The Poppy Garden

(Warning: this gets ranty)

There has been much debate recently about the status of two 5th Dynasty (c. 2445-c. 2421 b.c.e.) royal manacurists, Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep, who are depicted in their tomb paintings walking hand-in-hand, embracing, and touching noses as if kissing. Such depictions are normal for married heterosexual couples, but to see two men shown this way is unususal to say the least. Discovered in 1964, the men were assumed to be brothers, possibly twins. This is partly because until very recently, historians and archaeologts had a definite bias when dealing with sexuality, particularly homosexuality, in cultures that were more sexually open than ours. (Especially considering a lot of the early scholars were Victorians; for a particularly bad example of Victorian editing, look here.)

However, another thing to take into consideration is the fact that homosexuality as we define it is unique to our culture; therefore we must tread lightly when we label the sexual identities of two men living over 4000 years ago in a very different culture. So the debate has stood: Egyptologists are unwillling to say that these men were not close brothers or twins, while the gay rights community has seen this tomb as evidence of gay couples being accepted in one of our planet's first civilizations. If these men were gay partners, they would be the world's oldest example of such a couple.

With that said, a friend recently emailed me an artice about the latest news concerning Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep's tomb. It appears that new scholarship is being presented at the Swansea University in Wales that supports the theory "that a gay relationship was "probable," although nobody could be sure."

However, another argument has been put forward, that Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep were in fact conjoined (siamese) twins, hence their closeness in the tomb paintings. I think this argument is reaching to say the least.

First off, let's use Occam's Razor here: which do you think would have been seen as more strange in the Pharaoh's court: a same-sex couple or conjoined twins? True, Seneb the dwarf was a high-ranking official from about the same time who had a disability, but other than his stature, he was able to function normally in the noble society. I imagine twins joined at the waist were not.

Secondly, I feel there is a decent amount of evidence supporting an intimate relationship. In the picture above, the men are shown not only in an embrace, but with the belts of their kilts tied together. They also had their names written as one name, a significant thing since in Ancient Egypt, names were considered a part of the soul. They magically became one by joining their names.

Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep are shown in their tomb along with their wives and children, and this has been used to support the twins/brothers hypothesis. However, I have seen counter arguments to that as well. All evidence indicates that marriage in ancient Egypt was a civil affair, used to create legitimate heirs and inheritance ties. There has yet to be found an ancient Egyptian marriage ceremony, for example. The institution of marriage was not about love or the sacred union of souls, but about making babies and joining families. Having children (biological or adopted) was a duty for all Egyptians in a time and place where infant and child mortality was high. Therefore, it has been theorized that Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep, having fulfilled their societal obligation to reproduce, were free to pursue a romantic relationship with each other. After all, men did take female concubines in addition to their wives, and not having our own puritanical heritage, the Egyptians considered sex something healthy to be enjoyed for its own sake, not just for the making of children (although as far as they were concerned that was a nice fringe benefit.)

And finally, unlike dwarves, twins did not seem to be favored in Ancient Egypt. There is relatively little mention of them before 1000 b.c.e. (late in Egypt's history) and the Papyrus Westcar says "...we shall fill her womb with male and female children, and save her from giving birth to twins..."*

I guess what gets me the most about this whole thing is that we seem to still cling to the ethnocentric attitudes from 100 years ago when Lady Charlotte Guest translated a sex-free Mabinogion. And this is not just about ancient homosexuality, for those who would accuse me of being in league with the nefarious "Gay Agenda". Another example from Egypt is the tomb of the 1st Dynasty queen Meryt-Neith. When her tomb was first discovered in 1900, it was immediately assumed to belong to a Pharaoh, due to its size and the elaborateness of its grave goods. However, when it was discovered that Meryt-Neith is in fact a feminine name, her status dropped to that of a queen, a decision based purely on her gender. Never mind that there were female Pharaohs, most notably Hatshepsut. Had she turned out to have indeed been male, we would learn about Pharaoh Meryt-Neith.*

So a person in a kingly tomb is not a king because she turns out to have been female. Two people shown in their tomb in the manner of husband and wife are now being called conjoined twins because they are both male. The Egyptians thought and acted exactly like us, just in funny jewelry and makeup a long, long time ago, right?? What a much richer, more interesting world we could live in if we see things in the terms of other cultures and circumstances than our own?

*I could not find any good online resources, this information comes from the book Daughters of Isis by Joyce Tyldesley.