The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt

Egyptian history is hidden behind 7 veils, and you can easily be fooled by this book. It moves along very quietly. Nothing grabs you about it. Each essay shows the same amount of caution where angels fear to tread. But when you go to the Index and seek an item, it is usually there. One exception is the site of the Exodus start, where the Israelites in bondage worked to build the palaces of Ramses II and his huge family. The site is known as Avaris II, and we now know that it sits atop Avaris I, which was once a huge fortified city used as the capital of the Hyksos, who conquered and ruled Egypt, piece by piece, for 150 years. No small amount of time: 7.5 gene-pool generations. We here have a map of the Hyksos capital, a diagram of its northern influences, another of a gravesite with human bones, a chart of its stratigraphy and chronology, supplied by Janine Bourriau. This broke the quiet pattern and grabbed me. It would have been nice to know more about Upper Egyptian genius at becoming a world leader in monumental stone sculpture earlier than any other people. Where did all that wealth really come from? How did the economy break down in terms of Deltaland trade and African slavery in Nubian gold mines? We may never know that full story. Museums cloud it with surviving tomb treasure. Well over 90% was stolen from the crypts, never to make it to our time. Shaw's edited anthology is probably a better book of essays by leading experts than the Egyptian government has put together in explaining the evolution of Egypt as a nation, from its raw beginnings as separate provincial kingdoms. He has updated the classic books on Egyptian history, written by non-Egyptians, such as Breasted. To the point where Bourriau tells us that Eblan and Ugaritic pottery shards were found in the lower strata of Avaris I. We have much to learn yet about ancient Egypt, and Shaw's anthology is a big step in that direction. The world-traveling museum-showcase treasure of Tutankhamen is nice to look at, but here are the gritty details of the growth of dynastic Egypt from provincial roots and its failed religion of the divine-king's tomb. The periods of foreign conquest from their Northland and Southland remain as more-important historic treasure we have not yet truly found. The 7 veils remain in place, but Shaw's panoramic anthology approach allows us to look through the threadbare openings. Excellently illustrated. --Al Sundel

As a teacher and Egyptian American, I love the detail of this book. I learned about the predynastic period which dates back 7000 BC, and incredible time, which allowed me to see how the civilization slowly began to form into the great Civ of ancient Egypt. The writing is detailed and academic, so I recommend that it is read in pieces. But the scholars are thorough.

For the serious beginning student, or for someone who wants a review or reference work, this book is well organized, clearly written, and provides plenty of bibliographic information for further research as well. It is a sound purchase. I am dinging it one star because the maps in the Kindle edition were scanned in and rendered so poorly that in many cases the names of places can barely be read, and zooming in does no good at all. For a work like this I really expected better quality maps & visuals.

Mint, pristine paperback, well-bound for the size (1 inch thick). Good read! Wasn't sure I would get through a history like this, as not my usual choice. Cycles through consistent subset of topics for each era. Sequencing easy to follow as a result. Academic precise text, well-proofed. East-to-read font with wide lateral margins for text description breaking up most pages. Great service.

The _Oxford History of Ancient Egypt_ is really a compilation of essays on the various periods of Ancient Egyptian history from the paleolithic through the Roman conquest. Initially I was off-put by this, but I quickly recognized the strength of this sort of approach. simply put, each section is written by an expert on that particular period of time, giving readers access to the considerable expertise and fluency with the subject matter that simply outweighs what any single scholar could provide on the area. I found the chapters on the Naqada Period (ca. 4000 - 3200 BCE) by Beatrix Midant-Reynes, the First Intermediate Period by Stephen Seidlmeyer and the Second Intermediate Period by Jamie Bourrian to be particularly well-done. The depth, detail and clarity with which these scholars write is exceptional. The _Oxford History of Ancient Egypt_ is the best single volume on the region's history I have read. I give it my highest recommendations for anyone interested in the area and time period - the scholarly detail and accessibility of language is unparalleled.

I bought this book to delve more into Ancient Egyptian history. The books does just that! It goes through many details that other books miss out on as well as dispels crazy modern pop culture theories about Egypt. I especially like the recommended reading section at the end which provides a ton of books based on era and/or other topic of interest.

