Lo, the Nobles Lament, the Poor Rejoice

[Oracle of Sobek 𓆋]

Hmmm, tough one. Republican government, even of the limited type described here, is different enough from anything else the Egyptians had that they probably would develop a distinct word for it. Given that a kenbet is at root a law-court, they might refer to a republic as "province of the judges" or something similar, much like the compilers of the Old Testament referred to the legendary pre-kingdom days of the Israelites. This might hold true even in republics that the kenbut do not lead or lead only indirectly, because the kenbet-state was the original model.

There might also be a term for the new monarchial philosophy that the dynasty in Henen-nesut is pioneering - "just kingship" or something equivalent. Divine justice is central to Egyptian political ideas of TTL, even more so than in OTL, so their political terminology would probably emphasize justice, judges and law.

Of course, I'm willing to listen to any better ideas.

This question - what a native Egyptian word for "republic" would be - has been bouncing around my head since the start of this TL. So far, the best I think I've come up with is makenbet ("maqenbet" as an alternate spelling), which means "that (thing/land) which is under a kenbet). "Ma-" in Middle Egyptian is the so-called "m- preformative prefix" which, when attached to a root word, indicates a place where/instrument with which something is done.

"Just Kingship" can be translated literally as sutenyet-ma'at (or "nesutyet-ma'at" - there's disagreement over how the first word should be transliterated/transcribed).

 

[Daztur]

Thirteenth dynasty? Ouch, I guess there's still a good bit more chaos to go...

It seems that they're including a lot of little local dynasties in the dynasty list that never united Egypt. This is different than IOTL, right?

 

[Falecius]

Thirteenth dynasty? Ouch, I guess there's still a good bit more chaos to go...

It seems that they're including a lot of little local dynasties in the dynasty list that never united Egypt. This is different than IOTL, right?

Not very much. Some dynasties of the OTL lists were simultaneous, though it seems that the trend is stronger here.

 

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Fantastic update. My penchant for dynastic politics makes me lament Merykare's childless demise but I look forward to a more fertile 13th Dynasty.

There will be some dynastic politics later on, as the reunification of Egypt approaches endgame - Merykare may not have any surviving children, but he'll certainly want to make his own succession arrangements. Eventually, the dynastic politics will even involve the republics.

Do you plan on Min (or Min-Osiris) enjoy greater (widespread/longer lasting) prominence ITTL than OTL?

There's been some discussion of this earlier; what will happen is that, over time, Min will be subsumed as an aspect of Osiris, and the rites of the Min cult, including the annual games, will become part of Osiran ritual. Min will become much more prominent than OTL, but will do so through the Osiris cult.

This question - what a native Egyptian word for "republic" would be - has been bouncing around my head since the start of this TL. So far, the best I think I've come up with is makenbet ("maqenbet" as an alternate spelling), which means "that (thing/land) which is under a kenbet). "Ma-" in Middle Egyptian is the so-called "m- preformative prefix" which, when attached to a root word, indicates a place where/instrument with which something is done.

"Makenbet" works for me. Would there have to be a determinative to distinguish provinces or cities ruled by kenbut from the jurisdiction of kenbut that function purely as courts?

Also, is there an Old/Middle Egyptian word for "judge" or "magistrate?" (And would the language of the First Intermediate be Old Egyptian, Middle Egyptian or some transitional phase?)

Thirteenth dynasty? Ouch, I guess there's still a good bit more chaos to go...

It seems that they're including a lot of little local dynasties in the dynasty list that never united Egypt. This is different than IOTL, right?

Not very much. Some dynasties of the OTL lists were simultaneous, though it seems that the trend is stronger here.

What Falecius said. All the intermediate periods in Egyptian history had simultaneous dynasties - sometimes three or more at a time - and certain "dynasties" such as the Seventh and Fourteenth may actually have been groups of concurrent rulers who each controlled individual provinces or regions. This map, from a period about 1400 years after the events of TTL, shows how complicated things can get during times of disunity.

At this point in the timeline, there are four - count'em, four - dynasties that claim the kingship of the Two Lands: the Eighth in the Eastern Delta; the Ninth, which rules from Mennufer to Siut; the Tenth at Waset; and the Eleventh in the Western Delta. The Eighth isn't much longer for this world, and the Twelfth will come into being at some point before Merykare's death (it will replace one of the existing dynasties, but if I told you which one, it would spoil all the fun).

The following may help to sort things out: it shows the political situation in year 27 of the Akhmim republic, at the beginning of the next narrative cycle.

 

[Oracle of Sobek 𓆋]

"Makenbet" works for me. Would there have to be a determinative to distinguish provinces or cities ruled by kenbut from the jurisdiction of kenbut that function purely as courts?

Also, is there an Old/Middle Egyptian word for "judge" or "magistrate?" (And would the language of the First Intermediate be Old Egyptian, Middle Egyptian or some transitional phase?)

Here's a table I drew up:

It should all be fairly self-explanatory. The difference between the words ser and kenbety is that the former is a more general term for magistrate/judge, while the latter is specifically a judge seated on a kenbet.

The languages of the First Intermediate, as far as I can tell, would probably be a transitional dialect between Old and Middle Egyptian... Basically, it would be Middle Egyptian with a lot of what the "classical" form of that dialect regards as "archaisms".

 

[Admiral Matt]

That is many things, including very cool. Self-explanatory is not one of those things, lol.

So all three of those in the middle are pronounced identically, but written differently? How Chinese of them.

 

[Oracle of Sobek 𓆋]

That is many things, including very cool. Self-explanatory is not one of those things, lol.

So all three of those in the middle are pronounced identically, but written differently? How Chinese of them.

Hahah, whoops...

But basically, yes. A lot of written Egyptian is heavily dependent on determinative signs. The word "kenbet" has the determinatives of an authority figure (not the big stick he's carrying ) and plural strokes, which reinforces that a kenbet is a council of notable people. The first "makenbet" has an additional scroll determinative (marking it as an abstract idea), while the second has the city determinative (marking it as a city governed by the kenbet), and the last has the district determinative.

In the spoken language, these could all be pronounced "makenbet", or they could be qualified (i.e. "makenbet" OR "neywet makenbetyet" = "republican city").

 

[Admiral Matt]

Hahah, whoops...

But basically, yes. A lot of written Egyptian is heavily dependent on determinative signs. The word "kenbet" has the determinatives of an authority figure (not the big stick he's carrying ) and plural strokes, which reinforces that a kenbet is a council of notable people. The first "makenbet" has an additional scroll determinative (marking it as an abstract idea), while the second has the city determinative (marking it as a city governed by the kenbet), and the last has the district determinative.

In the spoken language, these could all be pronounced "makenbet", or they could be qualified (i.e. "makenbet" OR "neywet makenbetyet" = "republican city").

Hrm. Would those latter two both be written the same way?

 

[Pachac]

I have taken the liberty of editing the map that Jonathan has graciously given us to make it a bit more viewable. I would use the font he did, but Inkscape doesn't appear to have it. I'll leave it like that for now, while I try to fix an issue with Inkscape stopping me from fully uploading it. Hopefully my map skills are par enough to warrant the work; I truly do enjoy the TL.

EDIT: Fixed

Edit2: Added a better Faiyum and the Nile's tributaries leading into it.

 

[fasquardon]

Holy wow.

I didn't think a timeline this far back with such intimate focus was really possible. I know you are fudging a few things (using New Kingdom sources to illuminate Intermediate period life and such), but it is impressive and thought provoking fudging.

Also, I am struck by how the Egyptian ideas of kingship seem to be evolving in a direction similar to the Persian idea of kingship. I wonder if one of the longer term knock on effects is Egyptian empires that can effectively govern non-Egyptians. And that would have very interesting knock on effects of its own.

fasquardon

 

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Holy wow.

I didn't think a timeline this far back with such intimate focus was really possible. I know you are fudging a few things (using New Kingdom sources to illuminate Intermediate period life and such), but it is impressive and thought provoking fudging.

Thanks! And your comment has reminded me that I've badly neglected this timeline. I do plan to update it soon - we're approaching the high tide of First Intermediate republicanism, and I have the next narrative cycle sketched out in some detail. Things are calming down somewhat at the office, so hopefully I'll have time this week or over the weekend.

Also, I am struck by how the Egyptian ideas of kingship seem to be evolving in a direction similar to the Persian idea of kingship. I wonder if one of the longer term knock on effects is Egyptian empires that can effectively govern non-Egyptians. And that would have very interesting knock on effects of its own.

I'm not sure how effective the new concept of kingship will be at ruling non-Egyptians, given that it's still very tied into Egyptian religion and ritual. It might be able to integrate subject nations with highly Egyptian-influenced cultures, such as Nubia and parts of the Levant, but it will have problems further afield. This won't be an issue during the Intermediate in any event, as it will be some time before Egypt sets its house in order enough to go conquering.

Can you provide more detail on Persian concepts of monarchy, and when they developed? Persia was still Elam at this stage; did the Elamites have similar concepts, and is there a chance that they might influence Egypt? (I'm already planning to have some Assyrian influence enter the mix at a later stage, via the Assyrian merchant colony at Kanesh.)

