Thread: Gilded Serpent article: Sex Bellydance and the Afterlife

An article by Yasmin Henkesh over on GS is provoking some discussion in the comments there:

Sex, Belly Dance and the Afterlife | Belly Dance News & Events

The article discusses the "secret Egyptian sex scroll" discussed on the History channel recently, which shows people in many different sexual positions. The television program apparently called the women in the scroll "ancient belly dancers". Yasmin concludes her article:

It is time to accept the facts – that belly dance’s precursor was designed to stimulate and reawaken vital reproductive forces, during life or after death. It was meant to open the senses of the dead and increase the blood flow of the living. What is shameful about that?

I'm fairly baffled that anybody can look at a flat, static drawing and decide what kind of dancing the person is doing. (Not to mention that, looking at the papyrus via the link, NSFW -- I see no dancing happening other than the "horizontal boogie". ) On top of that, I don't think this papyrus is much evidence of anything other than, well -- people from time immemorial have liked to look at naughty pictures. Other publications refer to this papyrus as a "satirical cartoon."

There are some interesting comments on the post, including a great one by Andrea Deagon. You might want to take a look.

You have to watch the show, they show a modern Bellydancer on the program and that's about it. I'm not sure how or what the facts are behind the show and how modern bellydance was conected. The dancer was shown and the voice over said the ladies of the house of pleasure used dancing and coins and rattles on there hips. Kinda silly really. I'm I wronge or was is not intill the 20th century did the coins on the bellydancers emerge?

Originally Posted by tigerb

There are some interesting comments on the post, including a great one by Andrea Deagon. You might want to take a look.

to Andrea Deagon.

I haven't seen this particular show, but I've seen others like it on the same channel. They tend to have a very loose interpretation of "experts," and often have no problem cutting between clips of Zahi Hawass (I think it must be an Egyptian law that if you want to film in the Valley of the Kings, you have to give him face time in your documentary), respected academic scholars, and crackpots with doctorates. Sorry, but just because you have a Ph.D. and you're chair of the History Department at the University of Nowhere, it doesn't mean your theory about the pyramids being built with the aid of space aliens deserves to be on television. Props to the filmmakers for wanting to give more than one side to the argument, but sometimes these "experts" are clearly doing research with the intent of finding what they want to find and ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit their view.

I think the only point that can be concluded from this scroll is that porn wasn't as common in Ancient Egypt as it is on the Internet today, or archeologists would have found a lot more of it. You can't take one piece of 2-D data and construct a 3-D world out of it. You can't even tell what the music was like from the picture, much less the dancing, and you may as well say that it is clear from this papyrus that only "hairy, and often old, men" were allowed to have sex in Pharaonic times, and young, less hirsute men didn't get any because the scroll doesn't feature them. Give me a call when you get your time machine working, because I want to go with you 3,000 years into the future to watch their archeologists explain what mating rituals were like in the 1970s based on old footage of "The Love Boat."

Originally Posted by Tourbeau

I want to go with you 3,000 years into the future to watch their archeologists explain what mating rituals were like in the 1970s based on old footage of "The Love Boat."

..l;,

Seriously, I can't even get myself to click on the link to the GS article. But maybe I need to be prepared to answer questions about this in case some of my students see the show?

The show and this article rely a lot on conjecture and wouldn't be approved by most anthropologist/archaeologists as a convincing interpretation. You simply can't use a single instance of this type of art/artifact to extrapolate daily activities of a people - especially a historical culture (with writing) that did not record anything matching the interpretation of this specific art.

We do have fairly good records of daily life in Pharaonic times between the records kept by Egyptians and those from surrounding cultures/trading partners that reference the daily life of the Egyptian people. We are always learning more and have to be open to re-interpretations of the data and of new evidence, but I would not put too much stock in this specific hypothesis unless far more data is found to back it up in the archaeological record. This could be anything from a high religious text to the equivalent of a copy of playboy.

Hmmm, this article reinforces my belief that ancient history still leaves alot of unanswered questions. As long as we have two or more differing beliefs with an educated background, we'll never know FOR sure which is right. We are left to gather our own information and make our own conclusions.
Some will whole heartedly believe this article and stand behinde 100% and others will go to their grave saying how wrong it is.
Ancient Egyptian history is still a big puzzle with many missing pieces and so many of us think we have the pieces to fill in and finish what we think the puzzle will look like.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, we can't take what we know about dance and music and make it form into what our PERSONAL beliefs are about ancient times. It won't work. Times were different and they will be different in another 500,000 years. We have to rely on people who have dedicated their entire lives studying ancient history and cultures and take that information and study it upside down and inside out and take information from the opposite view and study it the same way, drawing a conclusion over time.

A lot of extrapolating & conjecture going on, so it must be true.

Oh bull! We are just so naturally sexy that people have to ASSUME bellydancers initiated all the ancient (and current) sex acts. ..l;,

As an aside, this weekend I read in Vanity Fair that Ruth Madoff was supposed to have hired a bellydancer to perform at a corporate event in the 1990s. It stated something like all the men loved it and all the women were really upset "how could she do this?" I'm still trying to decide how to send a letter asking "do what?" but I don't know who or where to send it.

Thank god for Andrea Deagon. I need to send her a cake or sumthin'.

I left a comment. We'll see what results.

Originally Posted by Tourbeau

explain what mating rituals were like in the 1970s based on old footage of "The Love Boat."

OMG - you mean that's not all real? You will be telling me that Fantasy Island doesn't exist next. And that reality TV shows are scripted....

Asim, enjoyed your comment.

I keep trying to write a response to this article and keep finding that I can't get into words what I'm trying to say. Let me just say this:

I don't think it's unrealistic to postulate that what we know as "belly dance" has antecedents in ancient dances. But to unequivocally make the statement quoted above (I'll repeat it here):

It is time to accept the facts – that belly dance’s precursor was designed to stimulate and reawaken vital reproductive forces, during life or after death. It was meant to open the senses of the dead and increase the blood flow of the living.

I simply think that's extending the evidence far beyond what it's capable of supporting. This statement assumes that "belly dance" is a single unified thing throughout the Middle East and North Africa, when there are "solo, improvised, torso-articulated" (to use Andrea's terminology) dance forms throughout the region. The statement also assumes that there is one "precursor" in the form of Hathorian priestesses' sexually-charged ritualized dancing (leaving aside whether we can actually say much concrete about what the latter even looked like).

It's difficult to pin down what belly dancing looked like in the 19th century, in a time of abundant written evidence; trying to extrapolate a clear line of descent from a 3000 year old papyrus is a weeeee bit of a stretch, IMO.

Originally Posted by nisaasaintlouis

Asim, enjoyed your comment.

I keep trying to write a response to this article and keep finding that I can't get into words what I'm trying to say. Let me just say this:

I don't think it's unrealistic to postulate that what we know as "belly dance" has antecedents in ancient dances. But to unequivocally make the statement quoted above (I'll repeat it here):



I simply think that's extending the evidence far beyond what it's capable of supporting. This statement assumes that "belly dance" is a single unified thing throughout the Middle East and North Africa, when there are "solo, improvised, torso-articulated" (to use Andrea's terminology) dance forms throughout the region. The statement also assumes that there is one "precursor" in the form of Hathorian priestesses' sexually-charged ritualized dancing (leaving aside whether we can actually say much concrete about what the latter even looked like).

It's difficult to pin down what belly dancing looked like in the 19th century, in a time of abundant written evidence; trying to extrapolate a clear line of descent from a 3000 year old papyrus is a weeeee bit of a stretch, IMO.

Gee, I guess I hit a nerve! I am glad you have started such a robust discussion. There are many other things I could have added to back up my conclusions, but I wanted to save them for the History article I am writing that started all of this. I was mainly interested in getting your opinions now, while I was writing. I know it's a hot button subject for everyone. I do have many other sources that are not from crack pots who believe the pyramid air is special. My main interest was not that Hathor adepts had sex, but that the goddess was the main deity associated with music, dance, sex, birth and rebirth - and had been since pre-dynastic times. I have no idea what those dances looked like except for one thing - the link to belly dance - that they jiggled their hips. And as Andrea put it, it can be linked to their clothing. Do you know of other ancient cultures that did shimmy-like hip movements? The Africans, and they're related to this.

I have learned over time with you guys that the more outrageous the statements seem to you, the better the sarcasm and the more heated the replies. I will go away and address the holes in my arguments. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Serpentine

There are many other things I could have added to back up my conclusions,

It's unfortunate that you didn't incorporate these into the article. I guess, from an academic standpoint, I just can't understand making a conscious decision to put an unfinished, incompletely referenced/documented article on a very heavily-debated subject (origins of belly dance) out there in cyberspace if there is good source material and documentation available to provide a sound argument. I will await your aforementioned history article with interest.

Originally Posted by Serpentine

I have learned over time with you guys that the more outrageous the statements seem to you, the better the sarcasm and the more heated the replies.

Can I say something, here?

I've posted for years in various places about the gaps in our knowledge of this dance form. Indeed, I have a note to drop a line to you about some points of dance history I was told you might have, a couple of months ago.
However. This is not a game, and I feel very much like I'm being toyed with, manipulated to produce a response. Although I'm not a academician, I take seriously the responsibility of producing research, and presenting my findings in ways that allow others to critique and criticize in as close to a standard academic tradition as I can, because that tradition works. And it starts from a base of respecting the thoughts of those around me.

And yes, I think that responsibility is ten-fold when working in this field, with so many myths and conjectures, as so little actual data. I think I, and many others, deserved to see your data, your history, first and foremost, and not just the article that "stimulated discussion." Perhaps the reverse makes for better site hits, and notoriety. Certainly there are many who will support you, as this basic theory is hardly new to "belly dance" history.

If such is the case, then I can only wish you honest luck in writing and presenting the data, but I cannot say I'm enjoying the process behind presenting these assertions.

Originally Posted by nisaasaintlouis

It's unfortunate that you didn't incorporate these into the article. I guess, from an academic standpoint, I just can't understand making a conscious decision to put an unfinished, incompletely referenced/documented article on a very heavily-debated subject (origins of belly dance) out there in cyberspace if there is good source material and documentation available to provide a sound argument. I will await your aforementioned history article with interest.

Sorry, my justifications were not academic, but financial. I have been working since February on the finger cymbal duo for Artemis. This research has taken many months of my time and cost me thousands of dollars in books. The only way to sell complete albums nowadays is to offer people something more for their money than what they can just download (often for free as pirated stuff). I care deeply about this subject and want to get it right. Who better to bounce it off of than a bunch of vocal, articulate skeptics? But I did mention a number of sources already - written by some of the best archeologists in the field. Hans Hickmann and Curt Sachs were THE experts on ancient music in the 1940s - 1960s. Lise Manniche worked with Dr. Hickmann until he died. He wrote several books that are rare but that I have found. If you read at least some of my sources, you would see where some of my ideas are coming from.

Promise, I will document all of my assertions, extrapolations and conjectures. Particularly now I know which ones bother you the most.

Originally Posted by Serpentine

Sorry, my justifications were not academic, but financial. I have been working since February on the finger cymbal duo for Artemis. This research has taken many months of my time and cost me thousands of dollars in books. The only way to sell complete albums nowadays is to offer people something more for their money than what they can just download (often for free as pirated stuff). I care deeply about this subject and want to get it right. Who better to bounce it off of than a bunch of vocal, articulate skeptics? But I did mention a number of sources already - written by some of the best archeologists in the field. Hans Hickmann and Curt Sachs were THE experts on ancient music in the 1940s - 1960s. Lise Manniche worked with Dr. Hickmann until he died. He wrote several books that are rare but that I have found. If you read at least some of my sources, you would see where some of my ideas are coming from.

Promise, I will document all of my assertions, extrapolations and conjectures. Particularly now I know which ones bother you the most.

With respect, if the article is not yet ready for public view as a final document, then it might have been better to send it to dancers and anthropologists/archaeologists you respect who could review it and offer further information. As an anthropologist myself, my feedback on the article in its current state is that it is not currently at a level of academic research to support the contained assertions and needs peer-reviewed journal sources from current researchers in the field. While books are a good start, old resources that are not peer-reviewed do not carry the same weight of data requirements and many of the previous findings may have been overturned by information gathered in the intervening years since their publication. I will look forward to viewing the final product with the fully referenced version when you have it available. It's a great topic and I'd love to see more of what you find.

Originally Posted by mahsati

With respect, if the article is not yet ready for public view as a final document, then it might have been better to send it to dancers and anthropologists/archaeologists you respect who could review it and offer further information.

But I just did! Thank you. Do you know of any other group of Middle Eastern dancers who knows more about the history, technique and current state of the dance than you all? I don't.

Originally Posted by Serpentine

But I just did! Thank you. Do you know of any other group of Middle Eastern dancers who knows more about the history, technique and current state of the dance than you all? I don't.

The time to request review is generally prior to publication to help avoid this kind of public give-and-take on the research which can damage credibility of even very strong theories. Perhaps you could ask Gilded Serpent to add a note to the article that this is a work in progress and you are looking for dancers and others to review and offer additional resources? That might bring the results you are looking for in terms of review with less controversy from the unfinished article. Which peer-reviewed journals are you already searching for current anthropology and archaeology information? I would be happy to recommend some if I have any that aren't on your list.

Originally Posted by mahsati

Which peer-reviewed journals are you already searching for current anthropology and archaeology information? I would be happy to recommend some if I have any that aren't on your list.

KMT and Biblical Archeology are the two I read religiously. L'Archeologie also does good articles, along with a French version of Biblical Archeology. I buy others when there's an article on Egypt, particularly music. I would love recommendations if you have any. Honestly, I have stuck mainly to archeology because the objects themselves seem to be the best proof. You are right, I have no way of knowing if one step or thought pattern happened 5000 years ago. But a 5000 year old instrument or rattle carries a different weight, depending where it was found, by who and when.

I have also found that following "Music" gives a broader listing than "Dance." There are so many musical instruments in the museums and people write about them, because they are objects, not 3 dimensional ethereal "events." But then the authors can't help themselves and delve into dance anyway. Sistrum, clappers, and crotala are the best key words. They have found early dynastic Hathorian sistra and clappers in well documented strata. It's all fascinating to me.

Originally Posted by Serpentine

This research has taken many months of my time and cost me thousands of dollars in books.

With all due respect to your credentials, the amounts of time and money you have spent hold no bearing on the quality of research being presented. The content of the books and what you do with what you've learned from them are the determining factors, not your bill from the bookstore or how long it took you.

I see two major criticisms developing in this thread: One is in regard to the assertion of academic credibility. Mahsati, Nissasaintlouis, Asim, etc., have all commented on the nature of what constitutes viable research--namely, that it must be performed and delivered in an appropriately academic construct. That means publication is deferred until the work is stable, it is properly researched, referenced, and reviewed, and it is presented through recognized scholarly channels. Without commenting further on the content of your article, it is safe to say that GS is not considered a serious academic journal in the field of Egyptology.

The other criticism is of the content itself. I cannot speak for or against Professor Hickmann's work, but in the absence of multimedia evidence, he and his associates were/are doing little beyond educated guessing. It's rather like arguing what color dinosaurs were. We can say, "Based on what we do know, it seems likely it might be this...," but that is far from the standard of what constitutes "fact." Speculation, no matter how good it may later be proven to be, is still just that. Unless mummies start talking, singing, and playing musical instruments, there are few pieces of irrefutable evidence here, and mostly assumptions and conjecture.

At any rate, I think you have diluted the effectiveness of any original research you have done by presenting it in the way you did. If one were unaware of your credentials because they found this article in a google search, they might assume you were merely reviewing a television program you watched and tacking on the names of a few books you found on Amazon, since the footnotes do not seem to refer directly to anything in the text of the article.

Originally Posted by Serpentine

KMT and Biblical Archeology are the two I read religiously. L'Archeologie also does good articles, along with a French version of Biblical Archeology. I buy others when there's an article on Egypt, particularly music. I would love recommendations if you have any. Honestly, I have stuck mainly to archeology because the objects themselves seem to be the best proof. You are right, I have no way of knowing if one step or thought pattern happened 5000 years ago. But a 5000 year old instrument or rattle carries a different weight, depending where it was found, by who and when.

I have also found that following "Music" gives a broader listing than "Dance." There are so many musical instruments in the museums and people write about them, because they are objects, not 3 dimensional ethereal "events." But then the authors can't help themselves and delve into dance anyway. Sistrum, clappers, and crotala are the best key words. They have found early dynastic Hathorian sistra and clappers in well documented strata. It's all fascinating to me.

Here are a few recommended journals to get you started. Most of them have a pretty long publishing history, so you may have to delve into the archives pretty well. Most university libraries have access to these if what you are looking for isn't available online. JStor is a great resource for journals, but you will need to have an academic affiliation to view the full content of the articles. I hope this helps!

American Anthropologist: American Anthropologist
American Journal of Archaeology: American Journal of Archaeology
Antiquity: Antiquity Journal
Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy: Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy - Journal Information
Archaeological Review: Archaeological Review from Cambridge
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology: ScienceDirect - Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, Volume 28, Issue 3, Pages 259-366 (September 2009)
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology: JSTOR: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
Journal of Near Eastern Studies: University of Chicago Press - Cookie absent
Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities: SSEA | Publications
Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry: Home Page
Near Eastern Archaeology: Near Eastern Archaeology (NEA) - Publications - ASOR
Royal Archaeological Institute: RAI WEBSITE

Great list Mahsati! I think you hit all the biggies!

Originally Posted by mahsati

Here are a few recommended journals to get you started. Most of them have a pretty long publishing history, so you may have to delve into the archives pretty well. Most university libraries have access to these if what you are looking for isn't available online. JStor is a great resource for journals, but you will need to have an academic affiliation to view the full content of the articles. I hope this helps!

American Anthropologist: American Anthropologist
American Journal of Archaeology: American Journal of Archaeology
Antiquity: Antiquity Journal
Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy: Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy - Journal Information
Archaeological Review: Archaeological Review from Cambridge
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology: ScienceDirect - Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, Volume 28, Issue 3, Pages 259-366 (September 2009)
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology: JSTOR: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
Journal of Near Eastern Studies: University of Chicago Press - Cookie absent
Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities: SSEA | Publications
Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry: Home Page
Near Eastern Archaeology: Near Eastern Archaeology (NEA) - Publications - ASOR
Royal Archaeological Institute: RAI WEBSITE

I have not seen the History Channel program that is the subject of the article, but, as an ancient historian, I can tell you that History Channel programs should not be taken as reliable sources. The amount of misinformation I have seen in their programming regarding my own field and other historical periods of which I have some knowledge is appalling.

For those who watch the History Channel, I would suggest paying close attention to the credentials listed for their interviewees when a program presents two opposing interpretations of historical evidence. Their typical format is to interview often well-known professors in the field and then to present an opposing viewpoint from "X, author of Y". The phrase "author of" is a clue that the interviewee has no academic credentials but is a layperson who wrote a trade book on the subject.

These programs will often present opposing theories as though they are equally well-sourced and represent factions within the historical community, whereas they more often represent the difference between a) a theory that is in fact widely accepted amongst scholars and b) wishful thinking amongst non-experts.

As to the article, as others have mentioned, it is not clearly sourced and reads therefore as a journalistic rather than an academic article. "The History Channel program implied that these women could have been ancient belly dancers." Was this claim stated by an interviewee on the program or by the narrator? The article mentions that Lise Manniche was on the program, but what did she actually say? No appearance of an academic on a television program should be taken as an endorsement of all the claims aired therein. What are the direct sources of the other claims made in the article?

I respect the intention to seek input from other dance researchers, but without clear sourcing it's very difficult for an academic to provide useful counterarguments. Perhaps circulating a clearly-sourced version of the article to dance researchers you respect would yield more productive results?

Originally Posted by Tourbeau

At any rate, I think you have diluted the effectiveness of any original research you have done by presenting it in the way you did. If one were unaware of your credentials because they found this article in a google search, they might assume you were merely reviewing a television program you watched and tacking on the names of a few books you found on Amazon, since the footnotes do not seem to refer directly to anything in the text of the article.

Ah well, my career as a scholar is over. My goal was to sell CDs, not be the wisest anthropologist on the block. I have tried to give people extra, well-documented information in all of my products. This time, I thought encouraging discussion about such a taboo subject as sex - to make people think - would be fun. I am having a great time discovering the roots of finger cymbals (a number of the books for the Amazon links talk about them). That their forerunners happened to be played by Hathorian followers is fascinating to me. That those women had such a lively reputation is even better. I'm not taking myself so seriously. I'm trying to put out the facts as I have found them. I will definitely quote my sources - so that you can go prove me wrong with my sources and yours too. In the process we will both learn something. As with Andrea Deagon, I can't wait to see what you find.

I would also gently point out that Sachs' World History of the Dance has been critiqued quite intensively by anthropologists. He may well have been the go-to guy for music in the 1930s but a lot of his work on dance does not stand up. He did not personally view much of the dance he wrote about. He also drew upon evolutionist theories that are now heavily criticised, not least because of their racist component. Joann Kealiinohomoku wrote "An Anthropologist Looks at Ballet as a Form of Ethnic Dance" in 1969 and yet 40 years later people are still citing Sachs whenever they talk about belly dance. You need to read something written later than the 1930s when looking at *dance* and adding *dance* to archaeology.

I've tended to stay away from Pharonic dance, because my field of interest is a contemporary hybrid dance in a country with several thousand years worth of migration and occupation, but it is my understanding that early 20th century researchers in this field defined Pharonic dances as effectively "elegant walking" and the arrival of hip movement as a kind of debasing influence from other, less "high" cultures. I believe similar ideas are at work in Dora Stratou's construction of "real" Greek dancing compared to that "nasty" Turkish-influenced chiftitelli.

But this is not my field.

I do also agree that "it was an experiment!" is not the way to produce good academic research and further brings GS into disrepute as any kind of journal.

My goal was to sell CDs, not be the wisest anthropologist on the block.

I am actually reeling from this statement. Way to undermine every single piece of serious research out there on our eternally-maligned dance form, and way to ruin your own credibility. I will have to seriously question purchasing *any* product of yours, and that's a shame, because your CDs have a good reputation. But I don't want to support someone who thinks belly dance research is a joke.

Originally Posted by Serpentine

have no idea what those dances looked like except for one thing - the link to belly dance - that they jiggled their hips.

Can you provide the primary source evidence for this claim? I would be very interested in reading it myself. If you could include the original language source plus the translation, that would great.

And I'll give another thumbs up to Mahsati's list of journals. If you haven't been using them already, they should provide a wealth of peer-reviewed academic material on your subjects of interest.

Originally Posted by zumarrad

I am actually reeling from this statement. Way to undermine every single piece of serious research out there on our eternally-maligned dance form, and way to ruin your own credibility. I will have to seriously question purchasing *any* product of yours, and that's a shame, because your CDs have a good reputation. But I don't want to support someone who thinks belly dance research is a joke.

No, I am saying I do not have a degree in anthropology or archeology or in reading hieroglyphs. I have an MBA from London School of Economics. I am trying to do this research as well as I can with the tools that I have. I did not say I was taking this research as a joke. I said I was not taking myself too seriously. I am not trying to be a published author on subjects I am not qualified to pronounce on. I am trying to illuminate the hand held percussive instruments we all hold so dear. That the women who played them were sexual creatures has been documented time and again by every traveler that went to Egypt and saw them (ghawazee). I thought it was fascinating that the women who played their precursors were also considered sexual creatures. Yes, I took a leap of faith here, that the women who played clappers were the precursors to the women who played crotala and then finger cymbals later on. Those crotal playing ladies were celebrating Bastet, a benign form of Hathor (from Herodotus 450 BC). But I DO have sources. And I will print what you have asked me for, within the limits of copyright protection. The newest research I can't print word for word. That's what I love about the old stuff. I can print it for customers without violating anyone else's rights.

THANK YOU for the list of publications. That looks like heaven. Now I just need access to Justor - and an extension on my release date.