In the Archaeological history, landscape has always been considered as an important aspect in giving meaning to an artefact or a site. It provides a condition by which archaeologists can contextualized their findings. Even in the end of 19th Century, a pioneer of field archaeology, General Pitt Rivers, has prompted the role of natural settings in archaeological explanation (Thomas, 2001). Nevertheless, strange enough, in cultural resource management such a natural context is often neglected. This is partly because in the past archaeologists were concerned more on cultural remains. Though the natural setting of the cultural remains were admittedly important, it is still considered as natural rather than cultural. Hence, it was treated as different and separate entity.

It was not until a few decades ago that archaeologists realized that even the natural setting of an artifact or site is in fact a cultural remain. This has promoted a perspective which sees a landscape as a palimpsest of material traces from the past or it is considered as “ an assemblage of real world features – natural, seminatural, and wholly artificial – which is available to us in the present “ (see Thomas, 2001).

It is this new perspective that gives rise to landscape archaeology which is aimed at recovering “the history of things that have been done to the land” (ibid). Following this, archaeology is now moving from artefact- and site-oriented analysis to area- or region-oriented ones and the term “cultural landscape” is becoming more popular in this field of study.

Such a new archaeological understanding of landscape is well expressed in UNESCO’s formulation of a cultural landscape as follow (UNESCO, 2005) “Cultural landscapes are cultural properties and represent the combined works of nature and of man. They are illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural environment and of successive social, economic and cultural forces, both external and internal”.

The development of cultural resource management in Indonesia seems to follow the above-mentioned general trend. Disseminated in a colonial millieu, Indonesian archaeology began with the private interest in antiques and ancient monuments. Therefore, their interest was in artefact, building, and sites. The first regulation on the management of heritage in Indonesia (then the Netherlands Indie), Monumenten Ordonnantie stbl 1931 demonstrates this view. It stated that the term heritage referred to man-made as well as natural remains and site. Such a formulation has been reproduced in the new legislation issued in 1992, Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia no. 5 tahun 1992 tentang Benda Cagar Budaya (The Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 5 in the year 1992 on Cultural Property). Though in those two legislation, it is stated that the surrounding area of the site should be protected, but such a statement was not underlaid by awareness of the cultural relation between the artefact or site and its environment. Rather, it was only for the sake of the safety of the cultural remains.

This shows that until the last decade, Indonesia still adopted an old stance in putting a landscape in the heritage management. Fortunately, recently there has been a paradigm shift in the heritage management in Indonesia which put pressure on the government to revise UU no. 5/1992 on Cultural Property. The declaration of Indonesian Charter on Heritage Conservation in 2003 should be appreciated as an important movement to speed up the revision. It is also in this charter that cultural
landscape was firstly and clearly declared as a significant heritage in Indonesia. The revised legislation on Cultural Property which is being processed in the Parliament asserts the protection of a region (kawasan) with culturally interrelated sites.

It should be mentioned here, there has been another legislation that could be used as a basis for cultural landscape heritage management : Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 24 Tahun 1992 Tentang Penataan Ruang (Law of the Republic Indonesia no. 24 in the year 1992 on Spatial Arrangement) and also its implementation in Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 47 Tahun 1997 (Government Regulation no. 47 in the year 1997). These legislations clearly stated that the government may proclaim a region with significant heritage as a protection area (kawasan lindung).

Regarding the cultural landscape of Borobudur, it is obvious that the surrounding areas of the World Heritage Monument were, and still are, an integral part of the monument. The landscape is an important aspect in understanding and appreciating the heritage. The new and convincing evidence on the occurrence of ancient lake in the vicinity of Borobudur strongly support this notion. Although it is
not exactly like Nieuwenkamp’s imagination that Borobudur was a lotus in the centre of a pond, but it is quite obvious that the monument was built intentionally in lacustrine (lake) environment encircled by volcanoes and mountaineous region.

Actually, the need to protect the cultural landscape of Borobudur has been advised by leading Indonesian archaeologist, Prof. Dr. R. Soekmono, who also in charge of the restoration of the monument. Just before the official completion of Borobudur restoration in 1983, he suggested that Borobudur should remain in its authentic settings. He was afraid that many activities attracted by the monument would transform Borobudur area from rural into urban environment. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a proper plan for Borobudur landscape (Soekmono, 1983). This idea was partly accomodated in JICA masterplan in which Borobudur area was divided into 5 zones as follows (see Winarni, 2007)

Zone I Zone for protection and prevention of destruction of the physical environment of the archaeological monuments.

Zone II Zone for provision of park facilities for the convenience of visitors and preservation of historical environment.

Zone III Zone for regulation of land use around the parks and preservation of the environment while controlling development in areas surrounding the parks.

Zone IV Zone for maintenance of historical scenery and prevention of destruction of the scenery.

Zone V Zone for undertaking archaeological surveys over a wide area and prevention of destruction of undiscovered archaeological monuments.

However, it is clear from what has happened so far, such a masterplan has never been properly followed up. Many of regulations stipulated in the masterplan have never been put in place. Law enforcement is very weak. This condition has triggered a prolonged conflict between the authrorities, private sectors, local communities, and even among local communities. As Soekmono predicted, Borobudur area is bccoming urban rather than rural. Surely, this situation will destroy the cultural landscape of Borobudur in the long run, if nothing is done to stop this on-going deteriorating process.

What should be done ?

It is now timely to reconsider the policy in managing the Borobudur World Heritage. A new management strategy should be put in place and a proper management plan should be established. In doing so, we have to make use of momentous paradigm shift in heritage management in Indonesia.

Firstly, the management of Borobudur should be founded on the concept of Borobudur Cultural Landscape in which the main focus of the management is not the monument, Chandi Borobudur, but the whole surrounding area of Borobudur including the local communities and their culture. Following this, the management of this area should be an integral part of those of the larger region of surrounding regencies, such as Magelang, Sleman, Purworejo, and Kulon Progo. Without cooperative efforts from the government and local communities in those regencies, the cultural landscape of Borobudur which covers a very vast area of Kedu Basin could not be conserved.

Secondly, the management of Borobudur area shouldnot be based on the “archaeology in the service of th state” paradigm in which the government plays a central role in the management of heritage. Rather, it should follow the “public archaeology” paradigm. In the latter paradigm, heritage management is aimed at giving greater benefit to public at large. It means “Heritage for all”. Local authorities and communities should be given opportunities to take part in the planning of and carrying out the management of Borobudur, while the Central Government plays as the facilitator. This is commonly referred as partnership management (Taylor, 1994).

Thirdly, such a partisipatory management should provide choices for the local communities in response to the managament plan. These choices include participation with voluntarily principle, compensation, and insentive. The management should consist not only development plan but also development
control.

Through those efforts, hopefully the cultural landscape of Borobudur could be conserved integrally : the built heritage, the local communities, the culture, and the environment.

References

Thomas, J. 2001. Archaeologies of Places and Landscapes, in I. Hodder (ed.), Archaeological Theory Today. Polity Press, Cambridge. Pp. 175-186.

UNESCO. 2005. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.

Soekmono, R. 1983. Usaha Demi Usaha Menyelamatkan Candi Borobudur, in Menyingkap Tabir Misteri Borobudur. PT Taman Wisata Candi Borobudur dan Prambanan. Hlm. 6-17. This article was originally published in Sinar Harapan 17-02-1983).

Winarni. 2006. Kajian Perubahan Ruang Kawasan World Cultural Heritage Candi Borobudur. Thesis S2 pada Program Studi Magister Perencanaan Kota dan Daerah Jurusan Ilmu-ilmu Teknik Sekolah Pasca Sarjana Universitas Gadjah Mada Yogyakarta.

Taylor, G. 1994. Conservation techniques: nature conservation and countryside management, dalam R. Harrison (ed.), Manual of Heritage Management. Butterford-Heinneman. Pp.191-201.

It is increasingly difficult for prehistorians working in the twenty-first century to conceptualise the problems experienced by their predecessors, and approaches to interpretation before the 1960s are consistently criticised. Culture history and diffusionism may - with hindsight - seem excessively preoccupied with classification and social evolution, and to have applied unsophisticated historical interpretations instead of asking fundamental questions about human behaviour.

TYPOLOGY AND CROSS-DATING

It must be made clear at the outset that typology is not, strictly speaking, a dating method, but a means of placing artefacts into some kind of order. Classification divides things up for the purposes of description, whereas typology seeks to identify and analyse changes that will allow artefacts to be placed into sequences.

    * TYPOLOGY IN TEXAS ARCHEOLOGY ‘The type is the basic unit of classification in archeology. In order to establish order and to facilitate analysis, the archeologist divides his data into typological categories.’ (Ellen Sue Turner and Thomas R. Hester: Texas State Historical Association

    * LITHICS-Net Point Type Information: Projectile Point Data Indexed By Morphology (Shape). Guide for the identification of North American stone tools (Art Gumbus)

    * Stronsay flints: ‘The discovery of two tiny flint arrowheads in Stronsay could represent the earliest evidence of human activity found in Orkney – if not Scotland - to date. … Flint experts Caroline Wickham-Jones and Torbin Ballin subsequently identified them as very early forms of prehistoric arrowheads – a type derived from a classification known as Ahrensburgian, found across the plains of north western Europe.’ (Orkneyjar)

Sequence dating and seriation
These techniques both place assemblages of artefacts into relative order. Petrie used sequence dating to work back from the earliest historical phases of Egypt into pre-dynastic Neolithic times, using groups of contemporary artefacts deposited together at a single time in graves. Seriation was developed in the USA to place in order finds from strata or other kinds of assemblages such as potsherds collected from the surface of sites.

    * William Matthew Flinders Petrie (1853-1942) ‘He developed a method for establishing the historical chronology of a site based on identifying different styles of pottery. Petrie was known and respected for his belief in the importance of evidence like pot sherds for informing the archaeologist about life in the past.’ (Petrie Museum, University College London)

    * AN EXERCISE IN SERIATION DATING (PDF file) ‘This method of assigning dates to sites … is based on the fact that a cultural trait, like the type of jeans worn by teens, experiences popularity peaks, in other words, an artifact’s popularity rises to a high point and then trails off, sometimes even to extinction.’ (George Brauer)

HISTORICAL DATING

    * CAVSENNAE / CAVSENNIS Romano-British Town A range of inscriptions and documentary sources brought to bear on dating a small town at Ancaster in Lincolnshire; minor settlements of this kind rarely if ever featured in historical documents (WWW.Roman-Britain.ORG)    * The Thera (Santorini) Volcanic Eruption and the Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Bronze Age A PDF file about Sturt W. Manning’s book A test of time: the volcano of Thera and the chronology and history of the Aegean and east Mediterranean in the mid second millennium BC (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1999), which focuses on the difficulty of reconciling scientific and historical dates.

If a context containing burnt debris and broken artefacts is excavated on a site from a historical period, it is tempting to search the local historical framework for references to warfare or a disaster in the region, and to date the excavated context accordingly.

SCIENTIFIC DATING TECHNIQUES

    * Dating rock art Superb introduction to traditional and scientific dating methods and their application. ‘The major methodological limitation in rock art studies is that art assemblages can be difficult to date. However, chronological data is crucial to many types of analysis in which rock art evidence is integrated with other archaeological and environmental information. This section will briefly survey the range of dating techniques used in contemporary rock art studies.

    These fall into two broad categories:

    a) Relative dating methods such as degree of weathering, superimposition analysis, stylistic analysis and inter-site patterning.     

    b) Absolute dating methods such as analysis on the basis of subjects depicted, consistent association with datable deposits, the dating of stratified deposits associated with rock art and the direct dating of the art itself.’ ( School of Human and Environmental Sciences, University of New England, Australia)

    * Archaeometry and Stonehenge An example of the application of modern scientific dating to a major prehistoric site (English Heritage)

    * Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art ‘The department is dedicated to the development and application of scientific methods to the study of the past.’ Lots of informative links (Oxford University)

Accurate knowledge of the age of the Earth was of little direct help to archaeologists, but it emphasised the potential of scientific dating techniques. The first half of the twentieth century witnessed similar progress that began with the dating of recent geological periods in which early hominids lived, and ended with the introduction of radiocarbon dating.

Climatostratigraphy

—– Seabed deposits

    * Temperatures from Fossil Shells ‘An example of the ingenious technical work and hard-fought debates underlying the main story is the use of fossil shells to find the temperature of oceans in the distant past.’ (American Institute of Physics)

A datable record of climatic change in relatively recent periods has been recovered from cores, up to 3 km long, extracted from the ice sheets of Greenland and elsewhere.

Varves

    * VARVES: annually-deposited sediment ‘1912 Gerard DeGeer developed the Swedish Varve Chronology, the first accurate dating of the late-glacial and Holocene.’ (Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona)

Deposits of volcanic ash encountered in stratified contexts on archaeological sites offer opportunities for dating.

Pollen (NB: pollen analysis has been superceded as a DATING method by radiocarbon since the 1950s)

    * Pollen analysis ‘Each sample can be analyzed for pollen grain and spore content, with each grain or spore being identified as the prepared slide is traversed on a mechanical stage under the high-power microscope. Then a pollen diagram, graphical expression of pollen analysis, can be constructed with consideration of sampling error.’ (MSU EMuseum)

It has been recognised since at least the fifteenth century that trees produce annual growth rings - their physiology was understood by the eighteenth century - and that they could be counted to calculate the age of a tree when it was felled. Because the thickness of these rings is affected by annual climatic factors, distinctive sequences of rings may be recognised in different samples of timber and used to establish their contemporaneity.

—– The application of tree-ring dating

    * Crossdating Tree Rings ‘You will be able to interact with this presentation, including trying skeleton plotting for yourself!’ (Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona)

    * Dendrochronology (Tree-Ring Dating) of Panel Paintings ‘Many European paintings are painted on solid wooden panels or boards, typically oak for Netherlandish paintings. The wood is usually split radially so that, in ideal circumstances, a sequence of annual growth-rings from pith to sapwood is present. These sequences are then matched one against another by the dendrochronologist and compared with growth sequences whose dates are known from living trees. Absolute dates can thus be assigned to specific annual rings. Sometimes the geographic origin of a board can be determined as well.’  (detailed illustrated explanation by Peter Ian Kuniholm)

Radioactive decay

    * What is radioactive dating? Part of a clear introduction to geological dating methods from Australian Museum, Sydney

    * PRIME Lab Purdue Rare Isotope Measurement Laboratory: explanations of the principles of Accelerator mass spectrometry, and a wider look at the uses of radioacive isotopes.

Radiocarbon dating was one peaceful by-product of accelerated wartime research into atomic physics and radioactivity in the 1940s. The rate of decay of 14C, which has a half-life of 5730 (±40) years, is long enough to allow samples of carbon as old as 70,000 years to contain detectable levels of radioactive emissions, but short enough for samples from periods since the late Stone Age to be measured with reasonable precision.

Presenting and interpreting a radiocarbon date

    * CALIB Radiocarbon Calibration ‘CALIB makes the conversion from radiocarbon age to calibrated calendar years by calculating the probability distribution of the sample’s true age. Graphics and a variety of options are available through the program’s menus.’ (Minze Stuiver and Paula Reimer)

    * Why radiocarbon measurements are not true calendar ages How radiocarbon calibration works (from Radiocarbon Web-Info)

    * Der Tod startet die Stoppuhr Death starts the stop-watch: ‘Everytime a living being dies a stop-watch starts ticking. Science can read this watch and thus determine the age of a find.’ A dated but well illustrated description of radiocarbon dating (WebMuseen, Germany)

Most organic materials are suitable for dating; the lower the carbon content, the larger the sample needs to be.

—– The impact of radiocarbon dating

    * THE CONTRIBUTION OF RADIOCARBON DATING TO NEW WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY PDF file of article by R E Taylor from RADIOCARBON, Vol 42, Nr 1, 2000, p 1–21: ‘The application of the 14C method to archaeological materials is generally considered to be a watershed event in the history of archaeology and, in particular, in prehistoric studies… Perhaps the most forceful statement was the view of the late Glyn Daniel that the development of the 14C method in the 20th century should be equated with the 19th century change in the Western world view that accompanied the revelation of the great antiquity of the human species…’ (Delaware Department of Transportation Archaeology Series No. 155)

Potassium-argon is ideal for dating early hominid fossils in East Africa, for they occur in an area that was volcanically active when the fossils were deposited between one and five million years ago; pioneering results in the 1950s doubled previous estimates of their age.

Uranium series dating

    * Open University Uranium-Series Facility Information on archaeological projects (Department of Earth Sciences, The Open University)

This method involves counting microscopic tracks caused by fragments derived from fission of uranium-238 in glassy minerals, whether geological or of human manufacture. In practice the most useful samples come from zircon or obsidian, which was used extensively for making tools.

Luminescence dating

    * Forschungsstelle Archaeometrie Follow link to Luminescence (Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik, Heidelberg)

    * Dating and Research Projects ‘The laboratory has extensive experience of dating archaeological ceramics and burnt stones from sites in Scotland and overseas. The value of TL dating of such materials frequently lies in the association between the event being dated and an archaeologically important event in the development of the site. For example the last heating of a hearth stone dates the abandonment of a prehistoric settlement. More recently there has been a marked increase in interest in optical dating of sediments, with many groups within the Scottish Universities having application interests.’ (Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, Luminescence Facilities)   

    * Luminescence dating ‘Luminescence dating is a relatively new alternative approach to Quaternary chronological problems. Both quartz and feldspar rich sediments, which are otherwise undateable by conventional radiocarbon methods, can be absolutely dated within a range of 10 to 300,000+ years.’ (Sheffield Centre for International Drylands Research)

    * Palaeolithic tools from the surface of optically stimulated luminescence dated alluvial fan deposits of Pinjaur Dun in NW sub-Himalayas PDF file of a case-study: ‘We therefore need to search for new evidence that may be available for working out a true chronology of the Sohan type tools and their sites, particularly in the absence of absolutely datable material. If in some cases, the absolute age of the surface on which some stone tools are found is known, it will certainly provide us with a lower limit to the date of fabrication/use of these tools.’ (ANUJOT SINGH SONI, VIDWAN SINGH SONI, CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 88, NO. 6, 25 MARCH 2005)

Like thermoluminescence, ESR is a ‘trapped charge’ dating method, but it is applied to different kinds of samples, and the method of measurement is also different. ESR does not release trapped electrons, but subjects them to electromagnetic radiation in a magnetic field, which causes electrons to resonate and absorb electromagnetic power. The strength of resonance reflects the number of electrons that have become trapped since the crystals were formed.

DERIVATIVE TECHNIQUES

    * Amino Acid Racemization Dating in New Zealand: An Overview Large PDF file. AAR ‘…is used to determine relative dates of biological materials such as bone, shell and teeth and has been used in an archaeological context for over 30 years. During this time a number of significant results have been generated but many have been questioned and the technique remains controversial. In spite of this the possibility of reliable AAR dating is attractive. The technique potentially serves as an independent method for dating faunal material, which is useful in the context of providing support for chronometric information produced by other methods.’ (Judith Robins, Martin Jones and Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith, Auckland University)

Obsidian - a natural volcanic glass - was a popular alternative to flint for making flaked tools in many parts of the world. As soon as a fresh surface of obsidian is exposed, for example during the process of making it into a tool, a microscopically thin hydration rim begins to form as a result of the absorption of water.

Archaeomagnetic dating

    * Archaeomagnetism ‘Archaeological materials that contain magnetic particles are kilns, pots, hearths and most sediments. Heating and cooling such materials (or depositing in air or water in the case of sediments) causes the geomagnetic field to be recorded by the magnetic particles present. This recorded magnetisation can be measured many years later and so give a date that is directly related to anthropogenic activity. The technique can be applied in the last 3000 years in the UK, however, it is not an independent method of dating and requires a reference curve to convert the magnetic direction measured into a date.’ (Archaeomagnetic Dating Laboratory, Department of Archaeological Sciences, University of Bradford)

    * Archaeomagnetic Analysis of a Roman(?) Kiln/Drying Oven, F159, Nosterfield Report on the application of this technique to an excavated structure in Yorkshire, England: ‘’A total of 13 samples of fired stone and 1 of fired clay were removed from F159 for the purpose of archaeomagnetic analysis and dating. Specimens were oriented in situ using the button method, combined with spirit levels and a sun compass. Demagnetisation tests showed that the magnetisation in the material is highly stable. The mean archaeomagnetic vector in the samples was compared with the UK Master Curve to suggest that last firing occurred in the date range 100-170A.D.’ (© Archaeological Planning Consultancy Ltd)

When major museums buy items for their collections they become involved in expensive commercial dealings in the fine art market. The profits to be made encourage not only illicit plundering of ancient sites but skilful forgeries. Scientific dating techniques can provide reassurance; when what is needed is confirmation that an object is not a modern fake, rather than a precise date, full control of all the variables that affect accuracy is not necessary.

The greatest secret of King Solomon’s temple is that it may have been constructed in the hidden form of a human body. Its architectural floor plan, in conjunction with the arrangement of its furnishings, reveals a “Temple Man” composed of three biblical figures: the Levitical High Priest, Jacob and a "Metallic Messiah." All three appear in a single composition, with one figure imposed atop the other. The measurements and description of the Temple (Heb., ha mikdash) are given in the Tanach (Old Testament) in I Kgs 6:1-35, and II Chr. 3:1-17, which is still our best source of information about this ancient (circa 950 BC) structure. Based primarily on these verses, various Jewish, Christian and secular reference works depict the holy house as a rectangular building with a triple-tiered row of cells wrapping around three of its sides: north, south and west, and with the entrance (but no cells), toward the east. See two drawings on this page. It should not be confused with the Second Temple built by King Herod about 20 BC and destroyed by the Romans in AD 70.

Importance of Tabnit, the ‘Plan’

The key to the Temple’s (or Mishkan’s, i.e, tabernacle’s) secrets is in the (floor) plan and layout of its furnishings. The “plan” or “pattern” (Heb., tabnit) of the structures and their furniture is mentioned I Chr. 28:11, 12,18,19 and Ex. 25:9, 39, 40. Tabnit is also translated as design, structure, figure, form, likeness, and shape. The Mishkan was the precursor of the Temple. Thus, in Dt. 4:16-18 the Israelites are forbidden making any likeness, form, or figure of a human or beast for worship. In Ezk. 8:10 the prophet sees repulsive forms or figures of creeping beasts, however in 8:3 he is lifted up by the form or figure of God’s hand, or an angel’s (see also 10:8). In Ps. 144:12 sons and daughters are compared to choice cut stones giving shape or form to a palace (see the Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).

