Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This essay by Luka Trkanjec grapples with the question why ancient Egypt remains so much more popular than ancient Mesopotamia, and homes in on a similar phenomenon existing in ancient Greece contemporary with Egypt and Mesopotamia, as well as cultural differences making ancient Egypt a more pleasing place to learn about compared to ancient Mesopotamia. This goes beyond stone monuments in Egypt having survived better than brick structures in Mesopotamia.

Some themes of Trkanjec's nuanced drift is that of Egypt being a more serene and harmonious place suspicious of strict legal codification of people's status. Egyptians often portrayed themselves as embracing families and couples, with Mesopotamian art traditions being lacking in this regard, but excelling in terms of depicting atrocities committed by one's own side. Mesopotamia early on came to see domination, aggression and exploitation as something good, glorying in conquering warlords and developing strict legal codes with a famously draconic bent. While both were ancient monarchies, Ancient Egypt comes across as a culture who loved the good life, in contrast to the more pessimistic and misanthropic outlook of Mesopotamia. The latter also sported a constant phenomenon of impoverished robbers roving the fringes of the lands, without a similar thing being mentioned in any Egyptian sources outside of intermediary periods of collapse and disorder.

It may be added that Mesopotamian kings had themselves depicted with whips, and some even claimed the title King of the Universe. I cannot remember a single instance of Egyptian artists depicting people being flayed or impaled, in contrast to Mesopotamia. Trkanjec's argument is not one of ancient Egyptians being bereft of evil or shy of e.g. depicting the killing of enemies, but it is one where the nuance difference between ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt is a noticable one, both in sources that have survived and in contemporary ancient Greek sources.

Whether one agrees or not, this rather long essay is worth checking out for anyone interested in the period (hint, Tomb Kings and Chaos Dwarfs, hint).

So, comparatively pleasant Egypt and grimdark Mesopotamia.

I like Assyriology way better than Egyptology.

I also think the fact that Egyptology became a huge pop culture craze in the inter-war periods helped cement its place in "pop" culture above that of Assyria and other Mesopotamian culture. The discovery of King Tut's tomb was a pop-culture phenomenon helped by the traveling exhibit. babylon and Assyria never had the same level of exposure. Nothing similar happened with the Fertile Crescent.

Interestingly enough, the best-seller "The Bible" doesn't provide either area with much positive PR, but that didn't seem to hamper Eqyptian popularity.

Egyptian kings and pharoahs had themselves depicted smiting their enemies on a fairly regular basis - some depictions were incredibly gruesome with the victims having their genitals cut off and laid next to their heads.

I'd recommend Toby Wilkinson's The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt for a comprehensive overview - I didn't come away with the impression that the Egyptians were a serene and harmonious people. The Egyptian elite did live in luxury, but their rulers were tyrannical (if they were any good - that is they were out expanding the empire and subjugating their neighbours such as Kush).

It's an ancient civilization well worth reading about though - King Tutankhamen is nowhere near as significant in the grand scheme of things, except for the fact that he was the direct descendant of Akhenaten, the Heretic King, who believed the Sun - the Aten - was a singular deity and that all other gods were to be abandoned. He moved the capital of Egypt and set up a new religion - and upon his death his name was held in such contempt by the people that his city was abandoned and pillaged for stone over the years, and Tutankh*aten* had to change his name to Tutankhamen because of the stigma attached.

It is crazy to me that Cleopatra was closer to the Moon landings then the foundation of the first Egyptian Dynasty. That is how long lived of a civilization Egypt was/is.

Over the years I’ve come to the position that talking about “Egyptian civilisation” is more akin to talking about “Western civilisation” in modern parlance, than a single country. There are huge changes in language, religion, art and architecture over the course of Egyptian history and several euphemistically named “intermediate” periods, when the whole place collapsed and descended into dark ages for decades. In several thousand years time I have no doubt that modern European countries will look much more closely linked to the Romans than we actually are (or maybe we’re more closely linked than we like to think and are deluding ourselves about our diffferences, but that’s another conversation...)

The fact that the Egypt has been relatively peaceful, allowing for huge amounts of archeological exploration, as opposed to Assyria, which has been fairly turbulent with wars and conflicts may have played a part.

Not sure about Mesopotamia but Egypt was one of the best places for women to live in the ancient world, cetaintly more than Greece (although Sparta was also good) and Rome.

I wll ask a friend what she thinks as her area of specality.

Well, we know far less about ancient Mesopotamia than we do ancient Egypt, so there are some blanks to fill in, but as for their more combative style, this was probably due to the fact that Egypt is far more conducive to a stable long term society. Mesopotamia was a maze of waterways meaning it was impossible for a single ruler to unite everything and maintain long term stability due to the difficulty in controlling the area. Egypt on the other hand is a single river. A guy with a small army and some boats can control all of Egypt, or at least the important parts. Plus Egypt is surrounded by desert on all sides, meaning any potential rivals are on the other side of a rather imposing barrier.

The Mesopotamian city states, being in constant warfare with each other, would have had to be much more aggressive and domineering in all aspects so they could fend off their neighbors.

We're not really comparing the same thing here either. Egypt was a long term stable society. Mesopotamia was a collection of warring city states, who would probably be confused by us modern day people lumping them all together.

The enduring popularity of Egypt relative to Mesopotamia in the popular imagination is, I'd argue, entirely the result of:

Exodus
Established Hellenic and Romanist scholarship
The Rosetta Stone
Tutankhamen
Ease of travel
Egyptology is still dominated by very old fashioned cultural-historical approaches compared to Mesopotamian research.
Longevity of a relatively contiguous state.

It's not much more complicated than that. The last one is really the only one that concerns the nature of the places themselves - and only so far as or makes it easier for non-specialists to get to grips with.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
The fact that the Egypt has been relatively peaceful, allowing for huge amounts of archeological exploration, as opposed to Assyria, which has been fairly turbulent with wars and conflicts may have played a part.

Eh, Egypt was not really that peaceful. Sure, there were calm dynasties, but on the other hand, a lot of the dynasties were led by aggressive dudes trying to build Egyptian 'empire' and these were anything but peaceful.

Then there is the point it's a lot harder to control all of Mesopotamia, but there is also another factor - Egypt is literally on the fringe of known world. It never had to face enemy from more than one direction. Mesopotamia, however, is literally surrounded by aggressive tribes on all sides, with a couple expansionist superpowers thrown into the mix, so being peaceful there was kind of impossible.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Not sure about Mesopotamia but Egypt was one of the best places for women to live in the ancient world, cetaintly more than Greece (although Sparta was also good) and Rome.

I wll ask a friend what she thinks as her area of specality.

Sparta was pretty fething awful for women. It was fine for nobles, but there were only a few thousand to few hundred of them, depending on the time period. Meanwhile, the thousands upon thousands of slaves were regularly hunted for sport by young nobles.

I have often heard rumours that some women were also quite happy with the island of lesbos.

(poor men of lesbos, never let them live that NAME down.)

In terms of cultural longevity, I think it’s a real shame that China is often overlooked.

Maybe I should sit a course in Chinese Dynastic History, as there’s a lot of dig into!

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Not sure about Mesopotamia but Egypt was one of the best places for women to live in the ancient world, cetaintly more than Greece (although Sparta was also good) and Rome.

I wll ask a friend what she thinks as her area of specality.

Sparta was pretty fething awful for women. It was fine for nobles, but there were only a few thousand to few hundred of them, depending on the time period. Meanwhile, the thousands upon thousands of slaves were regularly hunted for sport by young nobles.

Sparta was truly awful for the helots agreed - but it was a strange society for all and especially in the ancient world with healthy women being highly valued (although mostly for childbearing) and unusal sexual freedom (for the same reason).

I donlt know alot about the various Mesopotamian cultures but form what I have picked up it seems better for women than many Greek city states but not as good as Egypt - although this declined as the cultures changed,

 Irbis wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
The fact that the Egypt has been relatively peaceful, allowing for huge amounts of archeological exploration, as opposed to Assyria, which has been fairly turbulent with wars and conflicts may have played a part.

Eh, Egypt was not really that peaceful. Sure, there were calm dynasties, but on the other hand, a lot of the dynasties were led by aggressive dudes trying to build Egyptian 'empire' and these were anything but peaceful.

Then there is the point it's a lot harder to control all of Mesopotamia, but there is also another factor - Egypt is literally on the fringe of known world. It never had to face enemy from more than one direction. Mesopotamia, however, is literally surrounded by aggressive tribes on all sides, with a couple expansionist superpowers thrown into the mix, so being peaceful there was kind of impossible.

I think he means in modernity: Egypt's relative stability has made it easier for research to be conducted. I don't think that actually really stands up, as Iraq and Syria were fine for westerners to work in throughout the golden age of archaeology. More people were just interested in Egypt and it was a more reliably lucrative region for treasure hunting.

The ancient egyptians revered cats, so that makes them better than mesopotamia.

nfe wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
The fact that the Egypt has been relatively peaceful, allowing for huge amounts of archeological exploration, as opposed to Assyria, which has been fairly turbulent with wars and conflicts may have played a part.

Eh, Egypt was not really that peaceful. Sure, there were calm dynasties, but on the other hand, a lot of the dynasties were led by aggressive dudes trying to build Egyptian 'empire' and these were anything but peaceful.

Then there is the point it's a lot harder to control all of Mesopotamia, but there is also another factor - Egypt is literally on the fringe of known world. It never had to face enemy from more than one direction. Mesopotamia, however, is literally surrounded by aggressive tribes on all sides, with a couple expansionist superpowers thrown into the mix, so being peaceful there was kind of impossible.

I think he means in modernity: Egypt's relative stability has made it easier for research to be conducted. I don't think that actually really stands up, as Iraq and Syria were fine for westerners to work in throughout the golden age of archaeology. More people were just interested in Egypt and it was a more reliably lucrative region for treasure hunting.

I think “pile of mud bricks” versus “huge, standing, stone buildings, including the only surviving ancient Wonder” explains a lot of that preference, even if the original civilisations were on a par. Also, there’s all the biblical connections with ancient Egypt, which I’m sure was a big draw for earlier antiquarians.

Matt Swain wrote:The ancient egyptians revered cats, so that makes them better than mesopotamia.

Exalted!

Yeah I meant in modernity. I've been on holiday to Egypt. Probably wouldn't put Iraq/Syria high on my holiday list, even before the Arab spring.

 Jadenim wrote:

nfe wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
The fact that the Egypt has been relatively peaceful, allowing for huge amounts of archeological exploration, as opposed to Assyria, which has been fairly turbulent with wars and conflicts may have played a part.

Eh, Egypt was not really that peaceful. Sure, there were calm dynasties, but on the other hand, a lot of the dynasties were led by aggressive dudes trying to build Egyptian 'empire' and these were anything but peaceful.

Then there is the point it's a lot harder to control all of Mesopotamia, but there is also another factor - Egypt is literally on the fringe of known world. It never had to face enemy from more than one direction. Mesopotamia, however, is literally surrounded by aggressive tribes on all sides, with a couple expansionist superpowers thrown into the mix, so being peaceful there was kind of impossible.

I think he means in modernity: Egypt's relative stability has made it easier for research to be conducted. I don't think that actually really stands up, as Iraq and Syria were fine for westerners to work in throughout the golden age of archaeology. More people were just interested in Egypt and it was a more reliably lucrative region for treasure hunting.

I think “pile of mud bricks” versus “huge, standing, stone buildings, including the only surviving ancient Wonder” explains a lot of that preference, even if the original civilisations were on a par. Also, there’s all the biblical connections with ancient Egypt, which I’m sure was a big draw for earlier antiquarians.

See my post above for what I think are the most important reasons. Exodus is a big part of it - though it's worth noting that Mesopotamian states get far more biblical coverage than Egypt, just not in the Patriarchs. Sennacherib's invasion is a far better story than Joseph's silly coat, too!.

Pile of mudbricks rather undersells surviving Mesopotamian material culture. Treasure hunting is a big deal, though. If there was no Rosetta Stone and Woolley('s workers) had found Puabi before Carter('s workers) found Tutankhamun then it all might have been different.

nfe wrote:
Exodus is a big part of it - though it's worth noting that Mesopotamian states get far more biblical coverage than Egypt, just not in the Patriarchs. Sennacherib's invasion is a far better story than Joseph's silly coat, too!.

I suspect part of this is Egypt's long term endurance as a distinct geo-political region, where as much of Mesopotamia today has completely different names and boundaries and has historically been a much more fluid region. Many of the Bible's references won't make a lot of sense without some historian or archeologist's map of the ancient near-east. They're just name soup. But Egypt stands out, because while it has changed hands, cultures, religions, and circumstances over the millennia, Egypt is an enduring name. I think it's really more about thousands of years of cultural memory than anything materially or even ideologically related to ancient Egypt or ancient Mesopotamia.

There's kind of a similar thing I think with the Maya and Meso-America. The Maya aren't really anymore significant or long lived than any other culture group in the region. The Zapotecs are probably older, the Mixtecs are just as old, and the Nahua peoples were far more economically and militarily powerful. But the Maya are more well known and understood largely because they hold a a stronger place in cultural memory and they can be distinctly connected to a distinct region that helps cement them in the mind of people who remember them. The Zapotec's are more obscure, being native to a single valley in Southern Mexico and the Mixtecs are overshadowed by the mostly paved over Central Mexican city states that we know where there but are hard to know much about due to centuries of urbanization and cultural change.

One could say that in a big way, how well remembered you are by history and future generations is a very luck of a draw sort of deal. It depends on a lot of cards lining up just right.