Die Privaten Rechtsinschriften aus dem Alten Reich by Hans GoedickeReview by: Dieter MuellerJournal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 9 (1971-1972), pp. 139-141Published by: American Research Center in EgyptStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40001063 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 06:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Research Center in Egypt is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of the American Research Center in Egypt.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:34:22 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CAMBRIDGE ANCIENT HISTORY, Third Edition, Volume I, Part i : Prolegomena and Prehistory. Volume I, Part 2: Early History of the Middle East, edited by I. E. S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd and N. G. L. Hammond. Pp. XXII + 758, 17 maps, 45 figs.; Pp. XXIII + 1058, 16 maps, 22 figs. At the University Press, Cam- bridge 1970-1971. $ 19.50, 23.50.

Book Reviews

More than a dozen years ago plans for the third edition of the Cambridge Ancient History were drawn up. Laid out as expansively as possible, the problems facing the editors were paramount. No universal his- torian of the ancient Near East exists, nor is such a role feasible any longer. Pursuing the concept of indi- vidual specialization, the treatment of the history of the ancient Near East was entrusted to no less than fifty- seven authors of more than seventy contributions. To bring a project of such scope to fruition deserves the unrestricted admiration for the skill and determi- nation of the editors. Realizing the difficulties implicit in their plans they published the contributions individ- ually for the last ten years, and these chapters have become a valuable tool for those concerned with an- cient Near Eastern history. Now the Herculean task is reaching completion and the first twenty-seven chap- ters, consisting of thirty-eight contributions have been united into the first volume, whose bulk necessitated its issue in two parts.

All chapters have been issued previously and those pertaining to ancient Egypt have already been re- viewed. It thus seems appropriate to concern ourselves here with the overall aspects of this publication rather than with details of its contents. The amount of infor- mation incorporated into this history is colossal, and the erudition in the composition of the individual chapters is without par. However, the basic concept underlying this history is also the source of its weak- ness. Fragmentation of the presentation is the price for the engagement of a large number of scholarly experts. There is no doubt about the quality of this publication; its shortcomings are rather in the princi- pal dilemma which faces every historian. To reduce it to its basis, it is the question if history is mainly a collection of "facts" or if it is their interpretation, the weaving of a "story" (of course based on all available

information), which is the obligation of the historian. The Cambridge Ancient History chose the first and, as a result, it lacks readability. It is a compendium of information, but it would seem doubtful how much of a coherent picture of the ancient Near East it can convey.

Some of the organizational features aggravate this aspect. The use of extremely abbreviated references would in itself discourage all except the especially inquisitive reader. This situation is intensified by the gathering of all the chapters' bibliography at the end of the volume, and considerable effort is required to locate a reference. The pagination of the early issue in chapters is not maintained, which will make it difficult to reconcile the two forms of publication. Equally re- grettable are alterations and corrections of the earlier publications in the present edition. On the other hand, the large number of maps and the careful indexing have to be mentioned. While some of the flaws will cause considerable bibliographical problems, there can be no doubt that the new Cambridge Ancient History is a monumental accomplishment and will remain an indispensable tool for anyone interested in the history of the ancient Near East.

Hans Goedicke The Johns Hopkins University

DIE PRIVATEN RECHTSINSCHRIFTEN AUS DEM ALTEN REICH, by Hans Goedicke. Pp. 242, pls. 18. Verlag Notring, Wien 1970, ( = Bex- hefte zur Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes 5).

Legal documents from the Old Kingdom are notori- ously difficult - partly because of their highly devel- oped legal phraseology, partly because of our ignorance of the legal system upon which they are based. As its practices cannot be elucidated from isolated examples, a comprehensive study of all available documents has been a long felt need in Egyptology. It is therefore to be warmly welcomed that H. Goedicke, whose work on the royal decrees from the Old Kingdom was pub-

139

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:34:22 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

140 JARCE 9 (197I-I972)

lished in 19671, has now devoted his ingenuity to the interpretation of our sources for the private law of that period. These consist of 21 texts and include three inscriptions and four smaller fragments which are published here for the first time. Spanning the period from the end of Dyn. Ill to the late Dyn. VI, they comprise two contracts, and a larger number of dispositions and settlements. Each of these documents is translated and discussed with due attention to its legal implications; moreover, the resulting observat- ions on such areas as property, family law, the struc- ture of funerary foundations and the like, are summa- rized at the end of the book which concludes with a separate investigation of the term ht "service."

However, it is doubtlessly the field of philological interpretation where H. Goedicke's main contribution to our understanding of these texts lies. As one has come to expect, his study abounds in re-interpreta- tions with novel and often startling solutions, of which only the explanation of the well-known house purchase document from Giza as a building contract shall be mentioned here. They are sometimes bold, often con- vincing, and always thought-provoking. That not all of his results will seem acceptable has its reasons in the nature of the evidence, and an enumeration of all points on which one might disagree with the author would not do justice to his contribution. For the pur- pose of this review, one observation will suffice to illus- trate the peculiar difficulties involved in his undertaking.

In his discussion of the procedures surrounding e.g. the disposition of property, H. Goedicke stresses the oral character of the legal process, which is subse- quently codified in a document constituting proof of the transaction.2 This reconstruction is mainly based on the fact that all statements on the part of the tes- tator are introduced by dd.f "he says." Its logic is not entirely convincing, as dd may refer to oral and writ- ten communications alike.3 Indeed, one may very well question the practical purpose of reciting a long string

of complicated stipulations in the presence of the bene- ficiaries, unless they had previously been informed of the contents of the declaration. On the other hand, the legal instrument is sometimes accompanied by a representation of the testator in the act of speaking, and a statement to the effect that "he spoke with his mouth in front of his children when he was still on his feet and alive."4 However, this formality is only attes- ted in the inscriptions of Wep-em-nofret and Ni-ka- ankh, and open to at least two different explanations. The restricted use of the formula may have its reasons in the exceptional character of the procedure, and the insistence that he made the declaration "with his mouth" be taken to indicate that written disposition were permissible if not the rule.

Alternatively, these inscriptions may represent the standard procedure for such transactions. The latter is by no means impossible, as most texts also omit such essential elements as date, witness list, etc. which must have been part of the original document. If the above- mentioned statement thus did reflect a universal prac- tice, the Egyptians may eventually have felt free to dispense with a reference to its proper observance when the main stipulations of a disposition were re- corded on stone.5

Such an assumption would not be without legal im- plications. If the testator had to make his disposition orally in the presence of the beneficiaries, one must conclude that their consent by acquiescence was re- quired by law.6 This in turn would presuppose that their names were set out in the provisions, but that is not always the case : Some texts in their present form consist only of general regulations phrased in abstract terms, and require supplementary instructions by which specific individuals are appointed to the posi- tions described before.7 It would thus appear that many inscriptions only represent excerpts from the original, much more comprehensive, documents.8 Under these circumstances, generalisations are only

1 Konigliche Dokumente aus dem Alten Reich ( = Kg. Abh. 14 [Wiesbaden 1967]).

2 Loc. cit. 33 and 195; sim. Tycho Mrsich, Unter- suchungen zur Hausurkunde des Alten Reiches ( = MAS 13 [Berlin 1968]) 39 ("Der Rechtsakt erfolgt mundlich, doch ist die Rede wohl durch einen Rechts- kundigen vorformuliert worden und wird fur immer schriftlich festgehalten.") and 123. As the manuscript of the book under review was completed by 1968, the results of T. Mrsich's more specialized investigation have not been included in the discussion.

3 The same formula is used e.g. to introduce bio- graphical inscriptions where no such implication is present. In the summary of a letter sent by Horkhuf to Pepi II, several paragraphs of the royal communi- cation are headed : "You have said in this your letter that ..." (Urk. I 128,10 and 14; 129,2).

4 Inscription of Ni-ka-ankh concerning the service of Hathor and - with substitution of m pr.f for v hr n tnsw.f - the title of the provisions for his funerary cult : "Disposition [made by the Royal Acquaintance Ni-ka-] ankh in his house with his mouth while still alive."

5 Suggested by T. Mrsich loc. cit. 123. 6 See T. Mrsich loc. cit. 39 and, with reservations,

H. Goedicke loc. cit. 33. Whether this procedure re- quired the additional presence of disinterested parties to witness the transaction is not clear. Their main function may have been to authenticate the document rather than the transaction itself - a view proposed by H. Goedicke loc. cit., 195-96 despite its prior rejec- tion on pp. 39-41.

7 T. Mrsich loc. cit. 87 and 146 ff. 8 This has been clearly recognized by H. Goedicke

loc. cit. 48 and passim.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:34:22 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS 141

possible to a limited extent, and must take into ac- count that the Egyptian legal system may have been even more sophisticated than the very few extant sources might seem to indicate.9

H. Goedicke has not always made it easy for the reader to check his arguments against the documents under investigation. All hieroglyphic texts have been reproduced on plates at the end of the book, but the numbers assigned to them there do not agree with those used in the text. In his translations, the restored portions are indicated in a somewhat haphazard man- ner, and brackets do not always occur where one would expect them.10 Moreover, the translations often differ from the suggested restorations. Thus irr ht is transcribed in I.4 on pl. X, but ir.ty.fy ht rendered and commented upon on pp. 94 and 95 ; neither draw- ing nor translation indicate to what extent the text has been restored. Similarly, K. Sethe's restoration of 1. 15 in Ka-em-nofret's disposition, though rejected in the translation on p. 45 with accompanying note on p. 53, has been retained on pl. V. On the other hand, the translation of 1. 10 ignores the restoration suggested on pl. V and discussed in note 19 on p. 56, etc.

Notwithstanding such minor details, the number of which could be easily increased, H. Goedicke has made an outstanding contribution to the continued study of Old Egyptian legal documents which will doubt- lessly stimulate criticism and thus provoke further discussion. This by itself would be more than enough to justify his efforts, and be fully in line with the author's intentions.

Dieter Mueller The University of Lethbridge, Alberta

SYRIA BEFORE 2200 B.C., by Margaret S. Drower and /. Bottiro (= The Cambridge Ancient His- tory: revised ed. I, Chapter XVII) . Pp. 54. Cam- bridge University Press, 1968. $1.25.

Of the six sections contained in this fascicle of the Cambridge Ancient History Professor Botte"ro is re- sponsible for only one, Section II. "Syria at the time of the kings of Agade." The other five sections are all by Dr. Drower. She defines what is meant by Syria, describes its geographical and climatic features, and discusses the composition of its Early Bronze Age population in the first section. In Sections III-IV she discusses what is known of the cities that were in- habited at this time in the various regions of Syria, and in Section VI she describes the Egyptian intru- sions into Sinai and Palestine. The whole fascicle is well written, and in spite of the dual authorship, there are only the slightest traces of discontinuity, certainly not enough to detract from the readability of the work.

Bottero's attempt to locate the sites mentioned in the Syrian campaigns of the kings of the Sargonic dynasty makes his section of the fascicle by far the most stimulating part. He locates Ibla in the upper Balikh Valley, but he maintains the old identifica- tion of Iarmuti with the site near Byblos mentioned in the Amarna letters, and, as a consequence, some- times equates the Cedar Mountain with the Amanus, sometimes with the Lebanon. His identification of Ibla is doubtful, however, since the recent Italian dis- coveries at Tell Mardlkh, a site ca. 50 km SSW of Aleppo, suggest that this was the ancient Ibla. Need- less to say, if Ibla is to be located south of Aleppo, Bottero's location of Iarmuti south of Byblos in the Lebanon is not nearly so problematic as it seemed when Ibla was placed in the Balikh region. More- over, his identification of the Cedar Mountain with the Lebanon deserves more consideration than he him- self has given it. In UET 1, 275, i 12-29, we are told that Nergal opened the way for Naram-Suen and gave to him Armanum (Aleppo?), Ibla (Tell Mardlkh), A-ma-nam, the Cedar Mountain, and the Upper Sea (the Mediterranean coast). Bottero, and many others, assume that A-ma-nam stands for the Amanus range, but if the text has the character of an itinerary, that would involve an almost 1800 shift in direction, and there is a philological difficulty with this identification which has been too often ignored. The name for the Amanus, at least in the later period, is written with a h, Hamanu(m) (see S. Parpola, AOAT 6, p. 145), and it must be distinguished from another mountain which has a similar name minus the h, Ammana(na) , since both occur in the same text: KURHa-[m]a-na KURLab-na-na ti KURAni-ma-na-na (Parpola, AOAT 6, p. 16; Rost, TGL 74.26; cf. Rost, TGL 20.127, where it is written KURAm-ma-na). This Mount Ammana(na) is perhaps to be identified with the Mount >amanah, mentioned in the Song of Songs 4:8, along with the Lebanon, Mount Hermon, and Senir. If so, it probably is a designation for one part of the Anti-Lebanon Range. Thus one must consider the

9 To mention but one complication, the disposition of Ni-kau-re seems to have been drafted in the 3rd person, and was only subsequently partly transposed into the Ist person - presumably for the purpose of publication. This raises the possibility that our sources represent only one type of document, and that other, equally intricate forms were also in use during the OK. For a slightly different explanation see H. Goe- dicke loc. cit. 23-24.

10 Cf. e.g. pp. 44, 75, and 144 with the correspond- ing plates, or the discrepancies between photo and transcription on pl. XII, and between this transcrip- tion and its translation on p. 113.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:34:22 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions