Social change is rampant throughout Ipuwer – total social change on a scale that is nearly unimaginable. The poor are now rich, the hungry are full, and slaves become owners, amongst other changes.[3] Because there is no historical evidence of Egypt experiencing social change on the massive scale described by Ipuwer, numerous historians have concluded that the work is one of hyperbole and simply a literary piece following the style of a popular genre, namely, that of “historical romance” on the theme of “national distress.”[4] Somewhere between the two interpretive extremes of “pure” historical work and that of simply a literary work is far more likely to be realistic. Social change had occurred in Egypt in the time period during which this was likely written (and definitely before the Papyrus Leiden copy was created); specifically, changes in who received the most complex burial rites, increasing immigration, a lessening of homage to the gods and tributes at the temples, and a lessening (albeit small) of the chasm between the lowest and highest social classes..
Traditionally, complex and expensive burial rites were reserved only for the pharaoh himself, along with a few close high-ranking officials and family members. Over time, there was a “democratization” of burial rites, especially mummification, opening up the possibility of the afterlife to a larger percentage of the general population.[5] This particular social change is evident in Ipuwer, along with tomb raiding and diminishing respect for traditional religious rituals. “He who puts his brother in the ground is everywhere” could be read as meaning there are many dead, such as from war or famine, or it could, more likely, be a comment on those who are now purchasing previously limited burial rites,[6] especially when read with lines such as “(o)ne can’t distinguish the son of man from the pauper.”[7] Is this a comment on the tombs of the “son of man” and the graves of the “pauper” no longer being distinguishable from one another? Likely. Throughout Ipuwer, comments on the “son of man” should be contextually read as the pharaoh or other high-ranking royal personages, comparisons between “son of man” and other, less-royal persons are rife and more often than not in a religious reference throughout. The lamentation against the “democratization” of burial rites to those of less than royal personage becomes more even apparent later:
“Lo, the private chamber, its books are stolen,
the secrets in it are laid bare.
Lo, magic spells are divulged,
Spells are made worthless through being repeated by people.”[8]
The private chamber referred to is likely that of the priesthood, those who knew and invoked the special spells intended to open the afterlife to the worthy. The last line referenced above is the most intriguing point Ipuwer makes regarding the leveling of burial rites: the magic is losing its power through overuse. This comment is a compelling insight into the mind of the author, likely someone who believed strongly in the prior existing social order of strict stratification both in the here-and-now and in the afterlife. The pharaoh was king and god, only those closest to him, and only those most deserving at that, could ascend to the afterlife; now many were ascending (or attempting to). Much like overusing and abusing any natural resource, Ipuwer is claiming that the magic necessary for entering the afterlife itself is being overused and abused, and therefore likely to run out.
Ipuwer later questions his god in an intriguing early argument-from-evil.[9] He wonders why god would create men “when the timid is not distinguished from the violent?”[10] This is a direct reference to permitting those of less-than-perfect-moral lives burial rites ensuring entrance into the afterlife. How can god (pharaoh) permit this blasphemy, this upheaval to the social order, especially in the afterlife where god himself lives? If anyone who has the economic resources to afford proper burial can get into the afterlife, how can one distinguish the good and deserving from the evil? Ipuwer further questions the very creation of mankind: “If only he[11] had perceived their nature in the first generation! Then he would have smitten the evil, stretched out his arm against it, would have destroyed their seed and their heirs![12]
In a society of previously unquestioning faith in the gods, this is a remarkable statement questioning the perfect, all-knowing nature of their gods. If the gods are perfect and all-knowing, wouldn’t they have known that mankind’s nature is mean and hateful? And knowing such an evil nature, wouldn’t the gods have destroyed their creation (mankind)? But god didn’t destroy mankind, despite their evil nature, and as more and more crimes occur against the gods and the traditional belief system, why doesn’t god do something about it?
This questioning of the perfect nature of the gods is simply remarkable, but is not to be assumed to be atheistic. To question the nature of god/gods has easily occurred since the very earliest human first looked up at the stars and wondered why; religion is the answer to the why question. To refine the question and answer is human nature; however, Ipuwer is not committing blasphemy when he questions how god can permit the social evils he bemoans, he is simply wondering why god doesn’t do something to stop it.
“Authority, Knowledge, and Truth are with you – turmoil is what you let happen in the land, and the noise of strife. Lo, one man assaults another, and one transgresses what you commanded.”[13]
Ipuwer concludes that turmoil happens because god permits it to happen, for whatever reason is unstated except simply that god(s) let it happen. This conclusion is not as simplistic nor fatalistic as it may appear at first glance, it is, instead, a rather comprehensive understanding of the nature of his god: yes, we can question, yes, we can bemoan, but ultimately, we can never understand why such turmoil occurs simply because god wants it to occur for reasons that are outside our ability to comprehend.
Interpreting Ipuwer and other ancient pieces outside of their social, cultural, and historical context is difficult at best, especially when attempting to interpret a translation instead of the reading it in its original language. One cannot read a text without viewing it through one’s own social paradigm. We know that during the late Old Kingdom through the First Intermediate Period there was a great deal of social upheaval, the historical evidence is strong for this.[14] Why this occurred is less well known, although speculation is rampant. Could it be simply a reflection of the lessening of centralized political power? Or could it be economic – the more people permitted the most sacred of burial rituals, the more money made by those involved in the expensive rituals? Increasing social secularization? Or a combination of these or some other, currently unknown reason? We don’t know, but we have seen such changes occur in other cultures, and have experienced the social changes caused by increasing social secularization and economic demands within our own country’s history. The reasons for such social change in Egypt at this time are likely a combination of economic, political, and social changes similar to those of other cultures and our own.
For someone living during this time, especially someone who probably was already middle-aged or elderly, experiencing such changes in one’s society would easily be lamented, and that is what Ipuwer apparently is: the lamentation of an older citizen, criticizing the changes wrought in his society by the younger generation. While Ipuwer is more of an allegorical work, one that does not reflect specific, actual, historical events[15], it draws on actual historical social changes within the Egyptian culture during the time period Ipuwer likely references. The social changes are historically real, albeit not as extreme as depicted in Ipuwer, but real nonetheless. .”What the ancestors foretold has happened” and happens to this day.[16]
Works Cited
Grimal, Nicolas. A History of Ancient Egypt. (Blackwell: Oxford UK & Cambridge USA, 1997).
“Ipuwer Papyrus.” Wikipedia.org. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_Papyrus
Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature: The Old and Middle Kingdoms Vol. 1. (University of California Press: Berkeley, 2006)
Wilson, John A. The Culture of Ancient Egypt. (The University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London, 1956)
[1] “Ipuwer Papyrus.” Wikipedia.org. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_Papyrus
[2] Miriam Lichtheim. Ancient Egyptian Literature: The Old and Middle Kingdoms Vol. 1. (University of California Press: Berkeley, 2006) 149
[5] John A. Wilson. The Culture of Ancient Egypt. (The University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London, 1956) 104-124. Those that could afford mummification, such as middle and upper class persons. It is unlikely that the very poor could afford such burial rites, but supposedly if they could save up enough resources, there was no longer any social or religious onus against them receiving rites intended to insure their own afterlife.
[9] Argument from Evil: how can evil exist if god/gods are all-knowing, perfect, and benevolent? The Catholic church “reconciled” this contradiction by the notion of “free will,” Epicurus reconciled the problem by determining that the gods simply are too busy with pursuing their own happiness to be concerned with the happiness of mankind. Reconciling this conflict continues today.
[14] Nicolas Grimal. A History of Ancient Egypt. (Blackwell: Oxford UK & Cambridge USA, 1997) 136-154.
[15] Such as the events depicted later in Exodus. There are tantalizing parallels between Ipuwer and Exodus, but the parallels are simply that: tantalizing. They are far too few and infrequent to conclude absolute correlation, although the possibility that some of the more compelling images of Ipuwer were later integrated into Exodus for dramatic purposes exists.
Note: Written for Professor Duvick's Ancient Egyptian History class at UCCS, 28th February 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment