Social, Cultural, and Political

Hierarchies in “The Tale of Sinuhe”


Mattias Karlsson
 Social, Cultural, and Political Hierarchies in “The Tale of Sinuhe”

  ii 
Abstract
Karlsson, Mattias. 2016. Social, Cultural, and Political Hierarchies in “The Tale of
Sinuhe”. Second edition (corrected and enlarged). vi+56 pp. Länna (Sweden):
utgivare Karlsson, Mattias. ISBN: 978-91-637-8243-5.

This study focuses on “The Tale of Sinuhe”. Its overarching aim was to discuss
different kinds of hierarchies in the tale, while the precise aim was to describe how
(power) relationships between the officials, the deities, the king, the people, “the
foreign lands” (high and low), and women (high and low, and of all ethnicities) are
portrayed in the tale and in other, related primary sources. The analysis was made
through a philological investigation and with the aid of certain keyconcepts (such as
status, function, and theme) and theories (such as gender- and postcolonial theory).
As for the power relationships where the official is the active part, Sinuhe displays
blind loyalty towards the king and submission towards the deities. In his relation to
the foreign lands, Sinuhe develops from being helpless to governing. In the power
relationships where the king is the active part, the king displays a duty to provide
towards Sinuhe, he is both pictured as an equal and as a human being (although a very
special one) in relation to the deities, and he appears as both a universal and regional
ruler in relation to the foreign lands. In the power relationships where the deities are
the active part, the deities are described as paternalistic and thus superior to the king.
The deities decide Sinuhe’s destiny, but they are the actual rulers of the foreign lands
only here and there, testifying more of a regional than universal claim of power.
Regarding the power relationships where the foreign lands are the active part, the
picture is similar and divided into two parts in relation to Sinuhe and the king. On the
one hand the foreign lands are imagined as hopelessly degenerated and culturally
inferior, while on the other hand the foreign lands are described as inferior but not
beyond salvation, provided that there was an Egyptian influence. The almost non-
existent contact from the foreign lands to the deities tells of cultural subordination and
relativism. As for the Egyptian people, they are expected to be obedient and loyal
towards the officials and the king, while they in their turn are the beneficiaries of
“vertical solidarity”. Concerning the power relationships of women, women appear as
subordinate to men. Goddesses and court women make up special cases, but even they
can be seen as subordinate in comparisons with their male equivalents. Moving from
sex to gender, the masculine dominates the feminine. By contrast, the latter
symbolizes anonymity, passivity, physical weakness, and (passive) reproduction.

Keywords: Sinuhe, literature, ideology, propaganda

© Mattias Karlsson 2016

ISBN: 978-91-637-8243-5

  iii 
Table of Contents

Preface v
List of illustrations vi

1. Introduction 1
1.1 Sinuhe and his times 1
1.2 Aims of the study 2
1.3 Earlier research 2
1.4 Material 4
1.4.1 Résumé of The Tale of Sinuhe 4
1.4.2 The Tale of Sinuhe, literature, and ideology 6
1.4.3 Other primary sources 7
1.5 Method and theory 8

2. Social, cultural, and political hierarchies in The Tale of Sinuhe 11

2.1 Sinuhe/the Egyptian officials in relation to the others 11
2.1.1 The being and doing of Sinuhe/the officials in relation to the king 11
2.1.2 The being and doing of Sinuhe/the officials in relation to the deities 13
2.1.3 The being and doing of Sinuhe/the officials in relation to the foreign lands 14
2.1.4 Summary 16
2.2 The Egyptian king in relation to the others 16
2.2.1 The being and doing of the king in relation to Sinuhe/the officials 16
2.2.2 The being and doing of the king in relation to the deities 18
2.2.3 The being and doing of the king in relation to the foreign lands 20
2.2.4 Summary 22
2.3 The Egyptian deities in relation to the others 22
2.3.1 The being and doing of the deities in relation to Sinuhe/the officials 22
2.3.2 The being and doing of the deities in relation to the king 24
2.3.3 The being and doing of the deities in relation to the foreign lands 25
2.3.4 Summary 27
2.4 The foreign lands in relation to the others 27
2.4.1 The being and doing of the foreign lands in relation to Sinuhe/the officials 27
2.4.2 The being and doing of the foreign lands in relation to the king 29
2.4.3 The being and doing of the foreign lands in relation to the deities 30
2.4.4 Summary 31
2.5 The Egyptian people and women in relation to the others 31
2.5.1 The being and doing of the people in relation to Sinuhe/the officials 31
2.5.2 The being and doing of the people in relation to the king and the deities 33
2.5.3 Hierarchy and sex 34
2.5.4 Hierarchy and gender 36
2.5.5 Summary 37

3. General summary 38

4. List of references 41

5. Index and appendix 48

5.1 Discussed lines of The Tale of Sinuhe 48
5.2 Additions to the “Sinuhe-bibliography” 52

6. Illustrations 54

  iv 
Preface
This study was originally intended to serve as a master’s thesis in Egyptology at the
University of Copenhagen. It was later revised to serve as a freestanding research
piece, and was finally published in 2015, both on paper and digitally (on Academia,
academia.edu, and in the database of Uppsala University Library, diva-portal.org).
The present work is a revised edition of the book that was published in 2015.
The revisions in question are of three different types. One type is that of
corrections, mostly of language. A second type is that of clarifications, in the sense of
changing uncertain parts of the text in order to clarify a point. A third type is that of
polishing. I have made some stylistic changes, e.g. in the rearrangement of the table
of contents, the removing of underlined headings, and the reformatting of the list of
references. In the same pursuit of polishing the first edition, I have also added some
illustrations, and I have (quite logically) translated my Swedish abstract into English.

  v 
List of illustrations
Figure 1: An excerpt from Papyrus Berlin 3022
Figure 2: A picture of Senwosret I
Figure 3: The pyramid of Amenemhat I
Figure 4: A picture of Amenemhat I with the gods
Figure 5: Maps related to the tale

  vi 
1. Introduction
This book centres on the famous literary piece The Tale of Sinuhe and the different
kinds of power relations (social, cultural, political) expressed in it. The first chapter of
this work begins with some notes on the literary hero Sinuhe, it goes on with stating
the aims of the study, and continues with an overview of earlier research. Therefter,
some sections deal with the material of the study, while giving a résumé of the tale,
discussing the literary status and nature of the tale, and presenting other related
primary sources. The chapter ends with a section on method and theory.

1.1 Sinuhe and his times

The Tale of Sinuhe is generally considered a masterpiece of Egyptian literature
(Simpson 1984, Lichtheim 2006: 222, Parkinson 2009: 2). It belongs to those texts
from ancient Egypt which are known also by a wider public, albeit in an indirect,
adapted form. The award-winning novel “Sinuhe, The Egyptian” by Mika Waltari
(1990) is based on the character of Sinuhe, although being placed in a later period in
Egyptian history. His book was later the basis of the high-budget Hollywood movie
“The Egyptian” from 1954.1 Although the two Sinuhe (the one in the ancient sources
and the one in Waltari’s adaptation) differ quite a lot, the character of Sinuhe remains
legendary. Also the Egyptian Noble prize-winner Naguib Mahfouz (2002) has found
inspiration from the ancient tale, and written a piece on the basis of it. Some biblical
scholars compare Sinuhe with the patriarchs of the Old Testament (e.g. Bárta 2003).
Sinuhe is “a resourceful man of his times, a prototype of the proper official at a
time of rising prosperity in Egypt and its relations abroad” (Simpson 2003: 54). In the
ancient tale, Sinuhe describes in first person himself as a courtier working for king
Amenemhat I (fig. 4) and the princess Nefru.2 After overhearing a message regarding
the death of the king not meant for his ears, he flees from Egypt, and makes a name
for himself in the Levant, experiencing foreign customs. In his mature age, he longs
for his homeland, and his urgings are fulfilled when receiving a royal amnesty from
the new king Senwosret I (fig. 2) that makes it possible for him to return to Egypt as a
respected person. As noted by Parkinson (2009: 21-26), the tale and Sinuhe’s actions
are full of tensions between the ideal and the actual, it changes freely from one
literary genre to another, and it even contains inner monologues. The tale is in other
words a much complex and multi-faceted work well worthy of yet another study.3
The Tale of Sinuhe is dated to the early Middle Kingdom (2010-1875)4, to a time
when Egypt underwent major socio-cultural changes, reflected not the least in the
preserved literature, and telling of an emerging “middle class” in life and of a
“democratization of the afterlife” in death (Parkinson 1996).5 Historic-politically, it
was a time of change too, with the 12th dynasty-kings reestablishing royal authority
throughout Egypt after the politically decentralized First Intermediate period (2125-
2010) (Quirke 1991b). The founders (and co-regents) of this dynasty, Amenemhat I
(1938-1908) and Senwosret I (1918-1875), created a new political capital with the
                                                        
1
This movie was nominated for an Oscar. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Egyptian_(film).
2
For a fuller résumé of the tale, see subsection 1.4.1.
3
For a presentation of earlier research, see section 1.3.
4
All dates given in this study follow the chronology and king list presented in Wilkinson 2010b: xvii-
xxiv. They all of course signify “Before the Common Era” (BCE) and are all approximate.
5
As for the relevant dating, it may be noted though that the earliest preserved manuscripts of the tale
are dated as late as to the reign of Amenemhat III (1818-1770) (Parkinson 2009: 21).

  1 
name Itj-Tawi (modern El-Lisht) (fig. 5), distant from the new centre Thebes but near
the old capital Memphis (Wildung 1984). A new royal necropolis was established in
Itj-Tawi (fig. 3). The social, cultural, and political hierarchies were renegotiated from
Old Kingdom-times (2650-2125), as a result of the troubled experiences of the First
Intermediate period, bringing in “a dark side to perfection” (Parkinson 2002).

1.2 Aims of the study

In an initial and surveying stage of this work process, I noticed that The Tale of
Sinuhe focuses a lot on (power) relationships of various kinds. Most prominently,
Sinuhe’s relationships with the foreign lands (high and low) and the Egyptian king are
focal points, but also the divine sphere’s bonds to and interactions with Sinuhe and
the Egyptian king are often centred on. Two other groups of people, i.e. women (high
and low) and the Egyptian people, and their relationships with Sinuhe and the others
are also told of in the tale, although sparingly. The low profile of these groups is of
course telling and interesting in itself. The much debated issues of royal deification,
Egyptian “nationalism” or xenophobia, and the status of women in Egyptian society
are highlighted in this dimension of the tale, focusing on power relationships.
Deriving from this reasoning, the overarching aim of this book is to identify and
discuss social, cultural, and political hierarchies in The Tale of Sinuhe. The narrower
aim of this study, functioning as a means to fulfill the overarching one, is to describe
how the relationships (in terms of power) between Sinuhe/the Egyptian officials, the
Egyptian deities, the Egyptian king, the Egyptian people, “the foreign lands” (high
and low), and women (high and low and of all ethnicities) are portrayed in The Tale
of Sinuhe and in the context of other related primary sources.6 As will be apparent
below, the disposition of the discussion chapter (see ch. 2) follows this narrower aim
which focuses on the six agents, or “units of analysis”, in question.

1.3 Earlier research

7
The Tale of Sinuhe has been much studied by Egyptologists, something which the
extensive Sinuhe-Bibliographie gathered by Lüscher and Lapp (2014-10-08) tells of.
Several scholars have centred on publishing the text (e.g. Koch 1990), and/or on
translating the text (e.g. Simpson 2003, Lichtheim 2006, Parkinson 2009).
Some scholars have tried to understand the tale as a whole, others have focused on
individual aspects of it. The former approach has been pursued e.g. by Baines (1982),
Kitchen (1996), and Spalinger (1998) in their respective articles on hermeneutic
methodology concerning this specific tale, and seemingly also in the recently
published anthology on The Tale of Sinuhe edited by Hays et al. (2014).
As for the works which target specific aspects of the tale, not so few have had a
philological angle, focusing on the narrative’s language (e.g. Foster 1982-83). Others
have highlighted the structure of the text, focusing on the literary aspects of the tale
(e.g. Assmann 1983). These works are generally not interested in the tale per se.

                                                        
6
For these other related primary sources and the methodology of this book, see 1.4.3 and 1.5.
7
The following presentation of earlier research is nowhere from complete, but is simply meant to give
an overall picture, suitable for this delimited study. For a fuller overview, see the Sinuhe-Bibliographie,
and notably Loprieno 1988 (on Egyptian “nationalism” or xenophobia), Robins 1993 (on the status of
Egyptian women), and O’Connor and Silverman 1995a (on royal deification).

  2 
 Regarding works which target specific areas of the tale and which are indeed
interested in the tale per se, the topic of Sinuhe’s relationship with the divine sphere
belongs to those topics which have been well covered in earlier research (e.g. Parant
1982, Donadoni 1986, Barta 1990, Blumenthal 1998, Goedicke 2000). The related
aspect of the pantheon pictured in the tale has also been discussed (Yoyotte 1964).
A related topic focuses on the transformation which Sinuhe undergoes while
leaving the foreign lands and returning to Egypt (e.g. Westendorf 1977). Goedicke
(1990) even refers to a “self-realization” on the part of Sinuhe. Not far away from this
topic, Stadnikow (1993) highlights the aspect of free will, and in the anthology edited
by Hofmann et al. (2003) the aspect of altruism in the tale is investigated.
Other scholars have centred on Sinuhe’s relationship with various foreigners.
Allam (1986) and Goedicke (1984-85) e.g. discuss the foreign wife whom Sinuhe was
given, while Derchain (1985) and Schneider (2002) focus on Sinuhe’s relationship
with the Palestine ruler who adopted him, and Kitchen (1994) highlights Sinuhe’s
relationships with foreigners in general. Yet other works have paid attention to the
tale’s geographic (e.g. Morenz 1997b, Moers 2001) and ethnographic (e.g.
Vandersleyen 1974, Westendorf 1986) descriptions of the foreign lands.
Linked to the topic of Sinuhe’s relations with the foreign lands is the frequently
discussed fight between Sinuhe and a Palestinian giant fighter. Numerous scholars,
many from outside the discipline, have tried to understand this duel, among them
Behrens (1981), Blumenthal (1983), Goedicke (1984a), and Fischer-Elfert (1996).
Parallels to the fight between David and Goliath have been made (e.g. Bárta 2003).
The interaction between Sinuhe and the Egyptian king has been a special topic
here. Goedicke (1965) and Barns (1967) have both centred on Sinuhe’s reaction to the
royal pardon which he receives in Palestine. The lyrical praising of the Egyptian king
which Sinuhe gives in front of various people has also been subject of analysis (e.g.
de Buck 1939, Goedicke 1985). The sayings and happenings when Sinuhe, after
having returned to Egypt, faces the Egyptian king (with his queen and princesses) at
court have also been much researched on from various angles (e.g. Brunner 1955,
Derchain 1970, Théodoridès 1984, Morenz 1997a, Goedicke 1998).
Related to the topic of Sinuhe’s relations with the Egyptian king is the much
debated issue of the sudden and somewhat inexplicable flight of Sinuhe after
accidently hearing of the death of Amenemhat I. Several scholars have attempted to
explain why Sinuhe fled in this hasty manner or at all (e.g. Wessetzky 1963, Goedicke
1984b, Tobin 1995, Obsomer 1999, Morschauser 2000, Feder 2003).
The Tale of Sinuhe has influenced some major works on the culture, literature, and
history of (Middle Kingdom) Egypt. It is often referred to in the classical work on
m3‘t by Assmann (1990), and it is also frequently referred to in the influential work
on poetry and culture in the Middle Kingdom by Parkinson (2002). The tale has also
been used to elucidate the early political history of Middle Kingdom Egypt, focusing
on the transfer of authority from the murdered king Amenemhat I to his son (who is
on the throne in the tale) Senwosret I (e.g. Wildung 1984, Jansen-Winkeln 1991).
Leaving the narrow research field of The Tale of Sinuhe, a few words on earlier
research in relation to the issues of royal deification, Egyptian “nationalism” or
xenophobia, and the status of women in ancient Egypt need to be said, naturally
because of this book’s preoccupation with these hotly debated issues.8

                                                        
8
The below presentation of earlier research in these areas is meant to give an idea of the ongoing
discussions, and I do not claim that this presentation is exhaustive in any way.

  3 
 As for royal deification and earlier research, the notion that the Egyptian king
presented himself as a divine being was long held in Egyptology (e.g. Frankfort
1948). Now Egyptologists have arguably paid more attention to how much the chosen
type of sources directs the results in this research area. Earlier on, religious and
monumental inscriptions were highlighted, but now many scholars tend to look at
more mundane sources, and these paint another picture (Silverman 1995: 49-50).
Goedicke (1960) and Posener (1960) belong to those who represent this shift,
focusing much on literature and archival texts. Although looking at propaganda
material, Barta (1975) still talks of the temporary, derived, and conditional nature of
the king’s divinity as Horus on the throne. Nowadays, the discussion tends to focus on
aspects and degrees, questioning the binary dichotomy of human/divine, as expressed
in various anthologies (O’Connor and Silverman 1995a, Hill et al. 2013a). The idea
that the king was regarded as a god when dead seems however generally accepted,
being an important component of the myths of kingship (Goebs 2010: 284-85).
As for Egyptian “nationalism” and xenophobia, these phenomena have also been
“truths” in Egyptological research (Loprieno 1988: 1-13). It is possible that, once
again, the tendency of looking at religious and monumental inscriptions has distorted
the image. In propaganda texts, it is only natural for the king to belittle his opponents.
Assmann (1996a), who looks at a broad range of and not so high-profiled texts, rather
see family, city, and nome as the main identities of Egyptians. Arguably, in this
unfortunate emphasis on propaganda texts with their unbalanced picture (Tyson Smith
2010), modern notions of “nationalism” and “racism” may also have played a role.
As for the status of Egyptian women and earlier research, the notion that Egyptian
women enjoyed a comparatively high status in Egyptian society has emerged as
another kind of accepted “truth”. This notion relates both to women in general
(Robins 1993) and queens specifically (Troy 1986). Nevertheless, the idea that
Egyptian women, evaluated as “good” or “bad”, after all lived in a male-dominated
society and operated under its laws has simultaneously been recognized (Troy 1984).

1.4 Material
In this section, I will firstly present the tale in résumé form, then discuss it in terms of
a literary and political piece, and finally present other relevant primary sources.

1.4.1 Résumé of The Tale of Sinuhe

The Tale of Sinuhe has been preserved on numerous but fragmentary pieces of papyri
and ostraca, arguably attesting to its great popularity in ancient Egypt. Departing from
the eldest manuscripts dated to the reign of Amenemhat III around 1800 BCE, the
youngest copies indicate that it was read for at least 750 years (Parkinson 2009: 21).
Combining all these fragmentary sources, the tale has luckily been preserved in full.
There are two main manuscripts for The Tale of Sinuhe. Firstly, there is Papyrus
Berlin 3022 (abbreviated B) which dates to the twelth dynasty and which lacks the
very beginning of the story but contains a total of 311 lines (fig. 1). Secondly, there is
Papyrus Berlin 10499 (abbreviated R) which dates to the end of the Middle Kingdom
and which has the beginning of the story preserved but contains a more modest
number of 203 lines. A third major copy is found on a large ostracon from Oxford,
referred to as “The Ashmolean Ostracon of Sinuhe”, which provides 130, partly
incomplete, lines. This copy is however regarded as inferior in quality, and is dated to

  4 
the 19th dynasty (1292-1190). Additionally, small portions of the tale are preserved
on papyrus fragments and on numerous pieces of ostraca (Lichtheim 2006: 222-23).
Regarding the structure of The Tale of Sinuhe, the manuscripts consist of 335 lines
(R1-24, then B1-311), and these are then further divided into fourty “stanzas” and into
five “concentric groups” or parts (Assmann 1983, Parkinson 2009: 22). The tale is
also contentwise structured, based on the shifting of genre, developing out of a
“funerary autobiography” to “narratives of conquest and combat”, “eulogies of the
king”, “a royal decree”, “meditiative prayers”, “ceremonial lyrics”, and in the end
returning to the mortuary, autobiographical sphere (Parkinson 2009: 21-22).
The first portion of the tale, and the beginning of the first part, starts with the titles
and self-presentation of Sinuhe (R1-5), followed by a reference to the death of the
reigning king Amenemhat I (R5-11). Then a narrative starts which places Sinuhe on a
royal expedition (led by the crown prince Senwosret I) in Libya. The heir is informed
and rushes back to the palace to take up the throne, while Sinuhe accidently overhears
the news of the king’s death from the mouth of a royal messenger (R11-B5). Sinuhe
embarks on a panicing flight without a clear direction (B5-21). Eventually he ends up,
after having sneaked through the Egyptian border, in the Palestinian desert where he
collapses out of thirst but is rescued by a nomadic, Asiatic chief who provides for him
(B21-28). Sinuhe then travels in the Levant from city to city, whereupon he is taken
by force to “the ruler of upper Retjenu9” Amunenshi10 and his court (B28-34).
The second part focuses on the conversation between Sinuhe and Amunenshi.
Amunenshi asks Sinuhe why the latter had went into exile, and Sinuhe gives a
cautious answer of “half-truths”11 (iwms)12 as for the events in Egypt (B34-43). Upon
Amunenshi’s question on the new reigning king, Sinuhe bursts out in a long, praising
euology of Senwosret I (B43-75). Amunenshi’s brief, diplomatic answer is followed
by Sinuhe’s narrative of how he was installed as ruler of one of Amunenshi’s main
tribes, given Amunenshi’s daughter as wife, and granted a luxurious life (B75-91).
The third part of the tale centres on the life of Sinuhe in this new environment. He
raises a family, and is sent out on successful military missions by his new overlord
(B91-109). Eventually “a hero of Retjenu”, appearantly a great fighter, comes along
and triggers Sinuhe to engage in a duel, defending his new community. Sinuhe comes
out as the victor and is embraced by Amunenshi (B109-147). Then what seems like an
inner, prayer-like monologue is expressed, in which Sinuhe is longing to return to his
homeland and be pardoned (even if stating his innocence) by Senwosret I for his
flight away from the court (B147-173). A statement that the king miraculously heard
of Sinuhe’s condition and sent a message to him ends this part (B173-177).
The fourth part of the tale highlights the correspondence between Sinuhe and the
Egyptian king. Firstly, a “copy of the decree brought to this humble servant (Sinuhe)
about his being brought back to Egypt” is given in which the king welcomes Sinuhe
back home, stating the latter’s innocence, stressing that the exile of Sinuhe was self-
inflicted, and that Sinuhe should age and die in Egypt (B178-204). Sinuhe jubilates,
and a “copy of the reply to this decree” is given in which he praises the king in a

                                                        
9
This locality refers to a part of Palestine and Syria (Simpson 2003: 57, n. 8).
10
This name is an Egyptianized version of an Amorite name (Simpson 2003: 56, n. 7).
11
Speaking generally, if not stated otherwise, I out of convenience follow the translation of Parkinson
(2009: 27-43). Philological notes will be made in the footnotes throughout the study. Lichtheim (2006:
225) has the same translation of this term, while Simpson (2003: 57) uses the word “equivocally”.
12
A clear indication of this word’s negative connotations is the occasionally attested (Hannig 2009: 33)
so-called “bad bird”-determinative (i.e. sign G37 in the standard sign list of Gardiner).

  5 
lengthy and highflown manner while stating his own innocence (B204-238). The
concluding portion of this part tells of his heading for Egypt (B238-243).
The concluding, fifth part of the tale focuses on Sinuhe’s return to Egypt. Firstly
some notes on the arrival in Egypt and to the capital of El-Lisht are given (B243-247).
Sinuhe is summoned to court and meets the king, the queen, and the royal children.
He is assured of his innocence in the eyes of the king who is encouraged in his stance
by the rest of the royal family whose female members even make a performance
which apparently seeked to fill the king with mercy (B248-279). The story ends with
Sinuhe’s telling that he was granted high titles, a luxurious life-style, and great burial
preparations by the orders of the king (B279-309). His final words articulate well the
tale’s happy ending: “I was in the favours of the king’s giving until the day of landing
(i.e. death) came” (iw.i ẖr ḥswt dit nsw ḫr iwt hrw n mnit°)13 (B309-310).

1.4.2 The Tale of Sinuhe, literature, and ideology

According to Parkinson (2009: 3, 21-22), who have studied Middle Kingdom writings
extensively, Egyptian literature can be distinguished from other texts, such as e.g.
autobiographies, and historical inscriptions, due to its component of fiction. This of
course places The Tale of Sinuhe firmly within the domain of literature, while the
clearly fictive parts of it reveal its status of a pseudo-funerary autobiography. Among
other identified hallmarks of literature are (lack of) function (Allen 2010) and
intertextuality (Loprieno 1996c), similarly confirming this tale’s status as literature.
After having stated that the issue of literary genres in ancient Egypt is complex and
culturally specific, Parkinson (2009: 7-8) comes to the conclusion that the Middle
Kingdom literary canon consisted of three main genres, namely of the narrative (or
“tale”), and of two distinct sorts of “wisdom texts”, namely the “teaching” (sb3yt) and
the “discourse” (mdt).14 As for the teachings, they are didactic and prescriptive, while
discourses, which also include e.g. “dialogues”, are more reflective in character.
There was “a great interweaving” of genres within texts. As for classifying texts,
Parkinson (2009: 12) also sees a distinction between a “culturally central, high
tradition” (represented e.g. by The Teaching of the Vizier Ptahhotep) and a “culturally
peripheral, low tradition” (represented e.g. by The Tale of King Cheops’ Court).
As for the genesis of this Middle Kingdom literature, Parkinson (1996, 2009: 6)
argues that it evolved through social changes which created the class of “free
commoners” who were wealthy and had a respect and interest for intellectual, literary
feats. The “secular mode of discourse” and the “physical mobility” (as evidenced
through excavations) of the literary works arguably underline this idea that wealthy
and intellectual individuals sponsored literary creation, out of their own amusement,
and largely irrespective of state interference (Parkinson 2009: 3, 13-17). At the same
time, this literature activity was a thing for the real, traditional elite. Wisdom texts e.g.
were both written by and meant for members of this elite (such as viziers), and all
literature had to some extent the status of “court poetry” (Parkinson 2009: 7, 13-14).
Regarding the nature and function of this Middle Kingdom literature, there are
varying stances. On the one hand, there are scholars who have noticed the loyalistic
tendencies of the works and therefore talk of propaganda (e.g. Posener 1957), and on
                                                        
13
In the transcriptions of this book, I sometimes dare to “correct” the ancient scribes, i.e. when there
are obvious scribal errors. These corrections are marked with the sign °. When papyrus B has lacunae
or when it lacks elaborations, other relevant manuscripts (papyri R and AOS) are referred to. I use the
clearer, smoother, and traditional transcriptional style, attested e.g. in Englund 1995.
14
As for The Tale of Sinuhe, Simpson (2003: 4) regards it more as a teaching than as a tale.

  6 
the other hand, there are those who focus on the works as pure literature (e.g.
Parkinson 2009). Talking of his studying of “cultural poetics” and dismissing what he
refers to as “old historicists”, Parkinson (2009: 13-17) argues that the propaganda
angle is “reductive”, and notices the differences between the relevant works and royal
inscriptions, e.g. by claiming that the latter never refer to a king’s fallability while the
former do so, and that while royal inscriptions strive for “permanent perfection to
eternity”, the literature instead looks for “eternity through humanity”. At the same
time, Parkinson (2009: 6-7, 16) admits that Middle Kingdom literature was court
poetry and a thing for the elite, and he also arrives at the conclusion that “nowhere is
there any trace of intellectual rebellion or dissent”. Although containing descriptions
of chaos, the social norms and order (revolving around m3‘t) are always confirmed. A
similar approach is taken by Assmann (1996b) who regards the Middle Kingdom
literature as “cultural texts” and as expressing the self-image of the Egyptians.
Although the questioning of the relevant works as propaganda is surely legitimate,
the circumstance that these were a thing for the elite as well as ultimately reassuring
the existing societal norms do in itself tell of their propagating character. They were
both written from, and had the perspective from, “above”. Consequently, it is not far-
fetched to talk of propaganda and state ideology, especially since every state, whether
ancient or modern, has a ruling class (not only consisting of the leader) which has a
great interest in affirming and naturalizing the socio-economic-political order which
works for their benefit (Althusser 1971). Perhaps, Middle Kingdom literature had the
function of complementing royal inscriptions and iconography in that the former
could “contain” the criticism which inevitably follows the act of governing.
In any case, there should be agreement on the stance that the contents in Middle
Kingdom literature represent only a small portion of the population, unsurprisingly
those in positions of power.15 Seeing the textual works under study here as pure
literature is just as bad and reductive as regarding them solely as pieces of
propaganda. As recognized also by Simpson (1996), the preserved high-end literature
from ancient Egypt should not be viewed as either belles lettres or propaganda. This
text corpus was the result both of propagating motives and estethic considerations.
Thus, it is surely legitimate to talk of a “literature of propaganda” (Simpson 2003: 5).

1.4.3 Other primary sources

Other related literary pieces can naturally aid in understanding The Tale of Sinuhe.
These sources are here considered as “minor” while the latter is a “major” primary
source. Regarding the selection of these minor primary sources, I found that
Parkinson had already made a selection suitable also for my purposes. In his book
“The Tale of Sinuhe and Other Ancient Egyptian Poems, 1940-1640 BC”, he
translates and comments on twelve other tales, discourses, and teachings (and gives
fragments of other, less well-preserved works). The texts chosen are “those literary
works from Middle Kingdom Egypt that are not too obscured by problems of
preservation, textual corruption, or philological difficulties” (Parkinson 2009: ix).
As for these other tales, “The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant” deals with a robbed
peasant’s search for justice and good government (Parkinson 2009: 54-88), “The Tale
of the Shipwrecked Sailor” focuses on the adventures of a sailor tied to the Egyptian
court (Parkinson 2009: 89-101), and “The Tale of King Cheops’ Court” is a cycle of
                                                        
15
Less than one percent of the Egyptian population is estimated to have been literate. However, as also
noted by Parkinson (2009: 7), an oral background of stories can be presumed, even though he himself
believes that the works under study here were restricted to writing and the court.

  7 
tales, focusing on “wonders from the fabulous past” (Parkinson 2009: 102-27). These
literary pieces are all characterized by their adventures and optimistic tone.
Regarding dicourses, “The Words of Neferti” is a prophecy delivered by an Old
Kingdom wise man named Neferti (Parkinson 2009: 131-43), “The Words of
Khakheperreseneb” is “a reflective monologue spoken by a priest to his own
unresponsive heart” (Parkinson 2009: 144-50), “The Dialogue of a Man and His
Soul” is “an internal dialogue between a living man and his own soul” (Parkinson
2009: 151-65), and “The Dialogue of Ipuur and the Lord of All” is a description of
social woes to “a generalized representative of authority” (Parkinson 2009: 166-99).
These literary pieces are all marked by a reoccuring sceptical, pessimistic tone.
Turning to the teachings, “The Teaching of King Amenemhat” is a posthumous
teaching spoken by the said king to his son and successor Senwosret I (Parkinson
2009: 203-11), “The Teaching for King Merikare” is a teaching spoken by a king
Khety of the tenth Heracleopolitan dynasty to his son and designated heir Merikare
(Parkinson 2009: 212-34), “The ‘Loyalist’ Teaching” is a teaching of an anonymous
man to his children focusing on how to be in Egyptian society (Parkinson 2009: 235-
45), “The Teaching of the Vizier Ptahhotep” is purportedly spoken by a fifth dynasty
vizier of the same name to his son regarding how to be as a human being and as an
official (Parkinson 2009: 246-72), while “The Teaching of Khety”, sometimes
referred to as “The Satire on Trades”, is a teaching by a man named Khety to his son
regarding the great value in the scribal profession (and the low value of any other
profession), a teaching later much used in scribal schools (Parkinson 2009: 273-83).
Common to these teachings is their prescriptive and reconfirming tone.
Some fragmentary literary works may also be relevant for this study (Parkinson
2009: 287-96). Among these are “The Tale of Neferkare and Sasenet” focusing on a
homosexual relation between the king and one of his generals, “The Teaching for
Kagemni” communicated between Old Kingdom viziers, and “The Account of the
Sporting King” parts of which are related to “actual royal praise songs”.

1.5 Method and theory

Turning to the methodology of this book, some notes on definitions need to be made.
The so-called “units of analysis” of this work (Sinuhe, the Egyptian deities, the
Egyptian king, and so on) were identified in a surveying stage of the study, based on
their frequent occurences in the tale, except in the case of women and the Egyptian
people which I thought needed to be added in order to get a fair and fuller picture.
I refer to “power” in its traditional sense, focusing on any individual’s or group’s
formal and institutionalized chance of influencing political decision-making, and I
also refer to “hierarchy” in its traditional sense, seeing it as a pyramid-shaped social
structure, as opposed to the evasive notion of “heterarchy”. My subdiving into “social,
cultural, and political” hierarchies covers my discussion on relationships, focusing on
issues such as royal deification, Egyptian “nationalism”, and intersex power relations,
thus paying attention to power structures both inside and outside the state proper.
Regarding the actual carrying out of the analysis, the identified units of analysis
are discussed in terms of their relationships with one another. When discussing these
relationships, I centre on “status” (what someone is/are in relation to another) and
“function” (what someone does/do in relation to another). Ideological, literary
“themes”, such as “the king as the deities’ priest” or “the king offering to the deities”,
emerge in the implementing process of “close reading” which consists of a careful

  8 
reading through of the whole tale, paying full attention to philological (Englund 1990,
Hannig 2009) and cultural historical (e.g. Assmann 1990, Quirke 1991a) details.
Some words on the delimitations of this work also need to be said. Arguably, The
Tale of Sinuhe is an enough long and complex piece to work as the basis of a book.
Other related works are however also relevant. A distinction between major and
minor primary sources is here made. As evident in subsection 1.4.3, there are a
number of similarly dated, well-preserved literary works which can be brought into
the discussion. Iconographical and archaeological data can of course also be relevant,
but these had to be left out considering the restrictive premises of this study.
As noted by the literary theorist Newton (1990), the interpretation of literary texts
is not an easy task, and is full of pitfalls. Texts never “speak for themselves” as some
anti-theoretical scholars seem to claim, but they need to be interpreted, with the
premise that a made interpretation can never be considered final. New material can
emerge, or the Zeitgeist (implying a shift in what “common sense” is) can change,
with the result that the made interpretation is deemed obsolete. The humility with
which one needs to approach a literary text is demonstrated e.g. by Spalinger (1998)
who in his article gives an outline of the various Sinuhe-interpretations over time.
Both Baines (1982) and Kitchen (1996) in their articles focus on the interpretation
of The Tale of Sinuhe, and both seems to arrive at the conclusion that all ideological
baggage must be removed before interpreting. Kitchen critically juxtaposes “scholarly
method” and “trendy fashion” and calls for a return to the text themselves. The false
notion that the texts can speak for themselves seems to be expressed here. Simpson
(2003) earlier on labelled this minimalistic approach as characteristic of what he
refers to as “the new British school” of Egyptian literary studies, to which Parkinson
(2009: x) explicitly adhers, stating in the introduction to one of his works that he
sought “the basic literary meaning” (whatever that is) in his translations.16 He also
recommends “a suspension of modern attitudes” when reading Egyptian literature
(Parkinson 2009: 17), a position which is obviously impossible to enact, since we can
not change ourselves into ancient Egyptians or severe ourselves from our own time.
Generally, claims of having interpreted ancient texts completely objectively,17 without
interference from the thinkings of the modern world can not be taken seriously. As
observed by Simpson (2003: 7) regarding many aspects of the translating of Egyptian
texts, “frequently, a translation is little more than an informed guess”.
In line with a postmodern view on knowledge and research, I would instead defend
the right of existence for theories to be used in the interpretation of also ancient
literary works, provided of course that these theories are suitable (or “valid”) for the
relevant research. To pretend that you are unbiased just because you do not use
theories seems like an outmoded and positivistic idea to me. Furthermore, the caution
that we should not apply modernity upon the ancient world is of course legitimate, but
the distance between ancient and modern times need not let us capitulate and hinder
us from coming as close to the ancient Egyptians as we possibly can. After all, they
were humans like us, they lived on the same planet, and we need not over-relativize.

                                                        
16
This declaration of Parkinson is especially noteworthy considering his extensive and often quite far-
fetched and figurative comments on the Middle Kingdom literary pieces. For example, the messengers
reaching Senwosret I “at nightfall” tells of the symbolic chaos laden in a king’s death, according to
Parkinson (2009: 43, n. 6). By contrast, Lichtheim (2006) both is and claims to be minimalistic.
17
In defence of Parkinson (2009: 17), I must add that he also talks of varying degrees of objectivity.

  9 
 Accordingly, I will take help from some theories in order to understand the tale
better.18 In light of its focus on literature and power, critical theory (sociological
branch) seems appropriate. It views texts as containing signs which tell of the agenda
of the author. All morphemes (philology) and literary phenomena count in this type of
analysis, which highlights the author-reader dynamics (Barthes 1967). Another theory
which I will use is postcolonial theory, much justifiable in light of the topic of
Egyptian-foreign relations. Established as a discipline by Said (1978), but drawing
heavily on literary theory, it sees a stereotyping of “the Other” in a colonialist context,
having the driving force to subjugate the described one. A final theory which I will
use is gender theory. This theory is diverse, carrying several historical “waves”,
normally counted to three. I here subscribe to the third, postmodern wave which
highlights gender (or even sex itself) as a social construction (Bahrani 2001: 14-25).
In my centering also on gender relations, the use of this theory seems self-evident.

                                                        
18
The following characterization of the chosen theories is quite sketchy, but I hope that their basic
ideas will be more apparent to the reader in their usages in the discussion chapter of this study.

  10 
2. Social, cultural, and political hierarchies in The Tale of Sinuhe
This chapter carries discussions closely deriving from the narrower aim of this study
which focuses on the relationship between the identified six units of analysis. The
chapter is subdivided (2.1-5) in line with this identifying. The focusing on women and
the Egyptian people are made together, in a separate section (2.5), due to the relative
scarcity of references to these units of analysis. In the first four sections (2.1-4), the
discussions are each subdivided into four subsections. To exemplify, when focusing
on Sinuhe and the Egyptian officials, I firstly discuss their “beings” (status) and
“doings” (function) in relation to the king, then to the deities and the foreign lands,
and the section then concludes with a short summary. Repetitive discussions are
avoided through consistently reasoning from the perspective of the unit of analysis
who is highlighted in the relevant section. In other words, the centred unit of analysis
is active/agent, not passive/client. The last section on the relationships of women and
the Egyptian people is due to its poorer data organized somewhat differently.

2.1 Sinuhe/the Egyptian officials in relation to the others

In this first discussion section, the relationships of Sinuhe/the Egyptian officials with
the other units of analysis, in which the former are the active part, are identified. I will
argue that there is a fundamental hierarchy between Sinuhe/the Egyptian officials and
the king focusing on loyalty, and that there is a vast and essential hierarchy between
the former and the Egyptian deities. By contrast, the relationship and hierarchy
between Sinuhe/the Egyptian officials and the foreign lands are fluid and complex,
although the main trend is to portray the former as the “bigger” and “better” part.

2.1.1 The being and doing of Sinuhe/the officials in relation to the king

The power relationship between Sinuhe/the officials and the king, in which the former
is the active part, is fundamental and to the advantage of the latter. Sinuhe and the
Egyptian officials are expected to be absolutely loyal and to exercise loyalty without a
moment’s cease. The bonds between the king and his officials are described as very
strong in the sources preserved from ancient Egypt (Parkinson 2002: 64-85). On the
socio-political arena, their relationship is marked by a Konnektive Gerechtigkeit
which prescribed mutualness in the interaction between the two parts, not the least
expressed in the shape of loyalty from the officials (Assmann 1990: 58-91).
Turning to the primary sources, before the death of the reigning king Amenemhat
I, Sinuhe was a “follower” (šmsw) (R2), and he claims that “I was a follower who
followed his lord” (ink šmsw šms nb.f) (R2-3). The mythological and state ideological
concept of the “followers of Horus” (šmsw ḥr) may be alluded to here,19 explicitly
expressed when it is said that “the falcon (i.e. the king) flew off with his followers”
(bik ‘ẖ.f ḥn‘ šmsw.f)20 (R21-22). Sinuhe also claims the status of a “servant of the
royal chambers (and of the queen)” (b3k n ipt nsw)21 (R3), of a “servant of the palace”
(b3k ‘ḥ) (B204), or just of a “servant” (b3k) (B202). He explicitly states that he is
                                                        
19
A title originally connected to the biannual royal tour throughout the country (Goebs 2010: 287-88).
Parkinson (2009: 43, n. 1) however seems to view this Sinuhe-title as modest and unsymbolic.
20
It is interesting that the verb has the sḏm.f-form, thus expressing present tense. Plausibly, this may be
an indication of the late dating of the B-manuscript, heralding Late Egyptian with its perfect sḏm.f
(Foster 1982-83). It is less likely that it here is a matter of the Old Egyptian past narrative tense.
21
It is perhaps telling that the determinative of the first noun is the simple “seated man”-sign (A1).

  11 
willing to serve the queen and her children once again (B171-72). In Sinuhe’s
communication with the new king Senwosret I, he starts to refer to himself as a
“humble servant”22 (b3k im) quite frequently (e.g. B236). His words are “a prayer
from a humble servant to his lord” (nḥ pw n b3k im n nb.f) (B213-14). In spite of his
emphatically declared inferiority to the king, Sinuhe looks back on the life he fled
from with longing (Goedicke 1965, 1985, Barns 1967). As articulated in the tale,
loyalty was well-paid in terms of wealth given by the king (B174-75). This in a way
emphasizes the great role which the officials, or “the elite”, enjoyed in “real life”
during the third millennium BCE and beyond (Bárta 2013, Moreno García 2013).
This loyalty was expected to be maintained in death. After the ruling king’s
passing away, the palace is appropriately described as closed, quiet, and grieving (R8-
11). Still, the way that the king died, namely through murder by the hands of one of
the palace guards (Jansen-Winkeln 1991), and the just described reactions to it, speak
of the horror with which this breach of loyalty to the king was regarded. The effects
from this sacrilegious act are enacted in the palace with its almost cosmic implications
of emptyness, deep calm, and utter purposelessness, as indicated above. At the same
time, Sinuhe is declared innocent in all this “dirty business”. The king says of Sinuhe
that “you (i.e. he) had not cursed” (n w‘3.k) (B183), nor been put to trial in the
officials’ council (B184), while Sinuhe in his turn claims that he was not
“presumptuous”23 (ḳ‘ s3) before (B230), but rather that he was “acknowledged” (rḫ)
in the land (B230-31), undoubtedly as an “upright” individual. He flees from the court
not out of guilt but from fear of the king (B277-78) or out of a divine plan (see 2.3.1).
When hearing of the king’s death, Sinuhe physically collapses (B2-3). After his
recovery, he then flees like “a ruderless barge” (wsḫt nn ḥm.s) and passively gets
“blown by the west wind” ([m] swt n imnty) (B13-14). The crucialness of the king and
of kingship in Egypt (Dodson 2010), at least according to the official sources, is
expressed in Sinuhe’s statement that “I (i.e he) did not think of living after him” (n
ḏd.i ‘nḫ r-gs.f)24 (B7), almost as if the world had ended with the king’s death.
As for loyalty and Sinuhe’s homecoming, Sinuhe “touches the ground” (dhn t3)25
between the sfinxes and in front of the royal children at the entrance to the palace in
El-Lisht (B249-50), clearly telling of an effort to demonstrate humility. When coming
to the audience hall, and facing the king sitting on his throne, Sinuhe prostrates and
explains that he feels “unconscious” (ḫm)26 of himself in front of the king (B252-56),
reminiscent of how he felt when he heard of the previous king’s death. It is as if the
presence of the king affects Sinuhe in a physical, bodily manner, which naturally calls
to mind the episode in which an official by accident touches a royal insignier and gets
severely sick from this (Strudwick 2005). Anyway, Sinuhe proceeds by excusing his
behaviour in front of the king through explaining to him that he did not collapse out
of disrespect but because of the king’s pervading “terror” (ḥrw)27, like the one he felt
when fleeing from Egypt (B262). Sinuhe repeatedly declares that he places his life in
the hands of the king (e.g. B263). The end of the tale clearly reveals that Sinuhe’s
function of loyalty is rewarded plentifully, both in his life and death (B279-310).

