Lost Voices of the Nile: Everyday Life in Ancient Egypt

by Charlotte Booth

  The foreman Paneb was accused of three counts of adultery, two of these accusations with Hunro, his sister-in-law, although no punishment is recorded for him. One of the accusations came from his son Aaphate, who ran away from Paneb’s house and went to the doorkeeper, saying, ‘I cannot bear with him; my father made love to the Lady Tuy when she was the workman Kenna’s wife, he made love to the lady Hunro, when she was with Pendua and when she was with Hesysenebef. And after that he debauched her daughter too.’63 This accusation is recorded among others against Paneb on Papyrus Salt, which was written by Amennakhte, the brother of Paneb’s adopted father. He was angered that his brother Neferhotep’s role should be passed on to Paneb when he felt it should be his as a blood relative. This led him to list a number of accusations against Paneb which were collated in this papyrus. The validity and accuracy of some of the accusations can be questioned and this accusation in particular is rather suspicious as the daughter mentioned was approximately three years old at the time.

  There is no doubt that adultery was considered unacceptable in society and was even included in chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead, the so-called negative confession, as it was obviously something they did not want to be accused of in the afterlife in case it affected their rebirth.

  In literary texts adultery is a popular theme. In the New Kingdom ‘Tale of the Two Brothers’, the wife of Anubis, the older brother, tries the seduce the younger brother, Bata, when he enters the house during the day to get seed for sowing the fields. She was impressed by the number of seed sacks he was able to carry and

  She said ‘There is great strength in you. I see your vigour daily’ and she desired to know him as a man. She got up, took hold of him, and said to him, ‘Come let us spend an hour lying together. It will be good for you and I will make fine clothes for you.’

  Then the youth became like a leopard in anger over the wicked speech she had made to him; and she became very frightened. He rebuked her saying, ‘Look, you are like a mother to me; and your husband is like a father to me. He who is older than I has raised me. What is this great wrong you said to me? Do not say it to me again! But I will not tell it to anyone. I will not let it come from my mouth to any man’.

  The wife was worried he would tell her husband so she ruffled her clothing and put dirt on her face to give the appearance of being attacked, which is how her husband found her. She told him that his younger brother had propositioned her and when she refused saying, ‘Am I not your mother? Is your elder brother not like a father to you?’ Bata became angry and beat her. She then stated, ‘Now if you let him live, I shall die! Look when he returns, do not let him live. For I am ill from his evil design which he was about to carry out in the morning.’64 Anubis waited for his younger brother in the stable with a spear, but luckily Bata was warned by his cows, who told him that Anubis was there. He fled and lived in exile from his brother. Eventually Anubis realised his wife was the one to blame, so he killed her and mourned the loss of his brother.

  In all the literary tales concerning adultery the guilty party always ends up dead, to show that justice has been done. A papyrus in the British Museum (BM10416) records a real event where punishment was meted out to a woman who committed adultery in an eight-month affair with one of their relatives. The group of people claimed, ‘We are going to beat her, together with her people.’ The narrator of the text, possibly the woman’s son, suggests the man go to court with his wife to sort out the matter instead of succumbing to violence.65

  There was, however, no need for adultery in ancient Egypt as evidence indicates that polygamous marriages happened, although they were not the norm. In the ninth-dynasty tomb of Mery-aa from el-Hagarseh six wives are depicted, five who had given birth to his children. The sixth wife Isi, who did not have any children, was more prominently placed than the others in the tomb and it is suggested she was perhaps his first wife, who had remained childless. It is unlikely that these women were all ex-wives, as divorced wives were generally not depicted in tombs, and he would have been a particularly unlucky man to have lost five wives, indicating this is evidence of polygamy.

  Another clear example of polygamy is in the Tomb Robbery Papyrus where there is a list of women involved in the robbery. One woman, Herer, is the wife of a guard of the King’s Treasury. The next woman on the list is described as ‘his other wife, which makes two’.66 There is little ambiguity in this text, and it seems apparent that this guard had two wives living contemporaneously with each other.

  It was very unusual for people not to get married, and a study of ninety-three New Kingdom funerary contexts show only three burials were of unmarried men. It was clearly considered the social norm to marry, and anything that deviated from this was seen as a deviation from Maat and could invoke a hostile response.67

  Such social expectations must have been difficult should a person have been homosexual, and there is evidence of homosexuality in ancient Egypt among married and unmarried men. Homosexuals were known as nkkw, fucked man, or Hmiw, back-turners or cowards, which is related to the word Hmt, woman, indicating the passive element of homosexuality.68 It is this passive role that was opposed rather than the attraction, and the complaints rarely concerned the instigator of homosexual sex, but rather focused on the recipient of it. It is this passivity which defined the person in a negative way, not their homosexuality.

  In chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead it states, ‘I have not done wrong sexually or committed homosexuality.’69 This supports the idea that homosexuality was not approved of and therefore needed to be included in this negative confession. In this chapter of the Book of the Dead homosexuality is associated with adultery (‘done wrong sexually’) and therefore may have been viewed in the same way, as a deviation from Maat but not necessarily a crime.70 It is also mentioned in literary texts, indicating it was an acknowledged fact of life. However, the modern concept of heterosexual and homosexual was not one the Egyptians were familiar with. As Parkinson eloquently describes it, ‘Sexual preferences were acknowledged but only as one would recognise someone’s taste in food.’71 Homosexual desires were seen as a natural weakness of man and therefore something that should be overcome or ignored. ‘Let him not spend the night doing what is opposed. He shall be cool after renouncing his desire.’72 This section from the ‘Instruction of the Vizier Ptahhotep’ (32nd Maxim) actively encourages suppressing such desires as the only thing that will bring true peace of mind.

  In the ‘Contendings of Horus and Seth’, the homosexual encounters between Horus and Seth are always instigated by Seth, the god of chaos.

  Seth said to Horus, ‘How beautiful are your buttocks, how vital! Stretch out your legs’. Horus said, ‘Wait that I may tell it ...’ Horus said to his mother Isis, ‘Seth wants to know me.’ She said to him, ‘Take care. Do not go near him for that. Next time he mentions it to you, you shall say to him; “It is too difficult because of my build, as you are heavier than I am. My strength is not the same as yours.”’ She says, ‘When he has aroused you, place your fingers between your buttocks ... the seed which has come forth from his penis without letting the sun see it’.73

  Isis, rather than totally discouraging the action, tells Horus what to do once he has been aroused, indicating Seth is the problem, as he is instigating homosexual intercourse as a display of power which presents Horus as the weaker rival in the activity.74

  A Middle Kingdom literary tale tells the story of Pepy II and General Sasanet and their homosexual relationship. The story tells of a man called Tjeti who was mocked when he tried to speak in the palace. In his anger he followed the king on his nightly journeys to try and gain valuable information about his activities.

  Then he noticed the Person of the Dual King, Neferkara going out at night, all alone with nobody with him. Then he removed himself from him without letting him see. Hent’s son Tjeti stood thinking; ‘so this is it! What was said is true. He goes out at night.’ Hent’s son Tjeti went just behind this god – without letting his hea
rt misgive him – to see all that he did. He [Neferkara] arrived at the house of the General Sasanet. Then he threw a brick and kicked the wall so that a ladder was let down for him. Then he ascended. Hent’s son Tjeti waited until His Person returned. Now after His Person had done what he desired with him, he returned to his palace with Hent’s son Tjeti behind him. When His Person returned to the palace, Tjeti went back to his house. Now His Person went to the house of General Sasanet when four hours had passed of the night [i.e. 10 p.m.], he had spent another four hours in the house of General Sasanet, and he entered the palace when there were four hours to dawn [i.e. 2 a.m.]. And Hent’s son Tjeti went following him each night – without his heart misgiving him; and each time after His Person entered the palace Tjeti went back to his house …75

  The king is not criticised for having a relationship with a man, or even the low status of his lover, but rather the neglect of his duties while spending four hours every night in pursuit of carnal pleasures.76 Homosexuality was perhaps viewed as decadent and in this case a dereliction of duty for a frivolous reason. As the king is keen to keep this relationship secret, in the sense that he was sneaking to the general’s house and refused to allow the man to speak in the palace, this indicates it was something considered taboo.

  Even in the ‘Contendings of Horus and Seth’, Horus threatens Seth with, ‘Watch out; I shall tell this!’ In the story of the General Sasanet it is assumed, as he was an unmarried man and of a low position, that he was the passive partner in the royal liaison, which was seen as the negative position. This could be why the king was not criticised for the act, but rather for the neglect of his duty.

  Homosexual love also appears in the New Kingdom love poetry, where the narrator has fallen in love with a young charioteer.

  On the way I met Mehy on his chariot,

  With him were his young men.

  I knew not how to avoid him:

  Should I stride on to pass him?

  But the river was the road,

  I knew no place for my feet.

  My heart you are very foolish,

  Why accost Mehy?

  If I pass before him,

  I tell him my movements.

  Here I’m yours I say to him,

  Then he will shout my name,

  And assign me to the first …

  Among his followers.77

  It is not clear why the narrator feels he cannot approach Mehy, perhaps because he is worried that he will not feel the same way.

  Since the discovery in the 1960s of the fifth-dynasty mastaba tomb of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep, there has been extensive debate about the unusual depictions of the two tomb owners embracing. They both held the title Manicurist of the King and Inspector of Manicurists of the Palace during the reign of King Neuserre (2453–2422 BCE). Khnumhotep is depicted in feminine poses ­– smelling lotuses and standing on the left of Niankhkhnum, the traditional position of the wife – indicating there was a male–female duality to their representation.78 In the tomb it is only Khnumhotep and the women who are shown smelling lotus flowers, and he is one of only three men in the fifth dynasty shown in this position. It is clear that stylistically he is holding the position of ‘wife’ in this tomb.79 Their affection in the form of embracing and having their faces touching or holding hands is something normally only demonstrated by married couples.80 Due to the nature of the images it has been suggested they had a homosexual relationship, although their wives and children are also represented in the tomb. However, in one banquet scene the wife of Niankhkhumn has been erased and Khnumnhotep’s wife is completely omitted.

  The most accepted theory is that they were twins81 and therefore closer than average siblings, which is emphasised by their exaggerated displays of affection. Some even go so far as to suggest that they were conjoined twins. However, the dominance of Niankhkhnum in the tomb could be because it appears that Khnumhotep died first and therefore Niankhkhnum was responsible for the decoration of the tomb. The fact that Khnumhotep died first puts pay to the theory of conjoined twins, as it is highly unlikely that Niankhkhnum would have survived separation surgery at this time. It is only in their own tomb that they are depicted side by side, and in the tomb of the vizier Ptahshepses at Abusir the two men are shown in isolation of each other, indicating that they were not viewed as ‘one person’ and were able to function separately. This casts doubt on the theory that they were twins as surely this perception would have been shared by others in the community. Without the bodies of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep it is impossible to identify whether they were related or not, but the images in the tomb strongly support a deep same-sex affection unprecedented in any other Egyptian tomb. It may never be possible to categorise this relationship as just good friends, brothers or lovers.

