Late Days of Dynasty XII.
Ny-ma’at-Re Amenemhat III is the last all-powerful ruler of Dynasty 12. In his 46 years of rule (1845-1798 BCE) there are notable expeditions and settlements in the Sinai, monumental construction projects in Dahshur, Hawara and Biahmu. Wealth and power belong to the king. But all is not well within the kingdom…
Bibliography
- Aidan Dodson and Dyan Hilton, The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt, 2010.
- Wolfram Grajetzki, The Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt, 2006.
- Nicolas Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt, 1994.
- Gregory D. Mumford and Sarah Parcak, “Pharaonic Ventures into the South Sinai,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 89 (2003). JSTOR.
Alan B. Lloyd (editor), A Companion to Ancient Egypt, 2010. Google Books preview. - Kerry Muhlstein, “Levantine Thinking in Egypt,” Egypt, Canaan and Israel: History, Imperialism, Ideology and Literature, 2009. Google Books preview.
- James P. Allen, “The Historical Inscription of Khnumhotep at Dahshur,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 352 (2008). JSTOR.
- R. Neil Hewison, The Fayoum: History and Guide, 2008. Google Books preview.
- University College London wesbite: Satire of the Trades; The Labyrinth of Hawara.
- Chris Kirby‘s Reconstruction of Biahmu. Youtube.
Hi Dominic,
Late listener here and really enjoyed the show. I wanted to check out the pictures related to the episodes and noticed all the images for this episode is gone. Is it possible to have them back? Thank you!
Hi Simm,
Dang. Looks like they are gone for now, unfortunately. The website is due for an upgrade so hopefully I can replace the images in future.
During the episode, you say that the king “may have felt that greater organization, greater centralization was a way to resist order” – I believe you meant “to resist chaos.” At least that makes more sense in the context of the comments.
Thanks Angela, do you remember the rough time point that mistake occurred?
The comment ends at 30:09 on my google podcast.
Thank you 🙂
You’re welcome!
I am confused why such emphasis is placed on the lack of king led military expeditions as a sign of decline, this feels like a teleological intrusion due to our knowledge centuries later that the kingdom would in fact decline. Nothing presented in this or the previous episode seems to be suggestive of decline, the economy seems healthy, culture is thriving the borders are stable.
Amenemhat III appears to have been a highly active ruler domestically, while the expeditions to the Sinai were not novel for those of the middle kingdom he appears to have orchestrated a great deal of them, alongside some immense building projects.
During the reign of Senusret III you highlighted the diminishing logistical possibility of continued expansion southward into Kush, alongside this it seems by Amenemhat’s reign, all the kingdoms needs from the regions south of the cataracts had been accomplished with the securing of trade routes and extensive fort building. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, as they say
No empire expands forever, the western roman empire was largely the same size from 50ce to 400ce (excluding Dacian expansion under Trajan) in size and yet experienced many of its most interesting and most powerful rulers during this period of territorial ‘stagnation.’
In the last episode you brought up the possibility that this lack of activity might have been the result of Amenemhat III being mentally disabled, which confused me greatly, as if there is evidence of that, it has not made the cut.
Thanks for the podcast, I’ve been enjoying it greatly, I was just a little perplexed by these matters.
Hello, I just finished listening to this episode and I wanted to ask you if there is a specific reason why you didn’t point out that the centralization of power means less abuse from local officials. Was it not the case in this period? A benevolent ruler might want to strengthen his grip on the high ranking officials to diminish their exploitation for their own purposes of the population at large.
Thanks Jan, that is a fair point. I think it is dangerous to assume that greater centralization *would* lead to fewer abuses from local officials. One might equally argue that “publicly loyal” officials could use Horemheb’s favour as a shield against accusations, while still practicing corruption. Further, we cannot assume that Horemheb’s rules were applied equally across all cases (loyal vs disloyal servants). You raise a fair argument; if I do a remaster of this episode in the future I will discuss that angle in more detail 🙂
Here for the pics too 🙂