Why did ancient Egypt spend 3000 years playing a game nobody else liked?
July 5, 2016 7:25 AM Subscribe
"With the Royal Game of Ur, right up until the last minute there is this question of who's going to win. Whereas with Senet, you shift back and forth at the end a bit, but nobody would give a damn after half an hour anyway."So Senet is the Monopoly of ancient Egypt?
posted by clawsoon at 7:58 AM on July 5, 2016 [19 favorites]
Why did ancient Amarca spend 3000 years playing a game nobody liked?
7016 Ajlei 5 9:2::5 A
Maybe people have changed, and today we want different things from games than the ancient Amarcans wanted from Monopli. Maybe they found the shuffling rhythms of the game of purchase and exploitation to be thrilling, or at least true: the smallness of human ambition subsumed into the vast, unspeakable programs of the chief Amarcan deity, Captal Issim.
posted by Iridic at 7:59 AM on July 5, 2016 [94 favorites]
7016 Ajlei 5 9:2::5 A
Maybe people have changed, and today we want different things from games than the ancient Amarcans wanted from Monopli. Maybe they found the shuffling rhythms of the game of purchase and exploitation to be thrilling, or at least true: the smallness of human ambition subsumed into the vast, unspeakable programs of the chief Amarcan deity, Captal Issim.
posted by Iridic at 7:59 AM on July 5, 2016 [94 favorites]
What a great story- all it needs now is a dandyish Egyptologist with an elaborate beard, a Marcel wave, and conflicted loyalties.
One of the points of playing a really good board game is to annoy your brother or sister by beating them.
Truer words have rarely been written.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 8:03 AM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
One of the points of playing a really good board game is to annoy your brother or sister by beating them.
Truer words have rarely been written.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 8:03 AM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
That was an interesting piece, though far too long (like so many online things, it needed an editor), but the fact is that nobody knows how the game was played, so it's kind of pointless expending a lot of energy trying to figure out why people played it.
posted by languagehat at 8:12 AM on July 5, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by languagehat at 8:12 AM on July 5, 2016 [15 favorites]
You don't see it as a sort of philology?
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 8:18 AM on July 5, 2016
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 8:18 AM on July 5, 2016
So Egyptians are so remote and foreign we can't understand why they would enjoy X more than we do, but apparently we can understand them well enough to successfully guess what X even was.
It's almost a textbook example of ugly cultural imperialism: "Meh? I don't even know what they're doing or why they're doing it, but I'm pretty sure it's inferior to what we do." Surely ancient Egyptians couldn't have come up with something deeper and more interesting that what a couple of us would imagine if we though about for a little bit.
posted by straight at 8:39 AM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
It's almost a textbook example of ugly cultural imperialism: "Meh? I don't even know what they're doing or why they're doing it, but I'm pretty sure it's inferior to what we do." Surely ancient Egyptians couldn't have come up with something deeper and more interesting that what a couple of us would imagine if we though about for a little bit.
posted by straight at 8:39 AM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
Senet is on Board Game Arena. It's one of the ones I play a lot because, like Yahtzee (also on there) or Backgammon (ditto), you can play it turn-based without having to remember much or pay attention to anything beyond the usually-obvious next move. This means that when I log in after a day and take all my turns, I can do so for Senet without much effort and then spend ten minutes staring at my current Tash-Kalar game.
But it is a really really stupid game, you guys. Like really dumb.
I don't think you need to work hard to imagine deeper levels of enjoyment or complexity, though. People have played stupid games since forever. How long have dice games where you basically just both roll to see who got a higher number been around? Hell, look at playing catch or tag.
posted by Scattercat at 8:51 AM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
But it is a really really stupid game, you guys. Like really dumb.
I don't think you need to work hard to imagine deeper levels of enjoyment or complexity, though. People have played stupid games since forever. How long have dice games where you basically just both roll to see who got a higher number been around? Hell, look at playing catch or tag.
posted by Scattercat at 8:51 AM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Why did ancient Egypt spend 3000 years playing a game nobody else liked?
*cough* golf *cough*
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:57 AM on July 5, 2016 [27 favorites]
*cough* golf *cough*
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:57 AM on July 5, 2016 [27 favorites]
Maybe you're meant to use Senet like you would use a Ouija board?
That's what sprung to my mind when the writer was talking about the religious aspects of the game (and how the players' moves could be mirroring a ba's passage) -- especially when the writer brought up the idea that people might have believed/hoped that the gods or dead souls could be communicating through the throwing sticks and dictating the players' moves that way. That made the throwing sticks sound kind of equivalent to a Ouija board planchette to me.
If Senet was a kind of Ancient Egyption Ouija, then I can see why people would want Senet boards in their tombs, too. I mean, if there's a Senet game right there in your tomb, then your ba would have an easier time keeping in touch with your (living) friends/family.
posted by static sock at 9:21 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's what sprung to my mind when the writer was talking about the religious aspects of the game (and how the players' moves could be mirroring a ba's passage) -- especially when the writer brought up the idea that people might have believed/hoped that the gods or dead souls could be communicating through the throwing sticks and dictating the players' moves that way. That made the throwing sticks sound kind of equivalent to a Ouija board planchette to me.
If Senet was a kind of Ancient Egyption Ouija, then I can see why people would want Senet boards in their tombs, too. I mean, if there's a Senet game right there in your tomb, then your ba would have an easier time keeping in touch with your (living) friends/family.
posted by static sock at 9:21 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, blackjack is a dumb game too. The only skill is in sticking to the basic strategy. Baccarat casino-style is really dumb. I don't see either of them going away.
posted by ctmf at 9:22 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ctmf at 9:22 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
* Baccarat chemin-de-fer seems more interesting, but I haven't convinced anyone to play it with me yet to see.
posted by ctmf at 9:24 AM on July 5, 2016
posted by ctmf at 9:24 AM on July 5, 2016
Why did ancient Egypt spend 3000 years playing a game nobody else liked?
Because they were in de-Nile.
I'll show myself out.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:40 AM on July 5, 2016 [31 favorites]
Because they were in de-Nile.
I'll show myself out.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:40 AM on July 5, 2016 [31 favorites]
This article is terrific, beautifully written and full of fascinating bits and bobs. In some versions of chess, you ate your opponents pieces! There are remains of neolithic board games! Egyptian embalmers engaged in Office-like shenanigans!
posted by blahblahblah at 10:01 AM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by blahblahblah at 10:01 AM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
I... Didn't finish the article. I didn't finish the article because as soon as I realized nobody knows how the 'Ancient Egyptians' played Senet - well what really is the point in disputing whether or not it was a stupid game?
Or was there a big reveal I missed?
posted by From Bklyn at 10:03 AM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Or was there a big reveal I missed?
posted by From Bklyn at 10:03 AM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
The big reveal is we all have clay pots in our skulls. Wake up sheeple
posted by Potomac Avenue at 10:07 AM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 10:07 AM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Anyway yeah great post thanks! Definitely think this it was a gambling game. Gambling makes everything better. Backgammon, for example, is really stupid w/out the bidding.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 10:08 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 10:08 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ever tried to chisel a word or two into a rock? These were people with time on their hands.
posted by Twang at 10:10 AM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Twang at 10:10 AM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
It's almost a textbook example of ugly cultural imperialism hipsterism...
posted by Confess, Fletch at 10:12 AM on July 5, 2016
posted by Confess, Fletch at 10:12 AM on July 5, 2016
Senet is really no worse than a lot of top-selling modern board games. I mean, have you ever played Candyland? (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
posted by Foosnark at 10:20 AM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Foosnark at 10:20 AM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
I thought Baccarat was only played by spies, rich older women in mink stoles, and Texas oil men wearing enormous cowboy hats.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 10:23 AM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 10:23 AM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
So thousands of words on why Egyptians liked "a boring game" like Senet, undermined by this simple statement:
Dr Kendall is unambiguous. "So then you have to invent a way in which the opposing pieces compete on this track.
So people reconstructing the game come up with a boring method of playing it, and then wonder why the ancient Egyptians played it. And the article is full of "Why? I don't know, let me speculate without evidence" verbiage.
