At the core of social structure are family and household, the latter a more expansive and inclusive institution. In Egypt, as in all state-level societies, kinship was not the dominant mode of connection and articulation of social modes of being. Rank and role usually determined social position, and most people had to relate to non-kin in order to function within the society as a whole. But kinship was a primary structuring mechanism in communities and was vital for the individual. Kin are represented on elite monuments from the Old Kingdom onward (e. g. Whale 1989; Lustig 1997; Baud 1999), while extended genealogies became characteristic components of textual self-presentation in the Third Intermediate and Late Periods (e. g. Bierbrier 1975; Leahy and Leahy 1986; Jansen-Winkeln 2006b).
Kinship terms reflect wider patterns of social interaction that are difficult to model. Egyptian terminology does not fit any of the broad types developed by anthropologists (Franke 1983: 161-6; 2001, 246), while the range of application of specific terms and their development over time is not well understood (overviews: Franke 2001; Campagno 2009). Primary sources for studying these problems include nonroyal stelae and tomb scenes which display kin (Robins 1979; Franke 1983; Willems 1983), as well as references to kin relationships in documentary material such as administrative and legal texts, and letters. This material is from the elite, literate sphere and was created for purposes only partly related to kinship that shaped how it was represented and described (Kothay 2001: 350).
Six basic kinship terms form the core of the Egyptian system, locating the individual in ascendant and descendant (vertical) or collateral (horizontal) relationships: father (if), mother (mwt), son (si), daughter (sAt), brother (sn) and sister (snt).
Additional terms describe affinal (non-blood) kin relationships, notably husband (hiy) and wife (Amt). The distinction between ascendant and collateral relationships may point to the existence of separate patterns of kin category (Campagno 2009). Ascendant terms have both restricted and extended meanings in terms of generation and lines of descent: it ‘‘father’’ can also mean grandfather and spouse’s father, as well as male ancestors more generally; ‘‘mother’’ has a similar frame of reference. it can extend metaphorically to the role of ‘‘guardian’’ or ‘‘teacher.’’ Such usages illuminate the behaviors and responsibilities associated with particular relationships (Assmann 1991).
The range of meanings encompassed by the collateral terms, sn and snt, is wider. sn can designate an individual as brother, mother’s brother, father’s brother, sister’s husband, mother’s sister’s son, brother’s son, sister’s son, or brother by marriage. The terms also extend to non-kin colleagues, friends, or rivals. From the New Kingdom, sn and snt are terms for lovers in love poetry and for husband and wife in tomb contexts, suggesting that they may signify ‘‘[a] relationship essentially based on reciprocity’’ (Revez 2003: 127).
Although the six main terms can be used in compounds that specify non-nuclear kin relationships more precisely, for example, sn n mwtf ‘‘brother of his mother,’’ such compounds are not common. The range of possible extended meanings of the basic terms causes difficulties for those who attempt to reconstruct genealogies (e. g. Willems 1983: 154-6, 163-5). In monumental contexts, most attention is given to delineating parent-child relationships through expressions of filiation, notably X ir(t). n Y (‘‘X made by Y,’’ Y being either father or mother) or X ms(t).n Y (‘‘X born of Y,’’ primarily for mother-child relationships). Changes in filiation formulae in terms of frequency, patterns of expression, and emphasis (e. g. to mother or father) from the Middle Kingdom to the New Kingdom (Robins 1979: 198-9) may speak to broader changes either in kin structures or in priorities for display.
In the context of stelae depicting large numbers of kin, precise specification of relations may have been unimportant and space a significant constraint, while the group creating the composition would have known who everyone was. Such display is also primarily concerned with the owner’s status, siting him at the center of kin, community, and patronage (e. g. Simpson 1974; Willems 1983, 163-5) rather than presenting detailed maps of these networks. They also provide access to a written death for those who could not otherwise afford or acquire one.
