Discussion: Old Kingdom Texts

This is a forum for discussion and questions based on the Old Kingdom readings. Everyone should post a question (or more!) prior to our in-class conversation on Wednesday the 5th. We can then collectively tackle the issues that you guys are seeing. Post your comments by typing in the "Post Comments" box below.

Posted at Oct 01/2011 10:43AM:
angreenb: Kemp's chapter on the bureaucratic mind mentioned something about the construction of the Pyramids of Giza that is rarely acknowledged: the orientation of the three pyramids is due to the topography of the Giza plateau and the bed of limestone on which it sits, the Mokattam Formation (pg. 187). Is this a recent determination? Many sources claim that the pyramids were oriented to mimic astronomical formations, namely Orion's Belt. Is this theory now believed to be false?

Posted at Oct 03/2011 12:29AM:
Laura F: There is some evidence to say that by the 4th Dynasty, Egypt was becoming increasingly meritocratic. Bureaucratic careers were now available to “competent literate newcomers not related to the royal family” (Shaw 104). However, Shaw goes on to say that the only reason that these positions were opened was because state control increased and therefore more officials were needed; there were not enough royal family members to do all the work. Furthermore, Strudwick comments that private individuals were welcomed only to “reduce the chance of strife within the royal family” (8). Therefore, could this really be considered a meritocracy if the motivation behind hiring newcomers was to eliminate family drama and inflate the number of officials?

Posted at Oct 03/2011 04:40PM:
eduthinh: We've really been emphasizing the kingship and nobility because of the evidence we have. I notice in some of these biographical tomb writings, there are mentions of other groups of people or of the elite's relationship to them, for instance in #269 (23): "I am generous to it particularly in respect of cattle-stalls and nets for the fisherman" or in #198 (p. 267): "I it was who gave clothing, bread, and beer to everyone who was naked and hungry there." The trend seems to be to emphasize the nobility's generosity or good government of their nome. What other trends do we see? What do they say about Egyptian religious or political values? Do we know very much about how non-elites were actually treated?

Posted at Oct 04/2011 08:37PM:
Gillie Johnson: Koptos B, C, and D are extremely similar, but while Koptos B stresses the fact that to disobey the king's command is rebellion, the others seem more impersonal. What do these documents suggest about the power of Pepy II in relationship to the vizier in Upper Egypt to whom the decree is addressed? Why have three such similar decrees and what is the reason for the shift in tone from Koptos B to Koptos C & D?

Posted at Oct 04/2011 09:38PM:
Laura F: There is conflicting evidence on whether or not the Kings’ various building projects were built by forced laborers. Shaw comments that Egypt did not rely on slave labor (102) and a chief builder claims “never did I enslave anyone” (Strudwick 267) in his tomb biography. However, in a royal decree Neferirkare proclaims that priests are exempt from compulsory labor, noting that others are not exempt (Strudwick 98-101). There were certainly thousands of workers who helped to build pyramids and monuments in Egypt. If not forced, how were they controlled or convinced to work?

Posted at Oct 04/2011 09:55PM:
timothy_sandiford: The texts contained within Studwick really point us towards the multifaceted nature of power relations which enable kingship to function, namely; legitimization, coercion (power), and gift giving (largess). Shaw sees the nature of kingship in the Old Kingdom as essentially beneficial, in that the authority of the king is used to organize and to a certain extent redistribute economic wealth. Yet, do the texts, especially the Royal decrees, point to an institution which is bleeding power? Are the continual grants of land, especially to service the mortuary cults of the king (and kings past), eroding the economic power of the king to regulate the flow of agricultural goods through Egyptian society? Does this in turn lead to a situation in the Late Old Kingdom where the king can no longer give economic gifts (land, agricultural goods, prestige products) and therefore 'he' must compensate by giving over power, leading to a fragmenting of what were royal prerogatives between non-royal elite individuals and families?

Posted at Oct 04/2011 10:41PM:
Nathan Partlan: In the Redford reading, there is discussion of the dual reverence/disregard for the past and for the old tombs during the 9th/10th dynasties. Do we have any evidence as to whether the disregard for the past was originated and/or focused primarily in the elites or in the common people, or both? Does it reflect a lack of power for current kings, or instead a focus by current kings on distancing themselves from the past, or something else entirely? Or do we have insufficient evidence?

Posted at Oct 04/2011 10:52PM:
Kai Furbeck: The Koptos documents, although produced during Pepy II's kingship, emphasize the continuation of many policies of Neferirkare, who ruled centuries earlier. We discussed how kings often took names of gods and other kings as a symbol of their admiration of them. If the relationship between Pepy II and Neferirkare is a particular one, what are the reasons for so strong a connection? Does it tell us anything about the cycle of administrative and royal trends across dynasties? If it is not an atypical example of relations between kings and their (distant) predecessors, is there any idea of the method by which kings directed resources/dictated policies with relation to previous kings (beyond one or two generations back, and especially when there is not a clear uncut family line)?

Posted at Oct 04/2011 11:04PM:
Katie East: In reading the primary texts in strudwick there are a number of recurring themes that may point to particular world views or cultural understandings of the ancient Egyptians. Of course it is difficult to say whether these texts can be taken at face value, and so regardless of the validity of the statements the fact that certain assertions appear in numerous tombs indicates the importance of those themes. One that I found most interesting was the assertion that an individual tomb owner never spoke negatively about another individual to an individual who was higher status then him. I wonder what this says about Egyptian’s understandings of respect and pride as well as the importance of status. Another interesting theme was the assertion by many administrators of having been the first to do things, or the best to have done something yet. Again, what does this say about the ancient Egyptians perceptions of respect and success, and even competitive nature in that everyone had to be the first and best?

Posted at Oct 04/2011 11:05PM:
Shochberg: We briefly discussed the autobiography (Strudwick p. 352-7) of Weni in class on Monday. He is a high ranking official and rises to such prominence that he hears a case regarding a queen without the presence of a vizier. We speculated that the reason the vizier is absent is that he too is in trouble. This same trial is mentioned in the Decree of Pepy I from Dahshur (p. 103-5). In this account, the name of the vizier on trial has been cut out of the text; however, all of the vizier's titles remain intact. I find this curious. Why weren't the titles removed too? Wouldn't the king have an interest in removing all possible aspects of prestige from this disgraced official? I understand how important names were to the Ancient Egyptians and why the vizier's name was omitted, but why aren't titles treated in the same way? Furthermore, what does this tell us about the relationship between the king and officials if individuals can be disgraced but the positions seemingly can't be?

Posted at Oct 04/2011 11:09PM:
Marco Ziff: Strudwick mentions that kings sent numerous expeditions away from Egypt, many instances far outside the main Nile valley (Strudwick, 53). In addition, after reading of Snefru “hacking up the Nubians.. bringing back 1,100 captives..” (Strudwick 66) and even venturing to Libya for captives and cattle, I wonder whether the Egyptians pursued any sort of aggressive militaristic expansion? Did they utilize their superior administrative skills and wealth to create and maintain an army in order to secure lands containing the desirable natural resources of their neighbors? Egypt seemed to be by far the most developed civilization in its region, constantly streaming in large amounts of raw materials and goods from regions around the Nile valley inhabited by non-Egyptians. How did they achieve this throughout the time period we have covered so far?

Posted at Oct 04/2011 11:29PM:
Maya Ramchandran: Many of the private texts are found in provincial tombs, which suggests that the officials were gaining enough power and independence to build their tombs away from the capital. However, in the royal texts in Strudwick, often the king orders the construction of these tombs, which leads to the question, how did the location and structure of the provincial tombs reflect the relationship between the king and the officials?

Posted at Oct 04/2011 11:36PM:
Alexa Pugh: Strudwick cautions us not to compare too closely modern bureaucracies with that of Ancient Egypt. He says, "it should never be forgotten that the power of the king was absolute, and the path to high office was as much due to one's standing with him as birth or ability" (28). Conversely, Shaw describes the emergence of a meritocracy by the 4th dynasty. Are we to take both to be true, assuming that Strudwick meant that the king's absolute power was still functioning to a degree even within the meritocracy? Or does Strudwick mean to contest the existence of a true meritocracy? As Laura F has called to our attention, there are solid arguments for the latter. If unqualified individuals rose to positions of authority just as easily as those with applicable skill, is there evidence to suggest that certain shortcomings (such as unfinished pyramids) can be blamed on ineffective leadership (as opposed to say, a king's premature death)? In fact, Strudwick hints at some of the weakness that brought down the strongly centralized Old Kingdom bureaucracy, specifically famine and abuse of power (44). Can we link these directly to this system of selecting officials? Most importantly, if this system persisted throughout the course of Ancient Egyptian civilization, how were tasks (such as tax collection, etc) carried out effectively enough to allow the kingdom to survive for nearly 3,000 years?

Posted at Oct 04/2011 11:59PM:
Maddy: I've been looking at the Palermo stone text and noticed that the rituals for statues, the opening of the mouth, is the same as a funerary ritual. I don't know much about the funerary rite, as to who it applied to, but wondered how it relates to statues.

Posted at Oct 05/2011 12:05AM:
walkermills: It seems that everything we have read and talked about deals with the King, the Administration and their relationship. "eduthin" touched on this in their post. I'm wondering how much we are able to draw about the lower class egyptians and the majority of the population. Especially how literate or in touch with the religious life they would have been, because if they were mostly illiterate and mostly the priesthood was invalid in religion that we actually know little about ancient egypt. I'm also wondering if we have graves, and grave goods from lower class egyptians. As both Shaw and Studwick mentioned we have almost exclusively funeral evidence for our understanding of Egypt and I want to know if even within that we've only looked at a small slice of the graves they would have had.

Posted at Oct 05/2011 12:14AM:
Sarah_Tropp: We've discussed audience in many of the texts and inscriptions so far. In reading the Strudwick texts, I found myself considering audience once again. On page 268, the Ankhmeryremeryptah reading of Cairo Text (JE 44608) states, "O you who live on earth and shall pass by this tomb, if you wish that the king might favor you and that you might be imakhu in the sight of the Great God, then do not enter this tomb...With regard to any man who shall enter therein in a hostile manner...I shall destroy their descendants and their doorways on earth" (Strudwick 268). Who is this addressed to? Was tomb robbing a major concern at this time? Also, if it is addressed to the common man, as presumably royals and officials would have no need to rob a grave, what does this say about the administration's view and treatment of the common man? Is he specifically suspected of wanting to rob a tomb, or perhaps just having the need?

Also, the text seems very self-aggrandizing. Were all officials like this? It seems almost as if the passage is written by a king, since it states many times "I am excellent" and "I am one favored" (Strudwick 268). Were officials also seen as having the favor of the gods, like the kings?

Posted at Oct 05/2011 12:29AM:
Jackson O: Offerings were obviously an integral part of Egyptian funerary tradition. Enormous amounts of resources were offered at temples. However, the offerings weren't just left on an altar or in a tomb. Shaw describes the giving of offerings as "a distinctive ancient Egyptian way of redistributing the national produce" (Shaw 105). These offerings seem to be simultaneously allocated for both the dead and the living. One of the royal decrees in Strudwick deals with the distribution of offerings among the living. It orders "give them access to… of the invocation offerings of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Neferefre in the pyramid of Neferefre" (Strudwick 102). Offerings seem to be treated simply as a store of resources. How can this religious / symbolic allocation to the deceased and divine be reconciled with the consumption of the goods by the living? Offerings—at least in some other cultures—are often sacrifices. If most of the offerings were actually consumed, do Egyptian offerings lack that sacrificial component?

Posted at Oct 05/2011 01:05AM:
cjburnet: I also wanted to comment on the Koptos decrees. I was particularly interested in the specific exemptions given to the priests and other residents of Mir and Koptos, two cult centers in the Old Kingdom. I wonder why the priests at these sites were given such special dispensations from state taxation, service, and so on. Did priests at these sites play into a central, vital role of the sites in the overall system of worship in Egypt? These decrees weren't just found once, either - as mentioned in a previous comment, the Koptos decrees B, C, and D closely resemble each other. This implies to me that there was some sort of regular (or maybe not regular?) reaffirmation of the exemption these religious officials possessed. Were these simply stone "flyers" which reminded traveling officials of these exemptions, or did they serve some deeper purpose?

Posted at Oct 05/2011 07:05AM:
Kate Alexander: Shaw briefly discusses the increasing importance of Nubia to Egypt in the latter half of the Sixth Dynasty. It is interesting to see how this is expressed in some of the primary sources in Strudwick, particularly Biographical Texts 241 and 242. Egypt clearly considered parts of Nubia to be at least partially under its control; we hear of an expedition leader from the middle of Sixth Dynasty who "places the fear of Horus in the foreign lands" and obtains vast amounts of "tribute" (or at least trade goods) from various southern kingdoms (Strudwick 330). However, perhaps a generation or so later, a different official is sent to "devastate" some of the same regions previously sending goods to Egypt, about which he boasts, "I did what pleases my lord and killed a great number there, including the ruler’s children and the commander of the excellent Nubian force" (Strudwick 334). Why the change in policy? Was it triggered by a shifting political landscape in Nubia, or by changes within Egypt itself? Also, if the texts can be trusted, when this violence broke out the Egyptians continued to capture many Nubians and forcibly bring them back to Egypt. What happened to these Nubians and other foreigners living within Egypt during the Sixth Dynasty and subsequent decline of the Old Kingdom? Would their status have changed as the power of the Egyptian central government diminished?

Posted at Oct 05/2011 09:21AM:
awgunder: I intrigued by the rituals mentioned in the texts. We discussed the Following of Horus in class, which appears on the Palermo Stone but which we unfortunately know almost nothing about. In the Palermo Stone text, many kings are credited with "fashioning and opening the mouth" of statues of various gods. (Strudwick, 71) Do we have any idea what it means to open the mouth of a statue of a god? Also, some festivals mentioned in the Offerings Calendar of Niuserre seem to center around the "excursion of re." (Strudwick, 89) Do we know what that ritual entailed? It reminds me of the Babylonian tradition of carrying the statues of the gods through the city on New Year's. Perhaps this is similar?

Posted at Oct 05/2011 09:51AM:
Caroline Washburn: As we have discussed in class, we are familiar with the comfortability Egyptians had with re-writing their own history. We have noted that some kings and possibly female rulers have been left out of later king lists. In Strudwick, specifically the Decree of Pepy I and the biography of Weni, it is noted that names of important figures were erased in instances of shame or misbehavior. While these examples are of a "historically cleansing" nature, I was wondering whether there is any evidence of this practice in a more reverential manner? It is clear that some kings may have opted to use a predecessors name as one of their five king names. However, is there any evidence of re-appropriation of royal art, architecture, or texts by a later king in order to solidify his reign, as became the practice much later in the culture of late Roman antiquity (for example the Arch of Constantine)?

Posted at Oct 05/2011 09:57AM:
lpd: In Shaw, there has been references to the disintegration of order towards the end of the Old Kingdom. However, there have been no specific references to specific "revolts". One of the tomb biographies (Kaiemtjennet) states, "His majesty sent me to put down the rebels in..."(Strudwick, 283) To what extent was their social unrest in Egypt? Was it widespread? What would be their motivations for resistance? (taxes, decrees, etc)

Posted at Oct 05/2011 10:35AM:
Alexa Pugh: The Decree of Neferirkare from Abydos provides evidence for the existence of compulsory labor. Strudwick suggests that there were "a basic set of moral expectations in Egypt, and that there were certain expectations of behavior toward one's fellow man, especially among the tomb-owning classes" (45). How did this set of morals conflict or coincide with slavery, if it existed? Was the king bound by these morals as well? Strudwick implies that these moral imperatives were in some ways restricted to the elite. Do we know anything about a moral code for the lower classes? Did the elite view the lower classes as inherently inferior (and not under the government of the same code of moral principles)?

Posted at Oct 05/2011 10:37AM:
apolensk: Shaw mentiones that the purpose of the Great Sphinx of Giza is unknown. It is unknown what was the model for the face,and why it was build. He also mentions that it wasn't until later when Egyptians started worshiping the Great Sphinx. So I was wondering what are the theories about the Great Sphinx as far its purpose and why was it build initially?

Posted at Oct 05/2011 11:19AM:
D.Ohrt: From the biographical texts in Strudwick, you often get a sense of great loyalty and zealous service to the kings of old and current kings which these officials serve. I was wondering, as we see the geographical separation of the tombs of officials around the 5th dynasty, do we see a "separation" between the officials and the kings in the texts in these officials' tombs as well? As in, do they put less emphasis on the greatness of the kings and more on themselves?