This book is an impressive albeit esoteric collection of essays. Its gives real insight in the creation and development of a great African civilization. I like especially the beginning chapters explaining the Saharan Neolithic and also the Badarian and Naqada cultures. It gives clear evidence that Ancient Egypt was indigenous to the African continent , not a transplant from Eurasia. Although the writers use super technical jargon never once asserting the simple fact that AE was indigenous to Africa, they instead use specific geographic regions of the Nile Valley and adjacent areas, such as the Eastern desert or western desert to point out the origins of these indigenous groups. However in chapter 2 the authors don't give any credence to the idea that Agriculture may have also been an indigenous development, as oppossed to being borrowed from the Levant. The authors actually point out the unusual fact that Agriculture was present in the East and west deserts of Egypt 500 years before it shows up in the Nile Valley during the Pre-Badarian era, but fails to consider the possibility that this maybe explained by Agriculture being adopted from a southerly African source. However they do admit that cattle--based pastoral farming practised during the Saharan Neolithic by a Sudanese group (ancestral to the Badarian) which moved into the western desert was apparently indigenous. But what puzzles me the most in this book is a curious section by Ian Shaw himself titled the Race of Ancient Egyptians. He says that linguistically the Ancient Egyptians were Afro-asiatic which he says is a way of sayin that their language had similarities to contemporary languages both in Africa and the Middle East. In other words Afro-Asiatic means ancient Egypt was a fusion of middle Eastern and african elements with a greater kinship to the Middle East.In a sense he would be right. After all afro-asiatic is a misnomer used to distort the African origin of the language, the actual word according to Ehret ought to be Afrasan. Afrasan is an indigenous African Language group with six branches, all six of them in Africa, with one tiny asiatic offshoot--Semitic spreading out from Ethiopia into the Middle East, as a result of African migration into that region.(see Ehret, Diakonof, Greenberg). No where does he admit to Afrasan originating in Africa or Ancient Egypt being wholly indigenous to Africa. Further more he goes on to talk about ancient skeletal remains with European, negroid and mediterranean characteristics from predynastic Egypt. What is Mr. Shaw talking about? Is he saying that there were Europeans and Mediteranneans( which is a euphimism for white) in that part of the world at that time? Something which i did not deduce from reading the earlier chapters about the predynastic age, no matter how much the truth was submerged in esoteric jargon.Something else i have issue with is the old age cartoonish attempt to divine the complexion of Ancient Egyptians by looking at the paint they use to depict themselves in their artwork. Mr Shaw was able to divine that Ancient Egyptians were somewhere between the Asiatics and Nubians-in other words just right--not too black not too white. Never mind that Subsaharan Africans including Nubians have the widest range of biologial diversity in terms of skin tones or phenotypes in the world. Mr Ian Shaw, in his quest to deafricanise Ancient Egypt, actually revives the now long dead dynastic race theory which claims that Ancient early Egyptian Dynastic civilization was a result of a kind of Syrio-Palestinian invasion. And this is in a book published in the 21st century. How does any scholar sleep at night after shamelessly trying to revive this racist idea? I think there is a good reason why this section is so short. The authour's conscience probably would not bear the burden of the pseudo-scientific sins that Mr. Shaw was carrying out. But to be fair to the man, we ought to quote him in full."...The anthropological evidence from this date was once interpreted by Bryan Emery and others, as the rapid conquest of Egypt by people from the east whose remains were racially distinct from the indigenous Egyptians, it is now argued by some scholars that there may have been a much slower period of demographic change, probably involving the gradual infitration of a different physical type from Syria-Palestine, via the eastern delta." In other words, The local African population was gradually wiped out by Eurasian invasions, albeit gradual invasions. Ofcourse every modern anthropological study of Ancient Egypt shows biological continuity from the Badarian to the latest stages of the Dynastic period. (see Shomarka Keita)This conclusion tells us a lot more about the fanciful imagination that the "great mind" of Shaw has been endowed with (he should entertain the idea of writing fiction) than it says about the latest achievements and conclusions drawn from the application of the the cutting edge science employed in modern Egyptology. But what really floored me was a corny and buffoonish attempt by Shaw to promote the idea of Multi-cultural Egypt which was more Syrio-Palestinian as opposed to an African Egypt by using individual examples. He talks about an apparently negroid statesman buried in the Valley of the Kings and also a Middle Eastern Vizier. Again it would do justice to quote the man " Thus the demonstrably negroid features of the high official Maiherpri did not prevent him from attaining the special privilege of being buried in the Valley of the Kings at about the time of Thutmose III... In the same way, a man called Aper-el, whose name indicates his Near Eastern roots, rose to the rank of vizier( the highest civil office below that of the King himself) in the late 18th dynasty". What? How is Mr Shaw so sure that Thutmose III, along with the vast majority of Ancient Egyptians did not share the same negroid features of the official who worked under him? The authour sounds as if he were talking about an African American like Colin Powell or Barak Obama rising to prominence in the Modern day US, a predominantly white society. And how does negroid elements in an African living and working in an African civilization equate with being a Middle Eastern foreigner accepted as an African or Egyptian national? Only the author knows. Taking an Afrocentric approach to studying Ancient Egypt does not equate to adopting any kind of political agenda. It simply means accepting Ancient Egypt as an organically African culture, something that too many scholars inspite of all their brilliance and learning just find too difficult to do. I use the word afrocentric in the most literal sense of the word. Studying Ancient Egypt within its African context instead of the subtle but negrophobic approach of seeing this civilization as a rich and giant culture cake to be sliced out evenly and fairly among Aricans,Asians and imaginary Europeans.

Anyone who likes to study Egypt should own this

Otimo

Great book which was a gift for my mother who thoroughly enjoyed it.

Excellent introduction to ancient Egypt written by some of the most learned experts in archeology. Got the kindle version for a couple of dollars, an excellent value.

Lectura árida. Parece clásico y no incorpora las últimas investigaciones.

Comprehensive account of ancient Egyptian history full of details and the extensive research involved