It's like someone reconstructing checkers without the king or multiple jump rules, and then doing a long monograph about what the popularity of that voting game means. Is it a religious thing?
posted by happyroach at 10:24 AM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Dr Kendall is unambiguous. "So then you have to invent a way in which the opposing pieces compete on this track.
So people reconstructing the game come up with a boring method of playing it, and then wonder why the ancient Egyptians played it. And the article is full of "Why? I don't know, let me speculate without evidence" verbiage.
It's like someone reconstructing checkers without the king or multiple jump rules, and then doing a long monograph about what the popularity of that voting game means. Is it a religious thing?
posted by happyroach at 10:24 AM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Divination can be surprisingly tricky to separate from ancient board games in general. Take the Royal Game of Ur, which is itself tangled up with everything from astrology and the zodiac to the notion of fortune-telling using sheep livers
I slaughter sheep and use their livers to randomly generate passwords. You get super strong passwords that way. Or maybe it's that they're actually bad passwords, but the cryptography gods smile upon you and grant you a free year of identity protection in recognition of your blood sacrifice.
posted by XMLicious at 10:38 AM on July 5, 2016 [18 favorites]
Backgammon, for example, is really stupid w/out the bidding.
THEM'S FIGHTING WORDS
posted by pwe at 10:50 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
THEM'S FIGHTING WORDS
posted by pwe at 10:50 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
languagehat: but the fact is that nobody knows how the game was played, so it's kind of pointless expending a lot of energy trying to figure out why people played it.
Why people played it? To win, of course. And through playing the game and winning, you pass time and display some superior level of luck and/or skill, which you hold over the losers. So let's play another round, so I can trounce you again!
Foosnark: I mean, have you ever played Candyland? (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Have you ever tried playing more complex games with little kids? Candyland is a starter game for kids, because you remove the need to do much counting (figuring out how to move two orange spaces forward is easier than trying to count 5 spaces, I guess).
posted by filthy light thief at 11:14 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Why people played it? To win, of course. And through playing the game and winning, you pass time and display some superior level of luck and/or skill, which you hold over the losers. So let's play another round, so I can trounce you again!
Foosnark: I mean, have you ever played Candyland? (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Have you ever tried playing more complex games with little kids? Candyland is a starter game for kids, because you remove the need to do much counting (figuring out how to move two orange spaces forward is easier than trying to count 5 spaces, I guess).
posted by filthy light thief at 11:14 AM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't think you need to work hard to imagine deeper levels of enjoyment or complexity, though.
Side bets?
I'm thinking side bets.
"Five senyu on ḫAmānaw the hard way! Come on, Horus- I really need this!"
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 11:55 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Side bets?
I'm thinking side bets.
"Five senyu on ḫAmānaw the hard way! Come on, Horus- I really need this!"
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 11:55 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Part of the problem with Senet is that without the original edition papyrus instructions, no one knows how to handle a level 14 Bast wielding a scale of souls vs +3 Sphinx encounter.
The game has depth, you know, story and drama.
posted by dreamling at 11:59 AM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
The game has depth, you know, story and drama.
posted by dreamling at 11:59 AM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
Maybe it was like the I Ching, and the papyrus is lost. Or maybe the game is on a wall somewhere, (more than the board,) but we haven't yet figured out the connection.
posted by Oyéah at 12:05 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Oyéah at 12:05 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Side bets? I'm thinking side bets.
It sounds perfect for side bets. Boring and slow at first, giving people plenty of time to think they see how it's going to end up and make bets, then the lead changes back and forth rapidly at the end, giving people with big bets some excitement?
posted by ctmf at 12:08 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
It sounds perfect for side bets. Boring and slow at first, giving people plenty of time to think they see how it's going to end up and make bets, then the lead changes back and forth rapidly at the end, giving people with big bets some excitement?
posted by ctmf at 12:08 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
So Senet is the Monopoly of ancient Egypt?
Much like with Senet, people only think Monopoly is a slow and boring game because they don't play by the original rules.
Auctions are mandatory, folks!
posted by ymgve at 1:17 PM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Much like with Senet, people only think Monopoly is a slow and boring game because they don't play by the original rules.
Auctions are mandatory, folks!
posted by ymgve at 1:17 PM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Games with little or no skill are still enormously popular. Snakes and Ladders, Trouble and War are all examples of this. And while those are primarily "kids' games," there are similar games for adults. Take for example LCR which is apparently very popular as far as dice games that require specialized dice go.
Or, for the geek crowd, think of Fluxx, which does involve decisions and can be oddly entertaining, but which is essentially random as to who actually wins the game.
So asking "Why did ancient Egyptians play a game with little or no skill, and where the winner is nearly completely random?" is a bit like asking "Why did ancient Egyptians believe in unprovable myths?" or "Why did ancient Egyptians argue over petty things?" The answer is "Because they weren't that different from us."
posted by lore at 1:34 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Or, for the geek crowd, think of Fluxx, which does involve decisions and can be oddly entertaining, but which is essentially random as to who actually wins the game.
So asking "Why did ancient Egyptians play a game with little or no skill, and where the winner is nearly completely random?" is a bit like asking "Why did ancient Egyptians believe in unprovable myths?" or "Why did ancient Egyptians argue over petty things?" The answer is "Because they weren't that different from us."
posted by lore at 1:34 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Maybe it's boring because it's not really meant to be played?
could it be a symbol or similar thing where you just have a Senet board in your house on display, and it's supposed to remind you on some aspect of religious life? (life is random, shit happens, etc)
I suppose that ignores all the evidence where it is played though.
posted by ArgentCorvid at 1:41 PM on July 5, 2016
could it be a symbol or similar thing where you just have a Senet board in your house on display, and it's supposed to remind you on some aspect of religious life? (life is random, shit happens, etc)
I suppose that ignores all the evidence where it is played though.
posted by ArgentCorvid at 1:41 PM on July 5, 2016
I mean, for goodness' sake, craps. Or drawing straws. Jacks. Yes, many have their roots in randomness-as-divine-will divination tools, but people still play the actual games that developed out of them, too. It doesn't need to be a big mystery.
Yahtzee, people. Yahtzee is still sufficiently popular that I've never met a person who didn't at least know how it was played.
posted by Scattercat at 1:55 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yahtzee, people. Yahtzee is still sufficiently popular that I've never met a person who didn't at least know how it was played.
posted by Scattercat at 1:55 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maybe they found the shuffling rhythms of the game of purchase and exploitation to be thrilling, or at least true: the smallness of human ambition subsumed into the vast, unspeakable programs of the chief Amarcan deity, Captal Issim.
You may, of course, already know this, but given Monopoly's origin in the anticapitalist critique of The Landlord's Game, what you're saying is sort of actually true.
posted by howfar at 2:47 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
You may, of course, already know this, but given Monopoly's origin in the anticapitalist critique of The Landlord's Game, what you're saying is sort of actually true.
posted by howfar at 2:47 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Much like with Senet, people only think Monopoly is a slow and boring game because they don't play by the original rules.
Auctions are mandatory, folks!
THAT'S THE WORST PART.
posted by maryr at 2:50 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Auctions are mandatory, folks!
THAT'S THE WORST PART.
posted by maryr at 2:50 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
according to the article there are written descriptions of the game being played so it's not all guesswork.
I liked this article and totally not what you would expect from a site called 'eurogamer'
posted by ennui.bz at 2:59 PM on July 5, 2016
I liked this article and totally not what you would expect from a site called 'eurogamer'
posted by ennui.bz at 2:59 PM on July 5, 2016
I've played Senet and kinda liked it. No, it's not complicated, but, at least in the version I played, there's a certain level of strategy possible (through blocking the opponent from landing on certain spaces or switching places with you by grouping your pieces. It's pretty easy to learn a strategy to almost guarantee a win, unless you just get totally screwed by the roll of the not-dice. So kinda like a lot of simple games. I imagine bets and possibly alcohol or better both would improve it.
posted by threeturtles at 3:21 PM on July 5, 2016
posted by threeturtles at 3:21 PM on July 5, 2016
"That was an interesting piece, though far too long (like so many online things, it needed an editor), but the fact is that nobody knows how the game was played, so it's kind of pointless expending a lot of energy trying to figure out why people played it."
Nobody knows exactly how it was played, but we have texts that describe the game pieces, the board, and some sequences of moves. With similar evidence, we've been able to reconstruct other historical games, many of which are actually pretty fun.
"It's almost a textbook example of ugly cultural imperialism: "Meh? I don't even know what they're doing or why they're doing it, but I'm pretty sure it's inferior to what we do." Surely ancient Egyptians couldn't have come up with something deeper and more interesting that what a couple of us would imagine if we though about for a little bit."
That's a bit of an empty critique — you might as well complain that it's ugly Orientalism to assume that there's some secret Ancient Egyptian Knowledge that totally made this game awesome, despite a fair amount of counter-evidence.
"Yeah, blackjack is a dumb game too. The only skill is in sticking to the basic strategy. Baccarat casino-style is really dumb. I don't see either of them going away."
OH MAN IF ONLY THEY HAD MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES IN THE FUCKING ARTICLE THAT ONE REASON IT MAY HAVE BEEN POPULAR WAS GAMBLING
"So people reconstructing the game come up with a boring method of playing it, and then wonder why the ancient Egyptians played it. And the article is full of "Why? I don't know, let me speculate without evidence" verbiage."
… except that there's actually a lot of evidence, it's just incomplete. The modes of play that have been proposed are those that match the available evidence and most of those modes seem kinda boring. The three theses explored in the article are: That the game is boring to us, but not to Ancient Egyptians; that both we and the Ancient Egyptians would enjoy the game if we had the correct ruleset; that the game may have just been crappy.
I know this because I read the fucking article.
"Yahtzee, people. Yahtzee is still sufficiently popular that I've never met a person who didn't at least know how it was played."
The big question then is that if it was actually fun despite being mostly random and simplistic, why didn't any other nations pick up on it, like they do with most games?
posted by klangklangston at 3:29 PM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
Nobody knows exactly how it was played, but we have texts that describe the game pieces, the board, and some sequences of moves. With similar evidence, we've been able to reconstruct other historical games, many of which are actually pretty fun.
"It's almost a textbook example of ugly cultural imperialism: "Meh? I don't even know what they're doing or why they're doing it, but I'm pretty sure it's inferior to what we do." Surely ancient Egyptians couldn't have come up with something deeper and more interesting that what a couple of us would imagine if we though about for a little bit."
That's a bit of an empty critique — you might as well complain that it's ugly Orientalism to assume that there's some secret Ancient Egyptian Knowledge that totally made this game awesome, despite a fair amount of counter-evidence.
"Yeah, blackjack is a dumb game too. The only skill is in sticking to the basic strategy. Baccarat casino-style is really dumb. I don't see either of them going away."
OH MAN IF ONLY THEY HAD MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES IN THE FUCKING ARTICLE THAT ONE REASON IT MAY HAVE BEEN POPULAR WAS GAMBLING
"So people reconstructing the game come up with a boring method of playing it, and then wonder why the ancient Egyptians played it. And the article is full of "Why? I don't know, let me speculate without evidence" verbiage."
… except that there's actually a lot of evidence, it's just incomplete. The modes of play that have been proposed are those that match the available evidence and most of those modes seem kinda boring. The three theses explored in the article are: That the game is boring to us, but not to Ancient Egyptians; that both we and the Ancient Egyptians would enjoy the game if we had the correct ruleset; that the game may have just been crappy.
I know this because I read the fucking article.
"Yahtzee, people. Yahtzee is still sufficiently popular that I've never met a person who didn't at least know how it was played."
The big question then is that if it was actually fun despite being mostly random and simplistic, why didn't any other nations pick up on it, like they do with most games?
posted by klangklangston at 3:29 PM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
OH MAN IF ONLY THEY HAD MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES IN THE FUCKING ARTICLE THAT ONE REASON IT MAY HAVE BEEN POPULAR WAS GAMBLING
Which I'm agreeing with, by providing recent examples.
I think you missed some comments up there to be gripey about, or are you still typing?
posted by ctmf at 3:41 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Which I'm agreeing with, by providing recent examples.
I think you missed some comments up there to be gripey about, or are you still typing?
posted by ctmf at 3:41 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thanks for this - brilliant stuff, love the perspective on games. Now I wanna mess with Senet and see what might make it more fun...
posted by emmet at 5:09 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by emmet at 5:09 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
> according to the article there are written descriptions of the game being played so it's not all guesswork.
Dude, those "descriptions" were all guesswork.
posted by languagehat at 5:47 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Dude, those "descriptions" were all guesswork.
posted by languagehat at 5:47 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I dunno. Taking psychedelic herbs and playing Strip Senet is pretty fun...
posted by slkinsey at 5:48 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by slkinsey at 5:48 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
The telling bit for me was near the end, when TFA describes decorated boxes with The Royal Game of Ur on one side and Senet on the other. The decoration showed which side was seen as the top (the default, popular choice).
The most interesting thing is that you can tell from the hieroglyphic inscription on the game boxes that the right way up is the Royal Game of Ur, and the Egyptian thing that everybody's been playing for hundreds of years is on the bottom. Because nobody wants to play it anymore. Not even in Egypt.posted by Autumn Leaf at 6:29 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't know that most games get picked up by everyone. Even things like chess or go aren't exactly universal, even in the Internet Age. It doesn't seem at all odd to me that Senet was a simple luck-based game, likely used for gambling, that everyone in Egypt played because everyone knew it but that wasn't lucky or good enough to become a universal classic when other cultures encountered it. There's just not much mystery here it seems to me; there are any number of similar games throughout history, and likely far more that we don't know about anymore.
posted by Scattercat at 6:51 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Scattercat at 6:51 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hoyle, the minor god of games, could not be reached for comment.
posted by clavdivs at 6:58 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by clavdivs at 6:58 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's ugly cultural imperialism, and then there's suggesting that the best available reconstruction of a sun-worshipping, slave-owning ancient society's most popular game isn't as interesting as some other games one could name.
posted by uosuaq at 7:13 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by uosuaq at 7:13 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
I really liked the article. Back when I worked at the Walters museum in Baltimore - which has a great Egyptian collection - we used to give out xeroxed Senet games and instructions to teachers to play in class. I never realized that those instructions were a patchwork of guesses. I should have, in retrospect, but I suppose I just assumed that somehow the original instructions had survived millennia unscathed - under the refrigerator, behind the TV like all other game booklets, unearthed eventually by earnest archaeologists in pith helmets. Now what I'm wondering is, if Senet is an ancestor of backgammon, as TFA claims, then why not set some backgammon players on it? Theres no shortage of fanatical backgammon players in the world, I'd love to hear how they think Senet should be played.
posted by mygothlaundry at 7:46 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by mygothlaundry at 7:46 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
The big question then is that if it was actually fun despite being mostly random and simplistic, why didn't any other nations pick up on it, like they do with most games?
Who says they didn't?
Egypt has a wonderful archaeological record because of its climate and relatively-stable government. We haven't put nearly as much effort into learning about ancient African civilisations, and Egypt's Eurasian neighbours were (a) wetter and (b) turned over every century or so. So the Canaanites/Israelites might have been playing the heck out of Senet, but we just haven't found any copies of the board.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:27 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Who says they didn't?
Egypt has a wonderful archaeological record because of its climate and relatively-stable government. We haven't put nearly as much effort into learning about ancient African civilisations, and Egypt's Eurasian neighbours were (a) wetter and (b) turned over every century or so. So the Canaanites/Israelites might have been playing the heck out of Senet, but we just haven't found any copies of the board.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:27 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
That was a really great article. Well-written, I think -- long, but not too long for my taste. I think opening with "the clay pot theory of history" was inspired, and in many other places it really "took me there" and gave me a richer view of human history. I particularly liked (for the writing; I'm not sure I agree with the point) this quote from Dr. Finkel:
"You have to have plurals, you have to have names, you have to have verbs and I think it must have been a very volcanic matter that counting, which is an abstraction, and speech, which is an abstraction, and possibly music, singing and sounds, all of those things probably came in one fizzy bottle of lemonade and I think that probably this stuff, the board games, came out of it too."
So, the game of Senet in ancient Egypt was new to me, and so was the fact that there are still people like Dr. Kendall and Dr. Finkel in this world, here and now. Kind of wonderful, really.
posted by brambleboy at 10:57 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
"You have to have plurals, you have to have names, you have to have verbs and I think it must have been a very volcanic matter that counting, which is an abstraction, and speech, which is an abstraction, and possibly music, singing and sounds, all of those things probably came in one fizzy bottle of lemonade and I think that probably this stuff, the board games, came out of it too."
So, the game of Senet in ancient Egypt was new to me, and so was the fact that there are still people like Dr. Kendall and Dr. Finkel in this world, here and now. Kind of wonderful, really.
posted by brambleboy at 10:57 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Note: As the article states (some way in) but appears to have been overlooked here, the rules of Senet are lost. No one has played Senet since the early centuries AD. We don't really know how exciting it was.
posted by JHarris at 11:01 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by JHarris at 11:01 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thanks to this post, I checked out "the game of Ur" in an online version and it's pretty enjoyable. A definite resemblance to backgammon, but certainly not the same, and more aethetically pleasing.
posted by uosuaq at 6:29 PM on July 6, 2016
posted by uosuaq at 6:29 PM on July 6, 2016
The game survived for 3000 years? What stopped it? Why don't people still play it? That is, why did the rules have to be rediscovered?
posted by Galaxor Nebulon at 12:36 PM on July 7, 2016
posted by Galaxor Nebulon at 12:36 PM on July 7, 2016
The game survived for 3000 years? What stopped it?
Obviously a cousin to the Antikythera Mechanism beat all the top players, and it was given up in disgust.
posted by happyroach at 3:01 PM on July 7, 2016 [4 favorites]
Obviously a cousin to the Antikythera Mechanism beat all the top players, and it was given up in disgust.
posted by happyroach at 3:01 PM on July 7, 2016 [4 favorites]
The game survived for 3000 years? What stopped it?
There's a popular kid's game sold nowadays that is either descended from the Royal Game of Ur or is a conceptual cousin: Trouble, which is apparently based on Mensch ärgere Dich nicht, based on Pachisi (Parchisi) and who knows how far back the connection goes. Pachisi, with its castle squares, seems very much a relative of the Royal Game. The key differences IMO are:
1) You need to roll a particular number (e.g., a six) to enter the board;
2) There is no safe area at the start of the game;
3) The board itself is much larger.
I think the differences actually favor the Royal Game, which is snappier and more strategic. If you're unlucky with your rolls in Trouble your pieces may never enter the board, which is stupid; similarly, it's hard to play strategically when every piece in play is at risk. A better evolution would get rid of the "roll six to enter" mechanism; give each player a safe area at the start (like the Royal Game), and perhaps have multiple intersecting tracks (as opposed to Trouble's single track and the Royal Game's dual tracks that intersect once).
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:14 PM on July 7, 2016
There's a popular kid's game sold nowadays that is either descended from the Royal Game of Ur or is a conceptual cousin: Trouble, which is apparently based on Mensch ärgere Dich nicht, based on Pachisi (Parchisi) and who knows how far back the connection goes. Pachisi, with its castle squares, seems very much a relative of the Royal Game. The key differences IMO are:
1) You need to roll a particular number (e.g., a six) to enter the board;
2) There is no safe area at the start of the game;
3) The board itself is much larger.
I think the differences actually favor the Royal Game, which is snappier and more strategic. If you're unlucky with your rolls in Trouble your pieces may never enter the board, which is stupid; similarly, it's hard to play strategically when every piece in play is at risk. A better evolution would get rid of the "roll six to enter" mechanism; give each player a safe area at the start (like the Royal Game), and perhaps have multiple intersecting tracks (as opposed to Trouble's single track and the Royal Game's dual tracks that intersect once).
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:14 PM on July 7, 2016
Yes, but Trouble has the fun bubble dice thing.
posted by maryr at 1:02 PM on July 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by maryr at 1:02 PM on July 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
« Older Including sparklers!!! | ChristianMingle etc. to be more inclusive Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by sammyo at 7:56 AM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]