Severed hands as trophies in New Kingdom Egypt

[Dave Beatty]

Interesting article from a year or so ago about the use of severed hands as trophies in battle in NKE:

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-near-eastern-world/severed-hands-trophies-of-war-in-new-kingdom-egypt/

[Patrick Waterson]

This was a convenient way of counting enemy casualties, and saved having to drag the bodies into rows to see how many there were.  Merneptah apparently adopted an even more efficacious and foolproof method of casualty calculation: because Egyptians were circumcised and their opponents mostly were not, he required the relevant part to be detached and brought.  This was lighter and easier to carry than a hand and could be laid out in neat rows for easy counting.

Where the opponent might include circumcised manpower, hands were preferred.  The trick was to remove Egyptian casualties - intact - first so that the unscrupulous could not claim merit under false pretences.

[aligern]

Now you'll tell us that there was an official p**** counter on pharaoh's  staff.
It must have made things easier, though as he could use a five bar gate notation to speed counting.

[Patrick Waterson]

Looking at the symbol for '1' in the Ancient Egyptian number system, yes, a natural fit - not too sure about 10 and 100, though ...

For the record, Pharaoh usually had a symbol of Ra or a statuette of Amun on his staff.

[Chuck the Grey]

This was a convenient way of counting enemy casualties, and saved having to drag the bodies into rows to see how many there were.  Merneptah apparently adopted an even more efficacious and foolproof method of casualty calculation: because Egyptians were circumcised and their opponents mostly were not, he required the relevant part to be detached and brought.  This was lighter and easier to carry than a hand and could be laid out in neat rows for easy counting.

Where the opponent might include circumcised manpower, hands were preferred.  The trick was to remove Egyptian casualties - intact - first so that the unscrupulous could not claim merit under false pretences.

This approach also appears in 1 Samuel 18:26-27 where David presents the foreskins of 200 Philistines to King Saul is a bride price for Saul's daughter Michal. Perhaps not the sort of thing you would like to display at the wedding feast. You sleep

[Patrick Waterson]

Well spotted, Chuck.  And yes, the wedding feast could take a bad turn if someone made a mistake with the dishes after too much wine!

The implication is that casualty counts were taken seriously in these cultures, not least because some cultures had an award scheme.

Ahmose of el-Kab:

"One fought on the water in the canal Pazedkhu of Avaris.  Then I fought hand-to-hand, I brought away a hand.  It was reported to the royal herald.  One gave to me the gold of valour."

Hence if a Pharaoh claims he (or rather his army) slew 6,000 or even 60,000 of the enemy, he most probably did.

My own interest in the matter extends to the size of Biblical period armies in general and Egyptian armies in particular.  Sometimes the owners of such armies write about very large numbers taking the field under their command.  If these authorities were so particular about verifying casualties, it strikes me as unlikely that they would misrepresent the numbers of their own forces.

[Erpingham]

Hence if a Pharaoh claims he (or rather his army) slew 6,000 or even 60,000 of the enemy, he most probably did.

Or he could be exaggerating to increase his prestige. Modern politicians didn't invent spin

[Jim Webster]

Hence if a Pharaoh claims he (or rather his army) slew 6,000 or even 60,000 of the enemy, he most probably did.

Or he could be exaggerating to increase his prestige. Modern politicians didn't invent spin

You beat me to that one Anthony. Whilst Pharaoh may have had a pretty good idea how many he had killed and how many he had lost, there is no real reason why he should have shared this figure.
It's not as if the records were in danger of being released to a hostile press 

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

Again, I doubt that Pharaoh would take such pains to establish correct enemy casualty figures and then lie about it - it is not as if his entire army would be unaware of the count that had taken place.

Where we occasionally see His Majesty bending the truth is in other aspects: Amenhotep II and Ramses II both emphasised their individual prowess in combat - the one at 'y-r-s-t' (Moresheth Gath) and the other at 'k-d-sh' (Carchemish).  A small detail they omitted to mention is that in each case they left much of their army behind on the battlefield.  Where the army, or rather the engaged portion of it, has not survived to confirm or deny, His Majesty can put a twist on the spin.

Conversely, the ever-victorious Thutmose III told only the truth - and reminds the gods several times that this is the case.  And when Amenhotep II and Ramses II were victorious, they make mention of the enemy leadership who either perished on the battlefield or were brought back to Egypt to expiate their wrongdoings before Amun.  This is actually a fairly good index for determining whether or not a Pharaoh won a particular battle - what happened to the enemy leadership by/at the end of the campaign?

