Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty: Between the End and the Beginning 9781407316352, 9781407345444

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Table of Contents
List of Illustrations
List of Abbreviations
Abstract
Introduction
Part 1: Origin and Ascent
1. Amenemhat IV and the Family of Amenemhat III
2. Succession and Coregency
Part 2: Analysis of the Reign
3. The Administration
4. Activity in the Nile Valley
5. The Borderlands
6. The Foreign Lands
7. Amenemhat IV between Religion and Policy
Part 3: The End of the Kingdom
8. The Tomb
9. Amenemhat IV and the End of the Dynasty
Conclusion: Fayyum: “la grande affaire de la monarchie"
Part 4: Documentary Evidence of Amenemhat IV’s Reign
Group A: Documents from Egypt
Group B: Documents from the Borderlands
Group C: Documents from Abroad
Bibliography
Appendix 1: Document List: Neferuptah
Appendix 2: Document List: Sobekneferu

Citation preview

BAR S2906

2018

‘All scholars and students of ancient Egypt, and on the institution of kingship in general, will be most interested in this volume.’ Prof. Ronald J. Leprohon, University of Toronto ‘The complex issues involving the royal women and royal succession treated here are important and haven’t really been considered to the same extent by other authors. The evidence from Medinet Madi is new and compelling. … Pignattari does a very good job of using all available sources to draw out information about a period for which evidence is often lacking.’ Dr Denise Doxey, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty

Stefania Pignattari is an archaeologist and an independent researcher. She studied at Bologna University and holds a PhD in Egyptology from Pisa University.

PIGNATTARI

Amenemhat IV’s short and poorly documented reign as penultimate Pharaoh of the Twelfth Dynasty presents an interesting subject for Egyptological research, as it marks a crucial moment in Egyptian history. Following the crisis of the First Intermediate Period and the great work of unification and innovation undertaken by the rulers of the Twelfth Dynasty, Egypt once again achieved great power and prosperity. However, with the Thirteenth Dynasty, the country’s fate changed again, leading to the Second Intermediate Period, a phase that would shake the foundations of Egyptian society, and which paved the way to the New Kingdom. The purpose of this book is a comprehensive and integrated analysis of Amenemhat IV’s activity in the context of this historical period. In defining Amenemhat IV’s role, and establishing whether his reign represented an element of continuity or of fracture, the author seeks to clarify the causes and mechanisms that led to the end of the Twelfth Dynasty.

2018

B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 2 9 0 6

B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 2 9 0 6

AMENEMHAT IV AND THE END OF THE TWELFTH DYNASTY Between the End and the Beginning S T E FA N IA P I G NAT TA R I

2018

B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 2 9 0 6

AMENEMHAT IV AND THE END OF THE TWELFTH DYNASTY Between the End and the Beginning S T E FA N IA P I G NAT TA R I

2018

by Published in BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty © Stefania Pignattari Detail of the scene engraved on the front of the toilet box (A 16), Carter- Carnar von 1912; tomb 25-1. The Author’s moral rights under the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reser ved. No par t of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any for m of digital for mat or transmitted in any for m digitally, without the written per mission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407316352 paperback ISBN 9781407345444 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407316352 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing Banbury Rd, Oxford, [email protected] + ( ) + ( ) www.barpublishing.com

,

In memory of Tecla Saulle Gianna Ennio

Contents List of Illustrations............................................................................................................................................................ ix List of Abbreviations......................................................................................................................................................... xi Abstract............................................................................................................................................................................ xiii Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 A note on chronology ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 Part 1. Origin and Ascent .................................................................................................................................................. 3 1. Amenemhat IV and the Family of Amenemhat III ..................................................................................................... 5 1.1. Neferuptah ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 1.2. Sobekneferu............................................................................................................................................................ 12 1.3. Hetepti .................................................................................................................................................................... 15 2. Succession and Coregency ........................................................................................................................................... 19 2.1. Succession and Rise to the Throne......................................................................................................................... 19 2.1.1. Part I ............................................................................................................................................................... 19 2.1.2. Part II .............................................................................................................................................................. 20 2.2. Co-regency ............................................................................................................................................................. 23 Part 2. Analysis of the Reign ........................................................................................................................................... 35 3. The Administration ...................................................................................................................................................... 37 3.1. Part 1: General Features ......................................................................................................................................... 37 3.1.1. The complexity of administration as a theme/topic and the peculiarity of the second half of the Twelfth Dynasty: clarifications and methodological premises. ............................................................................................. 37 3.1.2. The reign of Amenemhat IV ........................................................................................................................... 38 3.1.3. The two branches of administration: the Vizier and the Treasurer ................................................................. 39 3.1.3.1. The Bureau of the Vizier (xA n TAty) ......................................................................................................... 40 3.1.3.2. The Treasury (pr HD) ............................................................................................................................... 41 3.1.4. The army......................................................................................................................................................... 44 3.1.5. Papyri ............................................................................................................................................................. 44 3.1.6 List of administrative officials ......................................................................................................................... 46 3.2. Prosopographical Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 47 3.3. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................ 52 3.4. Prosopographical List............................................................................................................................................. 53 3.5. List of Administrative Titles................................................................................................................................... 56 4. Activity in the Nile Valley ............................................................................................................................................ 59 4.1. The Delta ................................................................................................................................................................ 59 4.2. The Memphis Area ................................................................................................................................................. 60 4.3. Dahshur .................................................................................................................................................................. 61 4.4. El-Lisht................................................................................................................................................................... 61 4.5. Abydos.................................................................................................................................................................... 62 4.6. The Theban Area .................................................................................................................................................... 62 4.7. Aswan ..................................................................................................................................................................... 62 4.8. Middle Egypt.......................................................................................................................................................... 63 4.9. Fayyum................................................................................................................................................................... 63

v

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty 5. The Borderlands........................................................................................................................................................... 65 5.1. Nubia ...................................................................................................................................................................... 66 5.2. Wadi el-Hudi .......................................................................................................................................................... 69 5.3. Mersa Gawasis ....................................................................................................................................................... 71 5.4. Sinai........................................................................................................................................................................ 73 6. The Foreign Lands ....................................................................................................................................................... 77 6.1. Syria ....................................................................................................................................................................... 78 6.2. Canaan .................................................................................................................................................................... 80 6.3. Asians in Egypt ...................................................................................................................................................... 82 6.4. Sinai........................................................................................................................................................................ 83 7. Amenemhat IV between Religion and Policy ............................................................................................................ 85 7.1. Atum ....................................................................................................................................................................... 85 7.2. Gods and Goddesses .............................................................................................................................................. 88 7.3. The Decorative Cycle ............................................................................................................................................. 89 7.4. Structural parallels ................................................................................................................................................. 90 7.5. The Position of Gods and Goddesses ..................................................................................................................... 91 Part 3. The End of the Kingdom..................................................................................................................................... 93 8. The Tomb ...................................................................................................................................................................... 95 9. Amenemhat IV and the End of the Dynasty .............................................................................................................. 99 Conclusion: Fayyum: “la grande affaire de la monarchie” ....................................................................................... 107 Part 4. Documentary Evidence of Amenemhat IV’s Reign .........................................................................................111 Group A. Documents from Egypt ..................................................................................................................................113 Sculpture ..................................................................................................................................................................... 113 Document 1: Sphinx, National Museum, Alexandria............................................................................................. 113 Document 2: Sphinx, National Museum, Alexandria............................................................................................. 114 Document 3: Sphinx JE 25775, Egyptian Museum, Cairo..................................................................................... 115 Document 4: Block JE 42906, Egyptian Museum, Cairo ...................................................................................... 115 Document 5: Block (MMA 22.1.12a, b), Metropolitan Museum of Arts, New York ............................................ 116 Document 6: Pillar.................................................................................................................................................. 116 Document 7: Statue (1117), Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, Berlin .............................................. 118 Document 8: Medinet Madi Temple, Fayyum ....................................................................................................... 119 Document 9: Base of Sphinx n. 17, Store-room of the Pyramids, Giza................................................................. 129 Private Sculpture ......................................................................................................................................................... 130 Document 10: Stela 645[2435], National Museum, Rio de Janeiro....................................................................... 130 Document 11: Stela BM 258 (stele n. 219), British Museum, London .................................................................. 131 Document 12: Stela C7, Musée du Louvre, Paris .................................................................................................. 132 Document 13: Stela Stuttgart 11, Ägyptische Sammlung der Universität, Tübingen ............................................ 135 Document 14: Block BMFA 1971.403, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston ................................................................. 136 Document 15: Stela 2579, Egyptian Museum, Florence ........................................................................................ 137 Mobilia ........................................................................................................................................................................ 139 Document 16: Toilet Box MMA 26.7.1438, Metropolitan Museum of Arts, New York ....................................... 139 Document 17: Plaque BM 22879, British Museum, London ................................................................................. 140 Graffiti ......................................................................................................................................................................... 141 Document 18: Graffiti............................................................................................................................................. 141 Glyptics ....................................................................................................................................................................... 141 Document 19: Scarab ............................................................................................................................................. 141 Document 20: Scarab UC 11332, Petrie Museum, London ................................................................................... 142 Document 21: Scarab, Musée du Louvre, Paris ..................................................................................................... 142 Document 22: Scarab ............................................................................................................................................. 143 Document 23: Cylinder Seal 44. 12362, Brooklyn Museum ................................................................................. 143 Document 24: Cylinder Seal .................................................................................................................................. 144

