H. Goedicke, Diplomatical Studies in the Old Kingdom, JARCE 3 (1964)

7/22/2019 H. Goedicke, Diplomatical Studies in the Old Kingdom, JARCE 3 (1964)

1/12

Diplomatical Studies in the Old Kingdom

Author(s): Hans GoedickeSource: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 3 (1964), pp. 31-41Published by: American Research Center in EgyptStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40000983 .

Accessed: 06/06/2013 07:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Research Center in Egyptis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=arcehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40000983?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40000983?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=arce


2/12

Diplomatical Studies in the Old KingdomHans GoedickeThe beginning of Egyptian history is for usconcomitant with the emergence of writingin the Nile Valley. It not only brought a meansof recording, but must be considered an es-sential tool in the organization and adminis-tration of a large and diverse dominion. Thereis little direct evidence that the kings made

use of writing during the Archaic Period,1but any conclusion drawn from this situationwould be as unfounded as arguments exsilentio usually are. In the III Dynasty theposition of scribe for the king develops into anestablished office, and the appearance ofa "leader of the king's scribes"2suggests theformation of a royal chancery. The earlyholders of this position, to judge from theirburials, were persons of highest social status.From this early title subsequently develops amore specific zs c-nswt, "scribe of the king'sdocuments/ ' a title of which variouscompoundsare attested.3As indicated by the designation c-nswt,"royal document/'4 the usual form of royaldocument was written on papyrus. Althoughthe Egyptian climate is generally most advan-

tageous for the preservation of even verydelicate materials, this is only true of tombs onhigh desert ground. In the zone of cultivationthe yearly inundation left little chance for amaterial like papyrus to survive natural decay.As royal documents were primarily of concernto the living, it is only natural that save someminor indistinct fragmentsnone of the productsof the royal chancery have survived. That weneverthelessare in a position to investigate theproblemsof the diplomaticsof the OldKingdomis due to the copying of papyrus documentsonto stelae. More nstances are known dating tothe OldKingdomthan to any later period; andsince the early copyists in most cases werecareful in following the originals,5we are in aposition not only to establish the documentaryform, but also to trace some developmentsduring a period of approximately 400 years,from the end of the IV Dynasty into thebeginningof the HeracleopolitanPeriod.Two kinds of copies can be distinguishedac-cordingto theirprovenance first,those foundincult installations, which shall be termed"official," and second, those from privatetombs where they are part of the inscriptions,labelled "private." The second group consistsof copies of royal letters written in the tomb byspecial permission granted as an expression of

1The existence of the appropriate ools is demon-stratedby the discoveryof an unusedroll of papyrusin a tomb dating to the time of kingDen; cf. Emery,ArchaicEgypt 233 .2For the title, cf. Helck, Untersuchungenu denBeamtentitelndes Alten Reiches 75; Kapiony, DieInschriftenderdgyptischen ruhzeit583.3Cf.Helck, op. cit. 711.4For '-nswt, cf. Junker, Giza VI 209; Vandier,RdE 2 (1936)46; Seidl, Einfuhrung n die AgyptischeRechtsgeschichte4; Harari,Contribution Vitudedelaprocedureudiciairedans VAncienEmpireEgyptien29.

5Copiesof later royal letters do not follow theiroriginalsexactly,but incorporatehe text in indistinctform, as in the Story of Sinuhe (B 178-199), theinscriptionof yIi-hr-nfrt Sethe, Lesestiicke 0, 146.)and Sen-nefer Urk.IV 532).The situationis differentwith the decree of Apries contained on a stela atMitrahine,which is a faithful copy like those of theOld Kingdom(cf. Gunn,ASAE 27 [1927]211 L).

31

This content downloaded from 193.225.190.218 on Thu, 6 Jun 2013 07:57:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/12

grace.6Of the five letters preserved,directed tothree different officials, two are letters ofcommendation7and the others concern variousmatters and were written in reply to reportspreviously sent to the king.8 Except for thefamous letter of the juvenile Pepi II to Hr-hw.fabout the dancing dwarf,9 all documents arefrom King Izezi-Djedkare.The first group, the official copies, cover amuchwider range,in date as well as in content.The oldest document copied was issued byKing Shepseskafat the end of the IV Dynasty.10The V Dynasty is represented by only onetext, that by King Neferirkare.11Thirteentexts date to the VI Dynasty, and representcopies of documentsissued by Teti (i),12Pepi I(2),13Pepi II (8),14and Merenre II (2).15Aspecial group, a kind of family archive, wasfound at the gateway of the temenos of Min atCoptus; of the nine documents dating to theVIII Dynasty, eight were issued by KingNeferkauhor.16The latest inscription of thiskind is issued by Horus Demedj-ib-tawy,17andshould be assigned to the HeracleopolitanPeriod.

The majority of the inscriptions of thisgroup concern administrative matters, especi-ally the exemptionfromimposts, othersconcernthe establishing of offeringsor the founding ofestates. Another well-represented class areletters of appointment, and there are deeds infavor of a virtuous official,and official letterswhich could be considered officialnotifications.The distribution of the texts in contents,date and provenance is no doubt a matter ofchance and cannot be considered a true orexhaustive reflectionof the originalsituation. Itis necessary to underline the extent of theactivity of the royal chancery, as far as wecan estimate it ; the fact that all eleven decreesof Neferkauhor contained on eight stela wereissued the same day might give some idea ofthe activity in that department of the ad-ministration. Among them is the confirmationof an official in his high position after theascent of a new king,18which also indicates thevolume of documentsissued from the chancery;equally prodigious in scope is the notificationofhighofficialsof the appointmentsofsubalterns,also evidenced.19

Considering the number of texts whichmust have been produced by the "scribes ofthe royal documents/' it is understandablethatcertain formulae were early developed withinwhich the specific contents were placed. Itcannot be established when this formularywasdeveloped. The earliest text copied alreadycontains the elements typical of the laterdocuments, indicating that a tradition existedas early as the end of the IV Dynasty.20Earlierforms, or a gradual development of the docu-mentary form, cannot be detected by meansof the material available. Although the for-mulary is fully developedwhen first we meet it,it neverthelessshows somechangesin the period

6Reportingin the tomb events in which the kingwas involved requiredroyal permission,as expressedin Urk.I 43, 2; 44, 6; 232, 16 etc.7 Urk.I 60I; 179I8 Urk.I 61 ff.9 Urk. I I28ff. The fragmentary inscription ofKs-m-tnnt{Urk. I 182!) possibly contains the copyof a royal letter. Another reflectionof a royal docu-mentis contained n the inscriptionof Met en(Urk.14).10Urk.I 160; Reisner,Mycerinus278 ., pl. 19b, d;Daressy, ASAE 13 (191 ) iogff.11Urk. I 170 f.; Petrie,AbydosII pl. 14; 18, p. 42.12Urk. I 2071; James, HieroglyphicStelae in theBritishMuseumI2pl. XXXI.13Urk.I 209 f.; Borchardt,AZ 42 (1905)Iff.; Urk.I 214; Weill,Dicretsroyauxpp. 40ff., pl. VII.14Urk. I 279!; Petrie, AbydosII pls. XIX, XXI;p. 42!; Urk. I 280-295; Weill, op.cit. pls. Iff.; Urk.I 277!; Reisner,op. cit. pl. A 1.15Urk. I 274ft. Reisner, op.cit. (supran. 10) pls.A; 19 e-i; Urk. I 307; Jequier, Les PyramidesdesReinesNeit et Apouitp. 5, fig. 2.16Urk. I 295-304; Weill, op. cit. (supran. 13) pls.Xff.; Hayes, JEA 32 (1946) 3ft.; pls. Iff. Moret,ComptesRendus1914,565 f.17Urk.I 3O4ff.;Weill, op.cit. pls. IV, IX.

18Moret,ibid.19The instances preserved (Urk. I 300I ; 301 .)might very well be of a special nature and do notnecessarilyreflect a generalpractice.20Thequotationof a royaldecree n the inscriptionof Met en (Urk. I 4) does not follow the originalclosely enoughto be used in this context.32



4/12

in which we can follow it, which will concernus in the following.Both groupsof texts are copies of royal com-munications, and not declarations.21As suchthey share two basic features, mention of theissuing king and the name of the addressee.For these two elements a specific arrangementexists, identical with that found in privateletters.22 The issuing king is indicated withhis Horus-name in a "palace facade" in avertical columnat the right edge, the beginningof the document.23The titles and name of theaddressee are written in a horizontal line onthe upper edge of the document.24The use of

the Horus-namein the palace facade is foundonly in this place, and that only in the officialcopies, while the private copies omit this linealtogether. The Horus-name was an officialinsignia used as an indication of the origin ofthe document, and not to be used by privatepersons; it denotes the king as successor ofHorus and reflects the mythologically foundedpower of the ruler.25When a formal referenceis required in the body of the text, the royalprenomenis used.The indication of the addresseeon the upperedge of the formulary,commonto royal decreesand private letters, occurs first under Neferir-kare,26 but is presumed to be older. In theperiod we can survey, a gradual change takesplace. While the earliest available instancenames only one person with one title, latercases extend this entry. In the decree of Pepi Ifor the exemption of the pyramid towns ofDashur, all those persons are listed in theaddress who were concerned in any way bythe contents of the documentand who thereforehad to be notified.27This points to the use of acollective address comprising all addressees ofthe various copies to be made of the document,without making any distinction of the originalrecipient. This rather confusing system seemsto have been abandoned in the later reign ofPepi II. In a decree issued in the year of the31st count only the main addresseeis named atthe head of the inscription,while three furtherrecipients of copies are listed seperately.28The

21This type, basically representedby the historicalstela, is not attested from the Old Kingdom. It ishard to decide whether this situation is due to thehazards of preservation; consideration could bebrought forth which would suggest that it was theproduct of a period when the mythologicalbasis ofkingshipwas no longeras predominantas in the OldKingdom.22The parallelism in the lay-out of royal andprivatecommunicationss a greathelp in settling thesometimes tricky question of sender and recipient.Thus in Pap. Berlin 8869 (Smither, JEA 28 [1942]i6ff.) the relation of them is opposite to that postu-lated by Smither. Iru, whose name is written in avertical column at the right edge of the papyrus, isthe sender, while the addressee is indicated on theupper edge of the text. His name should be readHrw, as results clearly from the sportive writing ofthe name on the verso, which has been completelymisunderstoodby Smither. Iru again is the sender,while Hrw (written only with the sun-disc)is addres-see. For him the titles hrty-* mr-wHy my-r hrn-ntrare listed.23Small fragmentsof a calligraphicdisplay of theHorus name among the Abusirpapyri might be theonly remainsof a royaldocument n its original orm;cf. Borchardt.AllerhandKleinigkeiten.24 n the testament of Wp-m-nfrt Selim Hassan,Excavationsat Giza II fig. 219) no addressee s listedbut the writer of the document is indicated in ahorizontal ine at the beginningof the text. Differentfrom the other documentsconcerned,the documentrepresents a unilateral act which fact is probablyresponsible for the special arrangement. Anotherinstance where no addresseeis indicated is the wellknown letter from Saqqara(CairoJdE 49623; Gunn,ASAE 25 [1925] 242n\, pl. I: Gardiner,JEA 13[1927]75ff.; Grdseloff,ASAE 48 [1948]505^.). Onlythe writer s mentionedat the very right, whose name

should be read Rhw. The absence of an address inthis kind of administrative letter is probably to belinked with the indication found in Urk. I 128, 6(similar61, 17) of the sendingof a letter r izt "to theadministration'; cf. Goedicke,Die StellungdesKonigsim Alien Reich56.25 t is significantthat cylinder seals, as instru-ments of administrative unction,primarilystate theHorus name while other name-forms of the kingoccur less frequentlyon them; cf. Goedicke,MDIK17 (1961) 69fL Hugo Miiller,Die EntwicklungderKonigstitulatur3f.26Urk.I 170, 12; Petrie,AbydosII pl. 14.27Urk.I 209, 12-16; Borchardt,AZ 42 (1905) iff.28Reisner, Mycerinus pl. A. Sethe, Urk. I 277,ii~i8 is totally misleadingand full of errors.33



5/12


6/12

OldKingdomletters,39dating to the late VI Dy-nasty, is labelled on the verso, while two othersare left blank. The one example, like laterparallels, states both sender and addressee onthe verso, as would seem logical. To mark awrit only as "royal decree" would seem point-less, since it was probably delivered individu-ally so that the contents could hardly be con-fused with ordinaryletters.The verbal interpretation of the groupeliminates the uncertainty in the understand-ing of the nature of the document, and alsobrings the royal writs in parallel with thearrangementsfound in private letters. In thelatter, the mention of the sender is followedbyddw or dd.f, "he says/' thus indicating thecontents of the letter to be the transcriptionofa verbal statement.40The situation in the royaldocuments is different insofar as the issuingking, who in the arrangement correspondstothe sender of private letters, is referredto byhis Horus name; and so the royal documentuses a different way of indicating that thecontents of the documentare a transcriptionofthe verbal decree, the formula 4% ^ , evenusing, in one case (Urk. I 289, 2), the formwd.nnswt, "the king has commanded."The reversalof the verb to face the person addressedhas aparallel in those tomb inscriptions which areformulated as addresses to the visitors of thetomb.41 With this graphic juxtaposition theEgyptian reflects the actual situation, with thespeaker on one side and the addressee on theother, facing.The fact that the introductory statement ofthe royal documents is to be understood as averbal clause allows important conclusions tobe drawn concerning the nature of the docu-ment. It implies that the document per se is

not legislative, but is rather the codification ofa verbal act which is to be understood as theactual legal process. Thus the "law" comesabout through the verbal commandment bythe king in his capacity as ruler. Since theroyal document only records the verbal act, itis not in itself law, but is only evidence of theroyalintent. Onlyin the sealingof the documentby the king is the legal characterof the decreeestablished. This process confirms the trans-cription of the verbal act as being identicalwith the latter, and thus becomes its substitute.The need to confirm the contents of thewriting is restricted to the original document,and there only to those of royal issue. Thesealing is an exclusively royal instrument,while the private document is either officiallyverified by being submitted to an institution,42or recives its confirmationthroughthe namingof witnesses.43The royal sealing of documentsappearsto be an introductionof the V Dynasty.The only earlier document, issued by Shepses-kaf certifiesthe contents of the documentwiththe words irw r-gs nswt ds.f, "made in thepersonal presence of the king."44 With oneexception45 he formula indicating the sealingof the document is htmwr-gs nswt ds>which isto be rendered, as Gunn suggested, "sealed inthe personal presence of the king."46 Theemphasis on the physical presence of the kingis interesting, and has its equivalent in theassertion cnhwhr rdwy.fy, "when he lived uponhis feet," in private legal documents.47The four elements, the Horus-name of theissuing king, the addressee, the declaration of

39Berlin 8869 (Moller,HieratischePapyrus BerlinIII, 2). Pap. Boulaq 8 is pasted on a piece of paper.Neither the letter from Saqqaranor Berlin 11301 isinscribedon the verso.40So in the Saqqara letter and Boulaq 8, butmissingin Berlin8869.41 nstancesare: Urk.I 18, 9; 71, 16; 203, 1; 229,16; Junker,GizaVI no Abb. 32; idem,IX 75, Abb.30 etc.

42E.g. Urk.I 158,4.43Thetestament of Wepemnofretists 15witnesses;cf. in this connection also Pap. Berlin 9010 and therequest of citing witnesses in a legal dispute (Sethe,AZ 61 [1926]67ff.)44Urk. I 160. As the documentsdeliveredto theaddressee were presumablycopies and not the "Ur-text", this passage does not necessarily provide adecisive indication about the development of theformula.45Urk.I 288, 1 whichreadsirr \s mi .46ASAE 27 (1927)230. SimilarlyEdel, Altagypti-scheGrammatik 179.47Urk.18, 17; n, 8; 29,2; 72, 13;89, n; 187,8 etc

35*



7/12

royal commandment (wd nswt) and the verifi-cation, form the basic framework of the for-mulary.There arethree furtherelements neededto complete the fully developed version in useat the end of the Old Kingdom. The first is thedating, which belongs to the document but isnot always indicated. It occurs in two differentforms; as the dating of the document itself, andas the date of its verification. The use of thetwo formsis not consistent, and it is difficult toestablish a firm rule. The preserveddocumentsof Shepseskaf, Pepi I and the earlier Pepi IIhave the first form,48while those of Neferirkare,Teti and all the documents of the VIII Dynastyhave the second form.49This situation suggestsa gradual increase in emphasis upon theverification.Its origin,however,lies in the neces-sity to establish the sequence of the issue ofvarious decrees. Originally this seems to havebeen connected with the indication of theissuing king by his Horus-name. The gradualshift from the legislative verbal act to the docu-ment as a legal instrument made it desirable tonote the dates of the issuingand the verification,though the two acts did not have to be simul-taneous. The indication of the month underNeferirkare is probably to be taken as anintermediary stage in which the year wasgiven with the Horus-name, while the specificdate to month and year was listed with theconfirmation.With Pepi II50the trend in favorof the dating of the sealing is completed, andlater documents give here the entire date, in-cluding the year.The second expansion of the formularyto bementioned appears to be an innovation of theVI Dynasty. It is an indication of the contentsof the document,which appearsfirst in the latereign of Pepi I51and is to be found in most ofthe later texts. Its occurrence is only under-

standable in respect of the papyrus original,where it obviously was designed to meet theneeds of the royal chancery by naming theobject of the document'sconcern.Its survivalinthe stone copies of the documents is quitesuperfluous,but does show the exactitude withwhich the texts were reproduced.The place ofthis element in the papyrus original is notcertain, but on the copies it is placed betweenthe adresseeand the actual text. Such a positionmakes little sense for the papyrus original if ithad to be opened to be read, as would be thecase after the wide format supersededthe highformat (see below). Thus it is tempting topresumethat this entry, obviously designed toindicate the contents of the document in con-cise form, was placed on the outside of thepapyrus in order to obviate the necessity ofconstantly opening it.In the formulation of this heading, particu-larly in the decrees concerningspecific objects,a system is clearlyindicated. The subjectmatteris listed in the sequence of district, town andobject, thus proceedingfrom the generalto themore specific.52 This arrangement is easilyexplainedby the practicalneeds of the chanceryand the necessity of orderly filing in the ar-chives.53As far as can be surmised, the basis ofthe organization of the archive followed thedivision of Egypt into administrative dis-tricts, which in turn were subdivided accordingto the settlements located there.The last element to be added to the formu-lary is an entry concerningthe delivery of thedocument reading iw rdiw iwt N r.s, "causedwas the coming of N concerning it."54 Theindication appears first in the late reign ofPepi II, but does not occur in earlier decrees ofthis king.55 In later documents it is always

48Urk. I 160; 209, 11; 280, 14; 277, 9 (cf. Smith,JNES 11 [1952] 113)-49Urk. I 172, 11; 208, 8; 296, 17; 299, 18 etc. Thedecree of HorusDemedj-ib-tawybears no date.50The decree from the year after the 22nd counthas both indications(Urk.I 284, 4 and 288, 1).61Urk.I 210, 1; 280, 17-281, 1; 300, 16.

52Especiallyclear Urk.I 214, 11.5dA reference o the existenceof extensive archivesis contained n Admonitions , 7-6, 11.54Cf.Edel, AltdgyptischeGrammatik 555 c; 481;also Gardiner,EgyptianGrammar 301.55Urk.I 292, 12. The decreesfrom the year of thenth and the year after the 22nd count lack thisentry.36



8/12

placed at the end of the texts, usually with thename of the father of the messenger.56Here toothe origin of the entry might be traced to theroyal chancery, where the means of deliveryof a document apparently was registered inthe event of possible complaints. Its inclusionon the stela again appears superfluous,as thename of the delivering messenger was hardlyrelevant to the contents of the document. Thetime at which this element was added to theformulary is not without significance, as thelate part of the reign of Pepi II apparentlywasmarkedby internal strife.The features of personal letters preservedinprivate copies accord in most respects withthe documentaryform. Consideringtheir moreintimate character it is understandable thatthe wording is less formal than that of theofficialdocuments. The fact that the availablematerial is with one exception from King Izezi-Djedkare must also be considered. The twoletters of commendationwhich this king wroteto his vizier Ra-shepses and his architectSenedjem-ib57are not only extemely flowery,but use languagewhich is very affectionateandflattering. Even in such personal communica-tions, however, the similarities of the twoletters are striking. Expecially noteworthy arethe expressions of praise, wThich onvey theking's commendation by a fixed formula.These elaborations are restricted to the bodyof the letter, however, and are not used asepithets of the addressee.58A survey of theroyal documents thus leads to the recognitionof many recurrentelementsin their formulation,which we have attributed to the developmentof a formularyin the royal chancery.We noted above that the texts foundon stoneare copies made from an original written onpapyrus, an original which is either the actual

document with the royal seal, or a copy madein the royal chancery.While there is no explicitindication in favor of eitherof these alternatives,it appears unlikely that the original was eversent away from the royal archives. In Urk. I282, 10, for instance,59it is ordered that "acopy of this command be brought, which is tobe placed upon a stela of firm limestoneFrom this text we learn not only of the use ofcopies, but also that their transferto stone wasintended. As the transfer was a kind of"publication"60 f the document, close adher-ence to the originalwas crucial. How slavish andexacting this adherencewas is shown, as notedabove, by the incorporationof elements whichare completely without point in a stone copy,such as the indications of the contents and thedelivering messenger. This close rendering ofthe originalsallows us to draw conclusionsfromthe stelae about the format and arrangementofthe papyrus documents.With respect to format,only in two instancesis a royal document placed on a round-toppedstela, the traditional royal form, and in neithercase is the document a literal copy of theoriginal. One, the decree of Pepi I for thefunerary chapel of his mother Iput at Coptus,61is only an excerpt of various stipulations fromthe decree, while the other, the decree ofShepseskaf for the temple of Mycerinus, wascopied at a much later date.62An attempt was

56Urk. I 296, 16 and the other decrees of kingNeferkauhor;Urk.I 306, 13.57Urk.I 6oi; 179!58The use of laudatory epithets in the addressappearsto be a developmentof the HeracleopolitanPeriod, a time of great interest in eloquenceand belesprit, as well demonstrated by the Story of theEloquentPeasant.

59SimilarlyUrk.I 286, 2; 292, 8.60A clear indication of the motives for the transferonto a stela is given Urk.I 282, 12 (similarly286, 4)"...that the functionaries of this district see, thatthey shall not take these priests to any labor of theroyaladministration."The "commandment" ecomeseffectiveat once, as can be deducedfrom Urk. I 283,13, and is not dependenton the "publication".Thissituation is only logicalwhen one takes into consider-ation that the legislativeact is the verbal "command"and not the document n which it is codified.61Urk.I 214. That the text is an excerptis certainin view of the absence of vital elementsof the "for-mulary",like the Horus-nameand the introductoryformula.62Urk. I 160. The absenceof the wish cnh-dtafterthe mention of the king's name is only one of thearguments.Sethe's restorationof cnh-dtafter Men-kaure'snameis completelywrong.37



9/12

made to fit the Shepseskaf document into therounded form of the royal stela, thus combiningincompatible elements.All other documents use the rectangularformat. The two oldest documents, dating toNeferirkare and Teti, are in the shape of anupright rectangle. The placement of the decreeof Shepseskafon an upright stela suggests thesame format for this text. Although it is pos-sible that the setting of the stelae determinedtheir form,63t is more likely that they directlyreflect their original. The peculiarity of thetwo texts is the use of the long vertical columns,conforming to the narrow oblong format, anarrangementcommon to other texts of the sameperiod. Thus the same form is found in theprivate copies of the royal letters of Izezi inthe tombs of Senedjem-ib and Ra-shepses,64such private legal documents as the testamentof Wepemnofret and the so-called "sale of ahouse/'65 and is further represented by thePapyrus Berlin 11301 from the reign ofIzezi.66The uniformity of format is unlikely to beso extended by mere chance, and thus is betterconsidereda simulation of the papyrus used inthe original.As the averageheight of the papyrusused in the OldKingdomhas been estimated onthe basis of extant specimensas between 21 and24cm.,67hewritingin long columns on anoblongformat indicatesthat the roll of papyruswas notused crosswise, but lengthwise. In otherwords,the scroll would not be spread across the lapwith the unusedpart held by the left hand, thetechnique indicated by later depictions of menreading or writing. Instead the unused portionwould have to be kept in the lap while theleft hand holds the upper edge. This practice is

confirmedby, and also explains, depictions ofthe IV and V Dynasty which show scribes writ-ing in this position.68They hold the papyrus infront of them lying up and down, a practicealso attested from the representation in thetemple of Sahure of the goddess Seshat takingcount of the Lybian spoil.69 The particularformat and its handling also is shown in thepresentation of opened writing scrolls forinspection, as shown in scenes of the houseadministratorreportingto his lord.The decree of Pepi I for the pyramid townsof Snofru at Dashur is the first instance of thedistinct transversal format, which continues inthe large decrees of Pepi II. Its peculiarity isthe shortening of the columns, found also withshorter documents, making the differencemoreconspicuous. It is also represented among theprivate copies of the letter of Pepi II to Her-khuf71and by several papyri of the VI Dynastyor later.72 The consistency of the availablematerial can be taken as decisive evidence for achange not only in the format, but even morein the handling of the document. Instead ofwriting parallel to the unrolling papyrus, thechangedtechniqueinvolved placingthe papyrusroll at right angles to the script. This in turnconsiderablyfacilitated the handling of a largedocument, an increase in convenience which isprobably responsible for the change. Hand inhand with the changing technique probablywent a change in the use of the papyrus; inorder to keep a lengthy piece of papyrus suf-ficiently flat to write on, one would have touse the outside of the roll, the verso, so therewould be support for the pen. This was notnecessary after the shift to crosswise writing,as only a small section had to be unrolled at a

63They were set up on either side of a doorway;cf. Petrie, AbydosII pl. 52.64Cf. LD II 76 d, f ; Quibell,Excavations t Saqqaraigoyjo8 pl. 61, 2.65Selim Hassan, Excavationsat Giza II fig. 219;Urk.I 157 . (Steindorffn Holscher,Das GrabdenkmaldesKonigsChephrennf., Abb. 164).66Moller,HieratischePaldographie Taf. I, 2.67Cerny, Paperand Booksin AncientEgypt 14 .

68E.g. Junker,GizaII 152, Abb. 19.69Borchardt,Das GrabdenkmalesKonigsSarfiu-re*II Bl. 1; cf. also W. St. Smith, A Historyof Sculptureand Painting in theOldKingdom284, fig. 127 b.70E.g. Junker,op.cit. II 128,Abb. n.71Urk. I I28n\; de Morgan,Cataloguedes Monu-mentsI 169.72Boulaq8; Berlin9010 (Moller,HieratischePaldo-graphie , Taf. II); CairoJdE 49623 (Gunn,ASAE 25[1925]242ff., pl. I).38



10/12

time. The obvious advantages of this techniqueled to its uniformadoption.73Other than the indication of the addressee,the writing is mainly arranged in verticalcolumns. The use of horizontal lines is firstattested in the decreeof King Neferirkare romAbydos, and later in a large decree of Pepi IIfor the temple of Min from the year after thenth count,74but both texts also use verticalcolumns. The two other largedocuments of thereign of Pepi II maintain the use of verticalcolumns, although there is another text of thesame time arranged horizontally; and thedocuments of Neferkauhor are likewise verticalin arrangement.Althoughthere is a remarkabledecree of ambiguity, this might be explainedby the peculiarities of the individual inscrip-tions, especially since some texts indicate con-siderable repetition.The use of horizontallines,restricted for us to the reign of Pepi II, is quiteprovocative, since otherwise only vertical ar-rangement is attested in papyrus inscriptionsinto the XII Dynasty.75We might hypothesizethat the ambivalencein the VI Dynasty is con-nected with the changeoverin the handling ofthe papyrus.In summary of the investigation to thispoint, we have found ample evidence of theexistence of an established tradition in theroyal chancery in the issue of royal decrees.These traditions concern not only the for-mulations, but also the physical structure orlayout of the document, including the develop-ment of a formula for the proclamation inwriting of what "the king commanded."All the documents dealt with so far are in-troduced by the formula wd nswt, "the kingcommanded," and are refered to as wd nswt,"king's commandment." All the available

inscriptions were found within Egypt and con-cern domestic affairs. Though so obvious as tobe a truism, this reminder s justified insofar asit indicates the realm within which the Egyp-tian king was able to issue commands withexpectations of obedience. This leads naturallyto the question of whether there are any royaldecreesdating to the Old Kingdomattested outof Egypt, or if any other form of royal docu-ment is mentioned there. The answer to thefirst question is negative, but it is positive forthe second.In the inscriptionsfound n the WadiMagharain Sinai the term wpt or wpt-nswtis attestedsince the reignof Menkauhor,76hile the earliestoccurrence in the Wadi Hammamat dates tothe later reign of Pepi I.77 That the word isdeterminedwith a book roll indicates that it isto be understood as some kind of documentand its contents, justifying the rendering ofWb. I 313, 10 of "Auftrag des Konigs," con-firmedby Urk. I 296, 4, 8, 12.78While the Wb.rendering keeps the association with writing,Cernys translation of "mission" or "royalmission"79s misleading in its implication of agroupof people carryingout an orderabroad,aroyal expedition, which apparently left arandominscription commemorating ts visit.In the desire to interpret the inscriptionsdating to the Old Kingdom as reports ofactivities carried out, in keeping with laterinscriptions, these graffiti were considered asrecords "of the names of the leaders and thechief officials taking part in the expedition."Theintroductorywords of the graffiti, j^ V ^ori^ra]kJi^!Zj' wereaccordinglyrendered"the royal expedition made by" or "sent with."Such a translation is the consequenceof takingthe verb as a relative. What we know of thesocial structure of the times mitigates against3terny, op.cit. (supran. 67) 17 . takes only thelater handlingof the papyrusinto consideration,butdisregardscompletelythe early technique.74Cf. Weill, Dicrets royaux pl. V. It is temptingto assume that the change of direction in the lastsection is to indicate that the text was originallywrittenon the verso. The otherhorizontally nscribeddocument s Urk.I 293!. (Weill, op. cit. pl. XI).75Cf. Cerny, op. cit. 17.

76Sinai 12-17 (Gardiner-Peet-Cerny,nscriptionsof Sinai pl. VIIff.).77Wadi Hammamat 61-63; I03 (Couyat-Montet,Inscriptionsdu OuddiHammamatpls. XVI; XXV);Goyon, WadiHammamat l. VIII, no. 21.78Cf. Goedicke,JNES 15 (1956)30.79Inscriptionsof Sinai II p. 28.39



11/12

this interpretation.The individual awarenessofpersonal merit which such an inscription pre-supposes is very different from the attitudefoundin the tombs of the time, wherein generalthe individual achievements are concealedbehind a rather ritualistic or formalized bio-graphy. This view is alsounsatisfactory n viewof the designations used for the king. Ingeneral, private inscriptions are very cautiousin the use of royal names, and in no instanceis the Horus or nbty- name used. When royaldocuments were copied in the tombs of noble-men, these names were omitted, and likewisein commemorative inscriptions, which wereusually private, there was no listing of theroyal titulary.An interpretationmuch more in accord withthe social tenor and royal customs can be foundif wpt or wpt-nswt s taken as an independentelement which is not connectedwith the follow-ing passages,but ratherdesignatesthe characterof the document. For instance a large graffito nthe Wadi Maghara from the year of the 2ndcount of Pepi II80 s arrangedin such a way asto substantiate this interpretation. The textsconsist of several sections which are separatedfrom each other by lines, as in letters. In theupper half are found the date, Horus-name,royal prenomen and the name of the motherof the reigningking. The lower half is occupiedprimarily by the lists of names which constitutethe actual text. Separated from both as anindependentelement is wpt-nswt,clearly not tobe connected with the text, but rather a cap-tion or designation of the document or itscontents. In this respect the inscription isparallel to the heading wd-nswt of the royaldecrees. This parallel in arrangementcorrobo-rates the philological implication of the term asdenoting a document, and thus the renderingof"expedition" is to be rejected in favor of onemore in accord with the documentary as-sociations of the term.Once the term wpt-nswtis understood as adesignation of a kind of document, it becomes

necessary to revise our interpretation of thosegraffiti in which the term occurs. A referenceto a royal document could not be placed at thehead of such a document as these texts areusually envisaged to represent,a memorandumby the leader of the expedition and a list ofthe participants.81Rather, the nature of theintroductory caption, plus the use of royaltitulary, indicates that the graffiti from Men-kauhor to Pepi II are excerpts of the royaldocumentswhich instigated the journeyabroad,rather than personal statements. The inscrip-tions do not give the complete commissions,but only the main features of the document'sformulary and the name of the person orpersons to whom it was issued or who wereconcernedby it.82To recognize wpt-nswtas a designation of aroyal document further clarifies the openingwords. The two instances where it is opened byhibt (Urk. I 56, 3 and 113, 4) are easily ex-plained, and no connection with the designationexists. The opening passage can be understoodas an infinitive, "to be sent out with the captain... to the turquoise country," or as an imper-sonal, "oneshall sendout with the captain. . ."83The formulationwith Iri, however, is less clear;graphically it is less separated than the other.It is probably to be understood as "commis-sion made for ..." or "commissionto be madeby . . ." The essential feature to note is that thetext is not a command, but rather a royalrequest. The position of the high official inseveral cases demands some scrutiny in thisrespect. It would seem rather curious if such a

80Urk. I H2fL; Sinaino. 17.

81 n HatnubGr. 3, 6, and 7 we have the curiouscase of a transformationof a royal document into aprivate mementoby adding dd after the name of theaddressee. This is possible as the ending .k could beused for the second personsingularas well as for thefirstpersonof the Old Perfective.82 t seems that the quotations were restricted tothe proper names occurringin the document, evenwithout worryingabout repetitions. In this form ofselection the geographical ists of the New Kingdom,as extracts from officialrecords,representa parallel.83 n either case the object of the action is thepeoplerepresenting he party and not the documents,as would be otherwiserequired.40



12/12

high official as the king's architect was person-ally sent to the Wadi Hammamat to quarrysomeblocks, as one of the texts might suggest.84Perhaps in such cases we might better considerthe name a mention of the person in charge ofthe execution of the task, for which he hadroyal pouvoir.The document by which it wasconferred is thus the wpt-nswt, publicizedbecause it contained the names of the com-missioned persons. As this sort of text is withthe exception of Hatnub attested only outsideof Egypt, the "royal commission'' might wellbe interpretedas a "letter of credit."The fact that the graffiti in Sinai and WadiHammamat represent excerpts from royaldocuments leads us to question if this type ofdocument too was characterized by the for-mulary discussed earlier. The two more com-plete texts from Sinai, numbers 13 (Urk. I55ff.) and 17 (Urk. I ii2ff.), would suggest so.They differ in their format, Izezi's text usingthe wide oblong format while Pepi II 's inscrip-tion is more square. The arrangement of theentries, accordingwith the arrangementof theroyal commands, is clearer in the latter text.The date occupies the first column, followedby the Horus name in the next and the royalprenomen. The use of horizontal lines in theinscription of Izezi is curious; but the latertext shows the typical short columns. Thisdifference combined with our earlierhypothesissuggests that the changeof format and handlingof the papyrus might have alreadybegun in theV Dynasty.These excerpts of documents of the royalcommissons on the whole replace the earlierform of graffito,consisting of heraldic represen-tations of the king smiting a foreigner.85Thisscene appears in graffiti dating to the IIIDynasty. In two Sinai instances those scenesappear in connection with the royal commis-sion.86The questionimmediately ariseswhether

those scenes were merely artistic expressionsofthe loyalty of the members of the party; buttwo points speak strongly against consideringthem mere spontaneous or freelance drawings.First, it is most unlikely, and contrary to alltraditions, that a private person would beallowed to depict the king. Second, the qualityof the carving is such that it is unlikely to bethe work of an amateur, but would requirethehand of a trained artist,87and preferably onewith a design for the depiction. Consideringthese facts, the conclusion is clearly indicatedthat these scenes were commissioned works,for which artists had to be sent from Egypt,and for which designs were supplied.It is tempting to assume that the design tobe copied was part of the royal commission ofthe party. Whileno actual texts can corroboratethis assumption, it is strengthened by the factthat the excerpts of a decree of Pepi I are con-nected with a figurative scene. A case for com-parison, although of a much later, Saitic, date,is the Papyrus Brooklyn 47.218.3, where alegal instrument is fitted with a pictorial sceneat the beginningof the scroll.88Considering hestrength of traditions in Egypt, the gap of twomillennia between the only instance and theconjecturedearlieroccurrencedoes not seem aninsurmountableobstacle; indeed, the antiquat-ing tendency so typical of the XXVI Dynasty,and its conscious imitations of the Old King-dom, can be counted as support for our con-jecture. This would explain the high quality ofpainting on papyrus when first attested at thebeginning of the XVIII Dynasty.89 Thus theroyal chancery is not to be seen only as ascribal institution where documentary tradi-tions were developed, but also as an artisticcenter where those documents were in somecases given a truly regal appearance.Johns Hopkins University

84This seems particularly clear in Urk. I 148, 16.85Cf. Cerny, Inscriptions of Sinai II 24ff.80Sinai no. 14 (Izezi) and no. 16 (Pepi I); cf. alsoWadi Hammamat nos. 62-63 (Couyat-Montet, op. cit.[supra n. 77] pl. XVI).

87A comparison of these scenes with some of thedoodling shows this clearly.88Parker, A Saite OraclePapyrus from Thebes pl. 1,pp. 3ff.89Cf Pieper, Die dgyptische Buchmalerei ,JDAI 48 (1933) 4off.41

Documents

H. Goedicke, Diplomatical Studies in the Old Kingdom, JARCE 3 (1964)