                                                        
22
Simpson (2003: 63) and Lichtheim (2006: 231) propose the translation of “this servant”.
23
Literally, “high of back”. Lichtheim (2006: 231) here translates “haughty”, while Simpson (2003:
63) prefers the translation “stubborn”. In any case, the relevant personal quality is a bad one.
24
Once again, the Late Egyptian perfect form seems to be the one used (Foster 1982-83).
25
The verb can have the meaning of “to touch with the forehead” (Hannig 2009: 1057).
26
The determinative of this verb, i.e. the “negation arms” (D35), clearly expresses Sinuhe’s collapse.
27
A determinative of this term, i.e. the “man with the stick” (A24), tells of its coercive nature.

  12 
 As for the relevant theme (i.e. loyalty) in other, related literary works, it may be
problematized in “The Dialogue of Ipuur and the Lord of All” (Parkinson 2009: 166-
99), while it is certainly confirmed in “The ‘Loyalist’ Teaching” where the king is
praised by an official (Parkinson 2009: 235-45), as well as in “The Account of the
Sporting King” with its royal praise songs (Parkinson 2009: 293-95). “Loyalist
instructions” form a vital component of Egyptian literature (Loprieno 1996b). In sum,
loyalty is the key-concept concerning the officials’ active interaction with the king.

2.1.2 The being and doing of Sinuhe/the officials in relation to the deities

Turning to the power relationship between Sinuhe/the officials and the Egyptian
deities, in which the former is the active part, it is clear that Sinuhe does not speak of
his “personal piety” very much. Actually, only a few textual passages reveal the
attitude of worship and profound inferiority on the part of Sinuhe in relation to his
divine masters. Generally though, the relationship between the officials and the deites
is often discussed in Egyptian sources (Parkinson 2002: 129-46). The overall picture
tells of the officials as loyal devotees in relation to the latter (Quirke 1992: 7-19).
Turning to the primary sources and the firstly attested example of the worship and
profound inferiority in question, Sinuhe offers “praises” (ḥknw) to the falcon-headed
wargod Montu after his defeating the giant fighter from Retjenu (B141-42). In
Sinuhe’s subsequent longing for Egypt, he asks “the God” (nṯr) who triggered
Sinuhe’s flight to be “gracious” (ḥtp)28 and take him home (B156-57), in “my (i.e.
his) prayer for help” (mi m s3)29 (B160). It needs to be said here that the apparent
singularity of the term nṯr should not be understood as expressing the belief in “one
true god” in a monotheistic fashion, but rather as denoting the collective of gods and
goddesses (Hornung 1996). Anyway, Sinuhe also prays to the Egyptian deities on
behalf of the king, notably when answering the decree with the royal pardon. In this
context, Sinuhe exclaims that he wants to serve the “Lady of All”30 (nbt r ḏr) (B171-
72), i.e. the queen in her role as the goddess Hathor or Sekhmet (Parkinson 2009: 48,
n. 43), and be buried in the “cities of eternity” (niwwt nt° nḥḥ) (B171), i.e. the
necropolis, implying his active links to an otherworldly, divine sphere of influence.
Sinuhe is in other words clearly represented as being dependent on the Egyptian
deities, positioning himself in a role of worshipper. The good standing with the deities
was not only thought of as beneficial to an individual in his/her life but also in his/her
death, with the ideas of the security of the tomb and of an otherworldy court headed
by Osiris being present (Assmann 1990: 92-159). Partly being an autobiography in
which the tomb owner calls out to the afterworld (Purdy 1977), the tale tells of the
strong link between this and the next life (Parkinson 2009: 25). It also talks of the
alleged “personal piety” of Sinuhe (Blumenthal 1998), a concept which generally is
more associated with the later periods of Egyptian history and its understanding of the
key-concept m3‘t (Assmann 1990: 252-72, Gahlin 2010). In any case, Sinuhe centres
on worship and deep devotion when speaking of his “givings” to the deities.

                                                        
28
The sacred dimension of this act is indicated in this word’s semantic and ortographic link to the act
of making offerings, e.g. in its illustration of a loaf on a mat (R4) (Hannig 2009: 610-12).
29
Despite this translation, the first word may be a finite verb in an imperative mood (Hannig 2009:
341). Also the basic meaning of s3 as “back” (against which the worshipper can lean?) is noteworthy.
30
Literally, “mistress to the limit”, thus conveying a sense of the omnipotence of this goddess.

  13 
2.1.3 The being and doing of Sinuhe/the officials in relation to the foreign lands

The power relationship between Sinuhe/the officials and the foreign lands, in which
the former is the active part, is much more complex than is the case with the two
earlier ones discussed so far (see 2.1.1-2). At times the foreign lands emerge as
culturally inferior, and at other times they can be much improved by “Egyptian
civilization”. At times Sinuhe is dominated by various elements of the foreign lands,
at other times it is he who dominates them. The relationship between the Egyptian
officials and the foreign lands is also much expressed in autobiographies. Both in
these and in the royal propaganda, the foreigners and their lands come across as alien
to the Egyptian socio-cultural milieu (Loprieno 1988: 14-21, Assmann 1990: 237-52).
Once again turning to the primary sources, in the first stage of the relevant
relationship, Sinuhe flees in panic to the foreign lands (B5-21), and upon coming
there, he is completely left out to their generosity and good will (B25-28). Sinuhe is
then said to be “given from country to country” (rdi.n wi ḫ3st n ḫ3st) (B28-29), just as
if he was passively moved around between different places. Also Amunenshi, the
ruler of upper Retjenu who came to adopt Sinuhe, “carries off” (in)31 Sinuhe (B30),
supposedly against the latter’s own will. For a long time, Sinuhe therefore comes
across as somebody who is under the authority or mercy of the foreign lands.
This kind of relationship drastically changes when Sinuhe is appointed by
Amunenshi to be his main official, governing much of the relevant polity, in his
getting “the ruler of a tribe of the choicest of his (i.e. Amunenshi’s) country” (ḥḳ3
wḥyt° m stp n ḫ3st.f)32 (B86-87). The shifting loyalty of Sinuhe is legitimate in his
condition of exile (Pérez-Accino 2011). Sinuhe becomes the “commander of his (i.e.
Amunenshi’s) army” (ṯsw n mš‘w.f)33, in which capacity he defends his new land from
Syrians (B97-101), and in which position he attacks hostile, neighbouring countries in
a ruthless way (B101-6). He also governs in a peaceful manner, e.g. by helping
travellers who have experienced trouble within his country (B96-97). Sinuhe alludes
to the possibility that he helped not only Asiatics but also fellow Egyptians, in the
latters’ delivering their messages between the Syrian and Egyptian courts (B94). In all
these activities, Sinuhe comes across as directing the foreign lands. His sons in their
turn are each said to be “subjugating his tribe” (m d3ir wḥyt.f)34 (B92-94), and later on
it will be announced that these will inherit the office of Sinuhe in Syria (B234-35).
The role of Sinuhe as in charge of the foreign lands reaches its climax in his
combat with the giant fighter of Retjenu. The latter emerges as somebody who
dominates much of the neighbouring lands and who threatens Sinuhe with conquering
what the latter has at his disposal, in terms of human and material resources (B109-
47). Sinuhe naturally comes out as the victor out of this duel, and he consequently
seizes the people and goods which the pacified giant fighter of Retjenu had in his
possessions (B143-47), thus extending Sinuhe’s authority and wealth (Behrens 1981,
Blumenthal 1983, Goedicke 1984a). Although Sinuhe formally is under the authority
of Amunenshi, the latter, as well as all the people of upper Retjenu, turn in unison to
Sinuhe when facing the threat of the giant fighter of Retjenu (B113-34). In some way,

                                                        
31
This verb also and tellingly carries the meaning of “installing someone in an office” (Hannig 2009:
84), an act which of course Sinuhe is the recipient of later on in the same passage.
32
It should be noted here that the word for “ruler” has the simple “seated man-determinative” (A1),
indicating that Sinuhe’s position of power overseas did not have a sacred status.
33
The semantics of ṯsw also include that of transportation- and garrison leader (Hannig 2009: 1036).
34
The coercive nature of this act is indicated by the “man with a stick”-determinative (A24).

  14 
Sinuhe’s victory over his duel challenger manifests him as the ruler of the Levant. As
noted by Loprieno (1988: 41-59), Sinuhe here has the identity of an Asiat.
A yet new relationship is evolving after the duel when Sinuhe thinks of home,
saying that Egypt is still the place where his heart beats (B158-59), and that “he has
roamed the earth” (ḥw.n.f t3)35 and needs to stop this by returning to Egypt (B163-64),
not the least because he states that it is vital for a man to get buried in the place where
he was born (B159-60). This sudden rejection of the foreign lands may speak of a
belief in the cultural superiority of Egypt. Following this insight, his eldest son is
made to take over, while he himself prepares to return to Egypt (B238-41). Sinuhe
will soon no longer be addressed by the Egyptian king like “any ruler of a country”
(ḥḳ3 n ḫ3st nbt) (B175-76), but shortly he will be a part of the Egyptian community
again. On his way to Egypt, Sinuhe is accompanied by some Syrians whom he greatly
rewards and calls by name in thanksgiving after having returned successfully to Egypt
(B245-46). Xenophobia is thus not conveyed even with his return to the homeland.
At the audience in the royal palace of El-Lisht, Sinuhe is actually mistaken for a
Syrian, when the queen and the royal children shriek at seeing him, apparently him
still looking a lot like a Syrian (B266-68). The king thus introduces Sinuhe with the
words: “Look, Sinuhe has returned as an Asiatic, an offspring of the Syrians!” (m‘t
s3nht iw m ‘3m ḳm3m n sṯtiyw)36 (B264-65), while the queen refers to Sinuhe as “the
North Wind’s son” (s3 pn mḥyt)37 and as “a barbarian born in the Homeland”38 (pḏty
msw m t3 mri) (B276). After the audience, Sinuhe receives his own place of stay, and
after getting there he is transformed into an Egyptian by his changing of clothes, hair-
style, and so on (B290-95). It is much telling that Sinuhe describes himself as weak
and “near to dying”39 (tk.n wi wḏ3) when he prays to the deities and the king for a
homecoming to Egypt from Syria (B167-71), while he is by contrast described as
strong and rejuvinated after having experienced the successful audience at court
(B290). This process signifies Sinuhe’s “rebirth” and his return to his ethnic origins
and true identity of being an Egyptian (Westendorf 1977, 1986, Parkinson 2009: 25),
and manifests his own virtual and final “self-realization” (Goedicke 1990).
As for this final development, Egypt is quite obviously recognized and portrayed
as culturally superior in the long run for Sinuhe, even though it is doubtful that this
stance ever gets accompanied with any xenophobic expressions. Admittedly, some
sort of “national” identity can be extrapolated from Sinuhe’s narration. What is
definitively clear is that the foreign lands are essentialized and subsumed into an
“Other”. Tellingly, Sinuhe is made to bear the title of “governor of the sovereign’s
domains in the Syrian lands”40 (s3b ‘ḏ-ḏ3wt ity m t3w sṯtiyw) in his reinstalling as
courtier (R1), meaning that Sinuhe in a way keeps his status and function of superior
                                                        
35
The destructiveness of this life-style is illustrated by the “arm with knife(?)”-determinative (D40).
Also, the verb in question normally refers to the act of beating (Hannig 2009: 547).
36
Tellingly, all the last three nouns are determined by the throwstick-sign (T14), arguably expressing a
notion of the genuine Otherness of the foreign agents in question. People of Syria and Palestine are
spoken of either as sṯtiyw, pḏtiyw, or as ‘3miyw in the tale (Simpson 2003: 55, n. 1).
37
In manuscript B, the demonstrative pronoun pn is included. The north wind is seemingly deified
through the writing of the word with the divine determinative which portrays a seated god (A40).
38
Simpson (2003: 65) and Lichtheim (2006: 232) talk more literally of “Bowman” instead of
“barbarian”, presumably taking note of the word’s throwstick-determinative (T14), picturing a foreign
type of weaponry. What Parkinson freely translates as “Homeland” literally says “the beloved land”.
39
Literally, “crossing (i.e. death) approached me”. The crossing in question of course refers to the
funerary transportation of the mummy from the east- to the west bank (Quirke 1992: 141-72).
40
The translation of the first word is difficult, and “judge” and “civil servant” have also been suggested
(Hannig 2009: 712). Lichtheim (2006: 223) also proposes “governor” in her translation, while Simpson
(2003: 55) comes up with the translation “warden and district officer of the estates…”.

  15 
in relation to the foreign lands from his position in Egypt. Finally, Sinuhe has
managed to reach his true “voice” and identity (Parkinson 2002: 149-68).

2.1.4 Summary

This section has discussed the power relationships between Sinuhe/the officials and
the other three focused units of analysis, with the former as the active part. It was
found that Sinuhe is represented as clearly inferior both in relation to the Egyptian
king and to the Egyptian deities, although the latter are not spoken of so much.
Sinuhe’s and the Egyptian officials’ duty was to be loyal and act loyally in relation to
their king, while they also had the obligation to worship the Egyptian deities. As I will
discuss later, this would naturally pay off for Sinuhe and his fellow officials, by them
being provided for and by them being looked after, from the hands of their earthly
(see 2.2.1) and divine (see 2.3.1) masters. As for Sinuhe’s relationship with the
foreign lands, the situation is more complex. In the beginning of the tale Sinuhe
comes across as completely in the hands of the foreign lands, only to be transformed
into the one ruling this territory, an area theoretically under the authority of the
Egyptian king (see 2.2.3) and ultimately under that of the Egyptian deities (see 2.3.3).
Cultural superiority on the part of Egypt can be traced in the end of the tale, although
xenophobia is difficult to detect at any stage of the tale. It is telling and significant
that the aged Sinuhe comes out of the tale as directing the foreign lands from Egypt.

2.2 The Egyptian king in relation to the others

In this second discussion section, the relationships of the Egyptian king with the other
units of analysis, in which the former is the active part, are identified. I will argue that
there is a clear hierarchy between the king and Sinuhe/the officials focusing on the
king’s giving of wealth. In relation to the deities, the king at times emerges as merely
a human priest and servant in a divine office, while he at other times comes across as
one of the deities, being on the same level on the hierarchical ladder. In relation to the
foreign lands, the king variously claims to be a universal and “nationalistic” ruler. In
either case, there is a fundamental hierarchy imagined between the two.

2.2.1 The being and doing of the king in relation to Sinuhe/the officials

As already stated, in the relationship between the king and Sinuhe/the officials, in
which the former is the active part, the royal function of giving of wealth is very
much in focus. This circumstance of course tells of a basic reciprocal relation in
which the king gives material wealth to his officials while the latter provide absolute
loyalty and support. The socio-political bond between the king and his officials is
very strong in Egyptian sources (Parkinson 2002: 64-85). It is also very clear that if
the latter are supposed to give loyalty, the former is expected to give provisions and
security, in an atmosphere of reciprocity (Assmann 1990: 58-91). Reciprocity is a
fundamental theme in the Egyptian concept of justice (Parkinson 2009: 49, n. 56).
Turning to the primary sources, Sinuhe is manifested as favoured by the king in his
two titles of “true acquaintance of the king” (rḫ nsw m3‘)41 (R2) and “friend(s) (of the

                                                        
41
The use of the verb “to know” (rḫ) here links an official’s power to his closeness to the king. The
following adjective of m3‘ of course brings to mind the pivotal concept of m3‘t.

  16 
court)” (smrw nw stp-s3)42 (R17). The king here blesses the official with his knowing
of him, in some sense equating political influence with proximity to the king
(Strudwick 2005). Sinuhe is also someone whom the king is said to “love” (mr) (R2),
and the king is generally, in relation to his officials, kind and pleasant, as exemplified
in the royal epithets of “lord of kindness, great of sweetness” (nb im3t pw ‘3 bnit)43
(B65-66). The explicit giving of material wealth is spoken of when the king is said to
“make those born with him plentiful” (s‘š3w pw msywt ḥn‘.f) (B69). The royal
children and the children of the high officials were tied together early on in the court,
growing up together, in this way forming a strong bond of togetherness (Parkinson
1996, 2002: 64-66). Also royal children were involved in the actual governing of the
state, as exemplified in the narrative of the Libyan campaign where the king’s eldest
son (the future Senwosret I) is the commander (R11-13) and where other royal
children are said to accompany (R23). Sinuhe however emerges as a non-royal
offspring, simply being a part of the class of high officials (but see below and 2.5.1).
As for the theme of royal providing for his officials after Sinuhe’s flight, in the
prayer of Sinuhe directed at least partly to the king, the latter is asked to be “gracious”
(B165), just like “the God” (see 2.1.2). The king’s royal pardon bears promises of a
“bounty of royal giving” (3wt-‘ nt nsw)44 (B175), with the ambition “to gladden the
heart of this humble servant” (ḫr s3w.f ib n b3k im) (B175). Later on, also the queen
and her children are pictured as royalties who will tend to Sinuhe’s material needs
(B187). In his decree, the king orders: “Return to Egypt!” (ir n.k iwt r ḳmt) (B188),
and promises a rejoining of Sinuhe with the friends at court (B189), as well as a
subsequent good burial in an exclusive location (B189-99). As for the latter, it is clear
that the king was supposed to provide for his officials not only in life but also in their
death. In this function, the king’s “kindness” (w3ḥ-ib) and the royal k3 save Sinuhe
from a second death (B202-4) or from a negative reception in the West (B214).45 At
this message from the Egyptian court in his exile, the humble servant of Sinuhe is in
the king’s hands once again, although it is stated that the king “veils (Sinuhe’s)
horizon” (ḥbs 3ḫt) wherever he may be (B232-33). The decree about Sinuhe being
brought back to Egypt is only a reaffirmation in this regard (B178). The message of
the royal decree in a way forms the core of the tale (Théodoridès 1984).
Turning to the duty of royal providing and the actual homecoming of Sinuhe, the
king gives Sinuhe a warm welcoming after him having entered Egypt (B243-47).
While at court, the king addresses Sinuhe “amicably”46 (ḫnmw) (B253-54), and says
that Sinuhe has come home and no longer bear the risk of getting buried by
“barbarians” (B257-59). After Sinuhe’s words that his life is there to keep and take
(B263), the king reassures Sinuhe of his good intentions by saying that Sinuhe should
be a “friend” among the “officials” (srw) and be appointed as one of the “royal
entourage”47 (ḳ3b šnywt) (B280-81). The king in this way proves Sinuhe of his good
                                                        
42
The first word is a court title (Hannig 2009: 765). The respected status of the individuals who were
privileged to bear this title is indicated by the “old man with staff”-determinative (A21).
43
Also the word im3t can tell of “friendliness” given from the king to his officials (Hannig 2009: 79).
Lichtheim (2006: 226) in her translation rather talks of “grace” and “kindness” respectively, while
Simpson (2003: 58) uses the words “well-favored” and “very gentle” in his translation.
44
The literal translation of 3wt-‘ as “extending (the arm)” gives a concrete picture (Hannig 2009: 3).
45
The royal k3 was considered to be a potent force in the royal inscriptions (Bell 1986).
46
Or (again) “friendly” (Hannig 2009: 649), telling of a personal bond between the king and his
officials. Simpson (2003: 64) indeed uses the translation “in friendly way”. The translation of
Lichtheim (2006: 231), i.e. to “greet pleasently”, provides another version.
47
Literally, “the inner of the courtiers”, again expressing the idea of proximity to the king. Both šnywt
and earlier on srw give the picture of the high official as powerfully holding a staff (A21).

  17 
will (Derchain 1970). The queen in her turn gives her support in this decision-making
by her performance (B268-79), while her children also show their support for Sinuhe
by taking his hands, leading Sinuhe to the inner palace and his new home (B283-85).
After Sinuhe having survived this ordeal in the audience hall, the king is said to
grant Sinuhe “a house of a prince” (pr s3 nsw)48, containing luxury items and a
number of servants, among them the most trusted royal officials (B286-90). Later on,
a house worthy of a “governor”49 (nb š) and “friend” is being prepared for Sinuhe, a
structure being built of exclusive material and by the most skilled craftsmen and
architects in the land (B295-97). A “pyramid of stone” (mr m inr) is constructed,
situated among the royal pyramids, and no expenses are spared in its making (B300-
5). Donations for a mortuary estate of Sinuhe, in the shape of e.g. lands and mortuary
priests, are given amply, worthy of a “chief friend” (smr tpy) (B305-7). A costly
“image” (twt)50 of Sinuhe, made out of gold and electrum, is fabricated for the
mortuary sphere (B307-8), and Sinuhe is stated as “being in the king’s favour until the
day of landing came” (B309-10), surely implying a continuous flow of material
wealth. The hierarchically based providing role in relation to Sinuhe is thus much
expressed. This royal role is also materially expressed in the town-planning and
cemetery layouts of the Middle Kingdom, telling of a “provider state” (Kemp 1989:
109-80), although the uniformity and centralization of the period may be exaggerated
(Bourriau 1991). In any case, the role of royal providing is a key-element in the tale.

2.2.2 The being and doing of the king in relation to the deities

The relationship between the king and the deities, in which the former is the active
part, is quite complex. At times the king appears to be merely a primus inter pares,
while at other times the king and the deities seem to be on the same hierarchy level.
This is of course symptomatic of the thorny and hotly debated issue of royal
deification in Egypt. The picture of the Egyptian king as a divine being was long an
established truth in Egyptological scholarship. In recent years, the binary dichotomy
of human/divine underlying this truth has been called into question, and the focal
point now rests on variation, degrees and aspects in this complicated and multi-
faceted topic (O’Connor and Silverman 1995b, Hill, Jones, and Morales 2013b).
On one point, the primary and secondary sources seem to agree in the issue of
royal deification, namely that the deceased Egyptian king were indeed regarded as
having been deified. This general consensus finds support also in this literary piece.
The death of Amenemhat I is described as: “The god ascended to his horizon, RN
mounted to heaven, and was united with the sun, the divine flesh mingling with its
creator” (‘r nṯr r 3ḫt.f RN sḥr pt ẖnm m itn ḥ‘ nṯr 3bḫ m ir sw)51 (R6-8). Later in the
tale, the deceased king is also described as having “gone to the horizon” (wḏ3.w r
3ḫt)52 (B36). In other words, there is a clear notion of royal deification expressed.

                                                        
48
Sinuhe is here likened to a royal son, or at least described as somebody who equals them in rank. The
simple “seated man”-determinative (A1) is used here, thus expressing proper modesty.
49
Literally, “lord of the š”, perhaps of the mysterious ḫnty-š. The meaning of this title is difficult to
determine. Lichtheim (2006: 233) proposes the word “courtier” in her translation, while Simpson
(2003: 66) suggests the translation “plantation owner”. The common denominator for all the attestation
contexts is that the relevant title implies some kind of service on the king (Strudwick 2005: 28).
50
Only to be expected, this word does not carry any clear divine connotations (Hannig 2009: 991).
51
The word nṯr is here written with the “flag-sign” (R8), signifying divine beings.
52
Suggestively, the verb of this clause is also used to describe the sun’s movement (Hannig 2009:
248), thus expressing the close link between the king and the sungod (Quirke 1992: 70-104).

  18 
 When it comes to picturing the status of the living Egyptian king, the derived
image is far from clear however. A couple of royal titles arguably tell of the king as
merely a human being albeit in a divine office. Firstly, the title of “(his/your/the)
majesty” (ḥm)53 (R11, B217, B173) is generally interpreted as referring to the
physical, mortal side and persona of the king (Goedicke 1960). This should be true
also in the somewhat extended title of “majesty of the court” (ḥm n stp-s3) (B215).
The basic and in a way “neutral” title of “(his/my) lord” (nb)54 (R3, B261) arguably
does not carry any special ideological connotation, but simply denotes plain hierarchy
(Silverman 1995: 65-66). The title of “sovereign” (ity) (B267) may similarly tell of
the human holder of the divine office (Silverman 1995: 66), despite this word being
written with two crocodiles in its determinative position (and not the simple “seated
man”), potentially suggesting some kind of sacred status.55 Once, the actions of the
king tell of a profound hierarchy between him and the deities, namely when he is
someone “who willingly serves him (i.e. the sungod)” (b3k n.f ḏs.f)56 (B216-17). The
role of the king as mortal priest to the deities may reasonably be extrapolated. This
picture of the king as merely a mortal human being is of course also expressed in the
“The Tale of King Cheops’ Court” in which the king’s image is quite unflattering
(Parkinson 2009: 102-27). The king as a mere, fragile, and fallible human being also
comes across in the two “royal testaments” (Parkinson 2009: 203-34).
More often however, the living king is pictured as one of the deities in the tale. The
king is throughout the tale referred to as “God” (B262), “this God” (nṯr pn)57 (B253),
“great God” (nṯr ‘3) (B216), “that worthy God” (nṯr pf mnḫ) (B44), “perfected God”
(nṯr nfr)58 (R13, B206), and “a God who is peerless, before whom no other exists”
(nṯr pw grt nn šnw.f nn ky ḫpr ẖr-ḥ3t.f) (B47-48). This divinity is stated as being
present ever since the king’s birth. The ruler has the status of king or “conqueror”
(iṯ)59 already “in the egg” (m swḥt) (B68), and he is then presented as “unique” (w‘)60
and as “given by the deities” (didi nṯr) (B70). He is also indirectly identified as a
divine being when he is described as super-strong both mentally (notably in his
understanding and planning) and physically (notably in his warfare) in a long eulogy
to the king given by Sinuhe (B45-75). Moreover, the king miraculously finds out
about Sinuhe’s misery abroad and writes a letter with his pardon (B173-75), and he is
even portrayed as “the great god who is equal to the Sungod in understanding” (nṯr ‘3
mitw r‘ ḥr sšs3) (B216). Thus, the extraordinary and unfailing personal qualities of
the Egyptian king do in themselves tell of the presence of royal deification. It is
noticeable that the title of “great god”, normally reserved for the sungod (Quirke
1992: 38), is here given to the king, clearly expressing the latter’s divine nature.
The divine quality of the king is emphasized by associating him even more firmly
with the deities. The king is “Horus the conqueror” (ḥr iṯ) (B218), and it is said that

                                                        
53
Tellingly, this word is most often not written with a determinative connoting divinity (Hannig 2009:
566-67). This is certainly true of the title’s writing in this literary piece.
54
Although this word can be written with the “perched falcon”-determinative (G7), alluding to the king
in his role as Horus, it is most often not written with a determinative connoting divinity.
55
This title is determined by two crocodiles (I3) and a seated king (A40). Possibly, a connection with
the crocodile god Sobek is expressed. Still, the semantic range of this word does not tell of divinity.
Moreover, it can also be determined simply by the king carrying insignia (A23) (Hannig 2009: 124).
56
In this relationship, it is the king and not the officials who acts as a servant (b3k).
57
The word for “god” can be written with the simple stroke-determinative (Z1) in the tale.
58
According to Parkinson (2009: 43, n. 4), this title tells of the divinity of the king given at accession.
Quirke (1992: 38) argues that it focuses on the king’s junior partnership in relation to the sungod.
59
The coercive nature of this role is implied by the “man with a stick”-determinative (A24).
60
Interestingly, this word is simply written just with the “seated man”-sign (A1).

  19 
“the falcon (i.e. Horus/the king) flew off with his followers” (R21-22). In his five-fold
royal titulary, the king of course bears the titles of “Horus” (ḥr) and “Golden Horus”
(ḥr nbw), in addition to “The Two Ladies” (nbty)61, “He of the Sedge and the Bee”
(nsw bity) (i.e. the prenomen), and “Son of the Sungod” (s3 r‘) (i.e. the nomen). In
Senwosret I’s titulary, the king bears the name “Living of Incarnations”62 (‘nḫ mswt)
in connection with his first three titles (AOS6-7), implying his unity with the named
falcon god. The king is also hailed in relation to the “Lady of All” (Hathor) (B274),
possibly alluding to the king’s status as Horus once again. While the royal women are
associated with Hathor (B274), the king is connected with this goddess’ son or
spouse, i.e. Horus. In the singing performance by the royal women in the audience
hall, the potentially raging king with his uraeus on his forehead is pacified (B268-79),
just as angry deities were appeased in the temples (Quirke 1992: 70-104). Horus is
also represented as an independent god, standing free from the king (B207). It is of
course also possible to see the king as merely stepping into a ritual role as Horus,
rather than his appearing as an actual divinity in an essence-based way (Barta 1975).
Concluding with talking of the king and yet other deities, or gods and goddesses in
general, the king’s military power is likened to the corresponding power of “the Great
One” (wrt)63 (B63-64), i.e. the uraeus serpent on the sungod’s forehead (Parkinson
2009: 45, n. 21), and his specific warfare qualities associate him with the ferocious
lion goddess Sekhmet (B44-45). By the population (?) of Egypt, the king is stated as
“being valued higher than” (ḥ‘ r) “their (i.e. the cities’) deities” (nṯr.sn) (B66-67), in
this way actually putting the king above the Egyptian pantheon in terms of hierarchy.
The king is even thought of as having power over nature, such as when it is claimed
that the sun shines out of “love” for him, that the waters in the river are “drunk”
(swr.ti.f) whenever he wishes, and that the air in heaven is “breathed” (ḫnm.ti.f)
whenever he chooses to speak (B233-34). The king is here in firm control of all the
elements of nature (Padró i Parcerisa 1980). More or less on the same note, the king is
even pictured as making “men live on the breath of your giving” (‘nḫ.tw m nfw n
didi.k) (AOS35-36). The Egyptian king consistently appears as having power over the
divine forces in nature (Frankfort 1948: 143-212), and the king in the cult is seen as
“preserving the universe” (Quirke 1992: 70-104). These last paragraphs combined
clearly show the relevance of talking of royal deification. As shown not the least by
the first paragraphs (and then by 2.3.2), this controversial issue is however much
complex, with aspects, degrees, and roles closely linked to it.

2.2.3 The being and doing of the king in relation to the foreign lands

As for the power relationship between the Egyptian king and the foreign lands, in
which the former is the active part, there is a common trend of seeing the latter as
inferior to the former, although the nature of this inferiority is presented variously. On
the one hand the king is represented as a universal ruler with obligations also to loyal
foreigners, on the other hand the king is imagined as a regional ruler with obligations
only towards his Egyptian subjects. The issue of the extent of the Egyptian king’s
earthly dominion has of course been dealt with before. Although the king is presented
in official sources with the whole earth to govern, there is a general trend of seeing
                                                        
61
Representing the two goddesses, i.e. the snake goddess of Lower Egypt named Wadjet and the
vulture goddess of Upper Egypt named Nekhbet, and the dual kingship (Goebs 2010: 283).
62
Or literally, “living in births”, a translation recognized also by Lichtheim (2006: 229). Simpson
(2003: 61) similarly has “Life of Births” in his translation of this epithet.
63
As customary when writing names of goddesses, the given determinative is that of a cobra (I12).

  20 
the king as a regional ruler who views the foreign lands as chaotic and dangerous for
his upkeeping of m3‘t on earth (Loprieno 1988: 22-34, Assmann 1990: 237-52).
As for the former image of universal rulership, the king, here referred to as “the
sovereign”, is identified as having domains in the Syrian lands, entrusted to Sinuhe
(R1). Retjenu is explicitly described as being under the authority of the Egyptian king,
in the manner of a dog’s loyalty towards his human master (B222-23). In his
imperialistic ambition (de Buck 1939), the goal of the Egyptian king is to “extend the
borders (of his land)” (swsḫ t3šw) (B71), to “subjugate the countries” (iṯ t3w)64 in
various directions (B50, B71-73), so that “you (i.e. he) have curbed the circuit of the
sun” (w‘f.n.k šnnt itn)65 (B213). The tale also alludes to the benevolence which the
king displays to those foreign rulers who chose to subordinate themselves under him
(B73-75). The king is generous to the Syrians who had accompanied Sinuhe back to
Egypt (B245). All this arguably tell of the Egyptian king as a universal ruler, although
the degree of inclusion and peacefulness of course can be called into question.
However, there are several examples of when the Egyptian king seemingly
presents himself as a regional ruler, having obligations only towards Egypt proper.
The foreigners are here the hopeless and eternal enemies of the Egyptian king and
state. Sinuhe refers to a royal, military expedition to “the Libyan land” (t3 tmḥiyw)
with lots of enslaving and plundering (R11-16), the king is “descending on (h3)66
barbarians” (B53), “destroying (sk)67 the fugitive” (B56), “descending on Easterners”
(R34-35), “his (i.e. the king’s) joy is to plunder barbarians” (rš.f pw h3t.f r pḏtiyw)
(B60-61), and he is described as “begotten to strike Syrians and to trample Sand-
farers” (ir.n.tw.f r ḥwt sṯtiyw r ptpt nmiyw-š‘i)68 (B72-73). It is natural to think here of
the traditional, iconographic motif of the enemies of various ethnicities bundled up
together (tied up and seized in their hair) and being hit in their heads with the king’s
mace (Loprieno 1988: 22-34). Bound enemies of all ethnicities also decorate floors,
foot-stools, and the like, intended to be symbolically treaded upon by the Egyptian
king (Robins 2010: 364-65). Tellingly, in his military activity, the king is a “smasher
of foreheads” (tš3 wpwt)69 (B55), and “he tramples” (titi.f)70 his enemies (B61).
It seems apparent from the above quotes that there is no room for any
distinguishing between good and bad foreigners, but rather the foreign lands are
considered to be an uniform and inherent evil. In this spirit, it is argued that “your (the
king’s) arms are mighty against all lands” (nḫt ‘wy.k r t3w nbw)71 (B218), and that
“the fear of him is in the countries, like Sekhmet’s in a plague year” (wnn° snḏ.f ḫt
ḫ3swt mi sḫmt rnpt idw)72 (B44-45). This brute and unforgiving attitude echoes the
differentiated royal military treatment in “The Teaching for King Merikare” in which
violence against Egyptians (here the Thinites) is dreaded while violence against

                                                        
64
Interestingly, foreign countries are not as usual termed ḫ3st but (like Egypt itself) t3.
65
The coercive nature of this act is implied by the “man with a stick”-determinative (A24).
66
Even though it is not written with a “violent” determinative, the verb can carry this notion (Hannig
2009: 515-16), something which also seems pretty clear judging from this textual context.
67
The notion of violence is expressed by the “bad bird”-determinative (G37). This reflects the idea that
violence was generally frowned upon within Egyptian society (Parkinson 2002, Lichtheim 2006).
68
The violent nature of the king’s acts is expressed (apart from by the semantics) by the “man with a
stick”-determinative (in manuscripts AOS and DM2) and by the textual context respectively. Tellingly,
throwsticks (T14) and the image of grains of sand (N33a) are used to describe the foreign sides.
69
The verb tellingly also has the meaning of “crushing” (seed, wood, stone) (Hannig 2009: 1011).
70
The imagery of trampling is clearly conveyed by the “two legs”-determinative (D54).
71
The coercive nature of this act is implied by the “man with a stick”-determinative (A24).
72
The idea of “fear (of the king)” belongs to the standard imagery. The fearsome, destructive aspect of
the lion goddess Sekhmet is alluded to in the sentence’s later part (Parkinson 2009: 45, n. 18).

  21 
foreigner is regarded as natural (Parkinson 2009: 212-34). All these examples clearly
demonstrate that the Egyptian king’s imperialism had its limits in terms of inclusion
and universalism. Lastly, “The Walls of the Ruler” (inbw ḥḳ3)73 (B17), a chain of
fortresses along the north-eastern border (Agam 1982), only reinforces this
impression as they carry the telling and supplementary name “which were made to
beat back the Syrians” (iry r ḫsf sṯtiyw)74 (B17). The regional or particularistic
rulership of the Egyptian king undoubtedly seems to be stronger articulated than his
universal one, possibly pointing to the presence of a “national” identity of a kind. The
juxtaposing of a “Self” and an “Other” in an ethnicity context is surely there.

2.2.4 Summary

This section has discussed the power relationships between the king and the other
three focused units of analysis, with the former as the active part. It was found that
there is a fundamental hierarchy between the king and Sinuhe/the officials, with the
former having the duty to paternalistically provide for his officials both in life and
death, in return for their loyal service (see 2.1.1). In relation to the deities, the living
king comes across as variously a primus inter pares who humbly serves his divine
masters while being a human being albeit in a divine office. He also emerges as a real
god within the Egyptian pantheon, being born divine, being equivalent to deities in
various respects, and having great power over the divine forces in nature. The
deceased king is by contrast consistently presented as a being of a divine essence,
here as elsewhere in the preserved sources from ancient Egypt. In relation to the
foreign lands, the Egyptian king variously presents himself as a universal ruler, then
having obligations also to his foreign territiories and subjects, but at other times also
as a regional ruler, having only Egypt and the “Egyptians” to care about, and having
the foreigners as the eternal, unchanging enemies in the style of the well-known
stereotypical imagery chiselled out in the royal inscriptions and iconography.

2.3 The Egyptian deities in relation to the others

In this third discussion section, the relationships of the deities with the other units of
analysis, in which the former are the active part, are identified. I will argue that the
deities shape the life of Sinuhe in different ways and stages, thus manifesting their
great power, that the deities come across as rulers of Egypt and as protectors of and
life-givers to the king, and that the deities sometimes are referred to as owning and
ruling the foreign lands. In all three cases, there are clear hierarchies expressed, with
the Egyptian deities being the natural, superior part of the relevant relationship.

2.3.1 The being and doing of the deities in relation to Sinuhe/the officials

In this subsection, it will be shown that there is a fundamental hierarchy expressed

between the deities and Sinuhe/the officials where the former are the active part. It is
in the context of the tale’s discussing the causes for Sinuhe’s sudden flight that the
relationship in question is topicalized. Most often, the deities, or just “the God”, are
described as having made Sinuhe flee. The role and implication of divine intervention

                                                        
73
The Egyptian king (the master builder of these walls) is here also described as a “ruler”. The
Egyptian profile of this title is safeguarded by the associated “perched falcon”-determinative (G7).
74
The coercive nature of this act is implied by the “man with a stick”-determinative (A24).

  22 
in human affairs is quite often a theme in the sources of Egyptian officials, whether in
teachings, autobiographies, or elsewhere (Parkinson 2002: 129-46). The divine
element is naturally seen as the superior part in this relationship, having the power to
(re)form an individual’s life, both in this life and in the next (Quirke 1992: 105-71).
The flight of Sinuhe is the centre point of the theme of the deities’ active
involvement in Sinuhe’s life (Wessetzky 1963, Donadoni 1986, Obsomer 1999). The
said “God” is here the one who fated Sinuhe’s flight, according to Sinuhe himself
(B156-57, B229). He further states that “he (i.e. “God”) compelled (me) (i.e. Sinuhe)
to live in a foreign country” (dḳr.n.f r ‘nḫ ḥr ḫ3st)75 instead of in Egypt (B162), and
that his flight was “like a plan of God” (mi sḫr nṯr)76 (B43). It is thus pretty clear that
the deities are imagined as directing Sinuhe’s adventures. Sinuhe also claims that “he
(i.e. “God”) made him helpless” (sfn.n.f)77 in the context of his alluding to his panic-
stricken fleeing away from Egypt (B161). This of course tells of the restricted
freedom in thought and deed of Sinuhe, as these are circumvented by the deities
(Stadnikow 1993). The relevant theme is naturally related to the issue of “theodicy”, a
feature which is quite commonly expressed in Middle Kingdom literature (Parkinson
2002: 130-38). Sinuhe’s references to the deities’ interaction can be interpreted as the
expressing of critique regarding the divine decisions on the flight (Barta 1990).
Sometimes Sinuhe’s own “heart” (ib) is said to be the responsible part, and since
the heart of humans was considered not only as a source of suffering, emotions, and
conflict, as typically expressed in e.g. “The Words of Khakheperreseneb” (Parkinson
2009: 144-50), but also as receptive to the divinely established ethics of m3‘t
(Assmann 1990: 122-59) and thus constituting a direct link to the divine sphere, the
message of divine involvement remains the same. This belief is paralleled not the
least in “The Dialogue of a Man and His Soul” with its juxtapositioning of human and
divine elements (Parkinson 2009: 151-65). Sinuhe elaborates on the heart theme and
says that he is the one “whose heart led him astray to strange countries”78 (th.n ib.f r
ḫ3swt ḏrḏrwt)79 (B202). The Egyptian king on his part stresses that Sinuhe’s flight
was “at the counsel of your own heart” (ẖr sḥ n ib.k)80 (B182-83), although he seems
to focus more on the point that he himself did not do anything wrong in the process
rather than truly aiming at identifying the relevant causes (Goedicke 1984b). The king
emphatically adds that Sinuhe should “not act against yourself (i.e. himself) any
more” (m ir r.k m ir r.k gr) by being away from Egypt (B259). Although the flight is
also stated as basically inexplicable (B223-29) or as caused by Sinuhe’s “ignorance”
(ḫm) (B205), the main trend says that the deities directed Sinuhe (Bommer 2014).81
Moving on to the situation long after the flight, the deities’ seemingly inexplicable
doom of exiling Sinuhe is suddenly altered after Sinuhe’s defeat of the giant of

                                                        
75
The moral dimension of this act (dḳr) is expressed in this word’s meaning of “exercising moral
pressure” (Hannig 2009: 1061), emphasizing the sublimity of the divine agent at the same time.
76
The notion of deliberation on the part of the deities is evident in the noun sḫr (Hannig 2009: 811-12).
77
Sinuhe’s state of incapacity is expressed in the word’s “bad bird”-determinative (G14). Lichtheim
(2006: 228) similarly talks of being “punished” (by being sent into exile), while Simpson (2003: 60)
translates the relevant expression with the deities having made Sinuhe “miserable”.
78
The word translated as “strange” in fact means “foreign” or “hostile” (Hannig 2009: 1088).
79
The verb’s leg-determinatives (D56, D54) tell of the practical meaning of “treading over”. The word
in question also expresses the concept of “commiting sin” (Hannig 2009: 1008).
80
In manuscript AOS, also Sinuhe deliberates through sḫrw, it being a non-exclusively divine notion.
81
An attempt to explain the flight of Sinuhe in the New Kingdom copies, focusing on the beings and
doings of an alleged father of Sinuhe, has also been made in previous research (Feder 2003). An idea
on the “reasoned” flight of Sinuhe has also been proposed (Morschauser 2000), and the notion of a
“secret of Sinuhe” similarly carries the idea of Sinuhe behaving perfectly rational (Tobin 1995).

  23 
Retjenu and after Sinuhe’s praying to the above for a homecoming. By letting Sinuhe
win the duel, the God has manifested himself as “gracious to one (i.e. Sinuhe) with
whom he was offended”82 (ḥtp n ṯs.n.f im.f) (B148), and the God’s heart is stated as
“satisfied”83 (i‘) against “the one whom he led astray” (th.n.f) (B148-49). By allowing
Sinuhe to come home, the God gives “grace” (ḥtp) and heals the heart of Sinuhe
(B160-62). It is just as if Sinuhe is forgiven by the God after his defeat of the giant of
Retjenu, after his many years in exile, and after his prayer of homecoming (Parant
1982, Goedicke 2000). In any case, the idea that Sinuhe’s life ultimately is in the
hands of the deities is consistently expressed in the tale. This idea is also conveyed in
the imagery of the weaving goddess Tayet (Parkinson 2009: 48, n. 49) as actively
engaged in the prospective, luxury mummification of Sinuhe (B191-92). Lastly, the
idea of the protective and omnipotent force of the deities in relation to Sinuhe is
succinctly told of in his name “Son of the Sycomore (i.e. Hathor)” (s3 nht)84 (e.g. R2).

2.3.2 The being and doing of the deities in relation to the king

In the relationship between the deities and the king where the former are the active
part, the relevant power relationship is not quite so complex as it is when the latter is
the active part (see 2.2.2). The deities are imagined as the rulers of the earth as well as
over the cosmos, and the hierarchically based divine role of protecting and granting
life to the king is formulated. Thus, the picture of the king with the status and
function of a god is here contrasted with the image of the king being paternalistically
protected by the deities. As already stated, the once uncontroversial issue of royal
deification is now very much up for debate, focusing on variation, aspects, and
degrees (O’Connor and Silverman 1995b, Hill, Jones, and Morales 2013b).
As for the status and function of the Egyptian deities as ruling also over Egypt and
not just over the cosmic space and sphere, the sungod is referred to as “lord of the two
lands (i.e. Egypt)” (nb t3wy) (B273), while Montu is the “lord of Thebes” (nb w3st)
(B206), and Amon is the “lord of the thrones of the two lands” (nb gwt t3wy) (B206-
7).85 It is noticeable that both the sungod (B273) and the king (B206) are presented
with the firstly mentioned title in the tale. The close bonds between the king and the
sungod are of course no surprise, not the least when considering that the former was
regarded as the latter’s son and when paying attention to the creation myth which
states that the ruling sungod withdraw from the earth after a rebellion and instead
vested his authority in the earthly bound Egyptian king (Goebs 2010: 284-85).
Nevertheless, with this title it is as if the gods yet again rule Egypt, having brought
back the primordial scene. Nevertheless, the idea of the sungod as ruling over Egypt,
thus guaranteeing the success of the cyclical, cosmical process, and then handing this
duty over to the king (i.e. the son of the sungod) seems fundamental and characteristic
of Egyptian thought (Assmann 1990: 160-236). There was still a distinction between
“power in heaven” and “power on earth” in Egyptian religion (Quirke 1992: 21-69).
The king was the priest of the sungod (Assmann 1970), being responsible for keeping
the bond between cosmos and the Egyptian state (Assmann 1990: 201-36).

                                                        
82
Lichtheim (2006: 228) similarly uses the translation “angry (at)”, while Simpson (2003: 60) has the
translation “blamed”. All these translations are very figurative, since the verb in question semantically
stays within the limits of its literal meaning “to tie” (Hannig 2009: 1034-35).
83
Literally, “cleansed”, as indicated by the waterlines-determinative (N35a).
84
Sinuhe’s personal name is written with the simple “seated man”-determinative (A1).
85
Unsurprisingly, Amon’s, and earlier on Montu’s, name has the falcon-determinative (G7), indicating
divine essence. The title “lord” is by contrast free from any determinatives here.

  24 
 The deities are consistently represented as above the king in their roles of
protecting and giving life to the latter. As for the protective function, the royal k3 is
said to be greatly valued by the sungod and Montu (B205-6), a goddess is asked to
“enfold your (i.e. the king’s) head”86 (ẖnm tp.k) (B208-9), and the sungod is asked to
“be gracious” towards the king (B273), all in Sinuhe’s prayers. The superiority and
protectiveness of the deities in relation to the king are also expressed in the royal
birth- and throne names, such as in Amenemhat, Senwosret, and Kheperkara, all
expressing the elevation of the deities in relation to everyone else, the king included.
The royal titles of “Horus” and “Two Ladies” (B179) also convey this protective
function, in that the deities in question often are portrayed spreading their protecting
wings over the king, like for example Horus does in the statuary of Khefren (Quirke
1992: 52-104, Goebs 2010: 284-85). All these observations show that the king is in
most cases regarded as a mortal albeit in a divine office (Goedicke 1960, Posener
1960), thus contrasting the picture derived above in 2.2.2.
An even more drastic way of illustrating the identified hierarchy is to focus on the
expressed role of the deities as giving life to the king. The royal title of “son of Re” is
of course a prominent expression of this theme (B179), telling of a metaphorical bond
(of divine protection) and of a subordinate royal position (Posener 1960: 34-35).
Moreover, in Sinuhe’s repeated prayers for the well-being of the king, the latter is
asked “to live for all time and eternity” (‘nḫ ḏt r nḥḥ) (B180), a number of deities
(referred to by the personal pronoun sn in the following quote) are asked to “give life
and dominion to your (i.e. the king’s) nostrils, endow you (i.e him) with bounty, give
you (i.e. him) eternity without limit, all time without end”87 (di.sn ‘nḫ w3s r fnd.k
ẖnm.sn tw m 3wt-‘.sn di.sn n.k nḥḥ n ḏrw.f ḏt nn ḥnty.s) (B206-12), and cause “fear
(of him)” (snḏ) in all lands and countries (B212-13), while a few deities are asked to
love “these your (i.e. the king’s) noble nostrils” (fnd.k pw špss)88 which Montu is said
to wish to live forever (B236-38), and Hathor is asked to “give life to” (di ‘nḫ r) and
to “enfold” (ẖnm) the king, in this goddess’ roles of “Golden One” (nbw) and “Lady
of Stars” (nbt sb3w) respectively (B270-71). The giving of air (and life) is now
described as received by, and not granted by, the king. This giving of life (among
other gifts, such as health and prosperity) is also illustrated in royal iconography,
where the deities present the sign for life (S34) to the king (Robins 2010: 364).
The deities are believed to have the power not only to grant life, but they could
also take life away, thus ending the king’s life. The murder of Amenemhat I is
occasionally hinted at in the tale, and once it is even imagined as having been
predetermined by the deities. These allusions of course bring to mind the story in
“The Teaching of King Amenemhat” in which the named king speaks to his heir and
son posthumously after his being assassinated in his sleep by a treacherous palace
guard (Parkinson 2009: 203-11). The abrupt death of the named king is “the affair
which had happened in the Audience Hall”89 (sšm ḫpr m-di ẖnwty) (R18-19), and it is

                                                        
86
Simpson (2003: 62) and Lichtheim (2006: 230) use the same translation of the verb. Tellingly, the
notion of “granting” (e.g. insignia?) is within the semantic range of the word (Hannig 2009: 686-87).
87
Rather unexpectedly, Lichtheim (2006: 230) translates w3s not as the established “dominion” but as
“joy”, arguably picking up on this word’s connotation of “luck (in ruling)” (Hannig 2009: 189).
Simpson (2003: 63) has yet another version in his choice of the term “prosperity”.
88
The adjective, with its determinative of a noble seated on a chair (A50), indicates an elevated but not
necessarily divine nature of the described individual (Hannig 2009: 881).
89
The numerous ways of interpreting the first word (Hannig 2009: 828-31) makes it difficult to
establish firmly what is referred to here. Lichtheim (2006: 224) talks of “the event”, while Simpson
(2003: 55) speaks of “the affairs which had taken place in the council chamber”.

  25 
later spoken of as “that what he (i.e. “the God”?) had ordained” (š3t.n.f)90 (B51). The
elevation of the deities in relation to the king can not be more powerfully expressed
than this, with the Egyptian deities having the power to end a king’s life. This
observation naturally complicates the image of royal deification present in 2.2.2. This
image of the mortal king is on the side to the main message of the teaching, namely
that the new king and dynasty is the legitimate one (Posener 1957). As for the king’s
essence, many aspects were believed to be embodied in the king: “the human holder
of the office, the office itself, the divine element, the administrator, the military, etc.”
(Silverman 1995: 66), thus revealing this issue’s complexity.

2.3.3 The being and doing of the deities in relation to the foreign lands

The relationship between the deities and the foreign lands, in which the former are the
active part, is not frequently discussed in the tale, although the superiority of the
former in relation to the latter naturally stands clear, notably through the imagery of
the deities owning and ruling these lands. In both “official” and “private” sources
from ancient Egypt, the theme of the Egyptian deities interacting with the foreign
lands is comparatively rare, being limited to conveying the notion of a theoretical
dominion in the earthly sphere (Assmann 1990: 237-52, Quirke 1992: 173-85).
Turning to the primary sources, the toponym referred to as “the Red Mountain”
(ḏw dšr), equivalent to modern Gebel al-Ahmar (Hannig 2009: 1209), situated in the
desert somewhat to the east of Heliopolis and Memphis and containing the remains of
an ancient quarry (Parkinson 2009: xxxiii, 44, n. 10), is said to have Hathor as its
mistress when it is stated that she is the “Lady” (nbt) over it (B15), thereby
manifesting the dominion of an Egyptian deity over foreign territiories, i.e. “the Red
Land” as opposed to “the Black Land” of Egypt proper (Loprieno 1988: 1-13).
Similarly, a “Sopdu-Neferbau-Semseru the eastern Horus” (spdw-nfrb3w-smsrw ḥr
i3bty)91 (B208) and a “Min-Horus in the midst of countries” (mnw-ḥr ḥry-ib ḫ3swt)
(B209) are spoken of, again pointing to the idea that Egyptian deities controlled
overseas areas. Of these compound deities, the former was associated with the eastern
desert, while the latter was regarded as a patron of foreign countries in general
(Parkinson 2009: 49, n. 55). This control over the foreign or “red” lands was however
not absolute, since the foreign deities of the Mediterranean islands and the goddess
Wereret, the “Lady of Punt” (nbt pwnt), are also referred to (B209-11). This note on
the Egyptian deities abroad is indicative of a practical limit of the purported world-
wide authority of the Egyptian pantheon (Quirke 1992: 173-85). The heterogeneity of
the enumerated deities thus conveys a fragmented image, although attempts have been
made to see the enumeration as expressing the notion of totality (Yoyotte 1964).
In a few instances, the Egyptian deities are described as actively ruling the foreign
lands. Sinuhe exclaims that the sungod has “put respect” (di snḏ)92 for the king in the
land as well as “terror of you (i.e. him) in every country” (ḥrw.k m ḫ3st nbt)93 (B231-
32), and “the God” apparently fated the defeat of the giant of Retjenu in his fight with
Sinuhe (B126-27). These examples point to the notion that the Egyptian deities not
only owned but also governed the foreign lands. Taken together though, although a
                                                        
90
The verb of this relative form clearly expresses the idea of establishing fates (Hannig 2009: 866-67).
91
The determinative illustrating three hills (N25), and signifying the Otherness of the foreign lands in
contrast to the plain and fertile land of Egypt, is used to express the word “Eastern”.
92
As usual for the relevant noun, “respect/fear” (snḏ) is seen as an inherent property of the king,
something which the accompanying suffix pronoun (not rendered above) is a sure sign of.
93
The use of the word ḫ3st clearly indicates that it is a matter of foreign lands here.

  26 
fundamental hierarchy exists between the Egyptian deities and the foreign lands, a
consistent universalist approach is lacking. Rather, the former come across mainly as
regional, “nationalistic”, and particularistic rulers in relation to the latter.

2.3.4 Summary

This section has discussed the power relationships between the deities and the other
three focused units of analysis, with the former as the active part. It was found that the
deities emerge as the superior part in all three discussed relations. In relation to
Sinuhe/the officials, the power of the deities is shown in their directing Sinuhe’s
destinies, turning it from an originally bad one to a following good one, as
exemplified in the flight and return of Sinuhe. In relation to the king, the power of the
deities come across clearly, quite in contrast to the discussion where the king is the
active part of the two (see 2.2.2). The gods and goddesses are here seen as the actual
masters of Egypt, i.e. also ruling the earthly sphere, and as giving protection and life
to the king. In relation to the foreign lands, the Egyptian deities are occasionally
represented in charge also over these, although the exceptions to and the textual
meagerness on this theme suggest a lack of a genuinly universalist approach.

2.4 The foreign lands in relation to the others

In this fourth discussion section, the relationships of the foreign lands with the other
units of analysis, in which the former are the active part, are identified. I will argue
that their relationships with Sinuhe/the Egyptian officials and the Egyptian king in
some ways are quite complex. The foreign lands can be bad and hopeless, but they
can also be good and promising, provided of course that there are Egyptian influences
present. While not being inherently bad in a consistent manner, there is still a
fundamental hierarchy expressed in the tale. Their relationship with the Egyptian
deities is very undeveloped, and the impression is one of hedonism and ignorance.

2.4.1 The being and doing of the foreign lands in relation to Sinuhe/the officials

The foreign lands affect Sinuhe both negatively and positively in the tale. On the one
hand the foreign lands are described as essentially miserable and beyond salvation in
their ways, but on the other hand they are also described in a positive light, at least if
being under Egyptian influence. Still, the effects of the foreign lands on the Egyptian
officials who interact with them are quite one-sided, both in autobiographies and in
royal propaganda, giving the message of the foreign lands as something harmful and
negative for the Egyptian officials (Loprieno 1988: 14-21, Assmann 1990: 237-52).
As for the former image, the giant of Retjenu in his wildness and depravity can be
seen as symbolically representing the naturally degenerated East (B109-13). He has
even been understood in terms of a ritually smashed execration figure (Fischer-Elfert
1996). Also, the foreign lands are equivalent to thirst and death in Sinuhe’s passing
through the Egyptian border and entering into the Asiatic desert (B21-23), although it
must be said that neither the geographical descriptions of the foreign lands, nor the
foreigners living in the portrayed environments, are unambiguous in terms of
positivity and negativity (Morenz 1997b, Moers 2001, el Hawary 2014), perhaps
expressing an honest intent of giving a fair description (Hinson 2014). More
importantly, the notion that Sinuhe must no die abroad tells of the foreign lands’
inherent hopelessness. While addressing Sinuhe in his decree, the king points to the

  27 
good prospect that: “Asiatics will not lay you (i.e. Sinuhe) to rest (in a ram’s skin)”
(nn bs tw ‘3mw) (B197), and emphatically and to modern minds much morbidly urges
Sinuhe to: “Think of your corpse, and return!” (šd ḥr ḫ3t iwt.k)94 (B199).
Another sign of the inherent inferiority of the foreign lands is the transformation
which Sinuhe undergoes when he arrives at his new Egyptian home and becomes
clean-shaven, has his hair combed, puts on fine linen, anoints himself with fine oil,
and all of a sudden has a bed to sleep in (B290-95). In his narration, he scornfully
says that he in this activity “returned a load (of dirt)” (di sbwt)95 to the foreign lands,
that his clothes were given back to the “Sand-farers” (nmiyw-š‘i), that he gave back
sand and tree-oil to those who are on it and use it respectively (B291-95), clearly
expressing the idea that he gets rid of something culturally inferior in this
transformation of his. The foreign lands are apparently not just subordinate, but they
moreover seem to be so in an essential, inherent way. This is telling of a view of some
sort of a “nationalist” identity and of an essence-based ethnicity. These expressions of
alterity tell of the construction of an “Other” in the relevant discourse.
In the other imagery, the foreign lands are still inferior in their ways, but they can
be somewhat saved by the presence of Egyptian influence. Sinuhe is close to dying of
thirst in the desert, but he is saved by “a tribe” (wḥyt)96 who gives him the needed
nourishments. This unselfish act of the tribe and its leader in relation to Sinuhe is
indicative of a reciprocal altruism on the part of the foreigner (Hofmann 2003).
Having said that, the tribe’s leader is also identified as someone “who had once been
in Egypt” (p3 wnn ḥr ḳmt)97, in this way explaining the civilized behaviour of this
“barbarian” (B26). As Sinuhe poignantly puts it after having received the vital
assistance from the relevant tribe, namely “what they did (to me, i.e. Sinuhe) was
good” (nfr irt.n.sn) (B28). This last note is reminiscent of how the world and life in
“The Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor” affects the Egyptian sailor who gets stranded on
a mythical island but gets provided for by its main deity, i.e. a giant snake god
(Parkinson 2009: 89-101). Both Sinuhe and the sailor benefit from “the other side”.
After some vagabond life of Sinuhe in Syria-Palestine, the ruler of upper Retjenu
named Amunenshi kidnaps Sinuhe to his court (B28-31). Also this leader do many
good things to Sinuhe (Derchain 1985). Amunenshi provides for Sinuhe through
giving him authority, material wealth, and his eldest daughter (B77-91). Sinuhe is his
“favourite” (mr[w m] ẖ[t])98 (B85-86) whom he loves and holds in “high regard”
(3ḫ)99 (B106-7), putting him even before his own children (B107-8). Sinuhe is sent on
many important missions (B99-101), and he is entrusted to deal with the challenge
from the giant of Retjenu (B113-14). After Sinuhe’s victory, Amunenshi takes him in
his arms (B142-43), symbolic of their close bond. However, once again the good
character of an Asiatic leader can be explained by the mentioning that the relevant
leader was well acquainted with Egyptian customs, as exemplified by him having
Egyptians at his court already at the time he carries off Sinuhe (B31-34). The civilized
                                                        
94
The first verb can have the meaning of “to recite for someone or something” (Hannig 2009: 911),
carrying the notion of doing good for the corpse, easing the “transfiguration” (Quirke 1992: 141-72).
95
This derogation is somewhat contradicted by the simple papyrus-determinative (Y1) and the neutral
meanings of this noun (Hannig 2009: 739). If it may be linked to the word “to rebel” (sbi) is unclear.
96
Still, the alterity of this people is indicated by the throwstick-determinative (T14).
97
Late Egyptian-influences may be detected if seeing p3-wn (meaning “then”) here (Hannig 2009:
286), although the basic meaning of “to be” (wn) seems to fit better into the context.
98
Literally, “beloved in the body”. This reading is quite tentative, in that I have added the preposition
m and interpreted the ẖ-sign (F32) as a short-form for ẖt (cf. Hannig 2009: 366).
99
Obviously, this term also carries the meanings of usefulness and transcendent existence (Hannig
2009: 11-12), the latter telling of Sinuhe’s eventual destiny when returning to Egypt.

  28 
behavior of this “barbarian” can thus be explained by his knowing of things Egyptian.
Amunenshi can even be seen as a “pseudo-Egyptian”, taking up the Egyptian king’s
role in relation to Sinuhe, as he provides and cares for him (Parkinson 2009: 23).
The relevant influence is once extended to the general population when these
enthusiastically supports Sinuhe during the duel, despite him being really a foreigner
and an actual outsider in their community (B131-34). A basic hierarchy between
Sinuhe and the foreign lands is conveyed when it is narrated by Sinuhe that “every
Asiatic was bellowing”100 (‘3m nb ḥr nmit°) after Sinuhe’s triumph (B141), and that
he acted as a bull of a herd (B117-20), implying that he functioned as a shepherd in
relation to his gained foreign subjects (see also 2.5.2). Although being inferior, the
foreign lands are most often not regarded as helplessly miserable. Typical of more
mundane sources, clear ethnical tensions are lacking (Tyson Smith 2010). Sinuhe has
his “foreign friends” (Kitchen 1994), telling of a humanization of the “Other”.

2.4.2 The being and doing of the foreign lands in relation to the king

The situation or relationship is quite similar with regards to the hierarchy between the
foreign lands and the Egyptian king or state. On the one hand the foreign lands are
portrayed as hopelessly inferior and degenerated in their ways, but on the other hand
they are also seen as possible to improve, provided that there are Egyptian influences
at hand. Still, the picture of the effects of the foreign lands on the Egyptian king and
his land is fairly one-sided, both in the autobiographies of the officials and in royal
inscriptions. This picture highlights the former as chaotic and dangerous for the order
which the latter is trying to upkeep (Loprieno 1988: 14-21, Assmann 1990: 237-52).
Beginning with the former imagery, one standard theme of the degenerated
foreigner is that of the fleeing barbarian. While the Egyptian king bravely advances in
battle, the foreigners flee and “show (their) backs” (rdi s3w) (B57-58). In their
inherent unorganization and incapability, it is simply stated that “his (i.e. the Egyptian
king’s) foes can not marshall any troops” (n ṯsw.n ḫryw.f skyw)101 (B54-55). The
rhetorical imagery which says that “a barbarian can not ally with a Delta man” (nn
pḏty sm3 m idḥw)102 (B121-22), or asks “what can get the papyrus established on the
mountain” (ptr smn dyt r ḏw) (B122), may serve to express the notion that the foreign
lands are culturally inferior, basically unfit for any contact with sophisticated Egypt.
A stance of unavoidable separation is here quite clearly articulated. This is again
indicative of some sort of a “nationalist” identity and of an essence-based ethnicity.
Again, these marks of alterity tell of the creating of an “Other” in the given discourse.
The concepts of m3‘t (“Order”) and isft (“Chaos”), embodied in the conflict between
Egypt and the foreign lands, are here juxtaposed (Robins 2010: 355, 364-65). In
official sources this idea of the foreigners is identified (topos), in contrast to mundane
sources which paint a more realistic picture (mimesis) (Loprieno 1988: 14-21).
Another view focuses on the possibility for the foreign lands to be a good country,
if being under the dominion of the Egyptian king. In a simile telling of hierarchy,
Retjenu (and its surroundings?) is described as “hounds” (ṯsmw) in relation to the
Egyptian king (B222-23). The foreign land in question is here domesticated by the
                                                        
100
Showing the complexity of the verb, Lichtheim (2006: 228) instead talks of “shouting”, while
Simpson (2003: 60) similarly uses the word “yelped” in his translation. Some kind of displaying of
humility on the part of the foreigners seems however plausible to suggest.
101
The word “foe” is negatively laden also by the “man with a stick”-determinative (A24).
102
This non-allying is contrasted with the state ethos-theme of “the uniting of the two lands” (sm3
t3wy) (Frankfort 1948), in this way differentiating the homeland from the overseas areas.

  29 
Egyptian king. Moving on, Amunenshi is described as properly “knowing” (rḫ) of the
Egyptian king’s deeds (B76), and his land is described as “being a good land” (t3 pw
nfr) (B81). Sinuhe therefore urges Amunenshi to write to the king and ask about the
latter’s health, with the reasoning that “he (i.e. the king) will not fail to do good for a
country that will be loyal to him” (nn tm.f ir bw nfr n ḫ3st wnn.ty.sn ḥr mw.f)103 (B73-
75). On his way home to Egypt, Sinuhe also mentions several other good, Asiatic
rulers who are said to be loyal and friendly in relation to the Egyptian king and state
(Vandersleyen 1974), being potentates “who live by love of you (i.e. the king)” (ḫprw
m mrwt.k)104 (B219-22). In other words, the foreign lands with their multiple,
competing rulers are not described as inherently bad, but rather as having the
possibility for improvement if being under strong Egyptian influence. This fits well
with the notion of the Egyptians as primarily identifying themselves with family, city,
and nome (Assmann 1996b) rather than with any anachronistic “nationalism”.
Having said that, indicative of the lower (vasall) status of these good foreign lands
is the choice in political terminology in the tale (Schneider 2002). While the Egyptian
leader is “king” (nsw), Amunenshi is just “ruler” (ḥḳ3)105 or only “someone who
enquires” (šny) (B74), and while Egypt is a “land” (t3), the Levantine states are
generally “countries” (ḫ3swt).106 Moreover, Amunenshi is tellingly referred to as
“ruler of the countries” (ḥḳ3 ḫ3swt) (B98), alluding to the term with which the feared
and despised Hyksos-rulers came to be known in Egyptian history-writing (Loprieno
1988: 22-34). This political terminology in other words serves to establishe the notion
of the foreign lands’ utter and profound “Otherness”. On the whole though, it should
be recognized that the relevant relationship is quite ambivalently defined.

2.4.3 The being and doing of the foreign lands in relation to the deities

The examples of a direct contact between the foreign lands and the Egyptian deities
where the former are the active part are very limited in the tale. This is of course
much in line with the discussion where the latter are the active part (see 2.3.3), and
this feature thus forms a part of a general pattern, arguably pointing to a perceived
inferiority but also to an indifference by the foreign lands in relation to the Egyptian
pantheon. The effects of the foreign lands upon the Egyptian pantheon are not very
often discussed in the sources from ancient Egypt. Rather, the overall picture tells of a
separation between Egyptians and foreigners when it comes to religious matters, thus
expressing a cultural difference (Assmann 1990: 237-52, Quirke 1992: 173-85).
In a first of the rare examples of interaction instigated from below, the giant of
Retjenu is described as someone who ignores the established fate of the Egyptian
deities which stipulates that Sinuhe will win the battle between the two (B125-27).
The foreign lands here come across as being ignorant of the Egyptian deities, standing
outside the Egyptian cultural milieu (Loprieno 1988: 22-34, Quirke 1992: 173-85). In
a second example, Amunenshi refers to the Egyptian king as “(that worthy) god”
(nṯr)107 (B44), but he, nor any other Asiatic, never talks of the role of the Egyptian
                                                        
103
The archaic use of the prospective participle is expressed here (Englund 1995: 53). The literal
translation of “to be on his waters” implies “to be subordinated” (Hannig 2009: 348-49).
104
The hierarchy between the two is expressed in the potentates “becoming” (ḫpr) thanks to the king.
105
In contrast to when the Egyptian king is described thus, Amunenshi and his fellow rulers simply
have the “seated man”-determinative (A1) in the writing of this title (B30, B221).
106
Complementary to the black/red-dichotomy, there is also a plain/hilly-dichotomy, not the least
conveyed in the relevant determinatives on varying topography (N16, N25).
107
In this case, the relevant word is written with the “perched falcon”-determinative (G7), in addition
of course to the logogram depicting the flag-with-staff which connotes divinity (R8).

  30 
deities, or of any indigenuous deity for that sake. The Asiatics emerge as basically
hedonic, standing in no contact with the divine whatsoever. All this tells of a
particularistic relationship in which the foreigners are largely ignorant of the Egyptian
pantheon. Clearly, the foreign lands are placed outside the Egyptian sphere. In any
case, the foreign lands are in their ways clearly inferior to the Egyptian deities.

2.4.4 Summary

This section has discussed the power relationships between the foreign lands and the
other three focused units of analysis, with the former as the active part. It was found
that the foreign lands are described as inferior in all three relationships, but that the
nature of this inferiority shifts from case to case. On the one hand this inferiority of
the foreign lands are essence-based, on the other hand the named inferiority can be
renegotiated and mildred by the influence from various Egyptian individuals and
institutions. It is illuminating that all the good-behaving lands and rulers in the Levant
have been in contact with Egypt in one way or another. The tribe’s chief who saves
Sinuhe’s life in the desert had been to Egypt, and Sinuhe’s patron Amunenshi is
described as well acquainted with Egyptians and Egyptian customs. The latter is also
aware of the beings and doings of the Egyptian king and state. This knowledge of
things Egyptian explains the civilized behaviour of these “barbarians”. As for the
relationship with the Egyptian deities, the foreign lands come across as living in
deepest ignorance, having no link to the Egyptian pantheon, as expressed in the tale.

2.5 The Egyptian people and women in relation to the others

In this concluding fifth discussion section, the units of analysis who are not referred to
so much in the tale, i.e. the Egyptian people and women, and their relationships, are
focused on. In the case of the Egyptian people, their relationship to the foreign lands
is not really spoken of in the tale,108 hence the limited number of subsections in this
field of discussion. In the case of women (of all classes and ethnicities), the
discussion is subdivided along the dual and complementary aspects of sex and gender.

2.5.1 The being and doing of the people in relation to Sinuhe/the officials

Turning to the power relationship between the Egyptian people and Sinuhe/the
Egyptian officials, it is clear to see that there is a distinct and naturalized hierarchy
between the two social groups imagined. At the same time, there is a mutualness in
this relationship in which the phenomena of social solidarity, provisioning, and
loyalty are the key-concepts. This double-sideness of the relevant relationship has
been identified before. The people are here described as toiling and loyal, while the
officials show social solidarity in their protecting of the ordinary, and particularly
exposed, Egyptian citizen (Assmann 1990: 92-121, Parkinson 2002: 64-85).
As already stated, the Egyptian people is not highlighted in the tale. Only once, a
supposedly ordinary citizen features as a clearly identified individual, namely in the
situation where a frightened Sinuhe is greeted by a man on the former’s escape out of
the country (B10-11). Otherwise, when Sinuhe travels through the delta in an

                                                        
108
An intermingling between people of different ethnicities is hardly spoken of in Amunenshi’s
references to Egyptians at his court (B33-34). These are said to verify the good nature of Sinuhe (B33),
and it is thus far more likely that they too belonged to the class of Egyptian officials.

  31 
Egyptian boat returning to the court, the manual labour of kneading and brewing are
referred to when mentioning Sinuhe’s provisioning after having entered Egypt
(B247), in this way indirectly speaking of lower class-Egyptians. Sinuhe in retrospect
(?) once claims that he had many “serfs” (mrwt) under his command (B154-55).
An official who meets the returning Sinuhe at the border, carrying provisions and
rewards for Sinuhe and the Asiatics who had accompanied the latter, is referred to as
“overseer of peasants of the royal household”109 (imy-r sḫtiyw mnḫ pr nsw) (B244).
By this title, a basic hierarchy between the officials and the peasants in Egyptian
society shines through. Although rarely being centred on in Egyptian literature, the
peasantry constituted the vast majority of the Egyptian population. Hierarchy and
social grouping is also told of in Sinuhe’s titles of “patrician” (r-p‘t)110 and “count”
(ḥ3ty-‘) (R1), expressing Sinuhe’s belonging to the higher ends of society. These two
titles belong to the group of mere “honorific titles” (Strudwick 2005: 26-27). The
perceived hierarchy and varying worth of different professions is of course clearly
expressed in “The Teaching of Khety”, or “The Satire of the Trades”, where manual
labourers and their menial work are greatly ridiculed (Parkinson 2009: 273-83).
The hierarchy expressed in the preceding paragraph is naturalized in Sinuhe’s
rhetorical question after having been challenged by the giant of Retjenu: “Can an
inferior ever be loved as a superior?” (in iw wn tw3 mrrw n-š3-n tpy-ḥr)111 (B120-21),
implying the futility of social mobility. This attitude is of course perfectly in line with
the literary genre of “teachings” in which a son is supposed to inherit his father’s
profession, such as in “The Teaching for Kagemni” where the office of viziership is
described as being passed on from father to son (Parkinson 2009: 291-92), bypassing
the true bases for meritocracy. At the same time, Sinuhe at the end of the tale sees
himself as a “lowly man” (šw3w)112 (B309), claiming that he himself was a product of
meritocracy. Still, Sinuhe is a courtier right from the start of the tale (Goedicke 2011).
Perhaps, the expression of the Old- and Middle Kingdom literary theme of an
Egyptian official rising in ranks because of his excellency (iḳr), while “being a loner”
(w‘), and being supported by the deities rather than by any influential and patronizing
social connections (Parkinson 1996, 2002: 64-85), can be detected here.
The officials’ actual interaction with the people is noted in Sinuhe’s assurances
that he gave bread to his starving neighbour (B151-52), arguably from the lower strata
of society, exercising the ideal of “vertical solidarity” (Assmann 1990: 92-121).
Normally, the worthy official is also described as someone who gave clothes to the
naked, lended out boats to the boatless, took care of orphans and widows, and so on
(Assmann 1990: 92-121). The idea of a naturalized hierarchy between the two social
groups, but also of the Egyptian officials’ duty to safeguard justice in the land, and in
extension to provide materially for the people, is of course famously topicalized in
“The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant” (Parkinson 2009: 54-88). The later treatise
referred to as “The Duties of the Vizier” similarly speaks of the need for the powerful
to care for those who lack power (van den Boorn 1988). In sum, the hierarchy
between Sinuhe/the Egyptian officials and the Egyptian people is clearly expressed,
but with the added component of mutualness and “vertical solidarity”.

                                                        
109
Simpson (2003: 64) similarly renders “overseer of field laborers of the royal estate”. Lichtheim
(2006: 231) seemingly ignores parts of this title in her translation “overseer of the royal domains”. The
mentioning of peasants is however clear, although the following adjective remains cryptical.
110
The hereditary nature of this title is indicated by the “egg”-determinative (H8) of the other copies.
111
The lower status of tw3 is expressed by the “man with arms outstretched”-determinative (A30).
112
The noun šw3w carries the same semantic range as tw3 above (Hannig 2009: 877). The negative
connotations of the implied status are indicated by the “bad bird”-determinative (G14).

  32 
2.5.2 The being and doing of the people in relation to the king and the deities

In the power relationship between the Egyptian people and the Egyptian king or
deities, there is a clear and fundamental hierarchy expressed in the tale. Still, the
mutualness described in the previous subsection is pretty much the same, although it
is here in comparison wider and stricter. The reciprocal and mutual character of the
relevant relationships have been noted before. In this context, loyalty and devotion are
seen as exchanged for protection and blessings, telling of social solidarity and of a
culturally specific religion (Assmann 1990: 92-121, 237-52, Quirke 1992: 171-85).
Turning to the Egyptian people and the even higher ends of society, the Egyptian
king is praised by Sinuhe on account of “his seeing the masses” (m33.f ‘š3wt)113
(B59), and because of his being a “perceiver of the people” (si3 rḫtiyw)114 (B215),
both quotes showing the king’s commitment to take care of his subjects. The context
indicates that it is the Egyptian people who is spoken of here. It can thus be argued
that the portrayed hierarchy in question is only social and political and not cultural, in
contrast to the relationship between the king and the officials, although the power of
culture along with social stratification may be underestimated here.115
This royal obligation to take care of the people, as well as the related idea of the
people’s inability to take care of themselves, is expressed for example in Sinuhe’s
references to people (whether Egyptian or foreign) as “herds” (ḥmt mnmnt)116, i.e.
mere cattle (B117-20). This of course calls to mind the creation myth which states Re
as having created humankind to function as the deities’ working cattle. The king then
takes over the sungod’s role of shepherding the people (Quirke 1992: 21-51). This
imagery shows the pivotal role kingship had in Egypt (Baines 1995, Dodson 2010).
As for the sungod, he is described by Sinuhe as someone who has put “respect” for
the reigning king throughout “the land” (t3), thus including the people (B231). The
dependency in the relationship between the people and the king is tellingly expressed
in Sinuhe’s stating that “one (i.e. people)” (tw) live by the air given by the king
(AOS35-36). In other words, the lives of ordinary citizens are dependent on the king.
This circumstance is actually getting reversed in the literary works of “The Words of
Neferti” and “The Words of Khakheperreseneb” where the lower ends of society
suddenly have seized power, something which is described as a condition of great evil
and horror, with the world having turned upside down (Parkinson 2009: 131-50).
The said “vertical solidarity” from the royal hands is expressed when the queen
and the princesses in their performance sing that “you (i.e. the king) have delivered
the poor from evil” (sḥr.n.k tw3w m ḏwt)117 (B272-73), alluding to the king’s official
duty to protect those in need. The king is a “lord of kindness, great of sweetness”,
“conquering” through “love” (B65-66), possibly also in relation to the Egyptian
people. Sinuhe furthermore claims that “his (i.e. the king’s) city loves him more than
its own members, it rejoices at him more than at its God, and men and women pass
by, exulting at him” (mr sw niwt.f r ḥ‘w ḥ‘.st im.f r nṯr.sn sw3 ṯ3yw ḥmwt ḥr rdi rnn
im.f)118 (B66-68). In other words, the city-folks care more about the king than about
                                                        
113
Literally, “the many”, surely stressing the lower classes of Egyptian society. The presence of the
simple “seated man”-determinative (A1) is also supportive of this interpretation.
114
The word rḫty with its sign of a bound lapwing (G24) refers to “common folk” (Englund 1995: 95).
115
In other words, the monolithic and established concept of “Egyptians” can be problematized.
116
The specifying of female cattle is due to Sinuhe’s imagery of himself as a “bull” (k3). The sexual
aspect of the bull metaphor is not talked of here.
117
The notion of “removing” is clear in the semantics of the verb (Hannig 2009: 796).
118
The idea of the ordinary person lies in the simple “seated man/woman”-determinatives (A1, B1).
Their act of greatly appreciating the king is seen in the semantic range of rnn (Hannig 2009: 502).

  33 
the deities (or their fellow citizens). Sinuhe then bursts out in the expression: “How
joyful this land, since he has ruled!” (rš.wy t3 pn ḥḳ3n.f)119 (B70). The alleged social,
vertical solidarity is in other words described in two-wayed flows between the above-
and below spheres. In sum, the relationship in question is clearly marked in terms of
hierarchy, but at the same time having a strong social bond added to it.

2.5.3 Hierarchy and sex

In this subsection, the power relationship between men and women is explored, as
expressed in the tale. Women come across as “invisible”, bystanding, and in lack of
political power. Also goddesses and royal women are in some ways subordinated, i.e.
if considering their male counterparts. The social standing of ordinary as well as royal
women in the Egyptian society and state has often been identified in previous research
as comparatively high, even though the larger picture with men occupying the most
powerful positions in the state is also recognized (Troy 1986, Robins 1993).
Women play a relatively small role in The Tale of Sinuhe. A possible exception is
the sentence (B78-79) in which Amunenshi is said to join Sinuhe with his eldest
daughter in a marriage (Goedicke 1984-85, Allam 1986). This foreign wife is
however not referred to again. Rather, the product of this liasion is mentioned, namely
more than one child (B92-93). By the modest mentioning of the woman in question,
his wife is anonymous and made “invisible”, and her function of producing offspring
is centred on. As for this indicated invisibility and seclusion of married women, when
talking of the giant of Retjenu’s motives, Sinuhe refers to the act of “opening his (i.e.
the giant’s) private quarters”120 (wn s3-pr.f) (B115-16), i.e. exposing the home of
another high individual’s women, constituting a taboo act (Parkinson 2009: 46, n. 30).
This is of course reminiscent of how a high official’s relationships with the women of
a colleague are strictly advised against in “The Teaching of the Vizier Ptahhotep”
(Parkinson 2009: 246-72), once again giving the theme of the invisibility of women.
In other instances, women of various kinds have the function of assisting or
bystanding the actions of the male Sinuhe. When Sinuhe engages in the duel with the
giant of Retjenu, wives are described as “jabbering (for him)” (‘‘it°)121 (B132). In the
king’s promising Sinuhe a great burial in Egypt, “(female)122 singers” (šm‘w) head the
funerary procession (B194), helping him to a good afterlife. In the performance at
court by the queen and the princesses (B268-79), women again work for him.
The power relationship between men and women is illustrated not the least by the
fact that political power positions are inherited from men to men. Amenemhat I is
succeeded by his son Senwosret I on the throne of Egypt (B46-47), and Sinuhe
explicitly states that he let his eldest son inherit his position in the Levant when he
himself headed to Egypt (B239-40). The principle of a son inheriting his father is in a
way naturalized in “The Teaching of King Amenemhat”, although the focal point here
is arguably not on biological sex but on the legitimacy of the new king and dynasty
(Posener 1957, Wildung 1984). This patrilinearity tells of a male-dominated society.
This patrilinearity is of course much emphasized also in the “royal testaments” where
a king passes over his office to his eldest son as well as in the more regular
                                                        
119
Since it is merely a verb here, ḥḳ3 only has the “papyrus roll”-determinative (Y1).
120
Literally, “the back of his house”, i.e. the secluded, family part of the residential area.
121
The verb clearly expresses the act of encouraging someone orally (Hannig 2009: 143). Lichtheim
(2006: 228) translates the same, while Simpson (2003: 60) renders “yelled”.
122
Although the determinative represents only a man, it is hard to imagine the absence of women here.
Women undoubtedly had a vital role to play in the funeral rituals (Quirke 1992: 141-72).

  34 
“teachings” in which a high official (often the vizier) passes over his office to his
eldest son (Parkinson 2009: 203-83), telling of a patriarchal society of a sort.
A special case is obviously the royal women, here the queen (that Sinuhe initially
served) and the princesses. The former is “the Patrician Lady, the greatly praised, the
Queen of Senusert in Khnemsut, the Princess of Amenemhat in Qaneferu, Nefru, the
blessed lady” (r-p‘tt wrt ḥswt ḥmt nsw wsrtsn m ẖnmswt s3t nsw imnmḥ3t m ḳ3nfrw
nfrw nbt im3ḫy)123 (R3-5). This status clearly speaks of the elevated position of the
queen. Later, the queen is also called “Misstress of the Land” (ḥnt t3)124 (B166), and
the royal title of “The Two Ladies” (nbty) (B179), alluding to the goddesses Buto and
Wadjet, also tells of the high status of royal women (or at least of goddesses) in
Egypt. According to Sinuhe, the queen is also “Lady of All” (B172), and he expresses
the wish that: “May she pass eternity above me!” (sb.s nḥḥ ḥr.i) (B172-73). The
phrasing “above” clearly indicates a belief in a fundamental hierarchy between the
two agents. Nefru is called “your (i.e. Sinuhe’s) Heaven” (pt.k) by the king (B185),
and she and her children are said to provide for a returning Sinuhe (B187).
Taking up necklaces, rattles, and sistra, the queen and her female children perform
an appeasing ritual in front of the king, in their goal of bringing mercy upon the
returning Sinuhe, their long-time favourite (Lichtheim 2006: 235, n. 22). The royal
women repeatedly refer to the goddess Hathor in their singing, talking of this deity as
the “Lady of Heaven” (nbt pt)125 (B270), the “Golden One” (B270), and the “Lady of
Stars” (B271), performing something akin to a hathorisches Kultlied (Morenz 1997a).
In this, they exclaim: “Hail to you (the sungod or the king), as to the Lady of All
(Hathor or the queen)!” (hy n.k mi nbt r ḏr)126 (B274). Obviously, the borders also
between the queen and the deities were considered to be fluid, as evident not the least
through this identifying of the Egyptian queen with the sky goddess (Simpson 2003:
61, n. 14). A union between the king as the sungod and the queen as Hathor is evoked
in this lyrical ceremony benefiting Sinuhe (Parkinson 2009: 52, n. 74).
Hathor is also called upon, along with three male deities, by Sinuhe to do good to
the king. She is enumerated after Re and Horus, and possibly also after Montu (B237-
38). In Sinuhe’s reply to the royal pardon, he enumerates some deites. Of the
specified 13 deities, only four of them are female, they not being in prominent
positions either. The goddesses are Hathor, the “Lady of Imet” (nbt imt), i.e. the
goddess Buto (Parkinson 2009: 49, n 55), Wereret the Lady of Punt, and Nut (B206-
10). In other words, also the divine sphere is male-dominated. The “heaven over you”,
referred to in the king’s description of Sinuhe’s prospective good burial (B193),
arguably alludes to Nut, painted on the lid (or inner side) of the coffin (Parkinson
2009: 48, n. 49). There were no problems for Sinuhe to talk of female dominance in
the higher sphere. In sum, there is a clear hierarchy between men and women in the
tale, also if looking at the cosmic level with its goddesses and royal women.

                                                        
123
The elevation of the queen is repeatedly expressed by the “crowned, seated woman”-determinative
(a mixture of B1 and B7). Interestingly, the queen is an im3ḫy already in her lifetime.
124
Tellingly, the title is determined by a cobra (I12), i.e. the sign of goddesses.
125
As customary, the “lord/lady”-title is not written with any divine determinative.
126
The Late Egyptian interjection hy clearly carries the notion of “praising s.o.” (Hannig 2009: 521).

  35 
2.5.4 Hierarchy and gender

Leaving the focusing on biological sex and hierarchies, some notes on hierarchy and
the social construction of gender (male, female, other127) will now be made. This of
course calls for the use of gender theory in the analysis. The discussion will be much
based on the discussion in the previous subsection, centering on biological sex and
power. The main argument in this subsection is that masculinity overarchs femininity
in terms of worth. Although the female element sometimes appears as complementary
and of equal worth in relation to the male element in official sources, as exemplified
in state ideology and cosmogony (Troy 1986), a tendency in the Ancient Near East of
seeing femininity as inferior to masculinity is much noticeable (Bahrani 2001).
Beginning with the notion of femininity and power relations, the only female
agents in the tale who are truly active are goddesses and royal women. These however
constitute special cases, and they can therefore not convincingly be used in order to
argue that e.g. Egyptian women had a very high status in Egyptian society. Besides,
and as demonstrated above, the Egyptian king and the male deities are placed before
the Egyptian queen and the female deities in the hierarchy. In other words, the female
component is seen as inferior in both the earthly and divine spheres in the tale.
Leaving the special cases in question, anynomity and passivity, as well as
reproduction and peacefulness (in the sense of not conducting warfare), seem to
characterize femininity in the tale, at least judging from its earthly women. As for
reproduction and peacefulness, the performance or the “ritual of renewal” (B268-79)
by the royal women with its eroticism and mercy-invoking (Brunner 1955, Goedicke
1998, Parkinson 2009: 25) strengthens this conclusion on the role of gender, and on
reproduction and peacefulness, in that it evokes sexuality and non-coercion.
Continuing with the topic of masculinity and power relations, the king but also
implicitly Sinuhe are described as “heroes” (nḫt)128 (B51, B93), and as being brave
and strong, not the least in battle (B109-47, B46-75). Also Sinuhe’s (male) children
are referred to as “heroes” (B93), arguably in a military context. At the same time,
clemency and care for the weak are regarded as part of the ideal masculinity (B151-
52), at least within the framework of the Egyptian Binnensolidarität (Assmann 1990:
238-41). The fierce dimension of masculinity is expressed in Sinuhe’s descriptions of
the king’s and his own fighting (B51-65, B97-106), not the least when picturing his
duel with the giant of Retjenu (B127-41). Sexuality seems to be linked with military
performance in the talk of “valour” (ḳn) (B107) and “virility” (b33wt)129 (B190), and
in his repeated references to himself as a “bull” (k3) (B118-20). In this sense,
reproduction is tied also to masculinity, although this time carrying a more active
meaning. By contrast with femininity, the components of ideal masculinity as
expressed in The Tale of Sinuhe are in other words superiority, individualization,
activeness, (active) reproduction, and physical strength. It is easy to see from the
various contexts of this imagery that masculinity overarchs femininity.
Before concluding this admittedly very brief discussion on gender and power
relationships, it may be worth pointing out that “incorrect” gender relations are
articulated too in Egyptian literature, such as in “The Tale of Neferkare and Sasenet”,
arguably telling of the feminization of males (Parkinson 2009: 288-89). Another
                                                        
127
On grounds of delimitation, I will not explore other possible genders in ancient Egypt, but it may be
worth reminding of e.g. the (if not hermaphrodite so at least feminized) god Hapy (Quirke 1992: 50).
128
The coercive nature of this role is indicated by the “man with a stick”-determinative (A24).
129
Tellingly, the former term is connected with violence (A24), and the latter term is associated with
male reproduction through the determinative which pictures male genitalia issuing liquid (D53).

  36 
important example would be the narrative passage in “The Teaching of the Vizier
Ptahhotep” in which a so-called “woman-boy” and his/her sexual desires are referred
to in highly disapproving terms (Parkinson 2009: 260 and 270, n. 41). This negative
imagery of course also tells of the prevailing gender system in ancient Egypt.

2.5.5 Summary

Summing up the discussions of this section, the power relationships between women
(of all classes and ethnicities) or the Egyptian people and the other units of analysis
are not very often talked of in the tale. When it indeed happens, the Egyptian people
are pictured as being under the naturalized command of Sinuhe/the Egyptian officials,
the Egyptian king, and the Egyptian deities, but they are nevertheless seen as a part of
a relationship of “vertical solidarity” or an Egyptian Binnensolidarität which
prescribes that the earthly lords in power still have the duty to provide for these. In
this power relationship, loyalty and provisioning are exchanged between the rulers
and the ruled. This process or social stratification is imagined as sanctioned by m3‘t.
As for the other type of socially based hierarchy, the role of women is very much
downplayed in the tale. Only goddesses and royal women come across as agents that
matter in the social arena. These agents however constitute special cases, and they can
not be taken as solid support for the idea that women were powerful in society or in
the tale. Moreover, the king and the (male) gods are placed before these. Leaving the
discussion on biological sex, the issue of gender and power relationships was then
investigated. It was found that while femininity is associated with anonymity,
passivity, (passive) reproduction, and peacefulness (as for violence), masculinity is
connected with pretty much the opposite, namely individualization, activeness,
(active) reproduction, and physical strength. A fundamental hierarchy between men
and women and between masculinity and femininity is clearly expressed.

  37 
3. General summary
This book has focused on hierarchies in the famous, ancient literary piece known as
The Tale of Sinuhe. The overarching aim of this study was to identify and discuss the
social, cultural, and political hierarchies in The Tale of Sinuhe. The narrower aim of
this study, functioning as a means to fulfill the overarching one, was to describe how
the relationships (in terms of power) between Sinuhe/the Egyptian officials, the
Egyptian deities, the Egyptian king, the Egyptian people, “the foreign lands” (high
and low), and women (high and low and of all ethnicities) are portrayed in The Tale
of Sinuhe and in the context of other related primary sources.
The actual analysis was carried out through a “close reading”, paying attention
both to epigraphic and philological details as well as the wider cultural-historical
frameworks, resulting in the identifying of ideological “themes”. The various
relationships in terms of power, “status”, and “function” were focused on in this
process. While reading the tale as something more than just literature, and while
understanding ancient literature in non-positivistic and non-relativistic ways, the
alleged political and propagandistic aspects of the tale were recognized, as reflected
also in my use of the theories critical theory, postcolonial theory, and gender theory.
The first section discussed the power relationships between Sinuhe/the officials
and the other three focused units of analysis, with the former as the active part. It was
found that Sinuhe is pictured as clearly inferior both in relation to the Egyptian king
and the Egyptian deities, although the latter are not spoken of so much. Sinuhe’s and
the Egyptian officials’ duty was to be loyal and act loyally in relation to their king,
while the former of course also had the obligation to worship the Egyptian deities. As
I will soon discuss, this would naturally pay off for Sinuhe and his fellow officials, by
them being provided for and by them being looked after, from the hands of their
earthly (see 2.2.1) and divine (see 2.3.1) masters. As for Sinuhe’s relationship with
the foreign lands, the situation is more complex. In the beginning of the tale Sinuhe
comes across as completely in the hands of the foreign lands, only to transform into
the one ruling this territory, an area ultimately under the authority and dominion of
the Egyptian king. Cultural superiority on the part of Egypt can be traced in the end of
the tale, although xenophobia is difficult to detect at any stage of the tale. It is telling
and significant that Sinuhe ends up as directing the foreign lands from Egypt.
The second section discussed the power relationships between the king and the
other three focused units of analysis, with the former as the active part. It was found
that there is a fundamental hierarchy between the king and Sinuhe/the officials, with
the former having the duty to paternalistically provide for his officials both in life and
death, in return for their loyal service (see 2.1.1). In relation to the deities, the living
king comes across as variously a primus inter pares who humbly serves his divine
masters while being a human being in a divine office. He also emerges as a real god
within the Egyptian pantheon, being born divine, being equivalent to deities, and
having great power over nature. The deceased king is by contrast consistently
presented as divine, here as elsewhere in the preserved sources from ancient Egypt. In
relation to the foreign lands, the Egyptian king variously presents himself as a
universal ruler, then having obligations also to his foreign territiories and subjects, but
also as a regional ruler, having only Egypt and the Egyptians to care about, and
having the foreigners as the eternal, unchanging enemies in the style of the well-
known stereotypical imagery chiselled out in the royal inscriptions and iconography.
The third section discussed the power relationships between the deities and the
other three focused units of analysis, with the former as the active part. It was found

  38 
that the deities emerge as the superior part in all three discussed relations. In relation
to Sinuhe/the officials, the power of the deities is shown in their directing Sinuhe’s
destinies, turning it from an originally bad one to a following good one, as
exemplified in the flight and return of Sinuhe. In relation to the king, the power of the
deities come across clearly, quite in contrast to the discussion (see 2.2.2) where the
king is the active part of the two. The gods and goddesses are here seen as the actual
masters of Egypt, i.e. also ruling the earthly sphere, and as giving protection and life
to the king. In relation to the foreign lands, the Egyptian deities are occasionally
represented in charge also over these, although the exceptions to and the textual
meagerness on this theme suggest a lack of a genuinly universalist approach.
The fourth section discussed the power relationships between the foreign lands and
the other three focused units of analysis, with the former as the active part. It was
found that the foreign lands are described as inferior in all three relationships, but that
the nature of this inferiority shifts from case to case. On the one hand this inferiority
of the foreign lands are essence-based, on the other hand the named inferiority can be
renegotiated and mildred by the influence from various Egyptian individuals and
institutions. It is illuminating that all the good-behaving lands and rulers in the Levant
have been in contact with Egypt in one way or another. The tribe’s chief who saves
Sinuhe’s life in the desert had been to Egypt, and Sinuhe’s patron Amunenshi is
described as well acquainted with Egyptians and Egyptian customs. The latter is also
aware of the beings and doings of the Egyptian king and state. This knowledge of
things Egyptian explains the civilized behaviour of these “barbarians”. As for the
relationship with the Egyptian deities, the foreign lands come across as living in
deepest ignorance, having no link to the Egyptian pantheon, as expressed in the tale.
In the first part of the fifth section, the power relationships between the Egyptian
people and the other units of analysis are identified and discussed. The Egyptian
people are not very often talked of in the tale. When it indeed happens, they are
pictured as being under the naturalized command of Sinuhe/the Egyptian officials, the
Egyptian king, and the Egyptian deities, but they are nevertheless seen as a part of a
relationship of “vertical solidarity” or an Egyptian Binnensolidarität which prescribes
that the earthly lords in power still have the duty to provide for these. In this power
relationship, loyalty and provisioning are exchanged between the rulers and the ruled.
This process or social stratification is imagined as sanctioned by m3‘t.
In the second part of the fifth section, the power relationships of women (of all
classes and ethnicities) is analysed. The role of women is very much downplayed in
the tale. Only goddesses and royal women come across as agents that matter in the
social arena. These agents however constitute special cases, and they can not be taken
as solid support for the idea that women were powerful in society or in the tale.
Moreover, the king and the (male) gods are placed before these. The issue of gender
and power relationships was then investigated. It was found that while femininity is
associated with anonymity, passivity, (passive) reproduction, and peacefulness (as for
violence), masculinity is connected with pretty much the opposite, namely
individualization, activeness, (active) reproduction, and physical strength. A
fundamental hierarchy between on the one hand men and women and on the other
hand between masculinity and femininity is clearly expressed in the sources.
After having summarized my findings, I would like to conclude this book by
pointing to some important and interesting trends in the sources. Firstly, there are
clear images of hierarchies, and these are viewed as distinct and natural. Secondly,
some of these hierarchies are thought of as being mildred by social solidarity, at least
within the Egyptian cultural milieu. Thirdly, it is noticeable that women and

  39 
femininity are much subordinated in the tale. This of course provides an input to the
general discussion on the status of Egyptian women in their society. Fourthly, there is
an ambivalence between the portrayals of the Egyptian king as a human being and a
god. This naturally points to the complexity with regards to the issue of royal
deification in Egypt. One thing is clear though, namely that a strict binary dichotomy
of human/divine can not be maintained. Fifthly, there is a tension between a
universalist and regional approach by the various Egyptian agents in their relations
with the foreign lands. Although there are not any clear traces of xenophobia in the
sources, it is clear that there are grounds to talk of some kind of “nationalist” feeling
being conveyed in the tale. Not the least as exemplified in this field of discussion,
there is a tension between “the actual” and “the ideal” running through the whole tale.
In its great complexity, “The Tale of Sinuhe” will continue to generate discussions.

  40 
4. List of references

Agam, J. 1982. Zur Wache an der “Fürstenmauer” - Sinuhe B19. Göttinger Miszellen 54: 7-9.

Allam, S. 1986. Sinuhe’s Foreign Wife (Reconsidered). Discussions in Egyptology 4: 15-16.

Allen, J. P. 2010. Literature. Pp. 388-98 in Wilkinson 2010a.

Althusser, L. 1971. Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. Pp. 127-86 in Lenin and
Philosophy and Other Essays by Louis Althusser, edited and translated by B. Brewster. New
York and London: Monthly Review Press.

Assmann, J. 1970. Der König als Sonnenpriester. Ein kosmographischer Begleittext zur
liturgischen Sonnenhymnik. Abhandlungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts,
Abteilung Kairo, ägyptologische Reihe 7. Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin.

Assmann, J. 1983. Die Rubren in der Überlieferung der Sinuhe-Erzählung. Pp. 18-41 in
Fontes atque Pontes, edited by M. Görg. Ägypten und Altes Testament 5. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.

Assmann, J. 1990. Ma‘at. Gerechtigkeit und Unsterblichkeit im Alten Ägypten. Beck’sche

Reihe. Munich: Beck.

Assmann, J. 1996a. Zur Konzept der Fremdheit im alten Ägypten. Pp. 77-99 in Die
Begegnung mit der Fremden, edited by M. Schuster. Colloquium Rauricum 4. Stuttgart and
Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.

Assmann, J. 1996b. Kulturelle und literarische Texte. Pp. 59-82 in Loprieno 1996a.

Bahrani, Z. 2001. Women of Babylon: Gender and Representation in Mesopotamia. London

and NewYork: Routledge.

Baines, J. 1982. Interpreting Sinuhe. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 68: 31-44.

Baines, J. 1995. Origins of Egyptian Kingship. Pp. 95-156 in O’Connor and Silverman 1995a.

Barns, J. W. B. 1952. The Ashmolean Ostracon of Sinuhe. London: Griffith Institute.

Barns, J. W. B. 1967. Sinuhe’s Message to the King: A Reply to a Recent Article. Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 53: 6-14.

Bárta, M. 2003. Sinuhe, the Bible, and the Patriarchs. Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology.

Bárta, M. 2013. Egyptian Kingship in the Old Kingdom. Pp. 257-83 in Hill et al. 2013a.

Barta, W. 1975. Untersuchungen zur Göttlichkeit des regierenden Königs. Münchner

Ägytologische Studien 32. Munich and Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag München und Berlin.

Barta, W. 1990. Der “Vorwurf an Gott” in der Lebensgeschichte des Sinuhe. Pp. 21-28 in
Festschrift Jürgen von Beckerath, edited by B. Schmitz and A. Eggebrecht. Hildesheimer
Ägyptologische Beiträge 30. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag.

  41 
Barthes, R. 1967. Elements of Semiology, translated by A. Lavers and C. Smith. Cape
Editions 4. London: Jonathan Cape.

Behrens, P. 1981. Sinuhe B 134 ff. oder die Psychologie eines Zweikampfes. Göttinger
Miszellen 44: 7-11.

Bell, L. 1986. Le cult du ka royal. Dossiers Histoires et Archéologie 101: 57-61.

Blumenthal, E. 1983. Zu Sinuhes Zweikampf mit dem Starken von Retjenu. Pp. 42-46 in
Fontes atque Pontes, edited by M. Görg. Ägypten und Altes Testament 5. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.

Blumenthal, E. 1998. Sinuhes Persönliche Frömmigkeit. Pp. 213-31 in Jerusalem Studies in

Egyptology, edited by I. Shirun-Grumach. Ägypten und Altes Testament 40. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.

Bommer, M. 2014. Sinuhes Flucht. Zu Religion und Literatur als Methode. Zeitschrift für
ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 96: 15-23.

Bourriau, J. 1991. Patterns of Change in Burial Customs during the Middle Kingdom. Pp. 3-
20 in Quirke 1991a.

Brunner, H. 1955. Das Besänftigungslied im Sinuhe (B 269-279). Zeitschrift für ägyptische

Sprache und Altertumskunde 80: 5-11.

de Buck, A. 1939. A Note on Sinuhe B 71-72. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 25: 100.

Derchain, P. 1970. La réception de Sinouhé a la cour de Sésostris Ier. Revue d’égyptologie

22: 79-83.

Derchain, P. 1985. Sinouhé et Ammounech. Göttinger Miszellen 87: 7-13.

Dodson, A. 2010. The Monarchy. Pp. 75-90 in Wilkinson 2010a.

Donadoni, S. F. 1986. L’ispirazione divina’ di Sinuhe. Pp. 289-91 in Cultura dell’antico

Egitto: Scritti di Sergio F. Donadoni, edited by S. F. Donadoni. Rome: “La Sapienza”.

Englund, G. 1995. Middle Egyptian: An Introduction. Uppsala: Uppsala University.

Feder, F. 2003. Sinuhes Vater - ein Versuch des Neuen Reiches Sinuhes Flucht zu erklären.
Göttinger Miszellen 195: 45-52.

Fischer-Elfert, H.-W. 1996. The Hero of Retjenu - an Execration Figure (Sinuhe B 109-113).
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 82: 198-99.

Foster, J. L. 1982-83. The sdm.f and sdm.n.f Forms in the Tale of Sinuhe. Revue
d’égyptologie 34: 27-52.

Frankfort, H. 1948. Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the
Integration of Society and Nature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gahlin, L. 2010. Private Religion. Pp. 325-39 in Wilkinson 2010a.

Goebs, K. 2010. Kingship. Pp. 275-95 in Wilkinson 2010a.

  42 
Goedicke, H. 1960. Die Stellung des Königs im Alten Reich. Ägyptologische Abhandlungen
2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Goedicke, H. 1965. Sinuhe’s Reply to the King’s Letter. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 51:
29-47.

Goedicke, H. 1984a. Sinuhe’s Duel. Journal of the Amercian Research Center in Egypt 2:
197-201.

Goedicke, H. 1984b. The Riddle of Sinuhe’s Flight. Revue d’égyptologie 35: 95-103.

Goedicke, H. 1984-85. Sinuhe’s Foreign Wife. Bulletin de la Société d’égyptologie de Genève

9-10: 103-107.

Goedicke, H. 1985. The Encomium of Sesostris I. Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 12: 5-28.

Goedicke, H. 1990. Sinuhe’s Self-Realization (Sinuhe B 113-127). Zeitschrift für ägyptische

Sprache und Altertumskunde 117: 129-39.

Goedicke, H. 1998. The Song of the Princesses (Sinuhe B 269-279). Bulletin de la Société
d’égyptologie de Genève 22: 29-36.

Goedicke, H. 2000. Sinuhe B 147-9. Göttinger Miszellen 181: 39-41.

Goedicke, H. 2011. Who was Sinuhe? Pp. 55-60 in From Illahun to Djeme: Papers Presented
in Honour of Ulrich Luft, edited by E. Bechtold et al. 2011. BAR International Series 2311.
Oxford: Archaeopress.

Hannig, R. 2009. Die Sprache der Pharaonen. Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch – Deutsch
(2800-950 v. Chr). Kulturgeschichte der Antiken Welt 64. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern.

el Hawary, A. 2014. Sinuhe und die/das Fremde. Pp. 15-22 in Interpretations of Sinuhe,
Inspired by Two Passages: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Leiden University, 27-29
November 2009, edited by H. M. Hays, F. Feder, and L. D. Morenz. Egyptologische Uitgaven
27. Leuven: Peeters.

Hill, J. A., P. Jones, and A. J. Morales (eds.). 2013a. Experiencing Power, Generating
Authority: Cosmos, Politics, and the Ideology of Kingship in Ancient Egypt and
Mesopotamia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.

Hill, J. A., P. Jones, and A. J. Morales. 2013b. Introduction. Comparing Kingship in Ancient
Egypt and Mesopotamia: Cosmos, Politics, and Landscape. Pp. 3-29 in Hill et al. 2013a.

Hinson, B. 2014. Sinuhe’s Life Abroad: Ethnoarchaeological and Philological

Reconsiderations. Current Research in Egyptology 14: 81-93.

Hofmann, T. 2003. Reziproker Altruismus in der Literatur des Alten Ägypten. Das
Paradigma: Die Erzählung des Sinuhe. Pp. 162-70 in Menschenbilder – Bildermenschen,
edited by T. Hofmann and A. Sturm. Kunst und Kultur im Alten Ägypten. Norderstedt: Books
on Demand.

Hornung, E. 1996. Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many, translated
by J. Baines. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

  43 
Jansen-Winkeln, K. 1991. Das Attentat auf Amenemhet I. und die erste ägyptische
Koregentschaft. Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 18: 241-64.

Kemp, B. J. 1989. Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization. London and New York:
Routledge.

Kitchen, K. A. 1994. Sinuhe’s Foreign Friends, and Papyri (Coptic) Greenhill 1-4. Pp. in
Studies in the Culture and Heritage of Ancient Egypt in Honour of A.F. Shore, edited by C. J.
Eyre, M. A. Leahy, and L. M. Leahy. Occasional Publications of the Egypt Exploration
Society 11. London: Egypt Exploration Sociey.

Kitchen, K. A. 1996. Sinuhe: Scholarly Method versus Trendy Fashion. Bulletin of the
Australian Centre for Egyptology 7: 55-63.

Koch, R. 1990. Die Erzählung des Sinuhe. Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca 17. Brussels: Éditions de
la fondation égyptologique reine Élisabeth.

Lichtheim, M. 2006 [1973]. Ancient Egyptian Literature, A Book of Readings I: The Old and
Middle Kingdoms. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press.

Loprieno, A. 1988. Topos und Mimesis. Zum Ausländer in der ägyptischen Literatur.
Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 48. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Loprieno, A. 1996a (ed.). Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms. Probleme der
Ägyptologie 10. Leiden, New York, and Cologne: Brill.

Loprieno, A. 1996b. Loyalistic Instructions. Pp. 403-14 in Loprieno 1996a.

Loprieno, A. 1996c. Defining Egyptian Literature: Ancient Texts and Modern Theories. Pp.
39-58 in Loprieno 1996a.

Lüscher, B. (in collaboration with G. Lapp) 2014-10-08 (retrieval date).

https://aegyptologie.unibas.ch/werkzeuge/sinuhe-bibliographie/.

Mahfouz, N. 2002. The Return of Sinuhe. Pp. 49-56 in N. Mahfouz, Voices from the Other
World: Ancient Egyptian Tales, translated by R. Stock. Cairo and New York: American
University in Cairo Press.

Moreno García, J. C. 2013. Building the Pharaonic State: Territory, Elite and Power in
Ancient Egypt in the 3rd Millennium BCE. Pp. 185-217 in Hill et al. 2013a.

Morenz, L. D. 1997a. Ein hathorisches Kultlied und ein königlicher Archetyp des Alten
Reiches - Sinuhe B 270f. und eine Stele der späten XI. Dynastie (Louvre C15). Welt des
Orients 28: 7-17.

Morenz, L. D. 1997b. Kanaanäisches Lokalkolorit in der Sinuhe-Erzählung und die

Vereinfachung des Urtextes. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 113: 1-18.

Moers, G. 2001. Fingierte Welten in der ägyptischen Literatur des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr.
Grenz-überschreitung, Reisemotiv und Fiktionalität. Probleme der Ägyptologie 19. Leiden:
Brill.

Möller, G. 1909. Hieratische Lesestücke für den akademischen Gebrauch I. Leipzig:

Hinrichs.

  44 
Morschauser, S. M. 2000. What Made Sinuhe Run: Sinuhe’s Reasoned Flight. Journal of the
Amercian Research Center in Egypt 37: 187-98.

Newton, K. M. 1990. Interpreting the Text: A Critical Introduction to the Theory and
Practice of Literary Interpretation. New York and London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Obsomer, C. 1999. Sinouhé l’égyptien et les raisons de son exil. Le Muséon 112: 207-71.

O’Connor, D. and D. P. Silverman (eds.). 1995a. Ancient Egyptian Kingship. Probleme der
Ägyptologie 9. Leiden, New York, and Cologne: Brill.

O’Connor, D. and D. P. Silverman 1995b. Introduction. Pp. xvii-xxvii in O’Connor and

Silverman 1995a.

Padró i Parcerisa, J. 1980. Deux possibles mentions des quatre éléments dans la littérature
égyptienne classique (Mérikarê, P, 131-132 et Sinouhé, B, 233-234). Faventia 2/2: 5-17.

Parant, R. 1982. L’affaire Sinouhé. Tentative d’approche de la justice répressive égyptienne

au début du IIe millénaire av. J.C. Paris: Aurillac.

Parkinson, R. B. 1996. Individual and Society in Middle Kingdom Literature. Pp. 137-55 in
Loprieno 1996a.

Parkinson, R. B. 2002. Poetry and Culture in Middle Kingdom Egypt: A Dark Side to
Perfection. Studies in Egyptology and the Ancient Near East. London and Oakville: Equinox.

Parkinson, R. B. 2009 [1997]. The Tale of Sinuhe and Other Ancient Egyptian Poems, 1940–
1640 BC, Translated with Introduction and Notes. Oxford and New York: Oxford University
Press.

Pérez-Accino, J.-R. 2011. Text as Territory: Mapping Sinuhe’s Shifting Loyalties. Pp. 177-94
in Narratives of Egypt and the Ancient Near East: Literary and Linguistic Approaches, edited
by F. Hagen et al. Orientalica Lovaniensia Analecta 189. Leuven: Peeters.

Posener, G. 1957. Littérature et politique dans l’Égypte de la XIIe dynastie. Bibliothèque de

l’École pratique des hautes études 307. Paris: Honoré Champion.

Posener, G. 1960. De la divinité du Pharaon. Cahiers de la Société asiatique 15. Paris:

Imprimerie nationale.

Quirke, S. 1991a (ed.). Middle Kingdom Studies. New Malden: SIA Publishing.

Quirke, S. 1991b. Introduction. Pp. 1-2 in Quirke 1991a.

Quirke, S. 1992. Ancient Egyptian Religion. London: British Museum Press.

Purdy, S. 1977. Sinuhe and the Question of Literary Types. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache
und Altertumskunde 104: 112-27.

Robins, G. 1993. Women in Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum Press.

Robins, G. 2010. Art. Pp. 355-65 in Wilkinson 2010a.

Said, E. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.

  45 
Schneider, T. 2002. Sinuhes Notiz über die Könige: Syrisch-anatolische Herrschertitel in
ägyptischer Überlieferung. Ägypten und Levante 12: 257-72.

Silverman, D. P. 1995. The Nature of Egyptian Kingship. Pp. 49-92 in O’Connor and
Silverman 1995a.

Simpson, W. K. 1984. Sinuhe. Lexikon der Ägyptologie 5: 950-55.

Simpson, W. K. 1996. Belles lettres and Propaganda. Pp. 435-43 in Loprieno 1996a.

Simpson, W. K. 2003 [1973]. The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories,

Instructions, and Poetry. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Spalinger, A. 1998. Orientations on Sinuhe. Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 25: 311-39.

Stadnikow, S. 1993. Über die Willens- und Handlungsfreiheit in der Lebensgeschichte des
Sinuhe. Mitteilungen zur Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte 8: 99-111.

Strudwick, N. C. 2005. Texts from the Pyramid Age. Writings from the Ancient World 16.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Théodoridès, A. E. 1984. L’amnestie et la raison d’état dans les “Aventures de Sinouhé”.

Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquité 31: 75-144.

Tobin, V. A. 1995. The Secret of Sinuhe. Journal of the Amercian Research Center in Egypt
32: 161-78.

Troy, L. 1984. Good and Bad Women. Göttinger Miszellen 80: 77-82.

Troy, L. 1986. Patterns of Queenship in Ancient Egyptian Myth and History. Boreas 15.
Uppsala: Uppsala University.

Tyson Smith, S. 2010. Ethnicity and Culture. Pp. 218-41 in Wilkinson 2010a.

van den Boorn, G. P. F. 1988. The Duties of the Vizier. London and New York: Kegan Paul
International.

Vandersleyen, C. 1974. Sinouhé B 221. Revue d’égyptologie 26: 117-21.

Waltari, M. 1990 [1945]. Sinuhe, egyptiern, translated by Ole Torvalds. WW Pocket.

Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand.

Wessetzky, V. 1963. Sinuhe’s Flucht. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde
90: 124-27.

Westendorf, W. 1977. Noch einmal: Die “Wiedergeburt” des heimgekehrten Sinuhe. Studien
zur Altägyptischen Kultur 5: 293-304.

Westendorf, W. 1986. Einst - Jetzt - Einst, oder Die Rückkehr zum Ursprung. Welt des
Orients 17: 5-8.

Wildung, D. 1984. Sesostris und Amenemhat. Ägypten im Mittleren Reich. Munich: Hirmer.

Wilkinson, T. 2010a (ed.). The Egyptian World. London and New York: Routledge.

  46 
Wilkinson, T. 2010b. Ancient Egyptian Chronology and King List. Pp. xvii-xxiv in
Wilkinson 2010a.

Yoyotte, J. 1964. A propos du panthéon de Sinouhé (B 205-212). Kêmi 17: 69-73.

  47 
5. Index and appendix
5.1 Discussed lines of The Tale of Sinuhe

line page line page

R1 4, 5, 15, 21, 32 B20 4, 5, 14
R2 4, 5, 11, 16, 17, 24 B21 4, 5, 14, 27
R3 4, 5, 11, 19, 35 B22 4, 5, 27
R4 4, 5, 35 B23 4, 5, 27
R5 4, 5, 35 B24 4, 5
R6 4, 5, 18 B25 4, 5, 14
R7 4, 5, 18 B26 4, 5, 14, 28
R8 4, 5, 12, 18 B27 4, 5, 14
R9 4, 5, 12 B28 4, 5, 14, 28
R10 4, 5, 12 B29 4, 5, 14, 28
R11 4, 5, 12, 17, 19, 21 B30 4, 5, 14, 28, 30
R12 4, 5, 17, 21 B31 4, 5, 28
R13 4, 5, 17, 19, 21 B32 4, 5, 28 
R14 4, 5, 21 B33 4, 5, 28, 31 
R15 4, 5, 21 B34 4, 5, 28, 31 
R16 4, 5, 21 B35 4, 5
R17 4, 5, 17 B36 4, 5, 18
R18 4, 5, 25 B37 4, 5
R19 4, 5, 25 B38 4, 5
R20 4, 5 B39 4, 5
R21 4, 5, 11, 20 B40 4, 5
R22 4, 5, 11, 20 B41 4, 5
R23 4, 5, 17 B42 4, 5
R24 4, 5 B43 4, 5, 23
B1 4, 5 B44 4, 5, 19, 20, 21, 30
B2 4, 5, 12 B45 4, 5, 19, 20, 21 
B3 4, 5, 12 B46 4, 5, 19, 34, 36 
B4 4, 5 B47 4, 5, 19, 34, 36 
B5 4, 5, 14 B48 4, 5, 19, 36 
B6 4, 5, 14 B49 4, 5, 19, 36 
B7 4, 5, 12, 14 B50 4, 5, 19, 21, 36 
B8 4, 5, 14 B51 4, 5, 19, 26, 36 
B9 4, 5, 14 B52 4, 5, 19, 36 
B10 4, 5, 14, 31 B53 4, 5, 19, 21, 36 
B11 4, 5, 14, 31 B54 4, 5, 19, 29, 36 
B12 4, 5, 14 B55 4, 5, 19, 21, 29, 36 
B13 4, 5, 12, 14 B56 4, 5, 19, 21, 36 
B14 4, 5, 12, 14 B57 4, 5, 19, 29, 36 
B15 4, 5, 14, 26 B58 4, 5, 19, 29, 36 
B16 4, 5, 14 B59 4, 5, 19, 33, 36 
B17 4, 5, 14, 22 B60 4, 5, 19, 21, 36 
B18 4, 5, 14 B61 4, 5, 19, 21, 36 
B19 4, 5, 14 B62 4, 5, 19, 36 

  48 
B63 4, 5, 19, 20, 36  B111 4, 5, 14, 27, 36 
B64 4, 5, 19, 20, 36  B112 4, 5, 14, 27, 36 
B65 4, 5, 17, 19, 33, 36 B113 4, 5, 14, 27, 28, 36 
B66 4, 5, 17, 19, 20, 33, 36 B114 4, 5, 14, 28, 36 
B67 4, 5, 19, 20, 33, 36 B115 4, 5, 14, 34, 36 
B68 4, 5, 19, 33, 36 B116 4, 5, 14, 34, 36 
B69 4, 5, 17, 19, 36 B117 4, 5, 14, 29, 33, 36 
B70 4, 5, 19, 34, 36 B118 4, 5, 14, 29, 33, 36 
B71 4, 5, 19, 21, 36  B119 4, 5, 14, 29, 33, 36 
B72 4, 5, 19, 21, 36  B120 4, 5, 14, 29, 32, 33, 36 
B73 4, 5, 19, 21, 30, 36  B121 4, 5, 14, 29, 32, 36 
B74 4, 5, 19, 21, 30, 36  B122 4, 5, 14, 29, 36 
B75 4, 5, 19, 21, 30, 36  B123 4, 5, 14, 36 
B76 4, 5, 30 B124 4, 5, 14, 36 
B77 4, 5, 28 B125 4, 5, 14, 30, 36 
B78 4, 5, 28, 34  B126 4, 5, 14, 26, 30, 36 
B79 4, 5, 28, 34  B127 4, 5, 14, 26, 30, 36 
B80 4, 5, 28  B128 4, 5, 14, 36 
B81 4, 5, 28, 30  B129 4, 5, 14, 36 
B82 4, 5, 28  B130 4, 5, 14, 36 
B83 4, 5, 28  B131 4, 5, 14, 29, 36 
B84 4, 5, 28  B132 4, 5, 14, 29, 34, 36 
B85 4, 5, 28  B133 4, 5, 14, 29, 36 
B86 4, 5, 14, 28 B134 4, 5, 14, 29, 36 
B87 4, 5, 14, 28 B135 4, 5, 14, 36 
B88 4, 5, 28  B136 4, 5, 14, 36 
B89 4, 5, 28  B137 4, 5, 14, 36 
B90 4, 5, 28  B138 4, 5, 14, 36 
B91 4, 5, 28  B139 4, 5, 14, 36 
B92 4, 5, 14, 34 B140 4, 5, 14, 36 
B93 4, 5, 14, 34, 36 B141 4, 5, 13, 14, 29, 36
B94 4, 5, 14 B142 4, 5, 13, 14, 28, 36
B95 4, 5 B143 4, 5, 14, 28, 36 
B96 4, 5, 14 B144 4, 5, 14, 36 
B97 4, 5, 14, 36 B145 4, 5, 14, 36 
B98 4, 5, 14, 30, 36 B146 4, 5, 14, 36 
B99 4, 5, 14, 28, 36 B147 4, 5, 14, 36 
B100 4, 5, 14, 28, 36 B148 4, 5, 24
B101 4, 5, 14, 28, 36 B149 4, 5, 24
B102 4, 5, 14, 36 B150 4, 5
B103 4, 5, 14, 36 B151 4, 5, 32, 36
B104 4, 5, 14, 36 B152 4, 5, 32, 36
B105 4, 5, 14, 36 B153 4, 5
B106 4, 5, 14, 28, 36 B154 4, 5, 32
B107 4, 5, 28, 36 B155 4, 5, 32
B108 4, 5, 28 B156 4, 5, 13, 23
B109 4, 5, 14, 27, 36 B157 4, 5, 13, 23
B110 4, 5, 14, 27, 36 B158 4, 5, 15

  49 
B159 4, 5, 15 B207 4, 5, 24, 25
B160 4, 5, 13, 15, 24 B208 4, 5, 25
B161 4, 5, 23, 24 B209 4, 5, 25, 26
B162 4, 5, 23, 24 B210 4, 5, 25, 26 
B163 4, 5, 15 B211 4, 5, 25, 26 
B164 4, 5, 15 B212 4, 5, 25
B165 4, 5, 17 B213 4, 5, 12, 21, 25
B166 4, 5, 35 B214 4, 5, 12, 17
B167 4, 5, 15  B215 4, 5, 19, 33
B168 4, 5, 15  B216 4, 5, 19
B169 4, 5, 15  B217 4, 5, 19
B170 4, 5, 15  B218 4, 5, 19, 21
B171 4, 5, 12, 13, 15 B219 4, 5, 30
B172 4, 5, 12, 13, 35 B220 4, 5, 30
B173 4, 5, 19, 35 B221 4, 5, 30
B174 4, 5, 12, 19 B222 4, 5, 21, 29, 30
B175 4, 5, 12, 15, 17, 19 B223 4, 5, 21, 23, 29
B176 4, 5, 15 B224 4, 5, 23
B177 4, 5 B225 4, 5, 23 
B178 4, 5, 17 B226 4, 5, 23 
B179 4, 5, 25, 35 B227 4, 5, 23 
B180 4, 5, 25 B228 4, 5, 23 
B181 4, 5 B229 4, 5, 23
B182 4, 5, 23 B230 4, 5, 12
B183 4, 5, 12, 23 B231 4, 5, 12, 26, 33
B184 4, 5, 12 B232 4, 5, 17, 26 
B185 4, 5, 35 B233 4, 5, 17, 20 
B186 4, 5 B234 4, 5, 14, 20
B187 4, 5, 17, 35  B235 4, 5, 14
B188 4, 5, 17  B236 4, 5, 12, 25
B189 4, 5, 17  B237 4, 5, 25, 35
B190 4, 5, 17, 36  B238 4, 5, 15, 25, 35
B191 4, 5, 17, 24  B239 4, 5, 15, 34 
B192 4, 5, 17, 24  B240 4, 5, 15, 34 
B193 4, 5, 17, 35  B241 4, 5, 15 
B194 4, 5, 17, 34  B242 4, 5
B195 4, 5, 17  B243 4, 5, 17 
B196 4, 5, 17  B244 4, 5, 17, 32 
B197 4, 5, 17, 28  B245 4, 5, 15, 17, 21 
B198 4, 5, 17  B246 4, 5, 15, 17 
B199 4, 5, 17, 28  B247 4, 5, 17, 32
B200 4, 5 B248 4, 6
B201 4, 5 B249 4, 6, 12
B202 4, 5, 11, 17, 23 B250 4, 6, 12
B203 4, 5, 17 B251 4, 6
B204 4, 5, 11, 17 B252 4, 6, 12
B205 4, 5, 23, 25 B253 4, 6, 12, 17, 19
B206 4, 5, 19, 24, 25 B254 4, 6, 12, 17

  50 
B255 4, 5, 12 B285 4, 5, 12, 18
B256 4, 5, 12 B286 4, 5, 12, 18 
B257 4, 5, 17  B287 4, 5, 12, 18 
B258 4, 5, 17  B288 4, 5, 12, 18 
B259 4, 5, 17, 23  B289 4, 5, 12, 18 
B260 4, 5 B290 4, 5, 12, 15, 18, 28 
B261 4, 5, 19 B291 4, 5, 12, 15, 28 
B262 4, 5, 12, 19 B292 4, 5, 12, 15, 28 
B263 4, 5, 12, 17 B293 4, 5, 12, 15, 28 
B264 4, 5, 15  B294 4, 5, 12, 15, 28 
B265 4, 5, 15  B295 4, 5, 12, 15, 18, 28 
B266 4, 5, 15  B296 4, 5, 12, 18
B267 4, 5, 15, 17  B297 4, 5, 12, 18
B268 4, 5, 15, 18, 20, 26, 34, 36  B298 4, 5, 12
B269 4, 5, 18, 20, 26, 34, 36 B299 4, 5, 12
B270 4, 5, 18, 20, 25, 34, 35, 36  B300 4, 5, 12, 18 
B271 4, 5, 18, 20, 25, 34, 35, 36  B301 4, 5, 12, 18 
B272 4, 5, 18, 20, 33, 34, 36  B302 4, 5, 12, 18 
B273 4, 5, 18, 20, 24, 25, 33, 34, 36  B303 4, 5, 12, 18 
B274 4, 5, 18, 20, 34, 35, 36  B304 4, 5, 12, 18 
B275 4, 5, 18, 20, 34, 36  B305 4, 5, 12, 18 
B276 4, 5, 15, 18, 20, 34, 36 B306 4, 5, 12, 18, 35 
B277 4, 5, 15, 18, 20, 34, 36  B307 4, 5, 12, 18, 35 
B278 4, 5, 15, 18, 20, 34, 36  B308 4, 5, 12, 18, 35 
B279 4, 5, 15, 18, 20, 34, 36  B309 4, 5, 12, 18, 32, 35 
B280 4, 5, 12, 17 B310 4, 5, 12, 18, 35 
B281 4, 5, 12, 17 B311 4, 6
B282 4, 5, 12 R34-35 21
B283 4, 5, 12, 18 AOS6-7 20
B284 4, 5, 12, 18 AOS35-36 20, 33

  51 
5.2 Additions to the “Sinuhe-bibliography”130
Allen, J. P. 2015. The Story of Sinuhe. Pp. 55-154 in Middle Egyptian Literature:
Eight Literary Works of the Middle Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Bommer, M. 2014. Sinuhes Flucht. Zu Religion und Literatur als Methode. Zeitschrift
für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 96: 15-23.

Feder, F. 2007. Die poetische Struktur der Sinuhe-Dichtung. Pp. 169-93 in

Alttestamentliche, ägyptologische und altorientalische Perspektiven, edited by L. D.
Morenz and S. Schorch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 362. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Feder, F., L. D. Morenz, and H. M. Hays. 2014. Introduction: The Alpha and Omega
of Sinuhe. Pp. 1-4 in Hays et al. 2014.

Galassi, F. M., T. Böni, F. J. Rühli, and M. E. Habicht. 2016. Fight-or-Flight

Response in the Ancient Egyptian Novel “Sinuhe” (c. 1800 BCE). Autonomic
Neuroscience Journal 195: 27-28.

Goedicke, H. 2004. Sinuhe’s Epistolary Salutations to the King (B 206-11). Journal

of the American Research Center in Egypt 41: 5-22.131

Goedicke, H. 2011. Who was Sinuhe? Pp. 55-60 in From Illahun to Djeme: Papers
Presented in Honour of Ulrich Luft, edited by E. Bechtold et al. BAR International
Series 2311. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Hagen, F., J. Johnston, W. Monkhouse, K. Piquette, J. Tait, and M. Worthington

(eds.). 2011. Narratives of Egypt and the Ancient Near East: Literary and Linguistic
Approaches. Orientalica Lovaniensia Analecta 189. Leuven: Peeters.

el Hawary, A. 2014. Sinuhe und die/das Fremde. Pp. 15-22 in Hays et al. 2014.

Hays, F. M. 2014. Sinuhe the Coward. Pp. 23-42 in Hays et al. 2014.

Hays, F. M., F. Feder, and L. D. Morenz (eds.). 2014. Interpretations of Sinuhe,

Inspired by Two Passages: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Leiden University, 27-
29 November 2009. Egyptologische Uitgaven 27. Leuven: Peeters.

Hinson, B. 2014. Sinuhe’s Life Abroad: Ethnoarchaeological and Philological

Reconsiderations. Current Research in Egyptology 14: 81-93.

                                                        
130
The Sinuhe-Bibliographie (Lüscher and Lapp 2014-10-08) is meant to cover the Sinuhe-
publications up to and including the year of 2005. The present list adds publications from 2006 to
(June) 2016. Only works that focus specially on Sinuhe is included. Book reviews and encyclopedic
articles are excluded. If a work on Sinuhe has more than one versions, only one of these is included.
131
For some reason not included in the Sinuhe-Bibliographie.

  52 
Holler, C. 2013. Die Autobiographie des Sinuhe. Pp. 13-33 in Das Krokodil und der
Pharao. Eine Anthologie altägyptischer Literatur, edited by C. Holler. Mainz am
Rhein: Phillip von Zabern.

Jay, J. E. 2014. Parallelism in Sinuhe R 19-20 and B 199-200. Pp. 43-58 in Hays et al.
2014.

Kaper, O. E. 2014. Sinuhe’s Act of Happiness. Pp. 59-68 in Hays et al. 2014.

Matthews, V. H. and D. C. Benjamin. 2006. Stories of Sinuhe. Pp. 129-33 in Old

Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East, edited by V. H.
Matthews and D. C. Benjamin. New York: Paulist Press.

Moers, G. 2011. Broken Icons: The Emplotting of Master-narratives in the Ancient

Egyptian Tale of Sinuhe. Pp. 165-76 in Hagen et al. 2011.

Moers, G. 2013. Ptahhotep on Communication and Sinuhe’s Invisibility. Pp. 54-59 in

Decorum and Experience: Essays in Ancient Culture for John Baines, edited by E.
Frood and A. McDonald. Oxford: Griffith Institute.

Morenz, L. D. 2014. Warum bleibt Sinuhe sich immer so gleich? Zur Problematik von
Identität und Rollenkonformität in der mittelägyptischen Literatur. Pp. 69-80 in Hays
et al. 2014.

Pérez-Accino, J.-R. 2011. Text as Territory: Mapping Sinuhe’s Shifting Loyalties. Pp.
177-94 in Hagen et al. 2011.

Roeder, H. 2009. Die Erfahrung von Ba’u: “Sinuhe” und “Schiffbrüchiger” zwischen
dem Erzählen und Lehren der 12. Dynastie. Pp. 75-157 in Das Erzählen in frühen
Hochkulturen, 1, der Fall Ägypten, edited by H. Roeder. Ägypten und
Kulturwissenschaft 1. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.

Schenkel, W. 2014. Syntax und Sinnzusammenhang. Emphatische Konstruktion,

Rang-V-Erweiterung und anderes mehr. Pp. 81-172 in Hays et al. 2014.

Stauder, A. 2014. Linguistic Dissonance in Sinuhe. Pp. 173-88 in Hays et al. 2014.

Vernus, P. 2014. Élaboration littéraire et affectation archaïsante: Comment Sinohé

sait se mettre en avant en se mettant à l’écart. Pp. 189-214 in Hays et al. 2014.

Winand, J. 2014. The Tale of Sinuhe: History of a Literary Text. Pp. 215-43 in Hays
et al. 2014.

  53 
6. Illustrations

Figure 1: An excerpt from Papyrus Berlin 3022. Beginning of this papyrus, with “The Tale of
Sinuhe”. Reproduced (facsimile text) from Möller 1909: 7 (and Wikimedia Commons).

Figure 2: A picture of Senwosret I. Fragment of a statue of the king. Exhibited in the Altes
Museum in Berlin (catalogue number 1206). Reproduced from Wikimedia Commons.

  54 
Figure 3: The pyramid of Amenemhat I. The remains of this king’s pyramid (originally c. 55
meters high) in the royal necropolis of El-Lisht. Reproduced from Wikimedia Commons.

Figure 4: A picture of Amenemhat I with the gods. Relief from the king’s funerary temple in
El-Lisht, showing the king granted life by the gods Horus (left) and Anubis (right). Exhibited
in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Reproduced from Wikimedia Commons.

  55 
Figure 5: Maps related to the tale. Reproduced from Parkinson 2009: xxxiii.

  56