Tabnit generally refers to the form of something. King David received Divine inspiration for the form, i.e., plan or pattern of the Temple. And before him, at Sinai, Moses heard God’s verbal instructions for the form of the Mishkan,Tabnit is related to banah which means to build a structure or house –– or to raise children, since a “house” may also refer to a family. Thus, in Ru. 4:11 Rachel and Leah, the two wives of Jacob (later renamed Israel), are called the “builders” of the House of Israel. This is how tabnit directly and indirectly relates to buildings, ordinary houses, the House of God (i.e., the Temple), and humans –– and their structure, form or figure.

The High Priest as Temple Man

The picture above is the Temple Floor Plan from the previous page now trans-formed into a figure of the Levite High Priest. Within the figure are 13 bold numbers which are briefly explained below. All are in sequence except for nine (9).

1. TREASURE ROOMS, PRIESTS’ CELLS, west side – Gold and silver bullion was kept in the Temple (I Kgs. 7:51 ) possibly in its western cells. These form the High Priest’s turban (Heb., misnepet). The common priest’s cap was more globular, like an inverted cup.

9. PRIESTS’ CELLS, south and north sides – These form the arms. Only one entrance is named (I Kgs. 6:8) but Ezk. 41:11 includes a second.The entrances correspond to the onyx stones the High Priest wore on his left and right shoulders. Each was engraved with the names of six Israelite tribes, twelve names total, Ex. 28:9 -12.

2. TWO LARGE STARS – These are two10-cubit tall cherubs of goldplated olive wood (I Kgs. 6:23), they form Temple Man’s eyes.

3. THE ARK of the Covenant – This was a goldplated chest with a solid gold lid topped by two small cherubs (small stars).The chest is his nose. Its poles were attached to its long sides rather than its short ones. They were drawn forward, I Kgs. 8:8, after the Ark was installed in the Holy of Holies and depict extended nostrils.

4. STAIRWAY – A short staircase led from the Holy Place to a slightly elevated Holy of Holies.The stairway is his neck/throat.

5. INCENSE ALTAR – This small goldplated altar (I Kgs. 6:22) is the heart. Its sweet-smelling smoke depicts prayer and the spiritual life.

6. TABLES OF THE SHOWBREAD – On these goldplated tables (I Kgs. 7:48) were bread and wine, symbolizing flesh and blood, i.e., the humanity of national Israel, the High Priest, and the Messiah.

7. THE LAMPS – These (II Chr. 4:7) provided light while portraying a Tree of Life. Their seven flames each stand for the seven days of Creation Week and also the seventy nations of the world. Light may symbolize divine knowledge and the spirit of God.

8. THE PORCH – This antechamber, the ulam, (I Kgs. 6:3, II Chr. 3:4) corresponds to the human pelvis (hips) and depicts procreation, or more specifically, birthing (parturition), because this is the area of the genital organs.

10, TEN LAVERS – Five bronze lavers were on the north and five on the south near the Porch. These signify the ten fingers of the hands. They were for washing off any residue of blood in the sacrificial meats (I Kgs. 7:38; II Chr. 4:6). They were mounted on wheeled carts and each laver held 40 baths of water.

11. JACHIN, BOAZ – These large bronze pillars by the Porch were named Jachin and Boaz (II Chr.3:17) and are the Temple Man’s legs, Viewed standing, they portray two plants or trees and also the two kings, David and Solomon.

12. SEA OF BRONZE, TWELVE BULLS – This huge laver held 2000 or 3000 baths of water and was for the priests to wash their hands and feet (II Chr. 4:2). The laver depicts the basin of the Red Sea. Water too may depict God’s spirit and knowledge but also conception, and union (devekut) with him. The twelve bulls (v.4) are the twelve tribes of Israel.

13. THE SACRIFICIAL ALTAR – This (II Chr. 4:1) is the Temple Man’s feet, and also a king’s square footstool. The Altar signifies election/separation, war and conquest (victory), atonement for sin, and national Israel’s marriage to the Lord.

Garments of White Outside, Gold Inside

The exterior of Solomon’s temple, like the Second Temple built by Herod centuries later, was made of the brightest white limestone blocks. Their color corresponds to the High Priest’s "Garments of White" worn on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. On the remaining days of the year, however, he wore the "Garments of Gold" and these correspond to the Temple’s gold interior. In his book, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel (1985), pp. 169- 171, Professor Menahem Haran of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, provides some details of how the furnishings of the Mishkan (Tabernacle) correspond to the garments of the High Priest. Some Christian scholars have noted this too. Ezekiel 16:10 - 14 portrays national Israel as a woman (wife of God) dressed in the furnishings of the Tabernacle which gradually transforms into theTemple (v.14).

Jacob’s Dream and the Temple

Jewish tradition tells us that Jacob (forefather of the twelve tribes) saw the Temple in advance in his dream at Bethel. After seeing angels ascending and descending on a stairway, he says in Genesis 28:17, "This is none other than the house of God …," and in v. 19 renames the place Beth-El, House of God, which is a frequent biblical designation for the Temple. As shown below, Jacob’s raised head corresponds to an elevated Holy of Holies and his ‘pillow stone’ (v. 11) to the Even Shetiyah or "Foundation Stone" where Abraham had earlier bound Isaac (22:9 -11). In other words, as he slept – unbeknownst to him – his head and body prophetically became a model for the Temple which was built atop Mt. Moriah. Today this site is called Haram al-Sharif by the Arabs, and theTemple Mount by Jews and others.

Jacob Builds the Temple?

Why was Jacob given the dream at this time? Because, although he was fleeing the wrath of his brother Esau, he was also on his way to Mesopotamia to find a wife and create a family, i.e., a “house,” as explained before. Isaac practically ordered him to leave and start his own family (Gen. 28: 1, 2), he is told to go multiply and become an “assembly of peoples,” v. 3. His two wives are later called the “builders” of the House of Israel (Ru. 4:11). Jacob, therefore, built a human temple, a house of twelve tribes, and centuries later those twelve, with the aid of the Phoenicians, built Solomon’s stone temple which was called the ‘House of God’. Hence, the dream concerns the building of these two houses.

The Amazing Metallic Messiah

The illustration on the right shows how the metals of the Temple’s interior relate to the High Priest’s outer ‘garments of gold’ and reveal the Metallic Messiah (heavenly ruler). How do we know the metals have this secondary meaning? Because their type and order reflect those of King Nebuchadnezzar’s metal statue, below, which itself symbolizes an unholy, secular world ruler.

For the interior goldplating of theTemple’s Holy of Holies, Holy Place and Porch, see I Kgs. 6:20 - 22 and II Chr. 3:4 -10. For the bronze furniture outside see I Kgs. 7:15 - 27, 38 and II Chr. 4:1 -12.This gives the Metallic Messiah a head, torso and pelvis of gold, but hands, legs and feet of bronze. His silver shoulders and arms correlate with the silver plated cells (‘houses’) of I Chr. 29:3 - 5.

However, we remove the silver plated cells which form the turban (see at right) because we are viewing a nude man who is the counterpart of another nude figure, King Nebuchadnezzar’s metallic statue, below. Hence, we compare one nude figure with another, not a clothed one with a nude one. Also excluded is the Sea of Bronze because it is not part of the natural human anatomy.

Nebuchadnezzar’s Metal Statue - The account of this huge metal statue which King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon saw in a dream is found in chapter 2:1 - 35 of the Book of Daniel, but our focus is primarily on vv. 31 - 33.

This statue, v. 31, of four metals has a head of gold, arms and chest of silver, belly and thighs of bronze, v. 32, legs of iron, v. 33, and feet of iron fused with baked clay, v. 33. The clay counts as one with the iron, so this man is made of four metals. However, Temple Man, i.e. the Metallic Messiah, consists of only three metals: gold, silver and bronze. These same three were also in the Mishkan (tabernacle), Exodus 25:3, 31:4; 35:5. But the four metals depict four successive world empires, standing for Man’s ungodly earthly rule until the last days. Hence, as Man’s rule is summed in one man of metal, so too God’s forthcoming reign is portrayed in a single Metallic Messiah figure.

‘Messiah’ is a transliteration of mashiach, which means the anointed or anointed one. A Jewish king was ‘anointed’ by having olive oil – symbolizing illumination – poured on his head so that he might know how to rule his people. But Metallic Messiah (the Messiah) is anointed with God’s spirit and rules worldwide from the Jerusalem Temple Mount.

The Mishkan (Tabernacle): Did it Have a Hidden Human Form?

Various writers have attempted finding a human figure in the Mishkan (tabernacle) built by Moses when the people received the Law at Sinai. Christians think they see Jesus in its furnishings and Jews a kabalistic Adam Kadmon in its floor plan.Is there a hidden human figure in it? Yes and No. What the floor plan reveals, rather, is half a man. An argument for the full figure of a man – no matter what some writers claim – cannot be convincingly made from its furnishings or floor plan. Only by examining the structure in retrospect – from the viewpoint of Solomon’s temple – can such a figure perhaps be seen, and even then it is only a partial one. There is no complete Mishkan Man there, too many body parts missing. No eyes, hands, pelvis, legs, etc.

Priestly Cells and Silver Socket

The Mishkan had only two main rooms instead of three, the Holy of Holies and Holy Place. No Porch. Its two rooms were half the size of the Temple’s and one third its height. Everything in it was portable, including its foundation which was made of 100 silver ‘sockets’ and 5 bronze ones. The sockets were heavy metallic blocks with holes which held the Mishkan’s frame, i.e. its walls, upright (Fig. D). It is the sockets’ layout, figures A, B, and C, that reveals a partial man.

Figure A shows the Mishkan’s floor plan of one hundred silver sockets and five bronze ones; Figure B, the outline of a man’s head, torso, shoulders, and arms; and figure C merely makes the partial man more evident by addition of peforated line.

The layout of the silver sockets is given in Exodus 26:19 - 36, and that of the bronze ones and their number (5) in v. 37. The number of silver sockets (100) is in 38:27. In 26:31 - 33 the curtain or veil which separated Holy of Holies from the Holy Place is mentioned (see v. 33) and we are told that this special curtain (paroket, meaning separatrix, the feminine of separator) was suspended by four goldplated pillars (i.e., posts or beams of acacia wood) which were inserted into four sockets of silver. These four sockets form the shoulders of Mishkan Man, figure C, above. But note this: there was no silver inside Holy of Holies or Holy Place of the Temple, only goldplated or solid gold objects were permitted in these two rooms which had goldplated walls.

However, silver appears to be inside the Temple’s Holy Place when the priestly cells are arranged to form the arms and shoulders of Temple Man, and this is a clear indicator that the cells, some of which were store rooms, correspond to the silver sockets of the Mishkan, which itself had no cells at all. The cells also formed Temple Man’s turban.The 100 silver sockets of the Mishkan and the 90 silver plated cells of the Temple relate to the ages of Abraham and Sarah when they had Isaac, but silver by itself relates to the priesthood and the sacrifices.

The Sexual Symbolism of the Temple

For certain, Solomon’s temple displays sexual symbolism in quite specific ways, but not in the manner Bible scholars imagine. According to them, the twelve oxen which supported the enormous Sea of Bronze were fertility bulls, and the two bronze pillars, Jacob and Boaz, were phalli (male sex organs). They have been saying this for decades, and while they are partially right – there is sexual symbolism involved – they are also wrong in major ways.

It might be asked, why would the Temple involve sex? – and the short answer is 1) because it displays a definite Edenic theme in its decorations and architecture and 2) Eden itself was a place of fertility, displaying the Creator’s powers to produce all types of life in abundance and 3) the land of Israel, ‘the Promised Land,’ is biblically presented as a new Eden, and finally and most important of all, 4) the Divine plan for mankind’s spiritual redemption is portrayed through the human birthing process. And since creating children involves sex, the Temple depicts human sexuality.

I do not intend explaining the above points, they are meant only as a broad answer, although I do have specifics in mind.The four deal with the question of why, Let us see how this is so. Forget notions of fertility rites and sacred prostitutes in pagan temples. The Temple design (see Ezk. 43:10, 11) includes human procreation, true, but as an analogy of redemption instigated by teshuvah, which means repentance and return. It is a clever and covert analogy in stone whose revelation was reserved for our time, I believe.

A Biblical Puzzle

Temple students have known for ages that there are some features of the Temple’s description that appear contradictory or at least puzzling, and perhaps the most well known of these concerns the height of the Porch (ulam): was it 30 or 120 cubits high? To appreciate this puzzle and how it relates to the Temple’s symbolism, compare the two temples at the right. The First is King Solomon’s (circa 950 BC), and the Second (circa 20 BC – AD 70) is King Herod’s. Herod was an Idumean (Edomite) and a descendant of slaves, not Jewish by blood.

Note that the Second Temple has a much wider front than the First, making its rooftop appear like an inverted letter T. This is because two chambers of knives were added to the Porch’s interior, one chamber on left and another on the right,This turned the Second Temple into Ariel, the “lion of God,” wide at the front, narrow at the back, so Jewish sources say. The two temples were about the same size, it seems, except for their height. Here and at other points the Second Temple deviated significantly from the inspired architectural plan given King David and passed on to his son Solomon. The interior of Solomon’s temple was only 30 cubits high, Herod’s 30-40, but with a 90 cubit Porch, a huge difference. But from the exterior Solomon’s may have been 40 cubits tall (the Bible does not give exterior measures) and Herod’s 40-50 with an 100 cubit Porch. Why this large difference in height between the two temples? – and is there any biblical authority for it?

King Herod’s 100 Cubit Porch

In a book whose title or author I no longer recall, except that it was written by a Jewish woman, it is said or implied that Herod set out to outdo Solomon. The First Temple was too short, he would build a taller one, and the biblical justification for it was II Chr. 3:4 where a height of 120 cubits is given for the Porch. This verse has given scholars headaches because it cannot be easily reconciled with I Kgs 6:2 where height of the holy “house” (Holy of Holies and Holy Place combined) is recorded as 30 cubits. While it is true that the height of the Porch (ulam) is never specifically given, an 120-cubit height for any room is nowhere recorded either in the Book of I Kings. Only II Chronicles 3:4 (probably written by Ezra the prophet) contains this odd measurement. Here is how scholars treat it:

1. The verse is simply ignored – the most popular way of “explaining” Bible difficulties!
2. The chronicler was exaggerating the Porch’s height in order to inflate the Jewish national ego.
3. Some scribal error occurred. A scribe intended writing 20 cubits but wrote 120 instead.
4. Maybe the Porch was truly 120 cubits high, after all.

The first two points do not merit any commentary. As for point three, most Bibles, whether distributed by Jewish or Christian publishing houses, retain the Masoretic text with its 120 cubit height for the Porch. However, not too long ago the New International Version broke with this practice and now gives the height as 20 cubits.
Its footnote informs us that some Syriac and Septuagint manuscripts contain this smaller number. This, of course, would make the Porch shorter than the remainder of the Temple building. Pertaining to the last point (4), various scholars dismiss an 120 cubit Porch saying that a.) the Porch is nowhere called a tower, but ulam, which is always translated as porch, portico, hall or vestibule, and b.) a Porch this high would probably be unsafe in a strong wind because of its narrow base. But Herod avoided this problem by adding 30 cubits of height (dead space) to the rest of the building, thus bracing the 90 cubit Porch. Is point three (3) adopted by the NIV Bible the most logical one, then? I think not.

Drawing at right: Herod raised a whole new temple and added 60 cubits of mostly dead space to the Porch’s 30 cubit tall interior. But outside the Porch was 100 cubits high: 30+60+10= 100 (the 10 includes 4 cubits for a parapet wall on the roof and 6 more for the foundation). In this manner Herod dwarfed Solomon’s Temple, but he did not necessarily build a better one.

Solving the Puzzle

Drawing at left: this shows what Solomon’s temple would look like with a height of 30 cubits (I Kgs 6:2) and a Porch of 120 (II Chr, 3:4), not very visually appealing. No ancient or modern architect would want to claim such a miscreation, the Porch is four times the height of the building!

Herod did not outdo Solomon with a taller building, however, because in constructing it, the Temple’s hidden and Divinely inspired anthropomorphic elements were erased. Jacob and Adam, the High Priest, or the Metallic Messiah cannot be found in Herod’s uninspired architectural manipulations. Bigger is not always better and this is one example. Yet, amazingly, the rabbis of his time – and even today – seemed to admire the Second Temple more than the First!

The solution concerning height lies in the Temple’s symbolism of fertility. And to portray this fertility it was created at a miniature Garden of Eden, while at the same time depicting key events in Israel’s history. In this way the Temple had a universal aspect (Eden) and also a particular one (Israel). It was constructed on Jewish soil, yet it was to be a “house of prayer for all nations” (Isa. 56:7). Even Jesus recognizes this universal theme in Mark 11:17. And in Isa. 2:2-4 the prophet links the house of God (the Temple) with the name Jacob and a reference to all nations.

Therefore it should be no surprise that Adam’s “deep sleep” while Eve was being created (Gen. 2:21, 22) corresponds to Jacob’s sleep at Bethel. Jacob is the “Adam” of the Jews. Adam was a father of the world, Jacob the father of the Israelites. Jacob was fleeing his brother’s wrath when he left for Mesopotamia, but he also had a second motive: to find a wife and start a family. And in the dream, the Lord assures him that he will have descendants whose number will be like the “dust of the earth,” (28:14). In similar manner, Adam is given a wife so that he could be “fruitful and multiply, fill the earth” (1:28). Consequently for both men – one in the Garden and the other at Bethel – their sleep is associated with their wives and raising a family, ‘building a house’. Adam builds the world; Jacob, national Israel, which is part of the world too. And all of this involves fertility, so we might say both men were super-fathers.

Yet there is a spiritual aspect to it all, which is namely this: they were to produce children in God’s “image and likeness,” which means his inward character, having his attributes. Otherwise the world and/or Israel becomes corrupt and unredeemable, even by the Law.

The Solution and its Meaning

The 120 cubit Porch is the male genital organ, here symbolizing procreation. The Temple’s entrance, which had no doors, is the woman’s birth canal. Temple Man’s genitalia is androgynous depicting both genders. The figure of 120 signifies Jacob’s 12 tribes enlarged (10 x 12 = 120).

The whole Temple displays the human birth process as an analogy to spiritual redemption, which itself signifies being renewed or reborn. But the birth process is somewhat reversed: one’s sins are atoned for at the Altar, his spirit is united with God’s at the Bronze Sea (this is conception or devekut, union with, or cleaving to God), then as one passes through the Porch he or she is born into – not out of – Temple Man’s body.

But lay Israelites never entered the Temple. Instead, the Levite priests portrayed this process for them. In this way each Israelite signified their becoming a kingdom of priests, Ex. 19:6. This topic is related to the ‘sin offering,’ korban chatet for atonement, but I cannot use space explain it here; the details are explained and illustrated with graphics in my unfinished manuscript. Hence, the 120 cubits symbolize Israel’s priestly birthing and increase, but the 30 cubits are quite literal and apply to the height of the whole building, Porch included.

The Sexual Symbolism of Jachin and Boaz

While the twin bronze pillars named Jachin and Boaz are not phallic symbols as some Bible scholars have claimed for decades, they do play a sexual role according to the symbolism of the Temple. Also, according to their description in I Kgs. 7:15-22 they were not “fire altars,” as claimed in some Christian sources. Therefore, we may put aside this age-old notion made popular by Robert Smith and W.F. Albright. Maybe the pillars’ glossy capitals did catch the “first glint of the Jerusalem sunrise” but they still were not cressets, fire altars, or giant torches lighting up the night, nor were their bowl shaped capitals ever filled with burning oil. The pillars, rather, portrayed two trees or plants.

The drawing at left: Jachin and Boaz depicted two identical large plants. The plant was a hybrid creation whose capital symbolized a giant water lily and its shaft or stem, the trunk of a palm tree. The lily had a metallic netting or network upon which were suspended decorative pomegranates (7:20, 42). Some sources say that the Hebrew wording implies two bowls for each pillar (Tanach, Stone Edition, p.818). If so, the lower bowl was inverted, representing the drooping leaves of a palm tree, but the top bowl which is a lily cup was upright, as shown at left. The lily was the love flower of the Ancient Near East and in this instance symbolizes God’s love for David and Solomon, the two kings who had the most to do with founding and establishing Israel as a kingdom and planning for and constructing the Temple. David means “beloved” and Solomon’s second name Jedidiah (II Sam. 12:24, 25) “beloved of God.” Palm trees depict peace and prosperity, the mark of King Solomon’s reign.

But if the lily cup symbolizes love, exactly how does this make Jachin and Boaz sex symbols? Observe above (Temple Man lying down) that the Porch is the male organ and that the capitals seem attached to it. Furthermore, they are high up on his legs. What else can the capitals be except his gonads or testes! This why they had a netting or network (I kgs 7:41) and pomegranates wrapped around them. The netting is the rough, textured skin of the scrotum, while the pomegranates copious seeds depict male sperm. Surely this signifies national Israel enlarged, something yet to transpire in the Messianic Age ahead of us when she becomes exceedingly fertile ‘like the Garden of Eden,’ Ezekiel 36:35.

Khafre’s Pyramid (4th dynasty) and Great Sphinx of Giza (c.2500 BC or perhaps earlier)

    Ancient Egypt was a long-standing civilization in north-eastern Africa. It was concentrated along the middle to lower reaches of the Nile River, reaching its greatest extent in the second millennium BC, during the New Kingdom. It reached from the Nile Delta in the north, as far south as Jebel Barkal at the Fourth Cataract of the Nile. Extensions to the geographic range of ancient Egyptian civilization included, at different times, areas of the southern Levant, the Eastern Desert and the Red Sea coastline, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Western body (focused on the several oases). Ancient Egypt developed over at least three and a half millennia. It began with the incipient unification of Nile Valley polities around 3150 BC, and is conventionally thought to have ended in 31 BC when the early Roman Empire conquered and absorbed Ptolemaic Egypt as a state. This last event did not represent the first period of foreign domination; however the Roman period was to witness a marked, if gradual transformation in the political and religious life of the Nile Valley, effectively marking the end of independent civilizational development.

Headline Text

    The civilization of ancient Egypt was based on a finely balanced control of natural and human resources, characterised primarily by controlled irrigation of the fertile Nile Valley; the mineral exploitation of the valley and surrounding desert regions; the early development of an independent writing system and literature; the organization of collective projects; trade with surrounding regions in east / central Africa and the eastern Mediterranean; and finally, military ventures that exhibited strong characteristics of imperial hegemony and territorial domination of neighbouring cultures at different periods. Motivating and organising these activities were a socio-political and economic elite that achieved social consensus by means of an elaborate system of religious belief under the figure of a semi-divine ruler (usually male) from a succession of ruling dynasties, and related to the larger world by means of polytheistic beliefs.