[Jim Webster]

Don't you remember 'comical ali' the Iraqi minister who announced the defeat of the Americans with US tanks in the background.
The troops in the army are unlikely to ever see the temple walls, and almost certainly couldn't read anyway.

Jim

[stevenneate]

Now, all I have to do is work this into a Friday night gaming scenario.  Shouldn't be too hard......

[Patrick Waterson]

Now, all I have to do is work this into a Friday night gaming scenario.  Shouldn't be too hard......

Just ask a few mates to lend you a hand ... 

Don't you remember 'comical ali' the Iraqi minister who announced the defeat of the Americans with US tanks in the background.
The troops in the army are unlikely to ever see the temple walls, and almost certainly couldn't read anyway.

Iraqi ministers, especially of the Saddam era, were not exactly subscribers to the tradition of Ma'at, but did have a thorough grounding in the Arab tradition of wishful thinking.  Ancient Egyptian soldiers interested to read all abaht it on the walls of, say, Karnak or Medinet Habu had only to ask a scribe or priest - but they would also have been in the position of being able to compare notes ("I was there when the - er - trophies were counted.") which might be why Ramses II, for example, seems to leave out casualties on both sides whereas Merneptah puts the opposing casualties in.  Ramses was covering for a defeat, but it is instructive to note that his method involved playing up his own role rather than mis-stating or inventing figures.  (Merneptah would suffer defeats later in his reign, but never recorded them.)

That said, we may have lost some of the Karnak carvings over the centuries: Diodorus states that the murals recorded the Egyptian army as 400,000 strong, although even he makes no mention of casualties on either side.

[Jim Webster]

Which is one reason why I am always wary of figures on the Murals.
The 'military caste' who were all technically members of the army might have been that strong; similarly if you included the manpower of all the tribes who were supposed to provide men, it might have been that strong.
But the 'Field army' never reached that sort of numbers 

Jim

[Erpingham]

There are several things in play here.  I believe that temple inscriptions were there primarily to glorify the pharaoh who erected them, rather than provide an objective history to passers by.  I would also suggest the degree to which an individual soldier would be in a position to categorically disagree with the official version was limited.  "OK, my division was hammered but maybe the other divisions did really well, which is why we won?"  Versions of battles continue to vary according to the incomplete information available to participants.

I think there is also in this case an underlying issue with how much we trust large numbers in ancient sources.  From previous debate, I know Patrick favours believing all ancient numbers unless by a known dodgy source, whereas Jim (and I) have a more Debruckian scepticism

[Patrick Waterson]

But the 'Field army' never reached that sort of numbers 

Do we know this for certain?

There are several things in play here.  I believe that temple inscriptions were there primarily to glorify the pharaoh who erected them, rather than provide an objective history to passers by.

This is a rather wide generalisation, as it would seem that some Pharaohs were more forthcoming with the truth, usually the more successful ones.  Egypt had a culture of Ma'at, which is a composite of truth, harmony and serenity, and which is expressed in its art.  Egyptians were great tellers of their achievements, but these achievements did tend to be factually based.  They did not have our culture with its emphasis on appearances and presentation in place of real achievement.

Yes, Pharaoh did erect inscriptions to glorify himself.  However he did not list imaginary deeds: that was simply not part of the culture.  He might list deeds he had performed but omit any part of the affair that had not gone too well.  Often enough, he was erecting pictures on temple walls - for the benefit of the gods, presumably to jog their memory of what a good chap he had been, which would gain him continued favour when he was in the Duat, the afterworld.  We might do well to remember that temple priests were the record-keepers of ancient Egypt, and collective memory relied on them rather than on Pharaoh's inscriptions.

  I would also suggest the degree to which an individual soldier would be in a position to categorically disagree with the official version was limited.  "OK, my division was hammered but maybe the other divisions did really well, which is why we won?"  Versions of battles continue to vary according to the incomplete information available to participants.

Yes and no: a soldier would know if after the battle there had been a count of appendages that enemy dead no longer required; he would probably be part of it, and would have received any reward due.  But if the army had not held the battlefield and hence there had been no count of enemy dead, he would know that.  The accounts of Ahmose pen-Nekhbet and Ahmose of el-Kab, our two 18th Dynasty 'warrior autobiographers', are very self-centred but also very aware of who won and where.

I think there is also in this case an underlying issue with how much we trust large numbers in ancient sources.  From previous debate, I know Patrick favours believing all ancient numbers unless by a known dodgy source, whereas Jim (and I) have a more Debruckian scepticism

Indeed.   And the reason Patrick favours numbers as written in these sources is that the picture is consistent across the ancient world and fits with the populations, societies and approaches to war of which we have records.