, even the myths set in Egypt seem to take place on a plane of existence separate from that inhabited by living humans, although in other stories, humans and gods interact. In either case, the Egyptian gods are deeply tied to their home land.

 

Time

The Egyptians' vision of time was influenced by their environment. Each day the sun rose and set, bringing light to the land and regulating human activity; each year the Nile flooded, renewing the fertility of the soil and allowing the highly productive agriculture that sustained Egyptian civilization. These periodic events inspired the Egyptians to see all of time as a series of recurring patterns regulated by maat, renewing the gods and the universe. Although the Egyptians recognized that different historical eras differ in their particulars, mythic patterns dominate the Egyptian perception of history.

Many Egyptian stories about the gods are characterized as having taken place in a primeval time when the gods were manifest on the earth and ruled over it. After this time, the Egyptians believed, authority on earth passed to human pharaohs. This primeval era seems to predate the start of the sun's journey and the recurring patterns of the present world. At the other end of time is the end of the cycles and the dissolution of the world. Because these distant periods lend themselves to linear narrative better than the cycles of the present, John Baines sees them as the only periods in which true myths take place. Yet, to some extent, the cyclical aspect of time was present in the mythic past as well. Egyptians saw even stories that were set in that time as being perpetually true. The myths were made real every time the events to which they were related occurred. These events were celebrated with rituals, which often evoked myths. Ritual allowed time to periodically return to the mythic past and renew life in the universe.

 

End of the universe

Egyptian texts typically treat the dissolution of the world as a possibility to be avoided, and for that reason they do not often describe it in detail. However, many texts allude to the idea that the world, after countless cycles of renewal, is destined to end. This end is described in a passage in the Coffin Texts and a more explicit one in the Book of the Dead, in which Atum says that he will one day dissolve the ordered world and return to his primeval, inert state within the waters of chaos. All things other than the creator will cease to exist, except Osiris, who will survive along with him. Details about this eschatological prospect are left unclear, including the fate of the dead who are associated with Osiris. Yet with the creator god and the god of renewal together in the waters that gave rise to the orderly world, there is the potential for a new creation to arise in the same manner as the old.

 

Friday, 20 December 2019

The Middle kingdom of Egypt

According to Manetho, the 12th Dynasty comprised seven kings from Thebes, who ruled for a total of 160 years in the version of Africanus, and for 245 years in the version of Eusebius. Oddly enough, this does not include the founder of the dynasty, Amenemhat I, who is added in succession to the kings of the 11th Dynasty.

In the Turin King-list, the dynasty started with Amenemhat I and consisted of 8 kings who ruled for a total of 213 years, 1 month and 17 days. All kings listed in the Turin King-list are also attested by contemporary sources and monuments.

The circumstances into which the 12th Dynasty came to power are not known. What is known is that Amenemhat I was not related to his predecessors. His father was a priest in Thebes named Senuseret (Sesostris). His mother was named Nefret and, according to the Prophecy of Neferti, came from Elephantine in the South of Egypt.

It is possible that Amenemhat was the vizier of Mentuhotep IV, the last king of the 11th Dynasty. A stone plate found at Lisht, bearing both the names of Mentuhotep IV and of king Amenemhat I may perhaps indicate that Amenemhat I was a co-regent during the later years of Mentuhotep's reign. This could perhaps indicate that Mentuhotep IV had intended Amenemhat to be his successor.

With the 12th Dynasty, a local god of obscure origin, Amun, would become the most important god of the Ancient Egyptian pantheon. The popularity of Amun is closely linked to the origin of Amenemhat I, whose name, containing the element Amun, shows a particular allegiance to this god. Even when Amenemhat moved the political center of the country from Thebes to the newly built capital Itj-tawi in the Fayum oasis, located to the southwest of the old capital Memphis, Thebes would remain an important religious center. This would determine the religious and political history of Ancient Egypt for the following millennia.

The kings of the 12th Dynasty ruled the country firmly and were able to maintain the balance of power between the central authorities and the local administrations, to their own advantage.

Just as the founder of the dynasty, Amenemhat I, may perhaps have shared power with his predecessor, Mentuhotep IV, so would most kings of this dynasty assume kingship during the lives of their predecessors. This way, they ensured that the transition of power from one king to his successor would be smooth This explains the overlapping year numbers in the time table below.

The kings of the 12th Dynasty also imposed their rule on northern Nubia and pacified the Bedouins in the deserts to the east and west of the Nile Valley. Huge fortresses were built in Nubia and at the Eastern border, to protect trading routes from raiding Bedouins.

The wealth and stability the 12th Dynasty has brought to the country is evidenced in the high quality of statues, reliefs and paintings found throughout the country.

Rather typical for this period are statues with big ears, seen by some as an indication that the king and his nobility listened to their subjects. Deviating from the standard way of representing kings, Sesostris III and his successor Amenemhat III had themselves portrayed as mature, ageing men. This is often interpreted as a portrayal of the burden of power and kingship. That the change in representation was indeed ideological and should not be interpreted as the portrayal of an ageing king is shown by the fact that in one single relief, Sesostris III was represented as a vigorous young man, following the centuries old tradition, on one side and as a mature ageing king on the other, thus portraying the king both as a dynamic youngster, capable of leading the country into battle and as a wise old man, with the wisdom to lead the country to prosperity.

Amenemhat III appears to have died without any male offspring to succeed him. Towards the end of his reign, he therefore appointed a man of non-royal birth, Amenemhat IV, to be his coregent and later successor. Oddly enough, there are no indications that Amenemhat IV married into the royal family to justify his claims to the throne.

Even though Amenemhat IV was survived by several sons, which would later become the first kings of the 13th Dynasty, he was succeeded by Nefrusobek, a daughter of Amenemhat III. This may perhaps hint at a refusal of some members of the ruling elite to accept the family of Amenemhat IV as the new royal family. A local potentate may even have taken advantage of the dynastic troubles at the end of the 12th Dynasty, to seize control over the eastern Nile Delta, thus founding the 14th Dynasty.

Nefrusobek herself also appears to have died without any male offspring, and was succeeded by the eldest son of Amenemhat IV. With her death, the 12th dynasty came to a definitive end.