Government in the Ramesside period

Explain and assess the importance of the features and structure of government in the Ramesside period.

The features and structure of government were of great importance as they reflected the state of Egypt throughout the Ramesside period and the decline experienced as the Twentieth Dynasty unfolded. The administrative structure encountered a gradual deterioration as the period progressed, while the power associated with the Pharaoh simultaneously declined. A Pharaoh was required to oversee each area of government in order to maintain Ma'at and his divine position as King, however, a loss in influence and power would essentially place him in a critical position such that his divine status and hold on power over a united Egypt was in jeopardy.

At the commencement of the Nineteenth Dynasty, the internal administration of Egypt was organised into five different areas traditionally under the command of the all-powerful, semi-divine Pharaoh. The first of these areas was the civil administration. This department was headed by the Vizier and was responsible for the management of the country through duties such as tax collection. The religious administration was responsible for the supervision of all cults and was headed by the High Priest of Amun, just as the military administration was accountable for the armed forces, and headed by the Chief Commander of the army, who was commonly the crown prince. Immediate members of the Pharaoh’s family were responsible for the management of the royal estate and the court, and thus made up the royal administration. The final area of internal administration was the provincial government which was controlled by Nomarchs who were responsible for the supervision of Nomes that were obliged to pay taxes to the King.

Egypt’s imperial government was comprised of Vassal Kings in the North, Syria/Palestine, and a Viceroy, or ‘King’s son of Kush’ in the South, Nubia. Egypt retained her administration in the Northern Lands through the deployment of vassal Kings who maintained self-government by swearing loyalty to Egypt and served as the King’s representative. However, in Nubia, colonies of Egyptian settlers were established and along with the natives were under the authority of the Viceroy, who was directly answerable to the King. The Viceroy was also responsible for organising gold mining operations, collecting taxes for the King and was assisted by deputies in both Wawat and Kush.

In order for the Pharaoh to affirm his divine position and ultimate power, it was necessary for him to maintain complete control over all these areas of government. Any power loss would result in a government structure shift, as nobles would assume authority and begin to rule without reference to the Pharaoh. However, not all Pharaohs of the Ramesside period were able to maintain their power and thus Egypt experienced disintegration in the structure of government. Ultimately, at the conclusion of the Twentieth Dynasty, the government of Egypt had reorganised itself into one no longer following the traditional monarchical structure, but rather one headed by the High Priests of Amun in Thebes, Pharaoh in name only in Lower Egypt and Nubia lost to Egyptian control.

“The very structure of government reinforced the dominant position of the Kings and enhanced their manipulative abilities, but at the same time presented them with supervisory problems and created the potential for other competitive power structures to develop” and thus, a collapse in the traditional political and social structure was imminent. As nobles became corrupt this gradual breakdown in the administrative structure resulted in an unbalanced situation of chaos over order and ultimately the disunification of the two lands. Therefore, the features and structure of government during this time can be remarkably telling as they reflect the unprecedented events which ended the period of the Twentieth Dynasty.

O’Connor notes that “Nineteenth Dynasty Kings were able to function as traditionally successful rulers enjoying great internal authority reacting strongly to recurrent emergencies abroad… however, after Merenptah…there may have been a partial breakdown of political and social stability” . However, Callender is of the opinion that “the lawlessness which Horemheb (of the Eighteenth Dynasty) tried to combat still existed when Sety I was Pharaoh” . Tyldesley further reinforces this idea and supports Callender’s opinion of an earlier disintegration of government through the examination of the decrees of Sety I. These decrees were inscribed high in the cliff face at Nauri in Nubia warning those who might be tempted to steal from the gods. They state; “As to any Viceroy of Kush, any foreign chief, any mayor, any inspector or person who shall take any person belonging to the House, punishment shall be done to him…” . Tyldesley notes that; “Seti’s decree hints at a lack of cohesion between various groups of government departments…It seems that the divine assets needed to be protected as much, if not more, from the grasping hands of the tax-collectors, harem officials, local mayors and inspectors as from the common criminal” . Wilson attempts to explain this by stating; “it would seem that the word of the King no longer had the same effectiveness in maintaining order; Pharaoh was no longer respected and feared as he had been in the more sacred state of earlier times. ” Thus, a decline in the King’s power, which seemingly occurred as early as the reign of the second Nineteenth Dynasty King resulted in a premature corruption of the administrative system.

By the reign of Rameses III, the ‘Sea Peoples’ were causing greater movement in the north which gave rise to various problems within Egypt. The economy was faltering, trade routes were disrupted, tribute and taxes were no longer flowing into the treasury and the bad harvest and inflation caused grain prices to rise. Once more, by examining the worsening administrative structure, the abrading international situation is also evident and reflected in the “unwieldy bureaucracy, (which had) grown lazy and corrupt, and could not cope with the crisis… and suffered an alarming morale” .

Such administrative disintegration continued into the Twentieth Dynasty and is further revealed when the King’s supervisory tours became less frequent. This caused nobles, such as butlers of the court, to play a prominent role in important administrative acts. However, O’Connor informs that “these butlers lacked the expertise of the bureaucrats and were themselves not necessarily reliable, as evident by the involvement of some in the assassination attempt upon Rameses III” . Also, during the reign of Rameses IV a judiciary papyrus informs of a ship’s captain who was engaging in wholesale robbery. Gardiner comments that “the fact that he was able to enrich himself on such a baronial scale for ten years is a sad commentary on the discipline within the Egyptian state at this time” . Hence, the deteriorating administration once again illustrates the corresponding decline in the situation of Egypt at the time.

During the reign of Rameses IX, this internal conspiracy continued. Papyrus Leopold II preserves the confession of a stonemason, Amenpanufer, after his arrest for the tomb robbery of the Seventeenth Dynasty Pharaoh, Sobeknemsaf. He states; “I took the twenty deben of gold…and gave them to Khaemope, the district scribe…He released me…And so I got into the habit of robbing the tombs” . In response to this confession, Tyldesley comments that “the state bureaucracy was now irredeemably infected with corruption which allowed even the highest ranking Theban officials to profit from organised crime”. Nevertheless, this according to O’Connor, was not the ultimate means to the end of the Twentieth Dynasty. He explains that “a final index to the disintegration of the traditional government was the granting of extraordinary combined powers to individuals” . One such individual was Piankh who was simultaneously High Priest of Amun and generalissimo. In reference to Piankh’s letter which questions; “Of whom is Pharaoh still?” (referring to Rameses XI), O’Connor notes that “Piankh’s attitude…reflected a fundamental characteristic of the political system. An inherent problem…is that whatever the King’s theoretical power may be, his political effectiveness depends upon the support and cooperation of others. Inevitably they will attempt to exploit this situation to their own advantage” . Horihor, who was father-in-law to Piankh, and simultaneously Vizier, High Priest of Amun and generalissimo, became ruler of Upper Egypt and Nubia during the political ‘renaissance’ under Rameses XI. Moreover, his portrait appears on the walls of the temple of Khons at Karnak where he is shown wearing the uraeus and performing duties usually preserved for the King. He and his son-in-law eventually assumed power in the Theban region, however lost Nubia to the viceroy Panhesi, who also held ‘combined powers’ as an army leader and ‘overseer of the granaries’. This effectively reveals the idea that these nobles certainly attempted to take advantage of the Pharaoh’s power-loss. This exploitation grew ever so critical that, as Callender comments, “at the conclusion of the Twentieth Dynasty the High Priests of Amun had succeeded in establishing their own descendants as Kings of Egypt…the ancient glory of the Egyptian monarchy had faded. Egypt’s internal weakness invited foreign conquest, and this was not long in materialising” . However, O’Connor is of the conflicting opinion that although “the political weakness of the religious system should be noted… military officers, not priests, were responsible for the final division of New Kingdom Egypt into two units” . Regardless of whether the priests or military officers were responsible, the conviction for the disintegration of the structure of government, and consequently the Twentieth Dynasty itself, is ascribed to the corruption occurring in the general noble class of society.

Thus, the features and structure of government are remarkably important as they are able to reflect the state Egypt was in throughout the Ramesside period and serve as an indicator of the changes, corruption and decline Egypt was experiencing as it approached the conclusion of the Twentieth Dynasty. As a result of the Pharaoh’s inability to successfully oversee and maintain power over each area of government, Egypt and her administrative structure had suffered and inevitably Ma'at was lost as the Twentieth Dynasty came to a close.

Bibliography:

Calledner, G “The Eye of Horus”
Longman, Australia, 1993
Gardiner, (Sir) A “Egypt of the Pharaohs”
Oxford University Press, London, Oxford, New York, 1961
Kemp, B.J “Ancient Egypt- anatomy of a civilisation”
Routledge, New York, 1989
O’Connor, B.G, et al. “Ancient Egypt- A social History” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983
Tyldesley, J. “Judgement of the Pharaohs- crime and punishment in Ancient Egypt”
Weidenfeld & Nicolson, Great Britain, 2000
Wilson, J. A, “The Culture of Ancient Egypt”
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1971
Kitchen, K.A “Pharaoh Triumphant – The life and times of Rameses II”
Aris and Phillips Ltd, Warminster, England, 1982

“Never again was ancient Egypt to enjoy a firmly united land for any length of time. The inner dynamic power was dead in the organism”
– O’Connor