Homo erectus › The Egyptian Amulet » Ancient origins
Articles and Definitions › Contents
- Homo erectus › Ancient History
- The Egyptian Amulet: Pious Symbols of Spiritual Life › Antique Origins
Ancient civilizations › Historical and archaeological sites
Homo erectus › Ancient History
Definition and Origins
Homo erectus, or 'upright man', is an extinct species of human that occupies an intriguing spot within the human evolutionary lineage. These prehistoric hunter-gatherers were highly successful in adapting to vastly different habitats across the Old World, as fossils connected with this species have been found ranging from Africa all the way to Southeast Asia. With the first remains appearing around 1,9 million years ago, and the latest ones surviving into the Middle Pleistocene, Homo erectusspanned an extraordinarily large time frame. However, the amount of variation between different fossils from different times and places has raised a lot of questions regarding the actual classification of the species, and its exact role in the evolutionary story.
WHO WERE THEY?
In the 1890s CE, fossils found by Eugène Dubois at the site of Trinil on Java, Indonesia, became the first to be classified as Pithecanthropus (now Homo ) erectus. From that point on, many more Homo erectus fossils were found in Indonesia and then China, and from the 1960s CE on they were recognised in Africa. They most likely descended from an earlier species of Homo (most commonly thought to be Homo habilis ), in East Africa or possibly Eurasia. Some part of this very widely spread species is thought to have given rise to later species such as Homo heidelbergensis, who are seen as connected to our own species of Homo sapiens.
The problem is, however, that the fossils that have been assigned to Homo erectus span an almost ridiculous amount of both time and space and show huge variations when they are all taken together. The question is whether they can actually be classified as one coherent species, or whether things should instead be narrowed down a bit further.
HOMO ERECTUS FOSSILS SPAN AN ALMOST RIDICULOUS AMOUNT OF BOTH TIME & SPACE & SHOW HUGE VARIATIONS WHEN THEY ARE ALL TAKEN TOGETHER.
On the one hand, there are those who argue for a broad, single-species model ( Homo erectus sensu lato ), encompassing all or almost all fossils from Southeast Asia to Africa that have been chucked into this group so far. In this view, the variation falls within the range of an otherwise cohesive species, and might be due to the adventurous, globe-trotting nature of this species, with time and space impacting on their physiques. This broad definition is so convenient, though, that it becomes tempting to toss every new fossil find that seems to somewhat match the characteristics of erectus in with this bunch – which is obviously not necessarily an ideal way of going about things.
On the other hand, however, a narrower definition has been suggested that excludes either all of the African fossils, or at least the portion found at Koobi Fora, because they are quite a bit different and might be cohesive enough in their own right to be named Homo ergaster instead. Ergaster is then seen as the species that is linked with the lineage leading to Homo sapiens, whereas Homo erectus sensu stricto (in the strict sense, so only the Asian part) may have been a dead end.
Stringer Graph-model of Homo Evolution
This discussion will no doubt continue to rage for some time yet - perhaps we just do not have all the pieces of the puzzle that are needed to disentangle this mess. At the moment, the verdict that seems to prevail is that the characteristics of the fossils do not present enough evidence to overturn the single-species hypothesis – so Homo erectus in the broad sense prevails.However, a word of caution must accompany this: just because erectus may have been this varied does not mean it should become a 'wastebin' species, with any and all fossils that do not seem to fit anywhere else simply being assigned to Homo erectus.
GEOGRAPHICAL SPREAD
Fossils assigned to the broad definition of Homo erectus are found all the way from Southeast Asia to Africa. Areas and sites include Trinil on Java, Indonesia; China ('Peking Man'); Eurasia including Georgia, where finds at Dmanisi are so puzzling they seem to blur the lines between Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Homo erectus, and might even end up qualifying as a distinct species ( Homo georgicus ); East Africa (sites at for instance Olduvai Gorge and in the Turkana Basin in Kenya); as well as North- and South Africa. Some finds in western Europe have also at some point in time been lumped into the Homo erectus party, but there is now fairly broad agreement that most of these forms are better matches with Homo heidelbergensis.
Site of Trinil, Java, Indonesia
This early species of adventurers is generally thought to have started their marathon out of Africa, through the Middle East, the Caucasus and eventually East Asia around 1.9-1.8 million years ago, reaching Indonesia and China by ca. 1.7-ca. 1,6 million years ago. But what spurred them on? A 2016 CE study developed a model that suggests that Homo erectus followed the large herbivores during their dispersal, while also keeping an eye on flint deposits, and actively avoiding areas densely populated by carnivores, at least early on in their migration. However, since Homo erectus pops up more or less around the same time in East Africa and Eurasia, there is a chance that their origins lay in Eurasia instead - this could help explain the presence of Homo floresiensis in Indonesia, which has erectus -like traits. Either way, they spread very rapidly across the globe.
WHAT DID THEY LOOK LIKE?
Homo erectus was both bigger and smarter than earlier humans. Their skeletons were basically pretty similar to ours – essentially modern – although they were stockier. They were the first humans to have limb and torso proportions along modern human lines, which allowed them to walk upright on two feet (hence the name) and literally trot the globe, and they had lost the climbing adaptions that allowed earlier humans to play Tarzan.
Turkana Boy
Some of these humans were very tall, with the African-based portion reaching an average height of a lofty 170 cm. However, much like with our current-day population, Homo erectus across different regions show a lot of variation in size, ranging between roughly 145 cm to 185 cm, while weighing between 40 kg and 68 kg. Even on the shorter end, Homo erectus was clearly a lot taller relative to earlier humans (the famous Lucy, an Australopithecus afarensis, was only 110 cm tall).
Considerably one-upping the earlier Homo habilis, Homo erectus not only had a visibly bigger brain than those before them, but it also grew larger as time increased. Early members of this species have cranial capacities between 600-800 cm3, but most later Homo erectus exceed 1000 cm3, which falls within the lower range seen in our own species. They had heavy brow ridges and a low cranial vault (so a more sloping head, without a proper forehead), and their teeth were already a lot smaller and more slender than those of earlier humans.
Homo Erectus Skull Cast from Java, Indonesia
WAY OF LIFE
Homo erectus groups hunted and gathered their way to survival. Their larger bodies and brains required a lot of energy (ie food) to maintain them, but their increased brain size also helped them be smart about the way they sorted out their meals – a bit of a win-win situation. It seems they ate a diverse and broad diet, perhaps including tubers, and definitely a substantial amount of meat. Animal remains with clear cut marks left by butchery have been found in connection with Homo erectus, which shows they regularly accessed animal carcases - probably through both scavenging and hunting - from at least 1,75 million years ago.
Being part of the dawn of prehistoric Masterchef, it is likely that Homo erectus knew and used fire. The earliest evidence for the use of hominin fire dates back to around 1,8 million years ago, and from at least 500,000 years ago cooking began becoming popular. By 400,000 years ago, well within Homo erectus ' time span, human species were visibly and deliberately handling fire. Hearths lit up the living spaces of these societies, and provided not just a means for cooking food (and thus increasing energy output) but also warmth, protection from predators, and were good hubs for social interaction. Natural shelters dominated the preferred forms of real estate, among which were overhanging cliffs and the highly popular caves.
Zhoukoudian Upper Cave, China
An apt toolmaker, Homo erectus is associated with the Oldowan, but more commonly with the Acheulean stone tool industry, and is often connected with the creation of the very first hand-axes, which represent the first major innovation in stone tool technology. A broader set of tools would have helped Homo erectus survive across a wide range of environments.
When it comes to picturing Homo erectus around a hearth inside a cave, feasting on a professionally butchered bison steak with a spread of sides, we cannot tell whether they would have had proper conversations or not. Some social element must have been present, but language is a tough one to pin down. Anatomical clues cannot prove or disprove the ability for language or some sort of human-like proto-language in Homo erectus, and since there is no genetic material available for them, scientists cannot test for the FOXP2 gene, which is associated with language production in humans and is seen in both the later Neanderthals and Denisovans.
All in all, it is clear that Homo erectus provides a bunch of interesting developments as well as insights into the human lineage, and they may well have been the earliest species within this lineage to show so many human-like characteristics.
The Egyptian Amulet: Pious Symbols of Spiritual Life › Antique Origins
Ancient Civilizations
Material Objects & Cultures
Material objects convey volumes about the people who possessed them. Cultures and societies in every generation are in part classified - either correctly or incorrectly - by the objects or symbols they select and how they are displayed. Typically, the formal study of society is the purview of anthropologists and social scientists who categorize 'people' into cultural assemblages which are extrapolated from commonly held 'features' (eg clothing, jewellery, and music) and their interpersonal behaviour (eg occupation, political activities, rand eligious practices) which socially defines them. Hence, any answer to the 'meaning of things' in society, generally speaking, is a structured hypothesis.
Amulets are an example of such culturally defining objects, and they satisfied a variety of roles in the society of Ancient Egypt. Specifically, they possessed complex socio-religious meanings which are reflected in their diverse designs and, therefore, may be analyzed within ontological/phenomenological and/or structural/poststructural dichotomies. In this article, I shall discuss Egyptian amulets as objects of human expression; exploring their symbolism and utilization in socio-cultural functions.
Scarab
Life Before Death
Culturally, amulets were intimately associated with the greater Egyptian religious system, which was a state system whose earliest cosmological views of nature contained a cyclical perception of life, death, and rebirth. Typically, amulets were worn as jewellery by both men and women in social settings. However, they were not worn as a mere ornamental feature or simply as a sign of religious devotion. Rather, the amulet was regarded as a talisman. That is to say - metaphysically speaking - each amulet was understood to possess a precise supernatural attribute which could be imparted to those who wore them. The spiritual value of the amulet depended entirely on what specific enchantment was assigned to it and how it was employed. For example, to increase an amulet's potency, a sacrosanct 'inscription' may have been added to ascribe a certain spell.Unprovenanced specimens reveal wishes for a 'happy new year' or 'health and prosperity' and from this feature, we may deduce its owner's socio-economic needs or personal desire.
Ankh - Symbol of Life
Inversely, while the selection of a particular amulet may indeed signify an aspect of an individual's identity, the amulet itself - symbolizing a commonly held concept - also denoted a larger social system of beliefs that were intra-culturally understood.Thus, one of the ways of establishing their meaning is through the 'reading' of amulets within their cultural setting. For example, amulets that were carved in the form of the ☥, or ankh, were understood to impart the mystical properties of 'everlasting life'. In an abstract sense, this may be construed from the hieroglyph ☥ which is simply translated as 'life'.
While standalone amuletic ankhs are extremely rare, examples of the design can commonly be seen engraved on other amulets, such as the bull-bat cult specimen from Naga ed-Deir. Additionally, an ankh pendant has been found at el- Amarna, the capital of Akhenaten. Its discovery at Akhetaten - a city dedicated to the dissemination of monotheism - is a small yet intriguing example of the durability of Old to New Kingdom iconography during the turbulent Amarna Period.
The story behind this particular design is unsettled amongst scholars. For example, it is known from First Intermediate Period(2160-2055 BCE) inhumations that some amulets had anatomical associations with the human body. Hypothetically, considering the ankh's known hieroglyphic meaning of 'life', one may infer a possible phallic origin for its lower cross-stem extension. In addition, the shape of the loop-handle has led some to propose a yonic interpretation. If this is true, a parallel with ancient Egyptian binary concepts regarding existence such as order/chaos, creation/destruction, and birth/death may be inferred. Furthermore, when considering the fact that the earliest ankhs have been contextually dated to the First Dynasty (3000-2890 BCE) - a time when according to Egyptian cosmology chaos and ruins were replaced by order and creation - an archaeological context that coincides with the historical 'birth' of ancient Egypt may be established.
Consequently, what we may be observing is a cognitive association between the Egyptian understanding of eternal life, their contemplations about creation, and their cosmological views regarding connubial relations. By extension, to the ancient Egyptians, the ankh may have been a microcosm of Egyptian history, beliefs, and interpersonal relations. Thus, a symbolic meaning - when found within an Egyptian household - could conceivably be interpreted as a desire for the magical impartation of a sound and happy marriage, prodigious fecundity, and/or a healthy and strong family. In each example, some aspect of biological or societal 'conception' is present (eg marriage, procreation). In any case, the ankh, being a unified or intersexual symbol, functions as a cultural sign for the reproductive or cyclical order of nature.
Contextually however, any definitive social interpretation would depend solely on the perception (or subjective experience) of the individual Egyptian living at the time. Thus, while we may seek to establish understandings vis-à-vis social conventions, we cannot conclusively interpret individual intention from the amulet alone, which should remind us of the importance of archaeological context. But even within context, meanings are occasionally murky. For example, it has been noted that the ankh is seldom found in non-royal burials. Deductively, one may infer a quality of 'restriction' or 'aristocratic exclusivity' regarding its use within Egyptian society. Conversely, perhaps natural or human made devastation to 'commoner' burials - in the form of erosion or looting - is the reason for their absence, presenting us with a much distorted picture. Nonetheless, this is only supposition and again shows us the great difficulty in establishing a precise 'meaning' which is here reflected in the incomplete, and ever evolving, archaeological record.
Objects from Tomb of Thutmose IV
Afterlife: The Ankh Revisited
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 burial was 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.
Posited Cyclicality of Life for an Ancient Egyptian
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.
Egyptian Scarab Amulets
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.
LICENSE:
Article based on information obtained from these sources:with permission from the Website Ancient History Encyclopedia
Content is available under License Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. CC-BY-NC-SA License