The circumcision of male children is ritually required in the Jewish religion and has become common among all religious communities in the United States over the last fifty years. The practice has its supporters and detractors: Supporters claim it is hygienic, while those against circumcision claim that the benefits are negligible and the procedure runs the risk of serious problems for the patient.
By “problems,” I’m sure you can get the point!
This procedure predates the Jewish religion; it was first documented long before physicians knew about bacteria and germs or had the benefit of using anesthesia. A scene from the tomb of an Egyptian noble named Ankh-ma-hor, who lived during the reign of the King Teti (around 2345 BC), shows a man being circumcised in graphic detail. In the scenes, the man—whom scholars believe is actually the tomb owner’s son—first has his “parts” prepared by a physician who shaves the pubic hairs. The second scene then shows the physician doing the deed.
But the physician needs an assistant to hold the arms of the man being circumcised!
It is important to point out a few things here, which the accompanying text sort of explains.
Above the preparation scene, the physician says: “I will make it comfortable.”The patient then responds, “Rub it well in order that it may be effective.”
It has been suggested that the patient is asking the physician to rub some sort of analgesic on his penis, but no effective pain reliever from the period is known today. This has led many modern scholars to suggest that the physician is talking about the cleansing process before the big cut happens. The scene on the left, which shows the actual cutting, is somewhat clearer.
As the physician cuts, he tells his assistant, “Hold him fast; do not let him fall!” The assistant responds, “I shall act for your praise.”
The bottom text on the cutting scene has been the subject of some academic arguments, but the best translation of it seems to be: “Circumcising the hem-ka priest.” Since Ankh-ma-hor was a vizier and not associated with any type of priesthood, it has been suggested that the man being circumcised in the scenes was actually one of his sons. The circumcision was part of his initiation into his cult/order, which is why it was taking place in adulthood.
Textual, artistic, and archaeological finds from other places and periods in ancient Egypt suggest that male circumcision was not universal and was possibly only reserved for the priesthood. Modern medical examinations of male mummies have shown that not all were circumcised and that it was done for nonmedical reasons.
But one thing is for sure about circumcision in ancient Egypt—it was nearly always done in postpuberty or adulthood… yikes!