Fourth Symposium on Egyptian Royal Ideology: Egyptian Royal Residences.

Nicholson, Paul T.

Edited by Rolf Gundlach and John H. Taylor. Konigtum, Staat und Gesellschaft Fruher Hochkulturen, vol. 4.1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2009. Pp. vii + 197, illus. [euro] 48.

This volume contains nine papers drawn from the Fourth Symposium on Ancient Egyptian Royal Ideology, held in London in 2004. All the papers are in English. As might be expected, given the wealth of evidence on the royal residence in the Middle and New Kingdoms, the papers are mainly focused on those periods, although the Old Kingdom features in the paper by D. M. Doxey which opens the volume.

Doxey's paper considers the role of the nomarchs as rulers and how the position of these officials is reflected in the layout of provincial necropoleis. She finds that, just as in the Old and Middle Kingdoms officials sought to be buried as close to the royal monument as possible (even to the extent of abandoning their partly built tombs if they outlived one king and beginning a new tomb in the vicinity of that of their new sovereign), so in provincial cemeteries the tombs of nomarchs formed the foci for lower status burials.

Andrea Gnirs considers the impact of the ruler on the individual visiting the palace. Her paper, "In the Kings House," looks at the way in which architecture was used to heighten the sense of awe felt by visitors to the residence, whose fate could depend upon the whim of the ruler. She uses the story of Sinuhe and his experiences alongside architectural evidence to give some sense of the trepidation which would have been experienced by the visitor.

While visitors may have been in fear of the ruler, Rolf Gundlach makes it clear that kings themselves were not beyond reproach. He skillfully demonstrates how the concept of ma'at was not constant but had to change as social and political circumstances in Egypt changed, although the ruler throughout remained the "Horus in the Palace." The king himself could "be made responsible for political and cultural measures" and so might be condemned by future rulers, as was the fate of Akhenaten. More commonly the titulary of a king's successor might imply criticism of his predecessor.

Eileen Hirsh deals with "The Residences of Senwosret I" based on textual evidence including that from the white chapel of Senwosret, which mentions buildings associated with the king which were spread widely within Egypt. She presents different models by which such data can be interpreted, based on a single center, two centers, or multiple centers.

Peter Lacovara considers 'The Development of the New Kingdom Royal Palace." In a paper well illustrated with plans from his The New Kingdom Royal City (1997), he reviews the variety and types of palace found at major New Kingdom sites and makes it clear that the "catchall" term "palace" is inadequate to deal with the variety of structures known, whose functions need to be considered in some detail.

In "The Residence in Relations between Places of Knowledge, Production and Power," Stephen Quirke makes the point that the term "residence" is inexact, that a ruler might have.several living places but only one of these might be regarded as his main "home" (although even that term is not sufficiently specific). The bow, often translated as 'residence', is in fact very specific and unilocal--it is the "unique place of kingship" and can be contrasted with the term 'palace', of which there might be several at any one time.

"Rank and Favour at the Early Ramesside Court" is the subject of the paper by Christine Raedler and deals with the officials who served pharaoh and their desire to find favor with him. Something of the "fear" inspired by the king and referred to by Gnirs is to be found here in the request from the viceroy Setau to Amun-Ra to keep him eloquent in the presence of the king. Through eloquence and efficiency an official might gain and develop royal favor and so his standing at court. Such favored officials might be honored from the lips of pharaoh when their names were called at reward ceremonies such as that for Nebwenenef, whom Ramesses II proclaimed high priest of Amun at Thebes. This proclamation from the Window of Appearance is recorded in Nebwenenef's tomb (TT157) at Thebes.

Maarten Raven provides an excellent review of the concept of the "capital" in his "Aspects of the Memphite Residence." He notes that "neither the presence of the royal necropolis nor that of the national shrine was decisive for an Egyptian capital" during the Early Dynastic period. He goes on to demonstrate the many problems associated with the concept of the "residence" and the "capital." He notes too that although New Kingdom Memphis may "have been the residence city par excellence" it may be unlikely that the actual residence structure will ever be recovered, having probably been lost beneath later building.

"The Palaces of el-Amarna" are treated by Kate Spence, who discusses a variety of views of palaces before presenting her own ideas derived from her doctoral research. She highlights the importance of different ways of approaching the king as determined by the palace architecture. Palaces are thus divided into axial, non-axial, and semi-axial types. She also provides an interesting discussion of the location(s) of the Window of Appearance at Amarna, which is always shown as being not on the exterior of the building but within a courtyard. She believes that foundations excavated at the North Palace at Amarna could be those of a Window of Appearance, as suggested by its original excavator in a 1926 paper. This may not be the only such Window in the city, and other locations, including a palatial structure within the Great Aten Temple, are discussed.

For me, one of the most striking aspects of this collection of papers is that together they make a real attempt to blend traditional aspects of Egyptology with aspects of archaeology and archaeological theory to provide what becomes a contribution to "Egyptological theory." This is a wholly desirable trend, as the discipline should not simply repeat the theoretical models devised by archaeologists but should--indeed must--develop its own brand of theory which takes account of the fact that pharaonic Egypt is not a prehistoric culture. Egyptology has access to written text and this text must be incorporated alongside archaeology into explicitly Egyptological theory. Models devised by scholars of European prehistory are not necessarily well suited to the study of a civilisation rich in both literary and material culture.

The text also emphasizes the difficulty in correctly interpreting ancient terms and rendering them into contemporary language: "residence," "palace," "capital," and even "home" are not the straightforward concepts which we might like them to be. Similarly, the interpretation of artistic evidence and its reconciliation with archaeological remains can be difficult, as demonstrated by the discussion raised by several authors of aspects of the Window of Appearance.

Overall this is a very readable summary of what was clearly a significant conference and the authors and editors are to be congratulated for producing a book which is accessible to both scholars and students of archaeology and Egyptology. There are some inconsistencies in the presentation of papers, some having references to literature at the end and others in footnotes, but this is a very minor point and does not detract from the volume.

Paul T. Nicholson School of History, Archaeology and Religion Cardiff University