vi

Contents Private Glyptics ........................................................................................................................................................... 144 Document 25: Seal BM 32568, British Museum, London ..................................................................................... 144 Document 26: Seal Impression............................................................................................................................... 144 Document 27: Seal ................................................................................................................................................. 145 Document 28: Seal ................................................................................................................................................. 145 Document 29: Seal ................................................................................................................................................. 145 Glyptics of uncertain attribution ................................................................................................................................. 145 Document 30: SCARAB ........................................................................................................................................ 145 Document 31: CYLINDER SEAL ......................................................................................................................... 145 Document 32: CYLINDER SEAL ......................................................................................................................... 145 Papyri from el-Lahun (Kahun) .................................................................................................................................... 146 Letters.......................................................................................................................................................................... 146 Document 33: p.Kahun VI. 4 (l. 28), verso (UC 32201) ........................................................................................ 146 Document 34: p.Kahun III. 4 (l. 32), verso (UC 32205) ........................................................................................ 147 Document 35: MODEL LETTER, p.Kahun III. 2, recto (letter 1) (UC 32196) .................................................... 147 Accounts...................................................................................................................................................................... 148 Document 36: p.Kahun, VI. 12 (l. 8), verso (UC 32158; fr. UC 32148B and UC 32150A) .................................. 148 Document 37: p.Kahun, LV. 8 (r. 34), recto (UC 32194) ....................................................................................... 148 Document 38: p.Kahun VI. 21 (ll. 39; 40; 41; 44), verso (UC 32269) .................................................................. 149 Document 39: p.Kahun XLIV. 1 lr. 32), recto (UC 32175) .................................................................................... 149 Legal Papyri ................................................................................................................................................................ 150 Document 40: WILL (?) OF WAH, p.Kahun, I. 1 (l. 6), recto (UC 32058) ........................................................... 150 Group B. Documents from the Borderlands ............................................................................................................... 151 Nubia ........................................................................................................................................................................... 151 Document 1: Seal Impression................................................................................................................................. 151 Document 2: Nile level graffiti ............................................................................................................................... 151 Document 3: Nile level graffiti ............................................................................................................................... 152 Document 4: Nile level graffiti ............................................................................................................................... 152 Document 5: Nile level graffiti ............................................................................................................................... 153 Document 6: Nile level graffiti ............................................................................................................................... 153 Sinai............................................................................................................................................................................. 154 Document 7: Stela of Sa-Sopedu............................................................................................................................ 154 Document 8: Rock Inscription of Khuy ................................................................................................................. 155 Document 9: Rock inscription of Senebu............................................................................................................... 156 Document 10: Rock inscription of Senaa-ib .......................................................................................................... 157 Document 11: Stela of Sobekhotep (?)................................................................................................................... 158 Document 12: Stela of Djaf-Horemsaf................................................................................................................... 159 Document 13: Stela of Djaf-Horemsaf................................................................................................................... 160 Document 14: Stela of Djaf-Horemsaf (JE 38547), Egyptian Museum, Cairo...................................................... 163 Document 15: Stela with Offering Table ................................................................................................................ 164 Document 16 (a) and (b): Wall inscription ............................................................................................................. 168 Document 17 (a) and (b): Scene and wall inscription ............................................................................................ 172 Document 18: Scene and wall inscription .............................................................................................................. 173 Document 19: Fragment of decoration................................................................................................................... 175 Document 20: Stela of Hekhaty-Seneby ................................................................................................................ 176 Document 21: Wall inscription ............................................................................................................................... 177 Document 22: Column inscription, Egyptian Museum, Cairo ............................................................................... 179 Document 23: Fragment of an inscribed architrave ............................................................................................... 180 Document 24: Edge of a stela................................................................................................................................. 180 Document 25: Fragment of stela ............................................................................................................................ 181 Document 26: Fragmentary offering table JE 65465, Egyptian Museum, Cairo ................................................... 182 Document 27: Fragment of stele ............................................................................................................................ 183 Document 28: Fragment of architrave.................................................................................................................... 183 Mersa Gawasis ............................................................................................................................................................ 184 Document 29: Wooden box WG 21, trench WG 32, U. S. 25. ............................................................................... 184 Document 30: Stela (n. 2), WG 146, trench WG 32, niche 2 ................................................................................. 184 Document 31: Ostracon WG OIII .......................................................................................................................... 186

