Georgina Mata
Ramesside Period
12-AH-Slow
Society
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 allpowerful, 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
1 of 6
16/02/16
Georgina Mata
Ramesside Period
12-AH-Slow
Society
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”1 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”2. 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”3. Tyldesley further reinforces this idea and supports
O’Connor, B.G “Ancient Egypt- A social History” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983, p.
207
2
O’Connor, B.G, ibid, p. 222
3 Callender, G “The Eye of Horus”, Longman, Australia, 1993, p.252
1
2 of 6
16/02/16
Georgina Mata
Ramesside Period
12-AH-Slow
Society
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…”4. 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”5. 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.6” 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”7.
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
4
The Decrees of Sety I
Tyldesley, J “Judgement of the Pharaohs- crime and punishment in Ancient Egypt” Weidenfeld &
Nicolson, Great Britain, 2000
6
Wilson, J.A “The Culture of Ancient Egypt” University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1951, p.242
7
Tyldesley, J, op.cit, p. 98
5
3 of 6
16/02/16
Georgina Mata
Ramesside Period
12-AH-Slow
Society
the assassination attempt upon Rameses III”8. 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”9. 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”10. 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”.11 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”12. 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”13.
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
O’Connor, B.G, op.cit, p.231
Gardiner, A, “Egypt of the Pharaohs”, Oxford University Press, London, Oxford, 1961, p.280
10
Papyrus Leopold II
11
Tyldesley, J, op.cit, p. 133
12
O’Connor, B.G, op.cit, p.231
8
9
4 of 6
16/02/16
Georgina Mata
Ramesside Period
12-AH-Slow
Society
‘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”14. 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”15. 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.
O’Connor, B.G, ibid, p.205
Callender, G, op.cit, p. 278
15
O’Connor, B.G, op.cit, p.222
13
14
5 of 6
16/02/16
Georgina Mata
Ramesside Period
12-AH-Slow
Society
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”16
– O’Connor
16
O’Connor, B.G, ibid, p. 288
6 of 6
16/02/16