Vincent Chollier’s Réseaux de pouvoir en Haute-Égypte explores the political strategies of provincial elites in Upper Egypt during the New Kingdom (1539–1077 BC). By combining prosopography, social anthropology and Social Network Analysis (SNA), Chollier examines how the provincial clergy engaged with royal power, tracing a shift from a centralised court society under the Eighteenth Dynasty to decentralised, network-based structures during the Ramesside period. According to the author, this evolution ultimately led to the gradual decline of Pharaonic influence over southern Egypt. The book originates from Chollier’s PhD dissertation, ‘Administrer les cultes provinciaux en Égypte au Nouvel Empire (1539–1077 av. J.-C.)’, which was accepted at Lumière Lyon 2 University in 2017. Its originality lies in its interdisciplinary approach, integrating historical, archaeological and prosopographic data with kinship anthropology and SNA.

The Introduction and ‘Prolégomènes: l’étude des réseaux relationnels en égyptologie’ define the research scope and methodological framework, with particular emphasis on the fundamental principles of network theory and Social Network Analysis. It should be noted, however, that the bibliography has not been fully updated since the dissertation’s submission, and some significant contributions have been overlooked (for the most recent overview see Brughmans & Peeples Reference Brughmans and Peeples2023; Brughmans et al Reference Brughmans, Mills, Munson and Peeples2024; Stefanović Reference Stefanović2024).

In Chapter 1 ‘Les élites du Nouvel Empire: l’emprise du clergé?’, Chollier examines the dynamics of elite power structures, questioning the assumption of priestly dominance in provincial politics. Through prosopographical analysis, the author uncovers the overlapping religious, administrative and military functions of the members of Upper Egyptian elite, emphasising fluid power networks rooted in familial ties and strategic marriages. High-ranking priests controlled vast economic resources, temple estates and local administrations, but Chollier challenges the notion of their absolute power. Instead, he highlights the balance of influence between the clergy, the royal court and other elite factions. Network theory illustrates that power flowed not only vertically from the pharaoh but also horizontally across families and institutions. Genealogical reconstructions reveal long-term strategies of influence, particularly through temple appointments and inter-elite marriages.

To conduct this research, the author outlines his theoretical approach to identifying elites in Ancient Egyptian society. For anyone studying this society, a title—indicating an individual’s function, rank or both—serves as the primary marker of social standing. Chollier proposes a two-step model for categorising titles, visually summarised in fig. 11 (p.44). In the first step, a dichotomy is established between titles associated with central administration and court authority (often including the term nsw, meaning ‘king‘) and those reflecting local administration (frequently containing geographical references, such as a city, a specific local temple or a deity). Some institutions, such as temples, could belong to both royal and provincial spheres. The second step involves a more nuanced classification of titles into eight areas of activity (such as court officials, economy, military, etc.), which are not exclusive to either royal or local institutions. The author further illustrates this model by noting that granaries and treasuries, along with their personnel, existed in both royal and local temples. Consequently, in this system, temples occupy a position at the intersection of royal and local institutions.

The author rightly emphasises the challenge of determining the actual function of a title based solely on its rendering. For example, Collier examines the title/epithet šmsw (n) nsw (‘follower of the king‘). According to his categorisation (titles containing the word ’king‘), this may imply a courtly designation. However, in reality, based on Middle and New Kingdom attestations, it belongs to the military sector. Interestingly, the example provided neither supports nor contradicts the author’s assumption. The title strings of most holders of the marker šmsw (n) nsw often include other rank- or function-based titles. In the Middle Kingdom, šmsw (n) nsw was part of the corpus of honorific or court titles. At the same time, it served as a marker of real hierarchical authority in the performance of delegated functions—such as being in the presence of the king and ‘protecting’ him on a mission. This rank title was attested not only in the capital but also in the provinces and Nubia. The New Kingdom examples align with this interpretation (see Stefanović Reference Stefanović, Jiménez-Serrano and Morales2021; Thorpe Reference Thorpe, Hebblewhite and Whately2022).

Furthermore, within the corpus of titles reflecting military organisation, which should be exclusively under royal authority, the author points out that, in some cases, a local presence is clearly indicated. One such example is the title ḥrj pḏt n kš (troop commander of Kush, i.e. Nubia), which Collier identifies as “est ainsi un cas particulier puisqu’il est le seul titre militaire à pouvoir être classé parmi les institutions locales” (p.48). Nevertheless, its holders were chief military officers in Nubia, serving under the authority of the Viceroy of Kush within the structure of the Egyptian imperial administration in Nubia—a prime example of central administration (see Morris Reference Morris2018).

Using Norbert Elias’ concept of ‘court society’ (Elias Reference Elias1985), in chapter 2 ‘Les élites de la XVIIIe dynastie: une société de cour?’, Chollier analyses how proximity to the royal court shaped elite status. Titles, autobiographies and social mobility patterns illustrate a competitive environment where personal achievements often outweighed hereditary privilege. Through an analysis of individuals employed as royal tutors and wet nurses—positions that served as gateways to political influence due to their intimate access to the royal family—Chollier highlights how people from modest backgrounds rose to prominence through service and loyalty. Another important point emphasised by the author is that inscriptions stress personal merit—military campaigns, diplomatic missions and administrative accomplishments—reflecting a culture that valued individual contributions over noble lineage. However, toward the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty, during Akhenaten’s reign, religious reforms disrupted traditional networks, privileging adherents of the Aten cult. The chapter includes three case studies, applying SNA to exemplify the social strategists outlined by the author.

Pahery was the Governor of Elkab (case study 1; for an updated list of sources and dossier of Pahery see the Persons and names of the Middle Kingdom and early New Kingdom database, Version 5 (person 3545)). His lineage is traced through tomb inscriptions, notably linking him to his grandfather, the famous general Ahmose, son of Abana. Interestingly, the emphasis on maternal ancestry—unusual for the New Kingdom—suggests strategic familial self-promotion. Chollier debates the existence of multiple individuals named Pahery, analysing inscriptions to differentiate them. The overlapping titles and dedications indicate complex familial ties, highlighting how elite identity was crafted through both paternal and maternal lines to solidify status and legacy (figs. 20–22). As the author rightly states, the sociogram of Pahery (fig. 20) is not particularly informative since relatively few individuals bear titles, but analysing the institutions represented proves to be quite insightful (fig. 21).

Case study 2 presents Sennefer’s complex familial and political ties, with evidence suggesting that maternal lineage played a key role in his success (see Persons and names of the Middle Kingdom and early New Kingdom database, Version 5 (person 2658)). Sennefer was “overseer of the double granary of Amun” and “governor of the southern city” (i.e. Thebes; pp.108–11). His marriages and connections to royal tutors, according to Chollier, reflect the exemplary model of a representative of the provincial elite. The majority of individuals from Sennefer’s network (fig. 23), particularly the women, belonged to the royal court.

The network of Imaounefer (case study 3; note that the correct form of the name is Iamunefer), First Prophet of Thoth and Governor of Hermopolis under Thutmose III, exemplifies the fusion of religious and administrative power (see Persons and names of the Middle Kingdom and early New Kingdom database, Version 5 (person 2821)). His genealogical record is straightforward, though inscriptions raise questions about familial ties, especially concerning his son Suemniut, who held prestigious roles, including royal cupbearer and Chief of the Royal Stables, reflecting the family’s close ties to the court. This case, according to Chollier, highlights how elite status was maintained through both hereditary roles and strategic royal appointments, reinforcing court-centric power networks. Chollier argues that Eighteenth Dynasty elite society operated as a court society rooted in personal relationships and strategic positioning. Unlike rigid hierarchies, it allowed for fluid social mobility through service and loyalty.

Chapter 3 ‘Les cultes provinciaux à l’époque ramesside: réseaux de pouvoir?’ explores the decentralisation of authority during the Nineteenth–Twentieth Dynasties, where provincial temples and local priesthoods gained prominence. High-ranking priests, such as the First Prophet of Amun, wielded administrative, economic and political power, creating hereditary quasi-dynasties. Two case studies illustrate the author’s assumptions.

Ameneminet, Chief of the Medjay (case study 4), features, with 24 other individuals, in the statue-group Naples 1069. His network spans administrative, military and religious spheres, while his post as Chief of the Medjay positioned him as a key intermediary between the royal court, provincial elites and Nubian territories. Ameneminet’s strategic marriage alliances further consolidated his family’s influence.

In case study 5, the career and influence of Ramessesnakht, First Prophet of Amun during the Twentieth Dynasty are examined. His prominence illustrates the growing power of the Amun priesthood in Thebes, which rivalled the Pharaoh’s authority. First Prophet of Amun Ramessesnakht controlled both religious and economic affairs, which blurred the lines between state and temple power. Chollier highlights how his family consolidated influence through priestly offices and strategic marriages. His father, Meribastet, held court positions, securing royal connections, while the marriage of Ramessesnakht’s daughters to Amenemipet, Third Prophet of Amun, united two dominant priestly families. His son, Nesamun, inherited his role, reinforcing the hereditary nature of high-ranking priestly positions. Ramessesnakht’s authority was both religious and administrative. He managed temple wealth, land, taxation and labour while overseeing rituals that legitimised his own and the Pharaoh’s rule. As royal power waned, he functioned almost as a co-ruler, particularly towards the end of the Ramesside period. Despite this dominance, his tenure faced challenges, including corruption and economic instability. Social unrest, tomb robberies and weakened central authority allowed priestly families like his to maintain local power, setting the stage for future conflicts with military elites.

Chollier concludes that Ramessesnakht exemplifies a transformative shift in Egyptian governance, where priestly figures amassed unprecedented political and economic control. His descendants continued to shape Theban religious and political life well into the Third Intermediate Period. The author also demonstrates how elite status in Ramesside Egypt relied on strategic relationships—marriages, administrative collaborations and religious affiliations—creating resilient power networks. Objects such as statue-group Naples 1069 serve as visual maps of these sociopolitical webs. The Conclusion highlights three main points of Chollier’s analysis of the transformation of elite strategies from the Eighteenth–Twentieth Dynasties:

• • Shift from Royal Court to Local Networks: early New Kingdom elites sought proximity to the Pharaoh, whereas Ramesside power fragmented into provincial networks dominated by local officials and priests.

• • Personal Merit vs Lineage: the Eighteenth Dynasty emphasised personal achievements, while later periods prioritised lineage and family connections, with elites forming dynastic structures.

• • Institutional Fragility: the reliance on personal networks over formal institutions led to instability, particularly during times of weak royal authority.

Chollier concludes that provincial elites adapted to shifting political landscapes, transitioning from court-centred ambition to localised, hereditary power networks. This nuanced analysis challenges traditional historiography, offering a complex portrait of power in New Kingdom Upper Egypt.

Despite the extensive and multi-angled study a few points of criticism arise. It remains challenging to understand why none of the contributions by Anne Herzberg-Beiersdorf (Reference Herzberg-Beiersdorf2023), who has worked with more or less the same material and applied the same methodology—including her published PhD dissertation Prosopographia Memphitica: Individuelle Identitäten und kollektive Biographien einer königlichen Residenzstadt des Neuen Reichs—is even mentioned. The study by Guido Dresbach (Reference Dresbach2012), Zur Verwaltung in der 20. Dynastie: Das Wesirat, is also overlooked, as is Kinship and family in Ancient Egypt: archaeology and anthropology in dialogue by Laire Ollabarria (Reference Ollabarria2020), which is particularly important for an anthropological approach.

A final critical remark concerns the question of reconstructed networks and the categorisation of titles. The author experimented with the ego network of Ameneminet (case study 4), removing its focal node (i.e. Ameneminet) to quantify the position and relatedness of other individuals. While this is both theoretically and practically possible, the results obtained from such a reduced network are highly questionable. Firstly, incomplete datasets lead to the reconstruction of a distorted network (i.e. a snapshot from the past). Secondly, ego networks of actors participating in Ameneminet’s small-world may manifest different models of relatedness. For example, what kind of reality would be created if we were to reconstruct the network of Neville Chamberlain—the British politician who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from May 1937 to May 1940—by including the most prominent figures of his era and then removing him from the network? A highly distorted one, indeed. Approaching the analysis of Ancient Egyptian society through the prism of titles is certainly valuable. However, research on this topic has been shaped by differing biases. On one hand, scholars such as Christopher Eyre argue that “Pharaonic Egypt did not have a large, departmentalised or bureaucratic government” (2024: 38), implying that titles are of little significance. On the other hand, studies that focus on titles as indicators of the social and administrative system suggest a different perspective. Chollier’s work demonstrates that while titles provide a useful starting point, other elements must also be considered.

The book is lavishly illustrated (including images and sketches of the discussed objects, as well as sociograms of reconstructed networks), and extensive indexes help the reader navigate the text. The interdisciplinary methodology (traditional historical and archaeological approach, social anthropology, network theory) employed by Chollier certainly positions his book among the ‘must-have’ works for any Egyptological library. The reviewer seeks to highlight the significance of Chollier’s contribution, particularly in relation to the various methodological approaches employed.