Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.490808
Title: Royal authority in Egypt's eighteenth dynasty
Author: Shaw, Garry John
ISNI:       0000 0000 5174 9047
Awarding Body: University of Liverpool
Current Institution: University of Liverpool
Date of Award: 2008
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Abstract:
This study highlights and debates the evidence for the king's personal authority and power within three major spheres of influence: 1) the appointment of officials, 2) the making of commands; 3) and military leadership. The extent to which this evidence can be used to create a historically accurate picture ofgovernment practice is a major issue throughout this study. The evidence collected dates to the 18th Dynasty from the reign ofAIunose to the end ofthe reign ofAmenhotep III. Chapter one deals with the evidence for the appointment of officials by the king as evidenced by the words dIm, rdi mfr, and sOnt. For each official who explicitly records that he was appointed by the ~ing a family history is provided in an attempt to chart whether offices moved within the same family lines throughout the period. Chapter two analyses this data. The meaning 0 f the different words typically translated as 'to appoint', or 'to promote' is discussed. This is followed by a discussion ofthe extent ofhereditary offices among the high elite. Discussions follow of the evidence for officials buying and selling offices, career progression, and the king removing officials from office. Any evidence for the king appointing those who could be considered his friends or those not from established family lines is also discussed. It is concluded that there is some evidence to suggest the king could appoint whomever he wished, without interference from powerful families. Chapter three presents all evidence of the king making commands, as evidenced by the word lVd-. Chapter four is an analysis 0 f this evidence. The commands are divided according to content, and a discussion of the physical context ofthe commands is made. Who the king gave commands to, and the presentation of the formulation of decrees is discussed. It is tentatively concluded that the king did have extensive personal authority, but that this is not presented explicitly in the majority ofthe preserved evidence. Chapter five is an extension of the discussions on royal command. It deals with the evidence for the phrase 'what was commanded/said m bm 11 stp-s3', typically translated as 'in the majesty of the ·palace.' All occurrences of this phrase from the period under discussion are collected together. This is followed by discussions of the meaning of {1m and ofstp-s~. An interpretation and new translation is then given of the phrase. It is tentatively concluded that this phrase refers to personal royal conunand. Chapter six presents evidence for the king making military decisions and fighting alongside his army. This evidence is analysed in Chapter seven in which it is divided according to whether the king was present on the military campaign or not. The king's role in making military decisions is then discussed, as well as whether he actually fought on campaign. Ideological themes, found both in texts and images of the king in battle, are then discussed in an attempt to decide whether the evidence presents a true picture of the king's role as military leader. It is concluded that the king likely did not fight alongside his army, and that the evidence does not allow the king's role as decision maker to be ascertained. The fmal chapter puts into context the difficulties of drawing clear boundaries between the ideological and the real in such material, but emphasises the necessity of such attempts at understanding the role ofthe kingship.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: University of Liverpool, 2008 Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.490808  DOI: Not available
Share: