# Story of Wenamun

The Story of Wenamun (alternately known as the Report of Wenamun, The Misadventures of Wenamun, Voyage of Unamūn, or [informally] as just Wenamun) is a literary text written in hieratic in the Late Egyptian language. It is only known from one incomplete copy discovered in 1890 at al-Hibah, Egypt, and subsequently purchased in 1891 in Cairo by the Russian Egyptologist Vladimir Golenishchev. It was found in a jar together with the Onomasticon of Amenope and the Tale of Woe. The story features a mixture of literary tropes along with an administrative writing style, which has lead to a longstanding uncertainty of whether it is a fictional account or a genuine historical document. despite this, what scholars can agree on is its importance in showing the political and religious state of Egypt during the transition between the New Kingdom and the Third Intermediate Period.
The papyrus is now in the collection of the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow, and officially designated as Papyrus Pushkin 120. The hieratic text was published globally after finding new ownership in 1960, and the hieroglyphic text was published by Gardiner 1932. The text itself was fully digitized in 2007.

## Discovery

The two-page papyrus is unprovenanced. It was reported to have been discovered in an illicit excavation at al-Hibah, Egypt, and was bought by Vladimir Golenishchev in 1891–92. Golenishchev published the manuscript in 1897–99.

## The text

As the story begins, the principal character, Wenamun, a priest of Amun at Karnak, is sent by the High Priest of Amun Herihor to the Phoenician city of Byblos to acquire Cedar logs. The Cedar wood of Lebanon (Cedrus Libani) was highly coveted for its use in construction, and Wenamun was tasked with procuring it to facilitate the creation of a new ship to transport the cult image of Amun. After visiting Smendes (Nesbanebded in Egyptian) at Tanis, Wenamun stopped at the port of Dor ruled by the Tjeker prince Beder. unfortunately for Wenamun, during his stay one of his sailors would end up abandoning the crew, stealing all of Wenamuns' gold and silver in the process. Wemamun would petition Beder to compensate him for his stolen goods, as it was the responsibility of the town to reimburse the victim of robbery if the perpetrator was not found. However in another stroke of bad luck, due to the robbery occuring offshore from Dor, the crime technically fell outside Beder's jurisdiction and Wenamun would have to leave empty-handed. Upon reaching Byblos, he was shocked by the hostile reception he received there. When he finally gained an audience with Zakar-Baal, the local king, the latter refused to give the requested goods for free, as had been the traditional custom, instead demanding payment. Wenamun had to send to Smendes for payment, a humiliating move that demonstrates the waning of Egyptian power over the Eastern Mediterranean; a causative factor of a new nature can be seen in this ebbing of Egyptian power — the rise of Assyria and its intrusion into Phoenicia around the year 1100 BCE.
After a wait of almost a year at Byblos, Wenamun would finally receive the lumber he came for, but not before being confronted by a fleet of eleven Tjeker ships. Between his departure of Dor and arrival at Byblos, Wenamun had evidently made an attempt to rob them in order to recoup the losses he had suffered during his stay at the harbor. Wenamun's ship was able to avoid capture and attempted to leave for Egypt, only to be blown off course to Alashiya (Cyprus). after his arrival he was almost killed by an angry mob before placing himself under the protection of the local queen, whom he called Hatbi. At this point the story breaks off.

## Dating

The story is set in an anonymous "Year 5", generally taken to be the fifth year of the so-called Renaissance of Pharaoh Ramesses XI, the tenth and last ruler of the Twentieth Dynasty of Ancient Egypt (1190–1077 BCE). However, since Karl Jansen-Winkeln has proposed to reverse the order of the High Priests of Amun Herihor and Piankh, this ascription has become disputed. With the pontificate of Herihor falling later than that of Piankh, who is attested in year 7 of the Renaissance, the date in the heading of Wenamun should rather refer to the direct (or indirect) successor of Ramesses XI. Following Jansen-Winkeln, Arno Egberts (1991) therefore argues that the story is set in the fifth regnal year of Smendes I, the Delta-based founder of the Twenty-first Dynasty.
The actual text is thought to be written around 100–150 years after this. it has been pointed out that the palaeography of the text indicates a Twenty-second Dynasty date for its composition, as well as a number of anachronisms more reflective of a post-Twentieth or Twenty-first Dynasty time frame. This would place its creation during the reign of Shoshenq I, a time when Egypt had risen back to a place of prominence in northeast Africa