At the heart of Egyptian kinship terminology is the parent-child relationship. Although the social realities of kin group and household were probably more extended and complex, the image of the nuclear family was potent for monumental display, mobilizing continuity, legitimacy, and adherence to social norms. The dominance of images of husband and wife in mortuary contexts (cf. Roth 1999) and the range of affinal terms that refer to their relationship (Toivari-Viitala 2001: 15-48) display the importance of marriage as an institution. The most detailed evidence relating to marriage within a single community comes from Deir el-Medina. As Jaana Toivari-Viitala (2001: 49-50) observes, ‘‘marriage’’ should not be understood as signifying a single, formalized relationship, cohabiting, monogamous, with specific legal obligations and behavioral expectations. The variety of terms used in Deir el-Medina to refer to marriage suggests that in the later New Kingdom it encompassed a range of relationships. Some of these seem to have included conjugal property rights for women and expectations of sexual exclusivity (Johnson 2003; Eyre 2007). Although there is no clear evidence for marriage ceremonies, texts from Deir el-Medina that refer to marriage payments and gifts (Toivari-Viitala 2001: 61-9) indicate that the significance of marriage was acknowledged socially.
There is little evidence for rules governing the choice or prohibition of partners. Kin groups were probably influential in the negotiation of a first marriage. Outside the royal sphere, marriages between close kin are not attested (e. g. Toivari-Viitala 2001: 57-9). Among elites marriage contributed to the creation and maintenance of political networks (e. g. Polz 1998: 284-8, fig. 6). Class, rank, and family affiliation no doubt affected partner choice at lower social levels as well. Men and women could remarry after divorce (Toivari-Viitala 2001: 90-5) or the death of a spouse, although the position of the second wife, especially in relation to property ownership and inheritance, could be problematic; evidence for polygyny is variable and often ambiguous (Eyre 2007).
Eyre suggests (2007: 225) that marriage only became meaningful once children were born, and that the institution focused around the maintenance of property within the core family group. Individuals without children were socially lacking (e. g. Teaching of Ptahhotep: Parkinson 1997: 253). Adoption was one possible resolution; in one case a man adopted his wife in order to ensure his property would be retained within the immediate family (Eyre 1992). Children could inherit from both parents. Eldest sons ideally received the largest share, in keeping with their responsibility for the funeral and mortuary cult of their parents, as well as duties of care for siblings (Lippert in press). A daughter or collateral (brother or uncle) could undertake this role if there was no son, if he was deemed unsuitable, or if circumstances favored other divisions (Eyre 1992: 215-17; 2007: 234-5). Parents could disinherit children; the will of the woman Naunakhte from Deir el-Medina excludes some of her children because they had neglected her (McDowell 1999: 38-40).
Although the nuclear family is at the center of inheritance patterns, kinship terminology, and the display of social groups, extended families and households (including non-kin dependants) would have constituted social reality for most individuals and would have governed the practicalities of property management. The numerous terms for extended kin and household groups, many of which are first attested from the Middle Kingdom, point in this direction. Examples include mhwt and whyt, which can refer to extended kin groups (perhaps ‘‘clans’’). Both terms, especially whyt, often link the group with spatial settings, village communities, and settlements. Detlef Franke’s survey (1983: 178-301; cf. 2001: 246-7) remains the most detailed study of these terms. Changes in their use and meaning over time and within different contexts, as well as their relationships to concepts of place (e. g. whyt) and time (e. g. ht meaning ‘‘body’’ and ‘‘corporation’’ as well as ‘‘generation’’) are potentially significant for the interpretation of networks of kin within and beyond communities.
A household is a cohesive, yet fluid, social group normally bound by kinship and other close ties of dependence with the most senior male at its head. Co-residency is implied, although this may encompass single residences or ‘‘estates’’ (Lehner 2000: 278-80). The size of the group probably increased relative to the status of the head of the household. Wealth, status, and available space would similarly affect whether newly married couples lived in a parent’s house or set up their own (Toivari-Viitala 2001: 86-7; Eyre 2007: 224, 230-1). Much lived experience was focused around the household, which was not only ‘‘the social and material bedrock of private relations’’ (Meskell 2002: 94), but also a fundamental organizing principle for wider social structures (Lehner 2000). Letters from the Twelfth Dynasty farmer Heqanakhte show that his household, defined as those receiving rations, included at least eighteen people, among whom were his sons, a second wife, his mother, several others whose relationships to him are uncertain, including possibly an aunt or sister, as well as non-kin staff and servants (Allen 2002: 107-17). The incorporation of potentially vulnerable unmarried or widowed female kin into households of their male relatives is attested in late Twelfth Dynasty household registration lists (wpwt) belonging to a single family at Lahun (Kothay 2001: 353-5; Kemp 2006: 221, fig. 79). The significance of non-kin for the household is illustrated by wet-nurses who were sometimes depicted among kin on stelae and tomb walls (e. g. HTII, pl. 42, second and third rows, far right; pl.44).
World History
