The ritualistic burials of the ancient Egyptians represent some of the most researched areas of both archaeology and the related field of Egyptology. Fascinatingly, the Egyptian burialwas associated with another interpretation of life. One that was linear yet just as associated with immortality: the afterlife. From an Egyptologist’s point of view, the Egyptian social view of death would reflect their teleological perception of existence. However, during the Middle Kingdom to Second Intermediate Periods (2055-1550 BCE) amulets are most frequently found in burials ranging from Kerma and Aniba in Lower Nubia, to Tell el-Dab’a in Lower Egypt.
Additionally, some of the most prolific burial specimens are those modeled on the Scarabaeus sacer, or scarab, such as those found at el-Lisht and Tell el-Dab’a (Budge 1989: 231-34; Ben-Tor 2000: 48). While the scarab symbolizes life, its emphasis is more specifically the ‘cyclicality of life’ associated with the god Kheper. Why introduce a symbol of rebirth after death? Surely this is paradoxical to the linearity of birth-life-death reflected in the burial itself? Budge suggested that this simply reflects the Egyptian belief in the daily ‘revivification of the body’. However, I posit that there was a hidden meaning symbolized in the selection of these burial goods; moreover, that there was an understanding vis-à-vis life as experienced by the ancient Egyptians for which we are unable to offer a contemporary analogy.
For example, in burial contexts, amulets are typically interpreted as a magical means of protection for the deceased’s body in the afterlife. However, this implies that the laws governing the afterlife paralleled the laws of the physical or natural world. What can be said then? If considering the frequent use of the scarab in entombments, we may deduce that the spiritual afterlife may have been so closely related to natural (or physical) ‘regeneration’ that they were indistinguishable to the ancient Egyptian experience. Thus, it could be hypothesized that the cyclical concept of ‘regeneration’ – as was observed in days, seasons, festivals, rebirth, etc. – is inextricable from the linear narrative of birth, life, death and afterlife.
Accordingly, it may be argued that the ancient Egyptians possessed a unique metaphysical view of existence, one which amounted to a ‘continuity of life’ regarding reality itself. Cosmologically, death may have been viewed as a simple mechanism which allowed an individual to move to another ‘place’ in ‘time or space’, where ‘life continued’ unaltered and the ‘nature of things’ essentially remained unchanged, not unlike moving from one city to another. If this is true, then any analysis of artifacts deposited with the dead should be interpreted within the larger material culture. For example, the necklace of Princess Kh-nu-met from the Lower Egyptian necropolis of Dahshur, may be a symbol of not just political authority in this life, but indicative of the hierarchal continuity regarding her ‘place’ in the next.
Additionally, the cultural democratization that was occurring by the Middle Kingdom suggests that these beliefs may have transcended various social strata. However, the scant burial evidence of ankhs makes thorough analysis rather difficult. Nevertheless, synthesizing the scarab’s meaning as a sign of regenerating life with the somewhat inverted definition of eternal life for the ankh, a simultaneous linear/cyclical dichotomy for both signs is plainly visible. Moreover, when considered within a burial context, a dualistic contextualization of life that begins at physical birth and continues after the death of the body is evident in Egyptian society. Consequently, it may be argued that the ancient Egyptians viewed the physical death as the telos, or very purpose of existence, with the ☥ representing the promise of spiritual rebirth and of the life to come.
Finale of Understandings
There is no real way to ‘make an end’ to understanding material things. Objects, just as the people who created them, possess a reservoir of social, political, and economic depth to which the human mind cannot at any one time entirely comprehend. Nihilistic interpretations of society, such as Derrida’s view that ‘there is nothing outside the text’, invites contradiction from ontological, epistemological, phenomenological, even theological scholars in an attempt to ‘reconstruct the text’, figuratively speaking. The impact such academic debate has on the meaning of material culture is difficult to measure, but for archaeologists who study ancient societies, it is even more pertinent to be as objective as possible when reconstructing culture from artifacts. For example, on the one hand, material culture contains a literal (or simple) meaning that is typified by its function within a society. On the other hand, the ideological and metaphysical reality of an object as it was ‘known’ or experienced by an individual within a culture needs to be explored.
In this essay, I have endeavoured to highlight these very points by synthesizing a wide battery of theoretical approaches to interpret material objects. To accomplish this, I have used an interdisciplinary framework focused on ancient Egyptian amulets to emphasize an archaeological approach to the understandings of objects. My goal was to show how no one interpretation is irrefutable, while no single interpretation is necessarily inaccurate. In conclusion, for archaeologists, the meanings of things are essential to our appreciation of past cultures. Wherefore, let us be flexible as we engage in the critical analysis of material remains.
