page95
94
The second part of my thesis was aimed at looking at previous interpretations and seeing if these
differ from mine. With this I hoped to discover if using the globalisation theory would help better
understand the temples. I did find that the previous interpretations were quite similar to my own
in many aspects.
There were however a few additions and differences that I think were very important. I am of the
opinion that, although in many aspects an interpretation will probably stay quite similar based on
the general aspects, certain parts can definitely be seen in a new light by using a globalised
perspective. This includes for example certain features of architecture or decoration previously
described as ‘mistakes’. Especially Aldred did this a lot in his article. He clearly mentioned he had
an clear idea of what an Egyptian temple was supposed to look like, but did not seem to take into
account this ancient Egyptian design could have changed due to the influence of the Roman
culture. For Taffeh it was never directly discussed why the temple was built, why this location and
orientation was chosen, why this design was chosen and what kind of function it had. Considering
the relation between the temple of Taffeh and the growth of the Roman empire to a global level an
explanation could be formed.
It is important to consider differences between the ancient Egyptian temples and the Roman
Egyptian examples are not simply mistakes or should be dismissed as unimportant details, but
actually point to changes in symbolism or beliefs. In the previous interpretations of Dendur and
Shenhur I found the differences between these Roman-Egyptian temples and new kingdom
temples were not discussed in much detail or were easily dismissed as ‘mistakes’. These changes
are important for us to look at to be able to learn more about the influence different cultures have
on each other in such an environment. These differences can actually teach us a lot about the
changes that occured due to the Roman presence in Egypt.