 

[Ganesha]

Thanks! And your comment has reminded me that I've badly neglected this timeline. I do plan to update it soon - we're approaching the high tide of First Intermediate republicanism, and I have the next narrative cycle sketched out in some detail. Things are calming down somewhat at the office, so hopefully I'll have time this week or over the weekend.

Great to hear! I'll have to reread this to remember the terms and concepts before you update.

Cheers,
Ganesha

 

[fasquardon]

What I have read is that the main problem the Egyptians had in dealing with subject peoples was that they had no concept of how to treat them as anything other than occupied peoples. So in the Levant, cities were constantly rebelling against Egyptian occupation, and the non-rebelling cities didn't supply any military power for keeping the rebellious neighbours in check. So whenever the Egyptians had a big empire, it was because they were particularly successful at moving armies from the Nile to where ever the revolt was. As soon as Egyptian capacity to project power declined relative to the demands on the frontiers, the Empire would shrink.

Merykare's ideas could change that paradigm quite alot. Assuming of course, what I have read about the Egyptian empires is correct and assuming that the Egyptian empires that arise in this timeline aren't such cultural chauvinists that they still treat non-Egyptians as badly...

Can you provide more detail on Persian concepts of monarchy, and when they developed? Persia was still Elam at this stage; did the Elamites have similar concepts, and is there a chance that they might influence Egypt? (I'm already planning to have some Assyrian influence enter the mix at a later stage, via the Assyrian merchant colony at Kanesh.)

Mmm. Studying the pre-Persian societies in and around the plateau is at the bleeding edge of my (and indeed everyone's') knowledge. From what I know so far: The Persian ideas on Kingship built on what the Medians had, which in turn drew from the Assyrian methods of organization. Those in turn were based on Babylonian developments. The Susanians and Elamites, while culturally distinct, also owed much of their ideas of kingship to the ideas that had been developed in Ur and Babylonia. The Persians - probably Cyrus the Great himself - also brought alot of Zoroastrian ideas to the mix.

So... It looks like they were developed in 553 BC. So probably not much scope for Susa and Elam being able to influence Egypt in that direction.

As for the ideas of Persian kingship itself, it ties into the Zoroastrian ideas of truth and justice - the King's worth can be judged by how just he is, and how just his regime is. Also the way the Persian empires were all very successfully decentralized - itself probably an outgrowth of the Persians more tolerant attitudes (it isn't clear where they got those, it might have been part of the Zoroastrian package, it might have been part of the Iranic package, and shared by the Medes, it may have been Cyrus the Great's personality).

fasquardon

 

[wannis]

If you're interested in the political structures of the Achaemenid empire, look at Dandamayev's "Political History of the Achaemenid Empire".

 

[Shevek23]

If you're interested in the political structures of the Achaemenid empire, look at Dandamayev's "Political History of the Achaemenid Empire".

I think he's most interested in their origins and antecedents. And that, I gather, is where historical knowledge peters out. Did the founders of the Achaemenid dynasty invent their methods by themselves, did they inherit earlier forms from their ancestors and rival ruling powers of Persia, did they arise out of Zoroastrian thought, or what?

The lineage of some of their methods and practices tracing back to the ancient cities of Mesopotamia is clear enough; however, the Achaemenid Empire definitely brought some new things with it; those didn't come from ancient Sumer.

It's quite evident to anyone reading Jonathan's timelines that he has a keen interest in how the big, sprawling, brash power structures that tended to command the means of making monuments to themselves and largely dictated what was recorded in history and even legend interacted with the various little people who lived in villages, or roamed the pastures, and negotiated the terms of their submission to these grand powers that were all ultimately based on their productive labor. Unfortunately this history is largely obscure; one looks for it the way a geologist might determine the structure of the strata far below the surface, by inference and analogy; by interpretation of subtle nuances in the narratives that come down to us; perhaps by means of archaeology.

And new stuff is being found all the time; when I was going to college no one had ever heard of the Terra Prieta peoples in the Amazon rainforest. An entire civilization complex, and mainstream history and anthropology was completely oblivious to it. Who knows what new insights recent studies in Iran might have turned up in the past few decades, about the hitherto unknown historical background to the Persians?

I gather that the Islamic Republic regime is not the best friend of such studies, because of a reaction to the former Shah's policy of aggrandizing ancient, pre-Islamic Persian history and downplaying the history after the conversion to Islam; the ayatollahs and many Iranians (I knew one, back in the 1980s) turned it around and focused on Iran as a Muslim country and tend to ignore the more ancient history, so I gather. So the patriotic interest one might assume would support such ancient studies is a bit confounded I suppose.

Still, Iran is not as utterly doctrinaire as some other fundamentalist Islamic regimes I can name; I daresay historical studies still command some respect and some budget and are not targeted by extremists the way they might be elsewhere.

So I think Jonathan is probably pretty well versed in the history of the Achaemenids, as it is traditionally known, but is fishing for new insights into where they came from.

 

[Falecius]

I think he's most interested in their origins and antecedents. And that, I gather, is where historical knowledge peters out. Did the founders of the Achaemenid dynasty invent their methods by themselves, did they inherit earlier forms from their ancestors and rival ruling powers of Persia, did they arise out of Zoroastrian thought, or what?

The lineage of some of their methods and practices tracing back to the ancient cities of Mesopotamia is clear enough; however, the Achaemenid Empire definitely brought some new things with it; those didn't come from ancient Sumer.

It's quite evident to anyone reading Jonathan's timelines that he has a keen interest in how the big, sprawling, brash power structures that tended to command the means of making monuments to themselves and largely dictated what was recorded in history and even legend interacted with the various little people who lived in villages, or roamed the pastures, and negotiated the terms of their submission to these grand powers that were all ultimately based on their productive labor. Unfortunately this history is largely obscure; one looks for it the way a geologist might determine the structure of the strata far below the surface, by inference and analogy; by interpretation of subtle nuances in the narratives that come down to us; perhaps by means of archaeology.

And new stuff is being found all the time; when I was going to college no one had ever heard of the Terra Prieta peoples in the Amazon rainforest. An entire civilization complex, and mainstream history and anthropology was completely oblivious to it. Who knows what new insights recent studies in Iran might have turned up in the past few decades, about the hitherto unknown historical background to the Persians?

I gather that the Islamic Republic regime is not the best friend of such studies, because of a reaction to the former Shah's policy of aggrandizing ancient, pre-Islamic Persian history and downplaying the history after the conversion to Islam; the ayatollahs and many Iranians (I knew one, back in the 1980s) turned it around and focused on Iran as a Muslim country and tend to ignore the more ancient history, so I gather. So the patriotic interest one might assume would support such ancient studies is a bit confounded I suppose.

Still, Iran is not as utterly doctrinaire as some other fundamentalist Islamic regimes I can name; I daresay historical studies still command some respect and some budget and are not targeted by extremists the way they might be elsewhere.

So I think Jonathan is probably pretty well versed in the history of the Achaemenids, as it is traditionally known, but is fishing for new insights into where they came from.

Iranian government has, to my knowledge, no particular problem with excavation of pre-Islamic sites.
In recent years, important discoveries have been made, for example about the Jiroft archaeological culture, and it's very likely that more is there to be found.
I also take the chance to state how awesome this TL is my opinion.
I would not blame Jonathan for giving more effort to Male Rising, (which I notoriously love), but some more love here would be nice.

 

[Shevek23]

Iranian government has, to my knowledge, no particular problem with excavation of pre-Islamic sites.
In recent years, important discoveries have been made, for example about the Jiroft archaeological culture, and it's very likely that more is there to be found.
I also take the chance to state how awesome this TL is my opinion.
I would not blame Jonathan for giving more effort to Male Rising, (which I notoriously love), but some more love here would be nice.

Posts to Malê Rising, and much of the discussion that happens there, are the bright points of my often depressing weeks; it's my favorite single timeline.

That said, I was quite thrilled when this timeline debuted last summer and it also drew me into "The Realm of Millions of Years," another high-ranking favorite of mine that has sadly lain fallow for months now.

So I'm glad you made a substantive answer to Jonathan's question of many months ago! It may help him with research he needed to go on, if distant Iran was proving relevant to the story of the Egyptian republicans.

Unfortunately archaeology alone will probably not settle the questions he had; very probably he'll have to indulge in a bit of speculative historical imagination anyway.

Glad to see the Iranian government and civil society is still supporting a vigorous archeological program; my post back in May was a speculative vote of confidence that they would, hedged by the knowledge that the Shah had mucked things up somewhat. Anyway we are talking about times long before the Achaemenids, which is the period the Shah was obsessed with.

 

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Just want to let you know that this timeline is not dead. Lately, I've been focused on getting to the end of Malê Rising's nineteenth century, and that's where the storytelling inspiration has been taking me. But I'm almost there, and once I get there, I do plan to update both this and the Haitian timeline. I appreciate your patience.

 

[Hnau]

I'm looking forward to new updates for this! As interesting as it has been so far, I feel this TL is on the cusp of even more unique developments. I'm a big fan of the history of democracy and seeing a POD that introduces it sooner is fascinating.

 

[St. Just]

Speaking of updates what about the Jewish Sao Tome timeline?