History   

Dynasties of Pharaohs in Ancient Egypt

1. Predynastic Egypt
2. Protodynastic Period
3. Early Dynastic Period 1st 2nd
4. Old Kingdom 3rd 4th 5th 6th
5. First Intermediate Period 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th (Thebes only)
6. Middle Kingdom 11th (All Egypt) 12th 13th 14th
7. Second Intermediate Period 15th 16th 17th
8. New Kingdom 18th 19th 20th
9. Third Intermediate Period 21st 22nd 23rd 24th 25th 26th
10. First Persian Period
11. Late Period 28th 29th 30th
    Second Persian Period

Graeco-Roman Period

1. Alexander the Great
2. Ptolemaic Dynasty
3. Roman Egypt

Arab Conquest

    Archaeological evidence indicates that a developed Egyptian society extended far, beyond the borders into prehistory (see Predynastic Egypt). The Nile River, around which much of the population of the country clusters, has been the lifeline for Egyptian culture since nomadic hunter-gatherers began living along the Nile during the Pleistocene. Traces of these early peoples appear in the form of artifacts and rock carvings along the terraces of the Nile and in the oases.

    Egypt has a unique combination of geographical features. Egypt is in northeast Africa bordered by Libya, Sudan, the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. At one time, it was divided into Upper and Lower Egypt. Upper Egypt was the southern half nearer the rest of Africa. The Nile was the key factor in the success of ancient Egyptian civilization. The fertile silt deposited along the banks of the Nile after the annual floods meant the Egyptians were able to practise a less labor-intensive form of agriculture. This freed up the population to devote more time and resources for cultural, technological and artistic pursuits.

    Farming for the Egyptians was centered on the cycle of the Nile River. There were three seasons: Akhet, Peret, and Shemu. Akhet, the flooding season, lasted from June to September. After the flooding, a layer of silt was left on the banks, perfect for growing crops. Peret, the growing season, was between October and February. The farmers waited until the water drained away, around November, to plow and plant the rich soil. When that was done, they would irrigate the crops with dikes or canals. Shemu, the harvesting season, followed in March, April, and May. Reapers would then cut the ripe crops with wooden sickles. Women and children followed close behind to collect the fallen crops. The cycle just kept going as long as the Nile kept providing the resources which in turn kept the ancient Egyptian civilization alive. Flax plants were used to make linen which was made into clothing. Papyrus growing on the banks of the Nile River was used to make paper.

    Along the Nile, in the 11th millennium BC, a grain-grinding culture using the earliest type of sickle blades had been replaced by another culture of hunters, fishers, and gathering peoples using stone tools. Evidence also indicates human habitation in the southwestern corner of Egypt, near the Sudan border, before 8000 BC. Geological evidence and computer climate modeling studies suggest that natural climate changes around 8000 BC began to desiccate the extensive pastoral lands of Egypt, eventually forming the Sahara (c.2500 BC). Early tribes in the region naturally tended to aggregate close to the Nile River where they developed a settled agricultural economy and more centralized society. There is evidence of pastoralism and cultivation of cereals in the East Sahara in the 7th millennium BC.

    By about 6000 BC, organized agriculture and large building construction had appeared in the Nile Valley. At this time, Egyptians in the southwestern corner of Egypt were herding cattle and also constructing large buildings. Mortar was in use by 4000 BC. The Predynastic Period continues through this time, variously held to begin with the Naqada culture. Some authorities however place the start of the Predynastic Period earlier, in the Lower Paleolithic.

    Between 5500 and 3100 BC, during Egypt’s Predynastic Period, small settlements flourished along the Nile. By 3300 BC, just before the first Egyptian dynasty, Egypt was divided into two kingdoms, known as Upper Egypt (Ta Shemau) and Lower Egypt (Ta Mehu).[1] The dividing line was drawn roughly in the area of modern Cairo.

    The history of ancient Egypt proper starts with Egypt as a unified state, which occurred sometime around 3150 BC. Menes, who unified Upper and Lower Egypt, was the first king. Egyptian culture was remarkably stable and changed little over a period of nearly 3000 years. This includes religion, customs, art expression, architecture and social structure.

    Egyptian chronology, which involves regnal years, began around this time. The conventional Egyptian chronology is the chronology accepted during the 20th century, but it does not include any of the major revision proposals that have also been made in that time. Even within a single work, often archaeologists will offer several possible dates or even several whole chronologies as possibilities. Consequently, there may be discrepancies between dates shown here and in articles on particular rulers. Often there are also several possible spellings of the names. Typically, Egyptologists divide the history of pharaonic civilization using a schedule laid out first by Manetho’s Aegyptiaca (History of Egypt).

The Egyptian and Hittite spheres of influence around the time of the 19th dynasty.

    * List of pharaohs: The time of the Pharaohs stretches from before 3000 BC to about 30 BC.
    * Dynasties :
          o Early Dynastic Period of Egypt (1st to 2nd Dynasties; until ca. 27th century BC)
          o Old Kingdom (3rd to 6th Dynasties; 27th to 22nd centuries BC)
          o First Intermediate Period (7th to 11th Dynasties)
          o Middle Kingdom of Egypt (11th to 14th Dynasties; 20th to 17th centuries BC)
          o Second Intermediate Period (14th to 17th Dynasties)
                + Hyksos (15th to 16th Dynasties, c. 1674 BC to 1548 BC)
          o New Kingdom of Egypt (18th to 20th Dynasties; 16th to 11th centuries BC)
          o Third Intermediate Period (21st to 25th Dynasties; 11th to 7th centuries BC)
          o Late Period of Ancient Egypt (26th to 31st Dynasties; 7th century BC to 332 BC)
                + History of Egypt under Achaemenid Persian domination
          o Graeco-Roman Egypt (332 BC to AD 639)
                + Macedonian Kings (332 BC to 305 BC)
                + Ptolemaic Dynasty (305 BC to 30 BC)
                + Aegyptus (Roman province) (30 BC to 639 AD)

Administration and Taxation

18 m (59 ft) high sandstone statues of Amenhotep III, flanking the entrance to his mortuary temple in Western Thebes - erroneously identified as the Colossi of Memnon by Greek travelers in antiquity

    For administrative purposes, ancient Egypt was divided into nomes (the Greek word for “district”; they were called sepat in ancient Egyptian). The division into nomes can be traced back to the Predynastic Period (before 3100 BC), when the nomes originally existed as autonomous city-states. The nomes remained in place for more than three millennia, with the area of the individual nomes and their order of numbering remaining remarkably stable. Under the system that prevailed for most of pharaonic Egypt’s history, the country was divided into 42 nomes: 20 comprising Lower Egypt, whilst Upper Egypt was divided into 22. Each nome was governed by a nomarch, a provincial governor who held regional authority. The position of the nomarch was at times hereditary, at times appointed by the pharaoh.

    The ancient Egyptian government imposed a number of different taxes upon its people. As there was no known form of currency during that time period, taxes were paid for “in kind” (with produce or work). The Vizier (ancient Egyptian: tjaty) controlled the taxation system through the departments of state. The departments had to report daily on the amount of stock available, and how much was expected in the future. Taxes were paid for depending on a person’s craft or duty. Landowners paid their taxes in grain and other produce grown on their property. Craftsmen paid their taxes in the goods that they produced. Hunters and fishermen paid their taxes with produce from the river, marshes, and desert. One person from every household was required to pay a corvée or labor tax by doing public work for a few weeks every year, such as digging canals or mining. However, a richer noble could hire a poorer man to fulfill his labor tax.

Language

    * Archaic Egyptian (before 3000 BC)

Consists of inscriptions from the late Predynastic and Early Dynastic period. The earliest known evidence of Egyptian hieroglyphic writing appears on Naqada II pottery vessels.

    * Old Egyptian (3000–2000 BC)

The language of the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period. The Pyramid Texts are the largest body of literature written in this phase of the language. Tomb walls of elite Egyptians from this period also bear autobiographical writings representing Old Egyptian. One of its distinguishing characteristics is the tripling of ideograms, phonograms, and determinatives to indicate the plural. Overall, it does not differ significantly from the next stage.

    * Middle Egyptian (2000–1300 BC)

    * Late Egyptian (1300–700 BC)

    * Demotic Egyptian (7th century BC–4th century AD)

    * Coptic (3rd–17th century AD)

Writing

An Obelisk with Egyptian writing 

    For many years, the earliest known hieroglyphic inscription was the Narmer Palette, found during excavations at Hierakonpolis (modern Kawm al-Ahmar) in the 1890s, which has been dated to c.3150 BC. However recent archaeological findings reveal that symbols on Gerzean pottery, c.3250 BC, resemble the traditional hieroglyph forms.[2] Also in 1998 a German archaeological team under Günter Dreyer excavating at Abydos (modern Umm el-Qa’ab) uncovered tomb U-j, which belonged to a Predynastic ruler, and they recovered three hundred clay labels inscribed with proto-hieroglyphics dating to the Naqada IIIA period, circa 33rd century BC.[3][4]

    Beginning from around 2700 BC, Egyptians used pictograms to represent vocal sounds — both vowel and consonant vocalizations (see Hieroglyph: Script). By 2000 BC, 26 pictograms were being used to represent 24 (known) main vocal sounds. The world’s oldest known alphabet (c. 1800 BC) is only an abjad system and was derived from these uniliteral signs as well as other Egyptian hieroglyphs.
 

Literature

    * c. 1800 BC: Story of Sinuhe and Ipuwer papyrus
    * c. 1600 BC: Westcar Papyrus
    * c. 1400 BC: Tulli Papyrus
    * c. 1300 BC: Ebers papyrus
    * c. 1180 BC: Papyrus Harris I
    * c. 1000 BC: Story of Wenamun

Culture

Egyptian Canopic Jars in which a body’s organs are placed before burial.

    Evidence of mummies and pyramids outside ancient Egypt indicate reflections of ancient Egyptian belief values on other prehistoric cultures, transmitted in one way over the Silk Road. Ancient Egypt’s foreign contacts included Nubia and Punt to the south, the Aegean and ancient Greece to the north, the Levant and other regions in the Near East to the east, and also Libya to the west.

    Although analyzing the hair of ancient Egyptian mummies from the Late Middle Kingdom has revealed evidence of a stable diet,[5] mummies from circa 3200 BC show signs of severe anæmia and hæmolytic disorders.[3][4][6]

Ancient Achievements and Unsolved Problems

Achievements

Louvre Museum antiquity

Open Problems, Scientific Inquiry and Speculation on Ancient Egypt

    Ancient Egypt has been a fertile field for scientific inquiry, scholarly study, religious inspiration, and open speculation, ranging from the use of electricity to model airplanes.[citation needed] Speculation and inquiry includes the degree of sophistication of ancient Egyptian technology, and there are several open problems concerning real and alleged ancient Egyptian achievements. Certain artifacts and records do not fit with conventional technological development systems.

    It is not known why there seems to be no neat progression to an Egyptian Iron Age nor why the historical record shows the Egyptians possibly taking a long time to begin using iron. A study of the rest of Africa could point to the reasons: Sub-Saharan Africa confined their use of the metal to agricultural purposes for many centuries. The ancient Egyptians had a much easier form of agriculture with the annual Nile floods and fertile sediment delivery. They thus had no impetus for the development of agricultural implements that would have spurred the adoption of iron.

    It is unknown how the Egyptians shaped and worked granite. A clue is found in the exquisite granite carvings of the Yoruba in West Africa. For years researchers could not fathom how they were carved so smoothly until contemporary workmen demonstrated the simple system of rubbing the quartz with sand and water.

    Beekeeping is known to have been particularly well developed in Egypt, as accounts are given by several Roman writers — Virgil, Gaius Julius Hyginus, Varro and Columella. It is unknown whether Egyptian beekeeping developed independently or as an import from Southern Asia.

Timeline

Predynastic

    * 3500 BC: Senet, world’s oldest (confirmed) board game
    * 3500 BC: Faience, world’s earliest known earthenware

Dynastic

The Great Pyramid of Giza.

Egypt was first to create glass objects.

References

1. Adkins, L. and Adkins, R. (2001) The Little Book of Egyptian Hieroglyphics, p155. London: Hodder and Stoughton. ISBN 0-340-79485-2.
2. Ancient Egypt. Retrieved on March 17, 2007.
3. “Discovery Channel CA”. Retrieved on December 5, 2005.
4. “Accounting Historians Journal, The: oldest writings, and inventory tags of Egypt, The”. Retrieved on December 5, 2005.
5. Macko S, Engel M, Andrusevich V, Lubec G, O’Connell T, Hedges R (1999). “Documenting the diet in ancient human populations through stable isotope analysis of hair.”. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 354 (1379): 65-75; discussion 75-6. PMID 10091248.
6. Marin A, Cerutti N, Massa E. “Use of the amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) in the study of HbS in predynastic Egyptian remains.”. Boll Soc Ital Biol Sper 75 (5-6): 27-30. PMID 11148985.
7. Overview of Egyptian Mathematics. Retrieved on December 5, 2005.
8. The Egyptian Pyramids - Mathematics and the Liberal Arts. Truman State University. Retrieved on May 30, 2006.
9. Kemp, Barry J. (1989). Ancient Egypt. Routledge, p. 138. ISBN 0-415-01281-3.
10. Fruen, Lois (2002). Ancient Glass. Retrieved on June 1, 2006.
11. Shortland, A.J.. Ancient Egyptian Glass. Cranfield University. Retrieved on March 24, 2007.
12. Graham, Sarah (2005-05-20). Ancient Egyptian Glass Factory Found. Scientific American. Retrieved on June 1, 2006.
13. Overview of Egyptian Mathematics. Retrieved on December 5, 2005.
14. Hatshepsut, Hilarity. Wine in Ancient Egypt. Retrieved on March 17, 2007.
15. Francesco Raffaele Egyptology News. Retrieved on December 5, 2005.
16. Orcutt, Larry (2000). The Iron Plate in the Great Pyramid. Retrieved on March 17, 2007.
17. MSIChicago : Exhibits : Ships Through the Ages. Retrieved on December 5, 2005.
18. apiary2. Retrieved on December 5, 2005.
19. Richard J. Gillings, Mathematics in the Time of the Pharaohs, 1972, Dover, New York, ISBN 0-486-24315-X

Further Reading

    Ancient Egypt has inspired a vast number of English-language publications, ranging from scholarly works to generalised accounts (in addition to a large number of speculative, supernatural or pseudo-scientific explorations). A selection of generally reliable survey treatments, published within the last two decades, includes:

• Baines, John and Jaromir Malek (2000), The Cultural Atlas of Ancient Egypt, revised edition, Facts on File, 2000. ISBN 0-8160-4036-2
• Kemp, Barry (1991), Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, Routledge, 1991. ISBN 0-415-06346-9
• Lehner, Mark (1997), The Complete Pyramids, London: Thames & Hudson, 1997. ISBN 0-500-05084-8.
• Shaw, Ian (2003), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-19-280458-8
• Wilkinson, R. H. (2000), The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt, London: Thames and Hudson. ISBN 0-500-05100-3
• Wilkinson, R.H. (2003), The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt, London: Thames and Hudson, 2003. ISBN 0-500-05120-8

External Links

• Egyption Mathematics An openlearn course on egyptian mathematics. Openlearn is part of The Open University.
• Ancient Egypt - maintained by the British Museum, this site provides a useful introduction to Ancient Egypt for older children and young adolescents
• Ancient Egypt and Egyptians articles and resources from About Archaeology
• BBC History: Egyptians - provides a reliable general overview and further links
• Ancient Egyptian History - A comprehensive & concise educational website focusing on the basic and the advanced in all aspects of Ancient Egypt
• Ancientneareast.net: Ancient Egypt - provides a comprehensive listing of resources relating to the archaeology of Ancient Egypt
• Archaeowiki.org—a wiki for the research and documentation of Ancient Egypt and the Near East
• Egyptology Resources - maintained by Dr Nigel Strudwick, offers one reliable guide to online documentation of Ancient Egypt
• The Theban Mapping Project - although focusing on the Theban region (modern Luxor), this site holds much of general interest relating to Ancient Egypt
• Ancient records of Egypt; historical documents from the earliest times to the Persian conquest. Volume I: The first to seventeenth dynasties, Volume II: The eighteenth dynasty, Volume III: The nineteenth dynasty, Volume IV, Volume V, by James Henry Breasted (1906) - A reference work on Egyptology.
• Ancient Egypt Web Community - Active Egyptology web interactive community, many articles and pics.
• Heinrich Brugsch, My Life and My Travels, Berlin 1894 Brugsch, as a teenager, translated the Rosetta Stone demotic section, became leading 19th century German Egyptologist
• Gurdjieff in Egypt: The Origin of Esoteric Knowledge
• Brian Brown (ed.) (1923) The Wisdom of the Egyptians. New York: Brentano’s
• Texts from the Pyramid Age Door Nigel C. Strudwick, Ronald J. Leprohon, 2005, Brill Academic Publishers
• Ancient Egyptian Science: A Source Book Door Marshall Clagett, 1989

Ruins of Machu Picchu

    The ruins of Machu Picchu, rediscovered in 1911 by Yale archaeologist Hiram Bingham, are one of the most beautiful and enigmatic ancient sites in the world. While the Inca people certainly used the Andean mountain top (9060 feet elevation), erecting many hundreds of stone structures from the early 1400’s, legends and myths indicate that Machu Picchu (meaning ‘Old Peak’ in the Quechua language) was revered as a sacred place from a far earlier time. Whatever its origins, the Inca turned the site into a small (5 square miles) but extraordinary city. Invisible from below and completely self-contained, surrounded by agricultural terraces sufficient to feed the population, and watered by natural springs, Machu Picchu seems to have been utilized by the Inca as a secret ceremonial city. Two thousand feet above the rumbling Urubamba river, the cloud shrouded ruins have palaces, baths, temples, storage rooms and some 150 houses, all in a remarkable state of preservation. These structures, carved from the gray granite of the mountain top are wonders of both architectural and aesthetic genius. Many of the building blocks weigh 50 tons or more yet are so precisely sculpted and fitted together with such exactitude that the mortarless joints will not permit the insertion of even a thin knife blade. Little is known of the social or religious use of the site during Inca times. The skeletal remains of ten females to one male had led to the casual assumption that the site may have been a sanctuary for the training of priestesses and /or brides for the Inca nobility. However, subsequent osteological examination of the bones revealed an equal number of male bones, thereby indicating that Machu Picchu was not exclusively a temple or dwelling place of women.

    One of Machu Picchu’s primary functions was that of astronomical observatory. The Intihuatana stone (meaning ‘Hitching Post of the Sun’) has been shown to be a precise indicator of the date of the two equinoxes and other significant celestial periods. The Intihuatana (also called the Saywa or Sukhanka stone) is designed to hitch the sun at the two equinoxes, not at the solstice (as is stated in some tourist literature and new-age books). At midday on March 21st and September 21st, the sun stands almost directly above the pillar, creating no shadow at all. At this precise moment the sun "sits with all his might upon the pillar" and is for a moment "tied" to the rock. At these periods, the Incas held ceremonies at the stone in which they "tied the sun" to halt its northward movement in the sky. There is also an Intihuatana alignment with the December solstice (the summer solstice of the southern hemisphere), when at sunset the sun sinks behind Pumasillo (the Puma’s claw), the most sacred mountain of the western Vilcabamba range, but the shrine itself is primarily equinoctial.

The Intihuatana stone, Machu Picchu

Shamanic legends say that when sensitive persons touch their foreheads to the stone, the Intihuatana opens one’s vision to the spirit world (the author had such an experience, which is described in detail in Chapter one of Places of Peace and Power, on the web site, www.sacredsites.com). Intihuatana stones were the supremely sacred objects of the Inca people and were systematically searched for and destroyed by the Spaniards. When the Intihuatana stone was broken at an Inca shrine, the Inca believed that the deities of the place died or departed. The Spaniards never found Machu Picchu, even though they suspected its existence, thus the Intihuatana stone and its resident spirits remain in their original position. The mountain top sanctuary fell into disuse and was abandoned some forty years after the Spanish took Cuzco in 1533. Supply lines linking the many Inca social centers were disrupted and the great empire came to an end. The photograph shows the ruins of Machu Picchu in the foreground with the sacred peak of Wayna Picchu towering behind. Partway down the northern side of Wayna Picchu is the so-called "Temple of the Moon" inside a cavern. As with the ruins of Machu Picchu, there is no archaeological or iconographical evidence to substantiate the ‘new-age’ assumption that this cave was a goddess site.

Ruins of Machu Picchu, Peru

Road from Aguas Calientes up to Machu Picchu, Peru

Detail of stone work at Machu Picchu

Candi Belahan, on the eastern slope of Mt Penanggungan, is traditionally believed to be a memorial to King Airlangga. Seen above, statues of the goddesses Sri and Lakshmi are still at the site. Originally they flanked the central image of Wisnu on Garuda, now on display at the Trowulan Museum.

The famous ‘Calcutta Stone’, dating from A.D. 1041, describes a terrible calamity which befell the East Javanese kingdom of Isana in the early years of the 11th century. A rebellion incited by a jealous vassal king resulted in the destruction of the capital of Watugaluh. The reigning king, Dharmawangsa, successor to Sri Makutawangsawardhana, was murdered along with his entire family. Only the young Airlangga, who was aged about 16 at the time, managed to escape unharmed.

After spending three or four years in the safety of a forest retreat, Airlangga, as the closest surviving relative to Dharmawangsa, emerged to take over the throne in about 1020. The early part of his reign was spent putting down rebellions and securing the borders of his kingdom. Among his successful military campaigns were those against King Wishnuprabhawa of Wuratan, King Wijaya of Wengker, as well as the subjugation of a powerful queen in the south. In 1032 Airlangga attacked and defeated the ruler of Wurawari, who is believed to have been responsible for the earlier destruction of the old capital of Isana.By the end of Airlangga’s reign, in the mid 11th century, the kingdom which he had established is believed to have stretched from Pasuruan in the east, to present day Madiun in the west.

Although there are few surviving archaeological remains dating from his time, Airlangga is known to have been a keen patron of the arts, notably literature. In around 1035, the court poet Mpu Kanwa produced the Arjuna Wiwaha, which has to this day remained one of Java’s most popular classical stories. Adapted from the Indian Mahabharata epic, the poem recounts episodes in the life of the hero sage Arjuna, who was an incarnation of the Hindu god Wishnu. There are reasons to believe that the poem was a portrait of the life of Airlangga himself. He, like Arjuna, was seen as a divine incarnation, apparently laid to rest at Candi Belahan, where he was portrayed in stone as Wishnu on Garuda.