## Analysis and Interpretations

It was once widely believed that the Story of Wenamun was an actual historical account, written by Wenamun as a report regarding his travels. However, literary analysis conducted by Egyptologists since the 1980s indicates that it is a work of historical fiction, a view now generally accepted by most professionals working on the text. In 1952, Jaroslav Černý found that the text had no corrections, and was apparently written without any interruptions, such as would have been caused by simultaneously composing the document. This, in addition to a generally non-literary writing style, led most to initially view the document as a genuine historical source. Later Egyptologists such as Wolfgang Helck would challenge this sentiment, pointing towards its unrealistic narration and the fact that it was found in a personal library. While still some still attest to the text's legitimacy as a historical source, the majority of Egyptologists are now in agreement that The Story of Wenamun is mostly fictional, having been composed long after when the story was set. The literary character of the text is summed up by Egberts (2001:495) as being apparent from the sophisticated plot, the rhetoric and irony of the dialogues, the imagery, and the underlying reflection on political, theological, and cultural issues. Grammatical features also point to the literary nature of the text, specifically that of its contents being written in Late Egyptian. Some have interpreted both the literary aspects and complex time frame as a sign that the story might have been originally told in oral form, before being written down. The geographical inconsistencies of the tale also suggest a basis in literature rather than fact; Alessandra Nibbi wrote a great number of articles in which she tried to show that many modern interpretations of geographical references in Ancient Egyptian texts are incorrect. On the basis of her analysis of the source texts, she concluded that Egypt was not a seafaring nation. Egyptian words normally connected to the Mediterranean (such as "the great ym of Kharu") and the associated geographical names are reinterpreted. As a result of her investigations, she has had to "relocate" the places mentioned in Wenamun, assuming that Wenamun journeyed through the wadi Tumilat to lake Timsah. Although her conclusions have so far not been accepted by any major scholars, her work has led to a renewed study of certain terms.
The text ends quite abruptly, possibly showing that the person writing the text down was only interested in the first part of the narrative, and stopped when he realized that he had continued too far into the return journey. However, it has also been suggested that the text as it stands is complete and nothing has been lost at the end, with the last words (And she said to me: "Be at rest") as a fitting, but hitherto unrecognized closing formula.

## Composition and Style

The papyrus itself is unique from typical Egyptian texts, as the typical form of writing went from right to left with the scroll in a horizontal position. The Report of Wenamun was instead written with the scroll in a vertical position, a composition style that was usually uncommon in Egypt, but consistent with ship logs and other historical documents. This unusual structure of the papyrus was one of the premiere arguments Egyptologists used for proof of Wenamun being a historical text rather than fiction. Importantly, at the end of the text, in a slightly larger hand, the syllable (copy) is written, showing that it is not the original, which of course limits the value of paleography as a means to date the content of the story. It would be naïve to assume that there have only been two copies of this narrative: a 20th Dynasty original and a 22nd Dynasty copy. The literary elements in the surviving text (such as the "too good to be true timeframe" which was pointed out by Arno Egberts) suggest that in-between the events described and the apparent date of our surviving copy the story was somehow reworked to entertain a broader audience. From the fact that many of the main protagonists are not properly introduced, it seems clear that the "report" became "literature" at a time when most of the names and situations were still recognizable for an educated audience. A case in point is the ambiguous reference to "the messengers of Khaemwase who spent 17 years in this country and died in their positions" in lines 2, 51–53. Since this could theoretically refer to either Ramesses IX, Ramesses XI or the son of Ramses II, it seems that the editor of the text could expect his readers to know who was meant.
It is quite probable that the copy we have may date as much as one-hundred and fifty years later than the original. The first reason for this assumption is that the post-script is used. This is otherwise only used in the twenty-second dynasty (945–715 BCE). The other reason is the locale where the document was discovered—the Upper Egyptian town of al-Hibah. This town only gained any degree of importance under the reigns of Shoshenq I and Osorkon I. There was also apparently a renewed interest in the affairs of the Levant during the twenty-second dynasty.
The author of Wenamun possibly wrote the original manuscript as an administrative document, a report of his journeys. However, the man who had the document copied over a century later most likely had a different reason. When theorizing about the purposes of the copyist, it seems to be all-too-common to forget about the reverse side of the papyrus. This concerns, as near as we can tell, the "sending of commodities by Ni-ki.. through the agency of Ne-pz-K-r-t for unspecified payment." It could be that this is a summarization of an attempt to perform a mission similar to that of Wenamun in this later time. The Journey of Wenamun to Phoenicia, then, may have been copied as a preparation for this later trip. Due to the unique way the text was written on the papyrus, it has been argued the copy was written by someone experienced in the writing of historical documents for some sort of court, but this is also complicated by the fact that the original text was not located in any sort of official library.

## Significance of the document

The Story of Wenamun is a source of information on conditions in Egypt and Phoenicia. The document reflects common attitudes toward religion (especially the cult of Amon), the state of Mediterranean shipping practices, and even the attitudes of foreign princes to Egyptian claims of supremacy in the region. On the topic of trade, the document illuminates the fact that much of the trade between these two regions at this time was built upon religion. Wenamun Was both a trader and a priest, not only bargaining in material goods, but also in his ideas of Amun when conversing with the King of Byblos. The supremacy of the pharaoh in Egypt is also a topic comes into question; the current pharaoh, Ramesses XI, is never even mentioned during Wenamun's journey. Thebes, Wenamun's hometown, is under the control of Herihor, High Priest of Amun. This motif of the Pharaoh's waning power can be seen in the interaction between Wenuman and Zakar-Baal's steward, where a seemingly snide remark is made about the pharaoh's shadow. This interaction has had multiple interpretations, one of which being that Ramesses XI is a shadow of a pharaoh, referencing the afore mentioned increasing power and status of the high priest of Amun. However the more likely case is that the servant meant that Wenamun is no longer under the shadow of his Pharaoh, pointing towards the decreasing influence of Egypt at the time.