Story of Wenamun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Story of Wenamun (alternately known as the Report of Wenamun, The Misadventures of Wenamun, or [informally] as just Wenamun) is a literary text written in hieratic in the Late Egyptian language. It is only known from one incomplete copy discovered in 1890 at al-Hibah, Egypt, and subsequently purchased in 1891 in Cairo by the Russian Egyptologist Vladimir Goleniščev (Caminos 1977:1). The papyrus is now in the collection of the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow, and officially designated as Papyrus Pushkin 120. The hieratic text is published in Korostovcev 1960, and the hieroglyphic text is published in Gardiner 1932 (as well as on-line).

1 The text
2 Analysis
- 2.1 Importance of the document
3 References
4 Websites

[edit] The text

The text is set in a "Year 5", generally taken to be Year 5 of the so-called Renaissance of Pharaoh Ramesses XI, the tenth and last ruler of the Twentieth dynasty of Ancient Egypt; this was equivalent to Ramesses XI's 19th regnal year. Egberts (1991) argues, however, that the story is set in the 5th regnal year of Smendes I, the Delta-based founder of the 21st Dynasty. As this latter view assumes the High Priest Herihor followed Piankh (their relative order is normally reversed), it has not found wide acceptance among Egyptologists.

In the first part of the narrative, Wenamun (also called Wen-Amun or Wen-Amon) dates his departure from Thebes as "Year 5, fourth month of the third season, day 16." Year 5 most likely refers to the fifth year of the Renaissance era, which began in the nineteenth year of the reign of Ramesses XI (1099-1069 B.C.E.). We are thus fairly certain that Wenamun's journey is set in the years 1075-1073 B.C.E., if we use the low chronology, or 1095-1093 if the high chronology is used. The middle of the fourth month in the third season corresponds to approximately 20 April, which is a reasonable time of year to begin an expedition.

As the story begins, the principle character, Wenamun, a priest of Amun at Karnak, is sent by the High Priest of Amun Herihor to the Phoenician city of Byblos to acquire lumber (probably cedar wood) to build a new ship to transport the cult image of Amun. After visiting Smendes(Nesbanebded in Egyptian) at Tanis, Wenamun stopped at the port of Dor ruled by the Tjeker prince Beder, where he was robbed. Upon reaching Byblos, he was shocked by the hostile reception he received there. When he finally gained an audience with Zakar-Baal, the local king, the latter refused to give the requested goods for free, as had been the traditional custom, instead demanding payment. Wenamun had to send to Smendes for payment, a humiliating move which demonstrates the waning of Egyptian power over the Eastern Mediterranean. After a wait of almost a year at Byblos, Wenamun attempted to leave for Egypt, only to be blown off course to Alashiya (Cyprus), where he was almost killed by an angry mob before placing himself under the protection of the local queen, who he called Hatbi. At this point the story breaks off, though presumably Wenamun did eventually return to Egypt after his various adventures.

[edit] Analysis

It was once widely believed that the Story of Wenamun was an actual historical account, written by Wenamun as a report regarding his travels. However, literary analysis conducted by Egyptologists since the 1980s (Helck 1986) indicates that it is a work of historical fiction, a view now generally accepted by most professionals working on the text. For details, see Baines 1999; Scheepers 1992; Egberts 2001; Sass 2002; Schipper 2005. Jaroslav Černý found that the text had no corrections, and was apparently written without any interruptions, such as those which would be caused by simultaneously composing the document. In general, the literary character of the text is summed up by Egberts (2001:495) as being apparent from the sophisticated plot, the rhetoric and irony of the dialogues, the imagery, and the underlaying reflection on political, theological, and cultural issues. Specific grammatical features also point to the literary nature of the text. Moreover, the palaeography of the text points to a 22nd Dynasty date for its composition (Caminos 1977:3; Helck 1986:1215), as well as a number of anachronisms more reflective of a post-20th or 21st dynasty time frame (Sass 2002; Sass specifically states it was written during the reign of Shoshenq I).

The text also ends abruptly, possibly showing that the person writing the text down was only interested in the first part of the narrative, and stopped when he realized that he had continued too far into the return journey. Finally, at the end of the text, in a slightly larger hand, the syllable (copy) is written, showing that it is not the original.

It is quite possible that the copy which we have may date as much as one-hundred and fifty years later than the original. The reasons for this assumption are as follows. The first reason is that the post-script is used. This is otherwise only used in the twenty-second dynasty (945-715 B.C.E.). The other reason is the locale in which the document was discovered--the Upper Egyptian town of el Hibeh. This town only gained any degree of importance under the reigns of Shoshenk I and Osorkon I. There was also apparently a renewed interest in the affairs of the Levant during the twenty-second dynasty.

The author of Wenamun possibly wrote the original manuscript as an administrative document, a report of his journeys. However, the man who had the document copied over a century later most likely had a different reason. When theorizing about the purposes of the copyist, it seems to be all-too-common to forget about the reverse side of the papyrus. This concerns, as near as we can tell, the "sending of commodities by Ni-ki.. through the agency of Ne-pz-K-r-t for unspecified payment." It could be that this is a summarization of an attempt to perform a mission similar to that of Wenamun in this later time. "The Journey of Wenamun to Phoenicia", then, may have been copied as a preparation for this later trip.

[edit] Importance of the document

The Story of Wenamun is an unparalleled source for learning of conditions in Egypt, as well as in Phoenicia. One can also see from this document, as from no other of the period, common attitudes toward religion (especially the cult of Amon), the state of Mediterranean shipping practises, and even the attitudes of foreign princes to Egyptian claims of supremacy in the region. Even the supremacy of the pharaoh in Egypt is placed under our scrutiny. The current pharaoh, Ramesses XI, is never even mentioned during Wenamun's journey! Thebes, Wenamun's hometown, is under the control of Herihor--the High Priest of Amon. The authority Wenamun goes to see in the delta is Smendes, who resides at Tanis, and bears the never-before-seen title "organizer-of-the-country". It is worthy of note that neither Smendes nor Herihor bear any royal title whatsoever.

Overall, the Story of Wenamun presents to us what could possibly be the most vivid and descriptive narrative of pre-classical times. Surprisingly, it is also remarkably accurate. Quite probably, the accuracy of this document is based on the fact that it was never intended to be more than a description of his trip, which was to be read through and filed away, then forgotten about. Perhaps this is the most outstanding difference between "The Journey of Wen-Amon to Phoenicia" as opposed to "The War Against the Peoples of the Sea" (c.1177 B.C.E.), or the information found on the "Harris Papyrus" (c.1153 B.C.E.), both of which were written during the time of Ramesses III.

Whereas there could be no valid reason for this author to exaggerate the grandeur of Egypt, or the loyalty (or disloyalty) of a particular prince to Herihor, Smendes, or even to Ramesses XI, the purpose for the last two documents was to summarize (and gloat over) the reign of a pharaoh, as well as to list his wealth and achievements for all of Egypt, as well as the entire world, to see, for all eternity. While there are many differences, the similarities (to be discussed later) should not be surprising, seeing that they date only fifty-four years apart, and were found in the same region of Egypt.

Because the text is based on a historical framework, it remains particularly useful to historians for the study of the late New Kingdom and early Third Intermediate Period. They often treat the text as a primary source of the late 20th Dynasty. The Story of Wenamun was discovered with another historical fiction, the so-called Tale of Woe [Papyrus Pushkin 127], which takes the form of an imaginative letter as a vehicle to convey a narrative; see Caminos 1977 for discussion of both works.

[edit] References

Baines, John R. 1999. "On Wenamun as a Literary Text". In Literatur und Politik im pharaonischen und ptolemäischen Ägypten: Vorträge der Tagung zum Gedenken an Georges Posener 5.–10. September 1996 in Leipzig, edited by Jan Assmann, and Elke Blumenthal. Bibliothèque d'Étude 127. Cairo: Imprimerie de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale du Caire. 209–233.
Caminos, Ricardo Augusto. 1977. A Tale of Woe from a Hieratic Papyrus in the A. S. Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts. Oxford: The Griffith Institute.
Egberts, Arno. 1991. "The Chronology of The Report of Wenamun." Journal of Egyptian Archæology 77:57–67.
———. 2001. "Wenamun". In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, edited by Donald Bruce Redford. Vol. 3 of 3 vols. Oxford, New York, and Cairo: Oxford University Press and The American University in Cairo Press. 495–496.
Gardiner, Alan Henderson. 1932. Late-Egyptian Stories. Bibliotheca aegyptiaca 1. Brussel: Fondation égyptologique reine Élisabeth. Contains the hieroglyphic text of the Story of Wenamun.
Goedicke, Hans. 1975. The Report of Wenamun. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Helck, Hans Wolfgang. 1986. "Wenamun". In Lexikon der Ägyptologie, edited by Hans Wolfgang Helck and Wolfhart Westendorf. Vol. 6 of 7 vols. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. 1215–1217
Коростовцев, Михаил Александрович [Korostovcev, Mixail Aleksandrovič]. 1960. Путешествие Ун-Амуна в Библ Египетский иератический папирус №120 Государственного музея изобразительных искусств им. А. С. Пушкина в Москве. [Putešestvie Un-Amuna v Bibl: Egipetskij ieratičeskij papirus No. 120 Gosudarstvennogo muzeja izobrazitel'nyx iskusstv im. A. S. Puškina v Mockva.] Памятники литературы народов востока (Волъшая серия) 4. [Moscow]: Академия Иаук СССР, Институт Востоковедения [Akademija Nauk SSSR, Institut Vostokovedenija].
Sass, Benjamin. 2002. "Wenamun and His Levant—1075 BC or 925 BC?" Ägypten und Levante 12:247–255.
Scheepers, A. 1992. "Le voyage d'Ounamon: un texte 'littéraire' ou 'non-littéraire'?" In Amosiadès: Mélanges offerts au professeur Claude Vandersleyen par ses anciens étudiants, edited by Claude Obsomer and Ann-Laure Oosthoek. Louvain-la-neuve: [n. p.]. 355–365
Schipper, Bernd Ulrich. 2005. Die Erzählung des Wenamun: Ein Literaturwerk im Spannungsfeld von Politik, Geschichte und Religion. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 209. Freiburg and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ISBN 3-525-53067-6