-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
I need some help with New Kingdom Egypt! (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter fishy89sg
- Start date
"Nature of Egyptian Imperialism" refers to the foreign policy of the pharaohs. You can talk about all pharaohs and how through military campaigning, diplomacy, setting up of trade links in foreign lands, the administration in Nubia and Syria-Palestine, and how they expanded their borders and control over many cities, they created an empire. It's just refering to the control of foreign lands, that's all. For the "nature" part you can just talk about the history of Egyptian pharaohs, and how the warrior image was created which meant that in order to control other lands, rather than just going to peace treaties, they first had to make military conquests (Thut I and III especially). Up to Hatshepsut the aim of NK pharaohs was to maintain their trade links through constant military campaigning, however with Thut IV and Amenhotep where the consolidation period continued (moreso), the nature of Egyptian imperialism was through treaties, inspections, tribute etc (you can mention Thut III in that as well).
More than likely the question will ask about foreign policy or the development of the empire. If you look at past papers, the empire question is really common. I haven't seen any that particuarly say 'imperialism' but it's the same thing anyway.
hope that helps
More than likely the question will ask about foreign policy or the development of the empire. If you look at past papers, the empire question is really common. I haven't seen any that particuarly say 'imperialism' but it's the same thing anyway.
hope that helps
Yep, not as hard as you think.
My teacher told me that 25% of people don't even attempt the essay question, and a lot of the time its because they don't know the vocabulary and therefore get stuck on something simple like the definition of imperialism, so yeah make sure you know all the words on the syllabus and what they refer to and you'll be fine! Also, a tip is that if you get stuck and have absolutely no idea what to write, then just blab on about anything you know about egypt and youll definitely get marks...in some way what you write will relate to the question. Even if you just write an unstructured essay on Thutmose III's achievements, you're bound to get marks because he did a lot...or Hatshepsut, or even just write everything you know about building or military lol itll relate.
My teacher told me that 25% of people don't even attempt the essay question, and a lot of the time its because they don't know the vocabulary and therefore get stuck on something simple like the definition of imperialism, so yeah make sure you know all the words on the syllabus and what they refer to and you'll be fine! Also, a tip is that if you get stuck and have absolutely no idea what to write, then just blab on about anything you know about egypt and youll definitely get marks...in some way what you write will relate to the question. Even if you just write an unstructured essay on Thutmose III's achievements, you're bound to get marks because he did a lot...or Hatshepsut, or even just write everything you know about building or military lol itll relate.
X
xeuyrawp
Guest
You have to be careful of not falling into the imperialist model trap. Essentially, whether Egypt was an imperialist power or simply depicted itself as such is an ongoing debate.
Don't go into the exam and talk about Egypt's imperialism, when there's a distinct possibility that they weren't imperialistic. I wrote an essay about this if anyone's interested, it's to do with the Middle Kingdom, though.
Don't go into the exam and talk about Egypt's imperialism, when there's a distinct possibility that they weren't imperialistic. I wrote an essay about this if anyone's interested, it's to do with the Middle Kingdom, though.
New Kingdom is different to Middle Kingdom. There's no historiographical debate about whether it was imperialist or not...it just was. Through the contributions of the pharaohs through military, diplomacy, administration and trade, it gained control over foreign areas, especially Syria-Palestine and Nubia. The fact that Egyptian pharaohs conquered, consolidated and re-administered areas such as Nubia in order to 'Egyptianise' it and maintain control over it. The fact that we have to know the "Establishment of 'empire", "Administration of the 'empire', Nubia and Syria-Palestine" therefore reveals that the "Nature of Egyptian Imperialism" is HOW they conquered, consolidated and maintained peaceful links (along with control) over foreign regions.
Fishy: remember how Thutmose III made the Mitannian princes take oaths of loyalty, give tribute, and took tours of inspection to check their obedience etc? That's talking about the nature of the imperialism: to conquer through military campaigns, to consolidate through peaceful trade links and to control through re-administering the region.
Fishy: remember how Thutmose III made the Mitannian princes take oaths of loyalty, give tribute, and took tours of inspection to check their obedience etc? That's talking about the nature of the imperialism: to conquer through military campaigns, to consolidate through peaceful trade links and to control through re-administering the region.
X
xeuyrawp
Guest
That's a big assumption, and very dismissive.bento said:
Maybe you could explain how the Middle Kingdom is different?
a) Not sure what your understanding of 'historiography' is, but this isn't a historiographical debate. It's a historical one.
b) ALL of that 'happened' in the Middle Kingdom. When I say 'happened', it's because it is uncertain whether it actually happened or whether it's the Egyptian propaganda. Look at graffiti from Serabit el-Khadim which shows that whilst the king of Rttn.w was said to literally participate in mining, as says the state propaganda, ḥmsi=f m nsw.t tp-m im.y-rˁ .w - he sat with the king, both overseeing. How would you explain this?
The Execration Texts, for example, show us that Egypt had a odd relationship with the north during the MK, and this is carried on with the magical spells of pChester Beatty, among others, in the NK.
By and large, Egyptian propaganda does not fit in with historicity outside of: autobiographies and related königsbrief, lower register letters, some literature - especially Late Egyptian, and, of course, archaeological evidence.
The answer is to remember that the Egyptian propaganda genre will always promote the king within the theological framework of the strong bull - even the foreign rulers (the Saite, the Persians, Alexander, the Ptolemies, and even the Romans) depicted themselves as Pharaohs crushing foreigners. There is one Persian wall relief from Nebket which shows the Persian ruler riding his chariot over a Persian army!
Traditional scholars of the structuralist school (now we're getting into historiography), post-Erman did not understand the art and literature properly. These guys like Gardiner and Cerny all thought that the art and literature was real - how could Egypt, the land of wonderous buildings, not have ruled the north? If they participated in excavations like their buddies from Near Eastern Studies, they would have better examined the archaeological evidence. The pottery, especially, shows a healthy trade-route between Egypt and the north.
It seems very unlikely that all this northern pottery and other artefacts came to Egypt if Egypt was at war with them. Okay, well then the Egyptians stole the pottery and stuff and distributed it to the people, right? Then how did Egyptian pottery and other artefacts end up in the north? In fact, why would the Egyptians stamp some of their items as iwn.ww n(.y) Km.t nsw.t - gift from the Egyptian king - and iwn.ww n.w pr.w-3ˁ - gifts from the palace? Seems unlikely that the Egyptians were hostile with the entire north, and yet them trade. Why would there be this evidence when Egypt is dominating the locals? As the temple walls show, there is no need for the Pharaoh to please them - so why give them gifts?
And your point about Egyptianising is interesting... Maybe you can explain that. Egypt did not expand its national borders. With regards to the recorded wars with the north, this is not a constant (imperial) activity, it is a protective measure to keep Egypt's trade influence, not empire expanded.
Unlike the Romans and the Brits, the Egyptians did not Egyptianise foreigners. Ever. The Egyptian language was never a primary language outside south of Aswan and north of the Delta - their unique theology was totally incompatible with converting a large group of non-Egyptians. In fact, the line 'I was made an Egyptian by my father Amun' becomes an interesting repeated line in a NK autobiography, highlighting the fact that (with above):
a) The Egyptians may have shown off military prowess (hence the massive barracks, etc), and certainly did go to war with bedouin, Libyans, Punt, etc, and some tribes in the north,
b) they had a good relationship with the northern states. If they went at war with them, it was not a permanent or imperial action, but rather one of defense,
c) they did not Egyptianise anybody.
But this is a tangent and not helpful for the original poster. The bottom line is don't make bad historical arguments, especially not with specifically mentioning evidence. If you want sources of any of the info here, let me know and I'll find them and paste them.
I'll suggest having a look at Redford's Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, as well as Bruce Trigger's book.Maybe you've seen some other evidence (not of the highest register [temples, etc]) which shows that Egypt dominated the north?
Last edited by a moderator:
Unlike you, I don't have time to write an essay on everything I learnt from ancient history, I was just trying to show Fishy briefly what the syllabus dot point mentioned. If you're taking this from a university level, which I'm assuming you are, just remember high school is also different to university, and you can get a band six without making your whole essay on the nature of historical sources. Yes, they did use propaganda, we know this, but with the limited evidence we have we're basically required to blurt out what we know about their foreign policy. If we had more time to speak about the debates, then we would but they're not looking for extension history responses because they jsut want to know that you know the facts.PwarYuex said:That's a big assumption, and very dismissive.
Maybe you could explain how the Middle Kingdom is different?
a) Not sure what your understanding of 'historiography' is, but this isn't a historiographical debate. It's a historical one.
b) ALL of that 'happened' in the Middle Kingdom. When I say 'happened', it's because it is uncertain whether it actually happened or whether it's the Egyptian propaganda. Look at graffiti from Serabit el-Khadim which shows that whilst the king of Rttn.w was said to literally participate in mining, as says the state propaganda, ḥmsi=f m nsw.t tp-m im.y-rˁ .w - he sat with the king, both overseeing. How would you explain this?
The Execration Texts, for example, show us that Egypt had a odd relationship with the north during the MK, and this is carried on with the magical spells of pChester Beatty, among others, in the NK.
By and large, Egyptian propaganda does not fit in with historicity outside of: autobiographies and related königsbrief, lower register letters, some literature - especially Late Egyptian, and, of course, archaeological evidence.
The answer is to remember that the Egyptian propaganda genre will always promote the king within the theological framework of the strong bull - even the foreign rulers (the Saite, the Persians, Alexander, the Ptolemies, and even the Romans) depicted themselves as Pharaohs crushing foreigners. There is one Persian wall relief from Nebket which shows the Persian ruler riding his chariot over a Persian army!
Traditional scholars of the structuralist school (now we're getting into historiography), post-Erman did not understand the art and literature properly. These guys like Gardiner and Cerny all thought that the art and literature was real - how could Egypt, the land of wonderous buildings, not have ruled the north? If they participated in excavations like their buddies from Near Eastern Studies, they would have better examined the archaeological evidence. The pottery, especially, shows a healthy trade-route between Egypt and the north.
It seems very unlikely that all this northern pottery and other artefacts came to Egypt if Egypt was at war with them. Okay, well then the Egyptians stole the pottery and stuff and distributed it to the people, right? Then how did Egyptian pottery and other artefacts end up in the north? In fact, why would the Egyptians stamp some of their items as iwn.ww n(.y) Km.t nsw.t - gift from the Egyptian king - and iwn.ww n.w pr.w-3ˁ - gifts from the palace? Seems unlikely that the Egyptians were hostile with the entire north, and yet them trade. Why would there be this evidence when Egypt is dominating the locals? As the temple walls show, there is no need for the Pharaoh to please them - so why give them gifts?
And your point about Egyptianising is interesting... Maybe you can explain that. Egypt did not expand its national borders. With regards to the recorded wars with the north, this is not a constant (imperial) activity, it is a protective measure to keep Egypt's trade influence, not empire expanded.
Unlike the Romans and the Brits, the Egyptians did not Egyptianise foreigners. Ever. The Egyptian language was never a primary language outside south of Aswan and north of the Delta - their unique theology was totally incompatible with converting a large group of non-Egyptians. In fact, the line 'I was made an Egyptian by my father Amun' becomes an interesting repeated line in a NK autobiography, highlighting the fact that (with above):
a) The Egyptians may have shown off military prowess (hence the massive barracks, etc), and certainly did go to war with bedouin, Libyans, Punt, etc, and some tribes in the north,
b) they had a good relationship with the northern states. If they went at war with them, it was not a permanent or imperial action, but rather one of defense,
c) they did not Egyptianise anybody.
But this is a tangent and not helpful for the original poster. The bottom line is don't make bad historical arguments, especially not with specifically mentioning evidence. If you want sources of any of the info here, let me know and I'll find them and paste them.
Maybe you've seen some other evidence (not of the highest register [temples, etc]) which shows that Egypt dominated the north?
It's not like my teacher isn't an HSC marker, she tells us what we need to know and she marks fairly. If I didn't know what I'm talking about and are as ignorant as you made me sound then I wouldn't have an assessment mark of 97. I'm not saying I know everything about Egypt, I certainly don't have the best common knowledge about it, I'm just saying if we were required to do something extra, like historical debates in the imperialism sections, I would know about it.
I meant New Kingdom is a different module to Middle Kingdom. We don't learn the same things on the syllabus. Have you studied New Kingdom? maybe when you did middle kingdom in HS you had to look at the historical debate as to whether the egyptians actually conquered other lands, but as my understanding is, and I've used as many resources as possible for ancient history, that in New Kingdom Egypt we don't need to speak about this sort of debate.
What you're talking about is historiographical because you're looking at propaganda, the purposes of writing history, inaccuracies and so on. Historical debates are part of historiography. And in two unit Ancient History there is no need to get into a debate such as this. For eg, we look historical debates in 'Hatshepsut' because there are these sorts of issues to take into consideration.
If Egypt did not expand its borders then all of my text books are wrong.
'Egyptianise' as in make their cities run similarly to Egypt, with a similar administration, for eg they appointed the Viceroy of Kush in Nubia, which had the same sort of position as the Vizier. The people below the viceroy resemble the officials below the vizier.
I didn't say that they were at war with cities while trading with them...thats absurd. I said that in order to develop trade routes they began military raids in these areas, consolidated the areas, developed peaceful treaties and could then start trade and diplomacy..this makes common sense..I don't think a debate is needed. If you really think Egypt didn't expand its borders, then we are being taught wrong, which is irrelevant because on the syllabus we have to know this. To develop as an 'empire' Egypt must have had control of other areas...obviously...and we are taught they did.
Anyone else who is actually doing New Kingdom for 'Historical Periods' in 2007 please contribute and clear this up for us. If I'm wrong then I'm sorry for giving Fishy the wrong advice.
I've looked it up a bit more and all I can find about debates about whether they became an empire or not are from Gardiner, except he's writing from the 1950's and I don't consider him very reliable because he also denied that Hatshepsut had any military conquests and said that she was obsessed with power and usurped the throne of Thutmose III just because she was a woman. The general consensus from all of my textbooks, my teacher and the net (and no I'm not doing a systematic study on a single dot point in one topic) is that Egypt did expand their borders and did develop as an empire in the modern sense of the word.
X
xeuyrawp
Guest
Er, your original argument was wrong according to my interpretation of evidence, which, I think, is pretty sound. It has nothing to do with whether anybody has time to study it or not. In the exam, you can't say 'my teacher says this', or 'my textbooks say this' -- you need to write confidently as if you own the topic. The argument is yours, not someone elses, least of all a highschool teacher or a textbook writer (all of which are highschool teachers).bento said:
This is, by the way, an important skill for later life, so stop talking about the exams as if it's the only goal in life, you're freaking everybody out.
It's not all about just performing in the exam, you should treat the HSC as another step in bettering your skills, which are incidentally useful in the exams.Obviously you guys don't have time to go through everything, but that does not mean you can just walk into the exam with bad assumptions. If your teacher wants to tell you otherwise, with regards to the evidence or what's expected in the exam, I'd be very surprised.
And no, I didn't do Middle Kingdom in high school - I studied Ramses II, Akhenaten, Amenhotep III - Ramses II, and Ramesside Society. Back in the old days when there was no Core. Yes, I'm currently studying Egypt now at uni, which is when I did a Middle Kingdom texts subject. And it's not like I 'have time' to do this, it's what I study, mate.
That's pretty interesting, because in Egypt of the Pharaohs, Gardiner is undoubtedly pro-imperial model. Which page did you find the debate on?bento said:
I listed many sources as part of my argument... I'm not sure why you're looking for more? What do you have to say about mine?
I'm not sure whether you fully understand the definition of an empire, or the evidence. Ancient borders are not like modern ones, where military control, administration, cultural and technological hegemony, etc, exists.bento said:
During the New Kingdom, Egypt did expand its influence. However, you cannot say that it it expanded its borders due to imperialism. If you say that, you will not go well. The Ancient Near East did not have borders as we now do - Km.t, the word for Egypt represents only the Nile valley from Aswan to the Delta. Anything beyond the valley (eg the Valley of the Kings, Deir el Bahri, the Oases, etc) was considered outside of Egypt. Therefore, the Egyptian 'borders' was the Nile valley which cannot be expanded no matter how hard one tries.
Your advice has been really good, I'm just nitpicking on semantics.bento said:
The underlined bit is the bit I have a problem with, that's all. They didn't expand their borders, they didn't control any cities, and they didn't create an empire.bento said:
Look at the syllabus, they put 'empire' in quotation marks because it is not a correct term, but rather something that has too much baggage and is convenient. They also refer to the boundaries of the 'empire', namely the furthest reaches of Egypts influence, not imperialistic movements.
historykidd
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 365
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2007
Essentially what Bento is saying, from my experience of the dot-point, is what is generally considered to be "true" amoungst HSC students and text-books. The problem is generally kids who aren't in the top schools don't have access to these resources which clearly outline historical debates regarding imperialism in Egypt.bento said:
Although it could possibly go in a huge amount of depth and it extends beyond the HSC, even from viewing Pw's rebuttal, I don't really know of many ancient history students who could recite specific for and against arguments and nuances regarding the nature of Egyptian Imperialism so I think Fishy will be justified in taking the "safer" approach and regarding Egypt as an empire; at least for the HSC.
X
xeuyrawp
Guest
You're making it sound complicated, too hard, and risky!historykidd said:
Essentially, all I'm saying is that you cannot go into the exam and say that Egypt's entire relationship during this period was imperialistic and a quest for border expansion. Yes, there was extensive military activity during this period. Yes, Egypt's influence in this period was greater than it ever had been. But it didn't expand borders or control cities.
Saying that Egypt expanded its borders and ruled the local cities makes it sounds like an entirely militaristic empire, when really Egypt was a very small country which pwned lots of people for the lulz, religion, defense, and for resources. They never had any wish to convert other people. Imperialism = expanding and homogenising territories and people. The Roman Empire expanded and tried to convert the Jews, the Ottoman Empire expanded and tried to convert the Greeks, the British Empire expanded tried to convert the Indians, the American Empire is trying to convert Iraq. These are empires, and Egypt was not one of them. If Egypt wanted to expand its borders, there would be Egyptian monuments in Israel, Iran, and in Ethiopia. There would be tombs in Libya. Etc, etc.
There was a very complicated relationship between Egypt and the north, but all you need to do in the essay is talk about the military aspects for maybe 80% of your essay, then talk about diplomacy, trade, relationships, etc for the other 20%. I don't see what's so hard about that...
Just to make it 100% clear, this Option effectively has two broad syllabus headings: 'Empire' and non-'empire'. Under 'empire', we have: nature of imperialism, role of the army, warrior pharaoh, establishment/maintenance/administration of the 'empire', and relationships with north and south.
This question is essentially asking for a sub-point 'nature', but is really asking for the whole lot of the non-'empire', because obviously the nature of imperialism includes things like the role of the army, warrior pharaoh, etc. The 'nature of imperialism' subpoint wants you to mention that Egypt did not rule north and the south like a modern country rules within its borders - it wants to you point out (as per the last point of 'relationships with north and south') that there was intensive trade and diplomacy. You also should mention that the nature of imperialism was in part dictated by the state theology.
So those points are effectively your paragraphs in your essay! Go point by point or chronologically to highlight change, but make sure you include the last point - relationships with north and south. Markers love to see that you've remembered the syllabus and can replicate it in a good essay with clear evidence. Do not ignore this point, and do not spend your whole time talking about how the Egyptians expanded their borders through imperialism and 'Egyptianised' people.
extraordinary07
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2007
- Messages
- 210
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2007
totally true.PwarYuex said:
Last edited by a moderator:
X
xeuyrawp
Guest
I fixed your quote tag. Need to make sure it ends with [ /quote]extraordinary07 said:
X
xeuyrawp
Guest
... Don't you ever get spam emails?fishy89sg said: