Angela Lewis

September 14, 2009

Ancient Egypt (3:30-4:45)

Ancient Egypt: Document Lab #1

What is really going on during the First Intermediate Period?

Document 1
Core Fact: Every person depicted in the picture has their ribs being exposed.

Strengths:
1. With constant assassination attempts and coups, it might be possible that
the leaders/rulers of Egypt simply forgot to continue to oversee of the
continuation of the distribution of food to the people of Egypt.
2. During the reign of Pepi II, there seemed to have been quite a few internal
fights. Based on the conflicts that were going on at the time, it seems that
the royal family and house were having a power struggle amongst
themselves and forgot about everyone else, thus causing the average
person of Egypt to suffer. Without the distribution of food which was
overseen by the advisors of the king, starvation would be a likely reaction.

Weaknesses:
1. With the document being such a small portion, there is nothing else in the
document to help make a better judgment as to the cause.
2. Based on the information given, this was found on the causeway of the
Pyramid of Unas who was a king during Dynasty Five but 200 hundred
years passed between the death of Unas and the actual breakdown of the
Old Kingdom. So many things or events could have taken place during
that time and without sufficient evidence to help determine what the
actual might have been, the true cause may never be known.

Document 2
Core Fact: Scholars or scribes during the Middle Kingdom documented
events that took place under the reign of King Khety III.

Strengths:
1. By saying that this is simply a piece of literature, gave the scholars the
space needed to expose the inner corruptions of the kingdom by hiding
behind the current of entertaining fiction.
2. With the coups that were happening during this time, this literature
presents another cause as to why. Just like in the story, advisors were
always on the lookout for new ways to improve their own status, despite
the fact as to who they would have stepped on along the way. This in turn
 could help shed some light as to why the people of Egypt were starving as
Document 1 shows.
Weaknesses:
1. Being a piece of Egyptian Literature, it is possible that this is only an
entertaining story whose only intent was to entertain the average person.
There is no more concrete evidence to suggest that these sorts of shady
dealings actually took place within the walls of the palace.
2. Although there could be some truth at the heart of this piece, there still
remains a problem. This piece of literature could be interpreted in many
ways, which may or may not be accurate or relevant. The identity of the
author is also a mystery. Knowing who the author was, would give better
insight as to what their intentions might have been.

Document 3
Core Fact: There was an aristocrat named Ankh-ti-fi who for whatever reason had
an inscription of himself written down.

Strengths:
1. Going along with the idea of corruption of power, this inscription could be
used support that theory. This was an aristocrat who wrote an inscription
describing all the good things he has done while there is no mention of the
king at the time.
2. There are a few excerptions from the inscription that could be used to
prove that perhaps the people of Egypt were being starved. “All of Upper
Egypt was dying of hunger and people were eating their children”
(Inscription of Ankh-ti-fi, 1st Int. Per.).

Weaknesses:
1. This document can really only be used as speculation and different
interpretations. The cause as to why this was written is unknown.
2. Throughout the document, the nomarch claims that he “didn’t allow
anybody to die of hunger” but in Document 1 shows that people did
starve and without proper nutrients, died. The advisor is constantly being
contradicted.
 Essay

While each of these documents suggest that yes, something changed in Egypt and
had a severe impact on the people, there are just too many unanswered questions
that cannot be answered with sufficient evidence to support the theories that
historians are making as to the true cause. In the first document, it proves that
something whether it had been a corrupted monarchy or a sudden change of
weather, it caused the people to be incapable of feeding themselves, at least
enough to where their ribs didn’t show. If this how Egyptians were, why aren’t there
anymore engravings with this being shown? Document one proves that someone,
whoever constructed and built the pyramid of Unas, wanted to send a message to
whoever observed the pyramid. To tell the world what was really going on and that
not everything was going as well as the advisors wanted people to believe. If that is
true, what happened to the contractor of the pyramid? Did he go on to make more
pyramids for kings or did the kind have him executed. It has been known that the
Egyptians didn’t like discuss anything that was not positive and pleasant. The piece
of literature that is the second Document proves that the scribes or scholars at the
time had enough freedom to write what they wanted, despite the fact if it was
based on true events or pure entertainment. The third Document proves that if a
person is high enough in the world of status, you could build yourself as high as you
wanted perhaps even higher than the king. I don’t believe that this could have been
a possibility when things in the kingdom of Egypt were more under control. Based
on the three documents presented to me, I believe that there most likely cause as
to what was really going on during the First Intermediate Period, is a power struggle
between both the kings of Egypt and their closest advisors. While the advisors were
plotting their next move to possibly put them on the throne, they simply over looked
the need to distribute to the people which would explain as to why the people in
Document one are shown to be starving. This theory is also supported by Document
two, which is about the peasant and a regional aristocrat. The aristocrat tries to
dismiss the obvious case the peasant had and refused to listen to the numerous
attempts he made. If the laws were more established and the law was enforced to
everyone despite their status, I believe the advisor in this instance would have been
obligated to hear the pleas of the peasant. Document three shows that while the
nomarch is bragging about all the wonderful things that he has done, that this king
was not as big an authority figure as he was. It seems as if the nomarch is taking
some of the king’s manner in which he carries himself, believing that he is a
merciful, giving leader whose only intent is to take care of the people of Egypt. If
the king was the highest regarded, why would he allow someone of lower status to
build him up in such a way? It seems like the nobility of Egypt were becoming more
powerful than the pharaoh. I believe that given the evidence available, that yes
things during that time were bad. I believe that a lot happened or changed for
example a possible shift of power and the people no matter whom were unprepared
to handle it all which would explain the corruption that took place throughout the
kingdom. Something that hasn’t changed between the kingdom of Ancient Egypt
and today’s world, that some people are selfish and are only trying to improve their
own circumstances, despite the fact who must receive the consequences for such
drastic decisions. Not knowing who wrote Documents two and three makes these
sources unreliable. Therefore makes it impossible to determine who the speaker
actually was and what their intentions were. It also, makes it harder to determine
whose cause they were fighting for. All we can really do is try to come up with a well
rounded explanation that could be supported by all three of these sources but it
seems like no matter what theory is produced, there is always going to be
unanswered questions.