Towards the end of his life, Airlangga was faced with the problem of succession. The rightful heir, the princess Sanggramawijaya, refused the throne, preferring to live her life as a hermit. She is traditionally associated with the legend of Dewi Kilisuci and the cave of Selomangleng at Kediri.

Airlangga’s realm was, as a result, eventually divided between two of his sons, giving rise to the separate kingdoms of Janggala and Kediri. It was Kediri, however, which was to become the dominant power until the rise of Singosari in the early 13th century.

]]> http://archaeology.blogsome.com/2008/06/04/airlangga/feed/ http://archaeology.blogsome.com/2008/06/04/the-temple-of-majapahit/ http://archaeology.blogsome.com/2008/06/04/the-temple-of-majapahit/#comments Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:55:23 +0000 admin Temple http://archaeology.blogsome.com/2008/06/04/the-temple-of-majapahit/    

    The archaeological sites of Majapahit consist, for the most part, of the remains of religious foundations, or candi, built usually from stone or brick. From the two most important and informative literary sources dealing with the history of Majapahit, the Nagarakertagama and Pararaton, we learn that a large number of sacred buildings were constructed as memorial shrines to deceased rulers and their families. The death of a king or queen saw the beginning of a series of funeral rites designed to guide the departed soul back to the source from which it had originated. These rites culminated in the shraddha ceremony, held 12 years after death, upon completion of which it was believed that final liberation was ensured. In memory of the deceased,a stone image of a god or goddess, with whom the ruler had been identified in life, was fashioned as an ‘ideal portrait’ and placed within a shrine. The Nagarakertagama gives a very complete description of the sbraddha ceremony conducted on behalf of the Rajapatni, grandmother of King Hayam Wuruk, in the year 1362.

It appears that more important rulers often had monuments built in several places, and were further identified with more than one divine image. Thus, King Wishnuwardhana of singosari Shiwa at Waleri (Blitar) and as Amoghapasha (a Buddhist form) at Candi Jajaghu, east of Malang. Likewise, his son and successor, Kertanagara, had memorial shrines built at Pandaan (Candi Jawi) and at Singosari. The Pararaton is especially informative concerning the names and locations of the shrines dedicated to the royal families of Singosari and Majapahit ( see page 158).
The word candi, which is commonly used to identify ancient remains dating from Indonesia’s classical period, needs some explanation. The term is generally accepted today as stemming from the sanskrit candika, a name of the Hindu goddess Durga, who inhabits the graveyard. Technically speaking, therefore candi is used to denote an ancient tomb or shrine.In reality, however, we find the word employed in a much wider context, and nowadays it is applied to all manner of archaeological sites, including gateways and bathing places. In a contemporary context, then, a candi may be seen as a place containing a residing spirit, revered for both its age as well as its qualities of mystery. In this sense, it is not different to a pusaka, or sacred heirloom.

The Nagarakertagama differentiates four types of sacred building, but it is difficult to know with certainty which ones among them are properly candi and which are not. It has been suggested that buildings referred to as dharma baji, of which 27 are listed, may be considered as royal shrines. These include Kagenengan, Tumapel, Kidal, Jajaghu, Weda-wedwan, Tudan, Pikatan, Bukul,Jawa-jawa, Antang, Antasari, Kalangbret,Jaga, Balitar, Cilabrit, Waleri, Babeg, Kukap, Lumbang, Pagor, Antahpura, Segala, Simping, Ranggapura, Buddhi Kuncir, Prajnaparamitapuri and Bhayalango.
Of the above-mentioned, the only ones which we can identify with certainty today are Tumapel (Singosari), Kidal, Jajaghu (Jago), Jawa-jawa (Jawi), Simping (Sumberjati) and Bhayalango. Kagenengan and Antahpura are known from literature as being connected with Ken Angrok and Kertarajasa respectively, but the exact locations of these places are not yet known.

]]> http://archaeology.blogsome.com/2008/06/04/the-temple-of-majapahit/feed/ http://archaeology.blogsome.com/2008/06/04/memory-of-majapahit/ http://archaeology.blogsome.com/2008/06/04/memory-of-majapahit/#comments Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:37:43 +0000 admin Knowledge http://archaeology.blogsome.com/2008/06/04/memory-of-majapahit/

The extensive ruins of 8 th century Candi Sewu, near Yogyakarta visible in the distance is the spire of the Shiwa temple at Prambanan.

    The kingdom of Majapahit, with its capital in East Java, flourished at the end of what is known as Indonesia’s ‘classical age’. This was a period in which the religions of Hinduism and Buddhism were predominant cultural influences. Beginning with the first appearance of Hinduized kingdoms in the archipelago in the 5th century A.D., this classical age was to last for more than a millennium, until the final collapse of Majapahit in the early 16th century and the establishing of Java’s first Islamic sultanate at Demak.

        The great flowering of Hindu-Javanese civilization which sprang up in Central Java during the 8th and 9th centuries may be seen as the product of a dialogue between, on the one hand, the established forms of classical Hinduism and Buddhism, and on the other, the innovative qualities of a society whose traditional beliefs and customs were already firmly entrenched.     

 

    The oldest datable evidence of a Hindu civilization in Indonesia comes from Kutei in eastern Kalimantan (Borneo). Stone inscriptions, written in sanskrit and dating from around A.D. 400, record the reign of a King Mulawarman. At about the same time, in West Java, there existed a kingdom named Tarumanagara, yet more than this little is known, on account of the scarcity of archaeological remains.

 

 

Late afternoon sun illuminates an image of the Buddha on one of Borobudur’s western terraces.

    It is not until the 7th and 8th centuries that the picture becomes clearer. This period, which saw the rise of the maritime empire of Sriwijaya in south eastern Sumatra, as well as the emergence of the Central Javanese kingdom of Mataram, marked the beginning of a golden age in Indonesian history.

    In the whole course of my life I have never met with such stupendous and finished specimens of human labour, and of the science and taste of ages long since forgot, crowded together in so small a compass as in this little spot’     

 

    Thus exclaimed Captain George Baker when first confronted by the ruins of Candi Sewu, or the ‘Temple of a Thousand Buddhas’, at Prambanan, near Yogyakarta, early in the 19th century. Baker, who had been given the task of surveying the antiquities of Java by Thomas Stamford Raffles, then governor of the island, was no stranger to India, nor to other parts of south east Asia.

    Yet, the extensive ruins to be found in the mountains and on the plains of Central Java were beyond anything which he had yet seen. The remains of Borobudur, Prambanan, Sewu, the temple sites of Dieng and Gedong Songo, are just a few of the archaeological treasures which to this day continue to arouse similar expressions of wonder and astonishment.

    Through the study of temple remains and the deciphering of ancient inscriptions on stone and metal, historians have been able to establish a quite coherent chronology for the period. Tracing an outline, the ruling power in 8th and 9th century Central Java appears to have been shared by two dynasties, whose exact relationship is not fully clear. According to the earliest known inscription, dating from A.D.732, there was a Hindu king named Sanjaya, who united the kingdom of Java and whose descendants are recorded in inscriptions for the following two centuries.

    Not long after the appearance of Sanjaya, a dynasty bearing the title Sailendra emerged as the supreme authority on the southern plains. The Sailendra were adherents of Mahayana Buddhism, the religion which inspired them to embark on one of the most ambitious building programmes known to history. In the space of just one century they commissioned the construction of a vast number of religious monuments, some very large, built from hand cut blocks of volcanic stone. The remains of many of these buildings are still visible, some of the,more well known including the temples of Kalasan, Sari, Sewu, Sojiwan, Mendut, Ngawen, Pawon, as well as the massive ‘temple mountain’ of Borobudur, one of the architectural wonders of the world.

    Sometime during the early to mid 9th century, a marriage alliance between a Sailendra princess and a king from the dynasty of Sanjaya seems to have resulted in the end of Sailendra rule in Java. At about the same time, the great Shiwa temple at Prambanan was constructed, perhaps as a monument to the return to power of the Sanjaya dynasty. 

 

    Yet, the Prambanan temple complex was barely completed when, for reasons which are still not fully comprehended, Central Java all but vanished from the records of history for about five centuries. One reason for this sudden silence, which began after the palace was moved to East Java by Mpu Sindok in A.D. 929, may well have been a violent eruption of Mt Merapi, which overlooks the plains of both Borobudur and Prambanan. In recent years, more and more archaeological sites have been discovered buried under metres of lava and volcanic dust, indicating the occurrence of a serious calamity which could well have taken place about a thousand years ago. 

 

       

A Sailendra Buddhist image from Candi Sewu   

 

 

Candi Morangan, near Kalasan, Yogyakarta ; one of many recent archaeological discoveries in the foothills of Mt Merapi

 

]]> http://archaeology.blogsome.com/2008/06/04/memory-of-majapahit/feed/ http://archaeology.blogsome.com/2008/06/04/trowulans-agriculture/ http://archaeology.blogsome.com/2008/06/04/trowulans-agriculture/#comments Wed, 04 Jun 2008 05:22:31 +0000 admin Knowledge http://archaeology.blogsome.com/2008/06/04/trowulans-agriculture/ Majapahit
    
    The city of Majapahit prospered during the fourteenth century and was the largest of the old cities on Java. In comparison with Sriwijaya it is well documented, especially because of the work of Prapanca, the Nagarakrtagama, translated and commented upon by various scholars among others N.J. Krom, W.F. Stutterheim, Th. Pigeaud, Supomo S. and S. Robson. The archeological remains have been described by H. Maclaine Pont and the staff of the Indonesian National Research Centre for Archaeology. I will draw a sketch here, based on the works of Pigeaud.

    The kraton of Majapahit was called pura by Prapanca, the core of the kraton puri, and the capital (kraton including environments) negara. Pigeaud presents quite a detailed description of all these parts and also of the state as a whole. Majapahit was situated west of present-day Mojokerto on the river Brantas, East Java. The city had no bastions and may be considered as a complex of compounds separated by wide roads and large squares and open fields. The compounds had several courtyards with trees and open pavilions. The compounds and courtyards were encircled by walls and fences. In the central part the family of the head of the household lived. Other less central parts were occupied by servants and guests or used for ceremonial activities. The squares in the city were used for public activities such as the market, public gatherings, festivities and plays. The city was very spread-out, it was more like a large park than a compact city and its fringes imperceptibly merged into the countryside.

    Pigeaud made the daring effort to construct a map of the city of Majapahit. The kraton had a high, thick wall of red bricks with a gate in the northern part giving access to the royal compound. In this compound a great, white tower was located. Within the walled area there were other compounds for the family of the king, royal guards, court officials and so on. In front of the northern gate was a large field with more to the west a ring for cock fights and east of the field a redoubt. At a somewhat greater distance a meeting hall and a market were situated. Outside the other walls laid the dwellings of the religious authorities attached to the court: to the east the Shivaite and the south the Buddhist monks. The houses of the royal kinsmen were found at the west side. There was no alun-alun south of the kraton. Beside the kraton there were other compounds.

    This reconstruction of the map of the city is a very provisional one, as the translation of the Nagarakrtagama comprises many uncertainties. Science goes on and Supomo and Robson have made a large number of critical remarks about the representation made by Pigeaud. One speaking example is the sentence element that is refers to the ring for cockfights, but according to the critics should mean something like encircled by water. From these and other substantial points of disagreement the conclusion should be drawn that at the present state of knowledge it is impossible to construct an unambiguous map of the city of Majapahit. Yet, it is clear that the build-up areas comprised the palace of the king, living units of the common people, ceremonial centers, and artisanal zones, and that the palace was walled. Furthermore that different groups such as the Shivaite and Bhuddist monks were concentrated at particular places. Soejatmi Satari adds to this the existence of a elaborate canal system. Such an extensive system proves that the city of Majapahit comprised a large settlement with considerable population.

    The city was not planned, for town planning was only introduced by foreigners later. The city was not built arbitrary, however. Its morphological structure was mainly determined by the cosmic and dualistic tradition, stressing the directions of the compass, the contradistinction between the western royal and eastern princely kraton relating to each other as sun and moon, the contradistinction between religious and profane authority and so on. The social structure and religious ideas became clear within the lay-out of the city.

    Majapahit was located at some distance from the river Brantas. Its port on this river was called Bubat, which was inhabited by foreign traders from e.g. India and China, probably living in separate wards. Other ports which were part of the state were Surabaya, Gresik and Tuban. Smaller settlements were Singasari, Bayalanges, Patukangan, Sadeng, Keta, Pajarakan and Gending. The state territory of Majapahit was divided into two parts, Janggala downstream and Kadiri upstream. These parts were associated respectively with rural communities and aristocratic domaTransport in Majapahit was mainly carried out by water: sea and river. The river Brantas which was particularly important for the transportation of goods to Bubat from the sea, must have been much larger in those days than it is now. Because of deforestation the flow of water has certainly decreased. Transport over land mostly took place by ox-cart, which covered long distances in numerous caravans. Persons and goods were transported, as well as rice, spices, meat, fish and valuables. Toll-money was levied on roads and waterways.

    According to Burger, Majapahit has to be considered both a land and a maritime power. Its influence covered almost the total area of Indonesia to-day with in addition parts of the Malay Peninsula with the exception of West Java, the southern part of Central Java and North Sulawesi. Subordination meant that a tribute had to be paid, but the areas located at a great distance were merely spheres of influence. Majapahit had a strong fleet to conquer other territories and send out punitive expeditions. It was a mercantile imperium incorporating coastal cities with a transit function. This went together with a strong agrarian basis of sawah and ladang cultivation. So Legge states that Majapahit combined in its political aspect the characteristics of a mercantile empire and an agrarian state. However, the aristocrats of Majapahit were not traders. Royalty and trade were considered incompatible. Primarily they relied on agriculture.

    Pigeaud discusses four ranks, namely the aristocracy, clergy, peasants and bond-slaves. Foreigners and outcasts were not included in these categories, while craftsmen and artists were not considered a separate group. The social structure in the country was more diverse than is generally assumed. Isolated tribes existed, beside communities of craftsmen and traders, and industrial (salt, sugar) and agrarian villages. Moreover, the royal domains and the estates of the aristocracy and clergy have to be taken into account.

    The political organisation was quite centralized. All the members of the royal family, as well as the most important functionaries, the vizir and the higher clergy lived in the capital. The state was divided into provinces, the most important being Janggala and Kadiri. Outside the capital authority was vested in the hands of local governors and vizirs for worldly matters, and judges and their assistants for spiritual-legal matters, who in their turn most probably had their own clerks. At the court spiritual and worldly matters were clearly separated and moreover were graded.

    The expenditure of the court with its luxurious feasts and abundance of functionaries, soldiers and servants might have been a heavy burden for the peasants who had to produce the surplus. However, the royal and princely activities benefited the countryside also because of the protection given and the incentive for economic development they supplied. In principle the royal family was a unity with at its head the king. Internal disputes formed a threat to this unity and to the survival of Majapahit. After the death of King Hayam Wuruk the factions tried to gain advantage for themselves at the cost of the others and the prosperity of this state and its capital came to an end.

]]> http://archaeology.blogsome.com/2008/06/04/trowulans-agriculture/feed/ http://archaeology.blogsome.com/2008/06/03/living-ape-men/ http://archaeology.blogsome.com/2008/06/03/living-ape-men/#comments Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:15:23 +0000 admin News http://archaeology.blogsome.com/2008/06/03/living-ape-men/

Wildmen of Malayasia and Indonesia

    In 1969, John McKinnon, who journeyed to Borneo to observe orangutans, came across some humanlike footprints. McKinnon asked his Malay boatman what made them. "Without a moment’ a hesitation he replied ‘Batutut,’" wrote McKinnon, "but when I asked him to describe the beast he said it was not an animal but a type of ghost. … Batutut, he told me, is about four feet tall, walks upright like a man and has a long black mane. … Like other spirits of the forest the creature is very shy of light and fire" (Green 1978, p. 134).

    Later, in Malaya, McKinnon saw some casts of footprints even bigger than those he had seen in Borneo, but he recognized them as definitely having been made by the same kind of creature. The Malayans called it Orang pendek (short fellow). McKinnon stated: "Again natives spoke of a creature with long hair, who walks upright like a man. Drawings and even photographs of similar footprints found in Sumatra are attributed to the Sedapa or Umang, a small, shy, longhaired, bipedal being living deep in the forest" (Green 1978, pp. 134-135). According to Ivan Sanderson, these footprints differ from those of the anthropoid apes inhabiting the Indonesian forests (the gibbon, siamang, and orangutan). They are also distinct from those of the sun bear (Sanderson 1961, p. 219).

    Early in the twentieth century, L. C. Westenek, a governor of Sumatra, received a written report about an encounter with a Sedapa wildman. The overseer of an estate in the Barisan Mountains, along with some workers, observed the Sedapa from a distance of 15 yards. The overseer said he saw "a large creature, low on its feet, which ran like a man, and was about to cross my path; it was very hairy and it was not an orang-utan; but its face was not like an ordinary man’s. It silently and gravely gave the men a disagreeable stare and then ran calmly away" (Sanderson 1961, pp. 216-217).

    In a journal article about wildmen published in 1918, Westenek recorded a report from a Mr. Oostingh, who lived in Sumatra. Once while proceeding through the forest, he came upon a man sitting on a log and facing away from him. Oostingh stated: "I saw that he had short hair, cut short, I thought; and I suddenly realised that his neck was oddly leathery and extremely filthy. ‘That chap’s got a very dirty and wrinkled neck!’ I said to myself. His body was as large as a medium-sized native’s and he had thick square shoulders, not sloping at all. … he seemed to be quite as tall as I (about 5 feet 9 inches). Then I saw that it was not a man."

    "It was not an orang-utan," declared Oostingh. "I had seen one of these large apes a short time before." What was the creature if not an orangutan? Oostingh could not say for sure: "It was more like a monstrously large siamang, but a siamang has long hair, and there was no doubt that it had short hair" (Sanderson 1961, p. 220).

    In 1918, Mr. Van Heerwarden, a hunter, began finding tracks of the Sedapa in Sumatra. The footprints he saw were shaped like those of a small human being. Van Heervarden also heard reports about the Sedapa from natives. In October of 1923, he himself spotted one in a tree: "I discovered a dark and hairy creature on a branch. … The sedapa was also hairy on the front of its body; the colour there was a little lighter than on the back. The very dark hair on its head fell to just below the shoulder-blades or even almost to the waist….Had it been standing, its arms would have reached to a little above its knees; they were therefore long, but its legs seemed to me rather short. I did not see its feet, but I did see some toes which were shaped in a very normal manner. … There was nothing repulsive or ugly about its face, nor was it at all apelike" (Sanderson 1961 , pp. 222-223). After observing it for a while, Van Heerwarden allowed the creature to run away.

    The presence of large humanlike creatures in the forests of the Indonesian archipelago is relevant to the dating of fossils of Homo erectus found in Java (Chapter 7). Paleoanthropologists assume that fossils displaying Homo erectus morphology must be 800,000 or more years old, even when they are found on the surface. In fact, almost all the fossils of Homo erectus from Java have been surface finds. But if creatures resembling Homo erectus are still roaming the forests of Indonesia, then the general practice of dating a fossil by its morphology is not secure. On January 20, 1986, Bernard Heuvelmans wrote in response to a letter from our researcher, Stephen Bernath: "I am convinced myself that fossils, especially remains of Hominoids, are dated not after the strata they have been found in but after a prejudiced idea of the strata they should have been found in according to the classical scheme of human evolution, which is completely wrong."

    In practice, morphological dating has worked like this. During the 1930s, many fossil skull fragments were found lying on the surface at various locations in Java. The formations in the region have since been dated by the potassium-argon method to the Middle Pleistocene. The potassium-argon method, it may be recalled, is used to date volcanic materials, not the bones themselves. Ideally, for a bone to be assigned a Middle Pleistocene date using this method, it should have been found lying beneath an undisturbed layer of volcanic material. But in Java this was not the case, for almost without exception the fossils labeled Homo erectus were found lying on the surface or in unspecified locations. Scientists have simply assumed that the bones eroded from Middle Pleistocene formations, in which they had supposedly been deposited hundreds of thousands of years ago. The reason scientists feel comfortable in making this assumption is that they are certain that hominids with erectus morphology have been extinct since the Middle Pleistocene. But perhaps not. Heuvelmans stated in his letter of January 20, 1986: "small hairy hominoids, with long straight hair on the head, the Nittaewo, were exterminated at the end of the 18th century in Sri Lanka. According to British leading primatologist Osman Hill (1945), these dwarfs could be modern representatives of Homo erectus."

    Such evidence makes possible another explanation for erectus-like fossils found on the surface of Middle Pleistocene formations, in Java and elsewhere. As far as Java is concerned, perhaps as little as 10,000 years ago, a Sedapalike creature died by a stream bed or lake shore, and its bones became fossilized in the sediments. In very recent times, a piece of the fragmented skull reappeared on the surface, where it was discovered by native collectors, who turned it over to a paleoanthropologist. Upon seeing its primitive erectus-like morphology, the paleoanthropologist assigned it to the Middle Pleistocene, giving it a date of 800,000 years or more. The fossil was then described in textbooks and cited as more proof for the hypothesis that modern human beings evolved over the past several hundred thousand years from more apelike ancestors. But the fossil may not actually belong to the Middle Pleistocene. It could in fact be much more recent.

    Whether the Java Homo erectus fossils are recent or ancient, the existence of living erectus-like creatures (or recently living ones) in Java shows the coexistence of such creatures with humans in modern times. And, as we have seen in previous chapters, there is much evidence such creatures coexisted with humans in the distant past. This throws the accepted pattern of human evolution into complete confusion.

    Paleoanthropologists, in the face of such evidence, or in ignorance of it, will insist that human beings of modern type could not have existed any earlier than one hundred thousand years ago, and certainly not in the Early Pleistocene, the Pliocene, or the Miocene.

    But if there is uncertainty about what kinds of hominids may be around today, how can we be so sure about what kinds of hominids may or may not have been around in the distant past?

    Empiric investigation of the fossil record may not be a sure guide. As Heuvelmans stated in a letter (April 15, 1986) to our researcher Stephen Bernath: "do not overestimate the importance of the fossil record. Fossilization is a very rare, exceptional phenomenon, and the fossil record cannot thus give us an exact image of life on earth during the past geological periods. The fossil record of primates is particularly poor because very intelligent and cautious animals can avoid more easily the very conditions of fossilization — such as sinking in mud or peat, for instance."

    The empiric method undoubtedly has its limitations, and the fossil record is incomplete and imperfect. But when all the fossil evidence, including that for very ancient humans and living ape-men, is objectively evaluated, the pattern that emerges is one of coexistence rather than sequential evolution.

From: Forbidden Archaeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race, Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson (Bhaktivedanta Book Publishing, 1996).