  While homosexuality between men was considered a natural, if not necessarily ideal part of life, homosexuality between women was considered to be a bad thing. While being extremely poorly documented, the dream interpretation book on Papyrus Carlsberg states that if a woman ‘dreams that a woman has intercourse with her she will come to a bad end’.82 Relationships were intended to be procreative, so any in which this was not possible was considered to be a waste and actively discouraged.83 This expectation for relationships to be productive and result in the birth of children was a major concern of ancient Egyptian adults. A prayer inscribed on some scarabs expresses the hope that ‘your name may last, children may be granted to you’.84 Should a couple not be able to produce a child the husband could be ridiculed, as was the case of Nekhemmut, who received a letter from an angry colleague: ‘You are not a man since you are unable to make your wife pregnant like your fellow men. A further matter; you abound in being exceedingly stingy. You give no one anything.’85

  It was considered socially important to have as many children as possible in order to ensure that the parents were cared for in old age in the absence of any adequate state scheme to care for the elderly. However, where there were no children many couples adopted, as was mentioned in the letter to Nekhemmut: ‘As for him who has no children, he adopts an orphan instead to bring him up. It is his responsibility to pour water onto your hands as one’s eldest son.’86 Adoption could be in the traditional sense, where an orphaned child was raised by their adoptive parents, or an adult could be adopted (even if his parents were still living) in order for the adoptive father to have a son to pass his role or business on to after his retirement.

  Some men even adopted their wives, either to enable her to inherit all of his possessions rather than only the third legally required, or in order to care for a barren wife while obtaining a child through other means. The latter scenario is described in the Adoption Papyrus dated to the reign of Ramses XI (1098–1070 BCE). The man Nebnefer adopts his wife Naunefer before fathering three children with a household slave. Naunefer then adopts the three children as her own. Her brother marries the eldest of the three and Naunefer adopts him as well.87 This would no doubt have been a difficult situation for Naunefer, but it technically made her life easier than if her husband had simply divorced her.

  Married women spent most of their adult years pregnant or recovering from childbirth.88 Although it was more desirable to have boys to take over the father’s role and to bring a wife into the family, offering extra care for the elderly, girls were not exposed or abandoned as they were in other ancient cultures.

  Infertility was such a concern for married couples that an entire fertility cult arose around the goddess Hathor, and there were numerous votive offerings made by both men and woman in the form of model breasts, vaginas, phalli and fertility figures.89 She was approached to help in all sexual matters and graffiti left at the temple of Thutmosis III at Deir el Bahri by a Priest of Mut, Paybasa, asks Hathor, ‘Give to him love in the sight of every man and every woman. Cause that his phallus be stronger than any woman ... Give to him a good wife who will be his companion.’90 This priest obviously wanted his sexual performance to improve as he believed this would result in
him finding a wife.

  As discussed in chapter one, for many the houses were inadequately small, perhaps with three generations living in just four rooms, meaning it was difficult for newly married couples to be alone. No one had their own bedroom so at night other people were always present, potentially making intercourse a rather public affair.91 Some depictions of sex on ostraca from Deir el-Medina often have other people in the vicinity, perhaps servants, indicating that even for the rich with large houses, sex was not a private act.92 However, privacy may have been achieved through snatched moments alone, and perhaps by using the box-beds in the first room of the house. The woman were generally pregnant soon after marriage. If this did not happen there were tests to ascertain whether the woman was fertile, although there were none to check male fertility. In the Kahun Gynaecological Papyrus seven of the thirty-four cases were associated with determining the fertility of the woman.93

  In order to conceive it was necessary to have open passages from the vagina to all body parts, and it was important to test for blockages. The Kahun Gynaecological Papyrus suggests the woman should sit over a concoction of beer and dates. If she vomited her tubes were open and she would conceive, and if she did not her tubes were blocked and she would not fall pregnant.94 The number of times she vomited indicated how many children she would have. Another fertility test instructs the woman to insert an onion into her vagina. If the next day her breath smelt of onions she would conceive. The concept of easy passage from the vagina to the head was also apparent if a woman’s neck was aching and she had sore eyes, as this was diagnosed as a ‘discharge of the uterus in her eyes’, which it was treated by fumigating her eyes with goose leg fat and her vagina with incense and fresh oil, as well as ensuring she consumed the fresh liver of a donkey.95