Rev. Hafemann. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 97 (2011), 251-253

8/2/2019 Rev. Hafemann. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 97 (2011), 251-253

1/5

THE JOURNAL OF

EgyptianArchaeology

VOLUME 97

2011

PUBLISHED BY

THE EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY

3 DOUGHTY MEWS, LONDON WC1N 2PG

ISSN 03075133


2/5

The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology

All rights reserved

ISSN -

website: http://www.ees.ac.uk/publications/journal-egyptian-archaeology.html

Published annually by

The Egypt Exploration Society

Doughty Mews

London WC1N 2PG

Registered Charity No.

A limited Company registered in England, No.

Printed in Great Britain by

Commercial Colour Press Plc

Angard House, Forest Road

Hainault

Essex IG6 3HX

Editorial Team

Roland Enmarch, Editor-in-Chief

Violaine Chauvet, Editor

Mark Collier, Editor

Chris Eyre, Editor

Cary Martin, Editor

Ian Shaw, Editor

Glenn Godenho, Editorial Assistant

editorial email address: [email protected]


3/5

The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology (), Reviews, ISSN -

REVIEWS

Dienstverpflichtung im Alten gypten whrend des Alten und Mittleren Reiches. By IH.Internet-Beitrge zur gyptologie und Sudanarchologie . Pp. . Berlin and London, GoldenHouse Publications, . ISBN . Price .

As with many other disciplines, Egyptology is influenced by national traditions that have left theirdistinctive mark on the way in which specific subjects are treated, or even in their specialisation ina particular branch of knowledge, like the German philological school of the late nineteenth/early

twentieth century. Perhaps one of the least known of these are the Egyptological studies developedin the former USSR area of influence: the fact that many publications were then written in Russian,as well as the narrow perspectives of research imposed both by Stalinism and a by a rather stagnantMarxist tradition, made it dicult for Western scholars to be acquainted with their Eastern colleaguesproduction, scholarship, and research priorities. Additional diculties further hindered a normalacademic life in Eastern Europe and the USSR, like the impediments to free circulation of scholars,or to access to specialised libraries and Egyptian collections. However, even under such restrictiveconditions, Eastern contributions were in many cases of a high academic standard and, what is more,explored some paths of research traditionally neglected by Western Egyptology. Economic and socialstudies are the most evident of them, and the quality of the work of scholars like Berlev still continuesto inspire contemporary research. For these reasons, re-evaluations of the contributions of the EasternEuropean Egyptological tradition have flourished in recent years. Thus P. Andrssy, Untersuchungenzum gyptischen Staat des Alten Reiches und seinen Institutionen (IBAES ; Berlin and London, ),

and the volume currently under review give an insight into the approaches and theoretical concernsdiscussed in the GDR prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Similar eorts are also evident with regardto Eastern Assyriologists, whose collaboration with Western colleagues was nevertheless morefrequent on the basis of the periodical Rencontres Assyriologiques Internationales (RAI). The so-calledLeningrad School and its most renowned exponents, I. M. Diakonoand M. A. Dandamaev, are wellknown in the field of Mesopotamian studies as promoters of a socio-economic perspective inspiredby a non-dogmatic historical materialism, where collaboration with Western scholars was fluent, andled to a general recognition of the quality of their work, as shown by the extensive participation inthe volume M. A. Dandamayev, I. Gershevitch, H. Klengel, G. Komorczy, M. T. Larsen, and J. N.Postgate (eds), Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour of I. M. Diakono(Warminster, ).

Unfortunately, the limitations which hindered the normal development of Egyptology and

Assyriology in the former Soviet sphere also prevented the development of the full potential ofMarxism as an analytical tool in both disciplines, of the fruitful and creative variety pursued by Italianscholars like M. Liverani, C. Zaccagnini, and F. M. Fales; their work, quite significantly, did howevertravel the opposite way, as it was partially translated into English and published in Budapest as lateas , just prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall. The aim was to familiarise Eastern scholars witha renewed Western Marxism, still able to cast valuable light on Ancient Near Eastern history and,

The terms Western and Eastern are here used as purely geopolitical and do not intend to carry anypejorative or disdainful nuance.

E.g. S. Quirke (ed.), Discovering Egypt from the Neva: The Egyptological Legacy of Oleg D. Berlev (Berlin,). Some recent issues of the IBAES series are also intended to highlight the Egyptological research whichflourished in the last years of the former German Democratic Republic. See also the early publication by R. Mller-Wollermann of J. J. Perepelkin, Privateigentum in der Vorstellung der gypter des Alten Reichs (Tbingen, ),originally published in Russian in .

