| Article ID: | 1615705 |
|---|
The text is set in a "Year 5", generally taken to be Year 5 of the so-called Renaissance of Pharaoh Ramesses XI , the tenth and last ruler of the Twentieth dynasty of Ancient Egypt ; this was equivalent to Ramesses XI's 19th regnal year. Egberts (1991) argues, however, that the story is set in the 5th regnal year of Smendes I , the Delta -based founder of the 21st Dynasty . As this latter view assumes the High Priest Herihor followed Piankh (their relative order is normally reversed), it has not found wide acceptance among Egyptologist s.
The story begins with its principle character, Wenamun, a priest of Amun at Karnak , being sent by the High Priestof Amun Herihor to the Phoenicia n city of Byblos to acquire lumber (probably cedar wood) to build a new ship to transport the cult image of Amun. After visiting Smendes at Tanis , Wenamun stopped at the port of Dor ruled by the Tjeker prince Beder , where he was robbed. Upon reaching Byblos, he was shocked by the hostile reception he received there. When he finally gained an audience with Zakar-Baal, the local king, the latter refused to give the requested goods for free, as had been the traditional custom, instead demanding payment. Wenamun had to send to Smendes for payment, a humiliating move which demonstrates the waning of Egypt ian power over the Eastern Mediterranean . After a wait of almost a year at Byblos, Wenamun attempted to leave for Egypt, only to be blown off course to Alashiya ( Cyprus ), where he was almost killed by an angry mob before placing himself under the protection of the local queen, who he called Hatbi. At this point the story breaks off, though presumably Wenamun did eventually return to Egypt after his various adventures.
It was once widely believed that the Story of Wenamunwas an actual historical account, written by Wenamun as a report regarding his travels. However, literary analysis conducted by Egyptologists since the 1980s (Helck 1986) indicates that it is a work of historical fiction , a view now generally accepted by most professionals working on the text. For details, see Baines 1999; Scheepers 1992; Egberts 2001; Sass 2002; Schipper 2005. In general, the literary character of the text is summed up by Egberts (2001:495) as being apparent from the sophisticated plot , the rhetoric and irony of the dialogues, the imagery , and the underlaying reflection on political, theological, and cultural issues. Specific grammatical features also point to the literary nature of the text. Moreover, the palaeography of the text points to a 22nd Dynasty date for its composition (Caminos 1977:3; Helck 1986:1215), as well as a number of anachronism s more reflective of a post-20th or 21st dynasty time frame (Sass 2002; Sass specifically states it was written during the reign of Shoshenq I ). However, because the text is based on a historical framework, it remains highly useful to historians for the study of the late New Kingdom and early Third Intermediate Period who often treat the text as a primary source of the late 20th Dynasty. (It should be noted that the Story of Wenamunwas discovered with another historical fiction, the so-called Tale of Woe Papyrus Pushkin 127 , which takes the form of an imaginative letter as a vehicle to convey a narrative; see Caminos 1977 for discussion of both works.)