See, among other examples, B. Brentjes (ed.), Das Grundeigentum in Mesopotamien (Jahrbuch frWirtschaftsgeschichte, Sonderband; [East-]Berlin, ).


4/5

REVIEWS JEA

admittedly, to stimulate the local tradition of Near Eastern research within the framework of historicalmaterialism. However, and in spite of such late and isolated attempts, it must be admitted that thedominant narratives, historical approaches, and theoretical discussions in both Eastern Assyriologyand Egyptology were rather conservative. This, which could have been a serious disadvantage,

turned out in fact to be quite the opposite in the case of Egyptology: given the traditional isolation ofEgyptology in respect of other disciplines, its lack of interest in social sciences and, consequently, itstraditionalist views, the gap between Western and Eastern Egyptological traditions became thus muchless evident than in other branches of knowledge. Only the work of Egyptologists like Berlev or Luftdeparted from this trend and stood as an original and promising but, in the end, isolated alternative.

With these considerations, it is not a surprise that the book written by Ingelore Hafemann (between and ) is a good illustration of both the intellectual concerns and limitations of Egyptologyin the former Soviet sphere. It also shows the unexpected resilience of Egyptology in preserving thecore of its traditional scholarship and academic practices even within a rather dierent intellectualenvironment, dominated by historical materialism, and more receptive, a priori, to dealing with thesocio-economic and political aspects of the past.

To begin with, the subject treated in her book concerns an important aspect of ancient tributarystates quite often assumed in Egyptology under the term corve: the use and extent of compulsory

work in Ancient Egypt, and more precisely during the Old and Middle Kingdoms. This dicult topicinvolves careful lexicographic research (e.g. who were the mrt and the Hm-nswt, and what were theirdierences from, say, the nzwtjw?), a systematic analysis of the written sources (and the use of thearchaeological evidence when possible), a reappraisal of the previous theoretical discussions in orderto evaluate their pertinence or to calibrate the accuracy of the concepts employed (serfs? conscripts?corvables? corve?), and, finally, a general interpretation of the logic of the fiscal and productive systemwhere compulsory work was preferred (or predominated) instead of wages, slavery, or informal worksystems (like the mobilisation of clients by powerful patrons, voluntary occasional work for religiousreasons, etc.). To put it another way, it is the political economy of manpower and its role in a tributarystate like Ancient Egypt that should be the main focus of the analysis.

However, the methodology followed by the author is a traditional one, where one gets a ratherpatchy and impressionist view of the topic treated, deprived of any firm link with the overall structure

of the state and the logic it imposed over social and economic relations. It is true that the authorfrequently asserts that the primary aim of her book is not to deal with the complex questions of theeconomic structure of Egypt, or the prevailing social relations during the Old and Middle Kingdoms.However it is also evident that her interpretation is dominated by several assumptions which providea general narrative taken for granted, but never suciently clarified or proved by the evidence used.Thus, from the very beginning (p. ix), we are told that the management of manpower on a huge scaleraised considerable problems only solved thanks to a system of compulsory work imposed by a statewhose main concern was ensuring that production was duly redistributed. In Chapter , she continuesarguing that the vast architectural works of the Third and Fourth Dynasties helped a class societyemerge where the state and private sectors were integrated into a despotic fiscal system, strengtheningthe legitimacy of the king. In other words, architecture is invoked as the prime motor in the movetowards a class society and the consolidation of a centralised state. Such an assertion doubtless deservesmore balanced consideration, especially when the book rightly insists on the diculties of defining thestatus and condition of the workers engaged by the state, or the exact nature of the activities carried outby specific departments, not to mention the scarce and ambiguous administrative evidence relating tostate architecture. This is particularly evident when the author correctly stresses the limited and ratherelusive information which can be gathered from titles, from occasional passages in autobiographies,and from the bare mention of oces in some inscriptions (Chapter ).

Consequently one gets the impression, from reading the book, that the authors interpretation wasintended from the start to be another confirmation of the well known trope that hydraulic or architecturalworks led to the birth of the first states, and that they made it possible for ancient societies to advance afurther step in the long path towards complexity and progress. As the conclusions appear thus to have

C. Zaccagnini (ed.), Production and Consumption (Budapest, ). See, for example, the excellent review of I. M. Diakonos, The Paths of History (Cambridge, ) by

J. Haldon, Historical Materialism. (), . J. C. Moreno Garca, La dpendance rurale en gypte ancienne, JESHO (), , especially

.


5/5

REVIEWS

been already self-evident even since the beginning of her research, any in-depth analysis seems to have

been dismissed as redundant at best, as if the author had limited herself to providing an additional

illustration to confirm the common assumption that compulsory work prevailed in Ancient Egypt.

This idea has indeed enjoyed a long life in Egyptology, to the point that the myth of the all-powerful

centralised bureaucratic state which surveyed, controlled, and redistributed all production and providedfor the needs of the population still represents the main interpretative framework, despite the scarce

evidence available (written or archaeological), or the alternative views that this very evidence permits.

Consequently, systematic analysis is neglected while the overall picture which emerges from the book

is that the author has limited her research to choosing some titles, institutions, and case studies in order

to illustrate a preconceived narrative, thus contributing to the rather patchy and impressionistic aspect

of the volume. Alternative views and dierent ways of questioning the documentary evidence would

have certainly enriched her analysis or, at least, provided a background against which to assess her own

interpretations. Various works could have been a good starting point for discussing the organisation

of administrative oces, work centres, and categories of workers. Thus, for instance, pages are

devoted to the study of the overseers of all the works of the king in the Old Kingdom, and digressions

about their relationship with the royal family are followed by lists of the holders of the title, classified

by chronological order and accompanied by concise comments not always related to the main topic of

the book. Description thus replaces true analysis and, quite surprisingly, even the oces presumably

related to the management of manpower are neither treated in any detail in this section of the book

(pp. ) nor in the chapter devoted to the royal decrees (pp. ).

Another area where a contradiction emerges between the analysis of the sources and the overall

historical explanation is in the types of work and workers employed by the state. The fact that

workers could also be provided by dignitaries and high ocials reveals the existence of a private

sector also involved in the works of the state, as the author rightly stresses (pp. , , ,

). Nevertheless, the fact that the state granted workers (on a full or part-time basis) to ocials

leaves open the question of the degree of state control over the personnel transferred to the private

sphere, an aspect insuciently studied in the book. Crucial new evidence, like the papyri of Gebelein,

the team marks from the Middle Kingdom pyramids at Lisht, and the team marks from the Old

Kingdom mastabas at Balat, was not available when the author originally wrote her dissertation, but

many other inscriptions demonstrate that personnel was part of the remuneration routinely bestowedto dignitaries, as in the well-known Stle juridique of Karnak. In any case, a precise analysis of thearticulation of the private and domestic spheres, on the one hand, and the institutional and state

sectors, on the other hand, is essential in order to gain a thorough comprehension of the role and

impact of compulsory work in Egyptian society. Lexicographical contributions are fundamental in this

respect, and the chapter devoted to the definition and characteristics of several categories of workers,

like mrt, Dt, mnjw, Hsbw, nfrw, and Hm-nswt (pp. , also , ) could have profited from

Berlevs studies on mrt and Hm-nswt. Nevertheless, the risk of establishing too rigid categories solely on

lexicographic grounds is rightly avoided by the author when she makes the important observation that

the same group of workers could be described with dierent terms (mnjw, Hsbw, wpwtjw) depending

on the context of their activities (p. ).

To sum up, this book is an appreciable general overview of the problem of compulsory work in

Ancient Egypt. However, the sources and theoretical approaches available when it was originally

drafted out could have certainly allowed it to be more incisive, and to treat in more detail the logic

and political economy of compulsory work in an ancient tributary state like Pharaonic Egypt. This

is, however, a debate which is still open, and so Ingelore Hafemann deserves our gratitude for having

taken a step forward in a dicult and still much discussed topic.

J C M G

E.g. P. Posener-Kriger, Les papyrus de Gblein: Remarques prliminaires, RdE (), ;N. Strudwick, The Administration of Egypt in the Old Kingdom (London, ), a book cited but insucientlyused; S. Quirke, State and Labour in the Middle Kingdom: A Reconsideration of the Term xnrt, RdE (),; O. D. Berlev, A Social Experiment in Nubia During the Years of Sesostris I, in M. A. Powell (ed.),

Labor in the Ancient Near East (AOS ; New Haven, ), . See also the recent contributions of P. Andrssy and J. Budka, in P. Andrssy, J. Budka, and F. Kammerzell

(eds), Non-Textual Marking Systems, Writing and Pseudo Script from Prehistory to Modern Times (LingAeg SM ;Gttingen, ), as well as P. Andrssy, Builders Grati and Administrative Aspects of Pyramid and Temple

Building in Ancient Egypt, in R. Preys (ed.), . gyptologische Tempeltagung: Structuring Religion (KSG /;Wiesbaden, ), .

Documents

Rev. Hafemann. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 97 (2011), 251-253