vii

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Wadi el-Hudi ............................................................................................................................................................... 186 Document 32: Stela of Sa-Hathor 1483, Egyptian Museum, Aswan ..................................................................... 186 Group C. Documents from Abroad .............................................................................................................................. 189 Document 1: Box, National Museum, Beirut ......................................................................................................... 189 Document 2: Ritual Vessel, National Museum, Beirut .......................................................................................... 189 Document 3: Golden Plaque BM 59194, British Museum, London ...................................................................... 190 Document 4: Sphinx BM 58892, British Museum, London .................................................................................. 191 Document 5: Sculptural group AO 17223, Musée du Louvre, Paris...................................................................... 192 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................................... 195 Appendix 1. Document List: Neferuptah ..................................................................................................................... 203 Appendix 2. Document List: Sobekneferu ................................................................................................................... 209

viii

List of Illustrations Schemes Scheme 1: Amenemhat III’s family ................................................................................................................................... 16 Scheme 2: Ryholt’s hypothesis .......................................................................................................................................... 17 Scheme 3: List of Nile-level graffiti................................................................................................................................... 68 Figures Figure 1: The figure shows the distribution of architectural documentation belonging to Amenemhat IV ...................... 59 Figure 2: The North-Pyramid interior ................................................................................................................................ 96 Figure 3: Scheme of the decorative cycle ........................................................................................................................ 119 Figure 4: Distribution between Amenemhat III and IV ................................................................................................... 119 Figure 5: Stela 645[2435] (A 10) ..................................................................................................................................... 130 Figure 6: Stela BM 258 (stele n. 219) (A 11)................................................................................................................... 132 Figure 7: Stela C7 (A 12) ................................................................................................................................................. 133 Figure 8: Stele Stuttgart 11 (A 13) ................................................................................................................................... 135 Figure 9: Stela 2579 (A 15).............................................................................................................................................. 138 Figure 10: Particular of the scene engraved on the front of the toilet box. Carter-Carnavon 1912; tomb 25-1 .............. 140 Figure 11: Plaque BM 22879 (A 17) ................................................................................................................................ 140 Figure 12: Scarab A 19 .................................................................................................................................................... 142 Figure 13: Scarab UC 11332 (A 20) ................................................................................................................................ 142 Figure 14: Scarab A 21 .................................................................................................................................................... 142 Figure 15: Stela of Sa-Sopedu (B 7) ................................................................................................................................ 154 Figure 16: Rock inscription of Khuy (B 8) ...................................................................................................................... 155 Figure 17: Rock inscription of Senebu (B 9) ................................................................................................................... 156 Figure 18: Rock inscription of Senaa-ib (B 10) ............................................................................................................... 157 Figure 19: Stela of Sobekhotep (B 11)............................................................................................................................. 158 Figure 20: Stela of Djaf-Horemsaf (B 12) ....................................................................................................................... 160 Figure 21: Stela of Djaf-Horemsaf (B 13) ....................................................................................................................... 161 Figure 22: Stela of Djaf-Horemsaf (JE 38547) (B 14) .................................................................................................... 164 Figure 23 (a): Fragment west face (B 15) ........................................................................................................................ 165 Figure 23 (b): Fragment south face, edge (B 15) ............................................................................................................. 165 Figure 23 (c): Fragment western face (B 15) ................................................................................................................... 165 Figure 23 (d): Stela, eastern side (B 15) .......................................................................................................................... 166 Figure 23 (e): Offering table found near the stela (B 15) ................................................................................................ 168 Figure 24: Distributions of the inscriptions and scenes on the walls of the Shrine of the Kings .................................... 168 Figure 25 (a): Wall inscription, Shrine of the Kings, lines 1-25 ...................................................................................... 169 ix

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Figure 25 (b): Wall inscription, Shrine of the Kings, lines 26-42 .................................................................................... 169 Figure 25 (c): Wall inscription, Shrine of the Kings, lines (43-50 illegible) 51-72 ......................................................... 170 Figure 25 (d): Part of the wall between 16 (a) and (b)..................................................................................................... 171 Figure 26 (a): Wall inscription, Shrine of the Kings (B 17)............................................................................................. 172 Figure 26 (b): Representation, Shrine of the Kings (B 17) .............................................................................................. 173 Figure 27 (a): Representation, Shrine of the Kings (B 18) .............................................................................................. 174 Figure 27 (b): Representation, Shrine of the Kings (B 18) .............................................................................................. 174 Figure 28: Fragment of decoration (B 19) ....................................................................................................................... 175 Figure 29 (a): Stela of Hekhaty-SenebyStela (B 20) ....................................................................................................... 176 Figure 29 (b): Stela B 20, western face and northern edge .............................................................................................. 177 Figure 30 (a): wall inscription (B 30) .............................................................................................................................. 178 Figure 30 (b): wall inscription (B 30) .............................................................................................................................. 178 Figure 30 (c): wall inscription (B 30) .............................................................................................................................. 178 Figure 31: Fragment of column (B 22) (rotated 90°)....................................................................................................... 179 Figure 32: Fragment of an inscribed architrave (B 23).................................................................................................... 180 Figure 33: Edge of a stela (B 24) ..................................................................................................................................... 181 Figure 34: Fragment of stela (B 25) ................................................................................................................................. 182 Figure 35: Fragmentary offering table JE 65465 (B 26) .................................................................................................. 183 Figure 36: Fragment of architrave (B 28) ........................................................................................................................ 183 Figure 37: Stela from Mersa Gawasis (B 30) .................................................................................................................. 185 Figure 38: Stela of Sa.Hathor (B 32) ............................................................................................................................... 187 Figure 39: Measures of the ritual vessel (C 2) ................................................................................................................. 189 Figure 40: Golden Plaque BM 59194 (C 3)..................................................................................................................... 190 Figure 41: Relief of Neferuptah from temple of Medinet Madi ...................................................................................... 204 Figure 42: Nile level graffito of Sobekneferu .................................................................................................................. 210 Figure 43: Column from Hawara ..................................................................................................................................... 211 Figure 44: Block from Hawara with deity Dehdehet ....................................................................................................... 211 Figure 45: Green Schist chest probably of Sobekneferu (MMA 65.59) .......................................................................... 212 Figure 46: Inscription on sphynx of Sobekneferu from Khata’na ................................................................................... 214

x

List of Abbreviations ÄA

Ägyptologische Abhandelungen (Wiesbaden)

ACME

Annals of Associazione Collaboratori Museo Egizio (Turin)

ÄF

Ägyptologische Forschungen (Glückstadt/Hamburg/New York)

AH

Aegyptiaca Helvetica (Geneva/Basel)

AJA

American Journal of Archaeology (Baltimore/New York/Concord/New Haven)

Ä&L

Ägypten und Levante: Zeitschrift für ägyptische Archäologie und deren Nachbargebiete (Vienna)

Archaeology Archaeology: journal of the Archaeological Institute of America (New York) ASAE

Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte (SAE) (Cairo)

BAH

Bibliothèque archéologique et historique (Paris)

BASOR

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (South Hadley/New Haven)

BES

Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar (New York)

BF

A. Morini, Bibliografia del Fayyum, Imola, 2004

BIFAO

Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale (IFAO) (Cairo)

BMB

Bulletin du Museé de Beyrouth

BMFA

Bullettin of the Museum of Fine Arts (Boston)

BMQ

British Museum Quarterly (London)

BSFE

Bulletin de la Société française d’Égyptologie; Réunions trimestrielles, Communications archéologiques (Paris)

BSGE

Bulletin de la Société de Géographie d’Égypte (Cairo)

CdE

Chronique d’Égypte; Bulletin périodique de la Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, (Bruxelles)

CRAIB

Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres (Paris)

CRIPEL

Cahier de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Égyptologie de Lille (Paris/Lille)

DIFIFAO

Documents de Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale (Cairo)

EG

A. H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, III ed., Oxford, 1957

EVO

Egitto e Vicino Oriente: Rivista della sezione orientalistica dell’Istituto di Storia Antica, Università degli Studi di Pisa (Pisa)

FIFAO

Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale, Cairo

GöttMisz

Göttinger Miszellen (Göttingen)

IEJ

Israel Exploration Journal (Jerusalem)

IES

Israel Exploration Society (Jerusalem)

IS

The Inscriptions of Sinai, I-II, London 1955

JAC

Journal of Ancient Civilizations (Changchun, China)

JARCE

Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, (Cairo)

JEA

Journal of Egyptian Archaeology (EES, London)

JNES

Journal of Near Eastern Studies (Chicago)

KMT

K.M.T. A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt (San Francisco)

xi

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Kush

Journal of the Sudan Antiquities Service / Journal of the National Corporation for Antiquities and Museums (Khartoum)

LÄ

W. Helck – E. Otto, Lexikon der Ägyptologie, Wiesbaden, 1972

LD

C. Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien, 12 vols., Leipzig 1849-1856

MDAIK

Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo (DAIK) (Mainz/Cairo/Berlin/ Wiesbaden)

MIFAO

Mémoires publiées par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale (Cairo)

OBO

Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Fribourg, Göttingen

OIP

Oriental Institute Publications (Chicago)

OLA

Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta (Louvain)

OrAnt

Oriens Antiquus (Rome)

Orientalia

Orientalia. Commentarii periodici Pontificii instituti biblici, Nova Series (Rome)

PM

Topographical bibliography of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic texts, reliefs, and paintings, 8 voll., Oxford 1927ss., seconda edizione edita da J. Malek, Oxford 1960ss.

PN

H. Ranke, Die altägyptischen Personennamen, 3 voll., Gluckart, 1935-1977

RdE

Revue d’Égyptologie (Paris)

RT

Recueil de traveaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes (Paris)

SAK

Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur (Hamburg)

SAOC

Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilisation (Chicago)

SSEA

Journal of the Society of the Study of Egyptian Antiquities (Toronto)

Syria

Syria: Revue d’art orientale et d’archéologie (Paris)

TAVO

Tübinger Atlas des vorderen Orients, Beihefte Reihe B (Wiesbaden)

UGAÄ

Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens (Hildesheim/Leipzig/Berlin)

UÖAI

Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes

Wb

A. Erman, H. Grapow, Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache (Leipzig)

ZÄS

Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde (Berlin/Leipzig)

ZGE

Zeitschrift des Gesellschaft für Erdkunde

xii

Abstract Amenemhat IV’s short and poorly documented reign, the penultimate one of the Twelfth Dynasty, represents an interesting gap in Egyptological research, as it spans a fundamental period in Egyptian history. After the crisis of the First Intermediate Period and the great work of unification and innovation undertaken by the rulers of the Twelfth Dynasty, Egypt achieved once again great power and prosperity. However, with the Thirteenth Dynasty the country’s fate changed again, leading to the Second Intermediate Period: a phase that would call into question the foundations of Egyptian society, which ultimately led to the rise of the New Kingdom. The purpose of this book is a comprehensive and integrated analysis of Amenemhat IV’s activity in relation to his historical period. Defining Amenemhat IV’s role, in particular establishing whether his reign represented an element of continuity or of fracture, may help to clarify the reasons and mechanisms which caused the end of the Twelfth Dynasty.

xiii

Introduction The kings of the Twelfth Dynasty (1938–1759 B.C.) consolidated and reconstructed the Egyptian state after the crisis of the First Intermediate Period. The activities of these rulers were mainly concentrated in four cultural areas: the concept of royalty, literature, building projects, and the rise of the Fayyum region.

the borders of Egypt and in relations with neighbouring states – a presence that makes Amenemhat IV anything but a minor sovereign. The purpose of this book is a comprehensive and integrated analysis of this king’s activity in relation to the end of the Twelfth Dynasty. Only with the critical examination of the documentation at our disposal is it possible to reconstruct his reign. Frequently, however, one has to resort to expressions such as “one could assume”, “it would seem that”: the use of the conditional is recurrent and betrays the inevitable subjectivity of numerous interpretations in a research that is not preceded by any similar, specific study.

The dogmatic aspect of the figure of the sovereign remained unchanged and the king continued to be seen as the incarnation of Horus. Instead the king changed his political position: the practical aspect of kingship was increasingly emphasised. According to this ideology, the king was not king by natural law, but through talent and governance. Secondly, literature became an instrument of propaganda and production of consent, while in parallel the construction of the pyramids resumed in continuity with the Old Kingdom as a symbol of royal power. Finally, the reclamation of the Fayyum acquired more and more importance, becoming an important religious centre.

The different types of documents – epigraphic, architectural and papyraceous, both private and official – are classified and subsequently examined in relation to their background and subdivided by provenance. The first group (Group A) includes documents found in Egypt proper. The second (Group B) collects documents from the peripheral areas of the Egyptian state; that is, from Nubia, the Eastern Desert, the Sinai Peninsula, and the port of Mersa Gawasis. Finally, the third group (Group C) includes evidence found outside the Egyptian borders. For each document, a record containing some fixed fields (material, size, state of preservation, provenance and bibliography) was compiled on the basis of available data, with a brief description limited to the aspects relating to Amenemhat IV’s reign.

Amenemhat IV’s short and poorly documented reign, the penultimate one of the Twelfth Dynasty, represents an interesting gap in Egyptological research, as it spans a fundamental period in Egyptian history. After the crisis of the First Intermediate Period and the great work of unification vand innovation undertaken by the rulers of the Twelfth Dynasty, Egypt achieved once again great power and prosperity. Governmental innovations were introduced under Senwsret III and new territories were added to the kingdom, but it was with his successor, Amenemhat III, that everything was organised, consolidated, and strengthened. However, the country’s fate changed again, leading to the Second Intermediate Period: a phase that would call into question the foundations of Egyptian society, which ultimately led to the rise of the New Kingdom.

The discussion follows a chronological order: from the beginning to the end of the reign, beginning with an attempt to define Amenemhat IV in relation to the family of his predecessor: trying to identify the origins and the circumstances that led to his accession to the throne. Ample room is devoted to genealogical research and to the definition of the relationships between Amenemhat IV and three women of the dynasty: the mwt-nsw Hetepti, and the sAt nsw Neferuptah and Sobekneferu. The second chapter then focuses on the succession dynamics which allowed Amenemhat IV to occupy the throne, also considering the documentation for or against a possible coregency.

How, why and when this happened remain questions still unanswered in several respects. Defining Amenemhat IV’s role, in particular establishing whether his reign represented an element of continuity or of fracture, may help to clarify the reasons and mechanisms which caused the end of the Twelfth Dynasty. Unfortunately, publications of Egyptian history, both popular and scientific, tend to close any systematic discussion of the dynasty with Amenemhat III; few words are given to the last two rulers, Amenemhat IV and Sobekneferu, and these mainly concern bibliographical references or their mention in the king lists. The apparent insignificance of Amenemhat IV’s reign according to these sources, mainly due to the relative scarcity of attestations bearing his name, hides a considerable complexity in the definition of his identity and succession dynamics, as well as the significant presence of this king both within

The central part of the analysis includes four chapters devoted to the reconstruction of Amenemhat IV’s activity in Egypt itself and in the border lands, as well as to his foreign policy. To begin with, the discussion focuses on his domestic building works. The scarcity of architectural remains from this period is often interpreted as a sign of regnal weakness, and thus as a sign of crisis: a new examination of the documents permits a revision of this interpretation. 1

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty as the “Late Twelfth Dynasty”2. From a chronological point of view, the Twelfth Dynasty raises questions which affect the determination of both the absolute and relative chronology of the period, namely the duration of the entire dynasty and the duration of each kingdom.

Amenemhat IV’s activity in the borderlands is then analysed. The reign of a sovereign is often characterised by a project that can reveal who that king is, and the funerary complex is usually the main project of a ruler. From this premise, as far as Amenemhat IV is concerned, we will remain inevitably disappointed: we know nothing of either the location of his burial or his tomb. It is therefore necessary to choose another project by which to evaluate his reign: we have chosen his mining expeditions as substitutes for the missing building project. By comparing the different mining sites and by analysing their frequency and organisation, it is possible to demonstrate that mining became the “mirror” of Amenemhat IV’s reign and reflects the situation of his reign although one always must take into account that the sources are often biased.

In terms of absolute chronology, dates recorded which correspond with known astronomical events are available both for the late Twelfth Dynasty and for the first phase of the Thirteenth; they can be useful in anchoring the relative chronology to the absolute. Unfortunately, however, the locations in which these records were made is unknown, which thus leaves a certain margin of error. Each observation, in fact, varies according to the geographical point from which it is made. Without knowing their physical point of observation, therefore, these astronomical records are not able to provide fully accurate chronological milestones. Over the years, many debates among scholars have been held on the topic and this is not the place to deal with such a complex matter; it suffices to point out the issue that remains most controversial, which is the question of the high and the low chronology3. As for the Twelfth Dynasty, the date of the seventh year of Senwsret III’s reign is the main object of debate, which is either placed in 18724 or 18305 B.C.

Looking at Amenemhat IV’s foreign policy, many documents coming from different locations of the SyroPalestinian area were examined. It becomes clear that relations between Egypt and these lands were significant during the span of the Twelfth Dynasty, including Amenemhat IV’s reign. Different interpretations of the relationship between Amenemhat IV and the kingdoms of the Levant are thus discussed, ranging from the desire of the Egyptians to rule, to their need to establish diplomatic relations with neighbouring lands to maintain a certain balance of power in the region. For this reason, we have analysed the Egyptian documents from abroad in connection with their context to understand the nature, time, and manner of the documents’ arrival in those areas. Two overviews of the administrative systems and the ideological aspects of the Twelfth Dynasty complete the analysis. We have looked at administrative documents to determine whether the process of centralisation and strengthening of the monarchy, begun with Senwsret III and continued by Amenemhat III, ended with Amenemhat IV. The last part consists of two chapters. The first one analyses the problem of the king’s burial, while the second one discusses the end of Amenemhat IV’s reign. It is a complex chapter written with two purposes. The first is to understand the end of the king’s reign in the light of the evidence in our possession and in relation to the events leading to the end of the Twelfth Dynasty and the rise of the Thirteenth. The second is to verify the stability of the northern borders of the Egyptian state and the possibility of the rise of a parallel dynasty of Asian origin, probably related to the future Hyksos invaders.

King

High

Low

Amenemhat I

1963-1934

1937-1908

Senwsret I

1943-1898

1917-1872

Amenemhat II

1901-1866

1842-1836

Senwsret II

1868-1862

1868-1862

Senwsret III

1862-1843

1836-1817

Amenemhat III

1843-1798

1817-1772

Amenemhat IV

1798-1789

1772-1763

Sobekneferu

1789-1786

1763-1759

The debate is open and, if possible, even more heated for the period’s relative chronology. In order to simplify, we can distinguish between a “long” and a “short” chronology. The first assigns a total duration of 213 years to the dynasty, while the second one puts it at 177 years6.

and have a simple illustrative purpose. As for the possible co-regencies related to this analysis, see Chapter 2: Succession and Co-regency. 2 Cf., for example, Grajetzki 2006, p. 50. 3 Cf. W. A.Ward, The Present Status of Egyptian Chronology, BASOR 288 (1992), pp. 53-66. The so-called ‘high’ chronology is based on Parker’s studies. The scholar believes that Sirio’s heliacal rising was observed from the royal palace, in Lower Egypt; while the ‘low’ chronology is based on Krauss’ studies, according to whom the observations were made from Elephantine. See also Cohen-Lake 2002, pp. 12-13; Gautschy 2010. 4 Cf. A. R. Parker, The Sothic Dating of the Twelfth and Eighteenth Dynasties, SAOC 39 (1977). 5 Cf. R. Krauss, Sothis und Mundatten, Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge 20, Hildesheim 1985. 6 Cf. Cohen-Lake 2002, p. 13 with related bibliography.

A note on chronology1 Egyptological tradition usually divides the Twelfth Dynasty into two phases, separated by the reign of Senwsret III, which began the period often referred to 1 Tables taken from K. A. Kitchen, The Basics of Egyptian Chronology in Relation to the Bronze Age. High Middle or Low?, ed. P. Åstrom, Gothenburg 1987, pp. 35-55. They adopt the ‘short’ relative chronology

2

Part 1 Origin and Ascent

1 Amenemhat IV and the Family of Amenemhat III The aim of this section is to investigate the nature of the bonds among the members of the royal family in the last part of the Twelfth Dynasty. The protagonists of this period are Amenemhat III, Neferuptah, Sobekneferu, Hetepti, and Amenemhat IV. The strength of the evidence for these individuals varies. Neferuptah and Sobekneferu were almost surely daughters of Amenemhat III, and it is certain that they were figures of considerable importance; Sobekneferu even ascended the throne. Conversely, the existence of Hetepti is attested by a single document1 where she is called mwt nsw, king’s mother, and she is represented on Amenemhat IV’s side.

The existence of Neferuptah is attested by many sources coming from heterogeneous contexts, especially in the funerary domain; it cannot be denied that this woman played a leading role during the reign of Amenemhat III, who was most likely her father. The name of the princess is associated with two probable burial sites. Between 1888 and 1889, Sir W.M. Flinders Petrie7 led an excavation campaign at the funerary complex of Amenemhat III at Hawara. Inside the main pyramid, he discovered an additional burial, including funereal material distributed between the antechamber and the burial chamber. In the former room, he found an alabaster offering table8 and fragments of eight or nine ritual vessels in alabaster inscribed with the name of the princess9. In the burial chamber itself, he discovered a sarcophagus between Amenemhat III’s and the eastern wall of the room. Petrie10 said that he personally found artefact fragments of various kinds in the sarcophagus: some bone fragments and charcoal, together with beads and inlays that were probably part of the decoration of the funeral equipment. It should be noted, however, that at the time of the excavation of this tomb it had already been looted and flooded, which is why it is not possible to establish the identity of the owners of these small fragments.

Very little is known about the possible ties between Amenemhat IV and the royal family of the Twelfth Dynasty2. That Amenemhat IV, Neferuptah and Sobekneferu were related to one another is still a matter of speculation: their names never appear together in the same document. However, separately, each name is often associated with that of Amenemhat III3, whose family seems to have consisted of women only4 without any mention of a “male heir”. In this regard, R. Leprohon reported that this lack of clarity in the determination of family bonds among the members of the royal family seems to be a feature shared by several kings of the dynasty: nothing is known about the relationships between Amenemhat III and his predecessor’s family either5, nor do we know the name of his mother, and the list of Senwsret III’s descendants only includes daughters. This apparent preference for the annotation of female figures, however, has not found a satisfactory explanation yet, and the fact that other sovereigns of the Twelfth Dynasty have instead explicitly mentioned their heirs would seem to exclude tradition6 as an rationale.

1.1. Neferuptah

In 1956, N. Farag and Z. Iskander brought to light the remains of a small pyramid located about 2 km southeast from that of Amenemhat III, at Hawara. It consists of two rooms: a room for offerings and a burial chamber proper. The former contained an offering table in black granite11, pottery vessels of different shapes and a silver vase Hs12, while the second one contained two silver vessels, one Hs13 and one nmst14, as well as some ritual objects associated with cosmetics and jewelry. Finally, it contained a large red granite sarcophagus15 and the remains of a rectangular wooden sarcophagus decorated with inscribed goldleaves16 and various decorative elements attributed by the excavators to the third anthropoid sarcophagus17.

The uncertainty surrounding the figure of Neferuptah is one of the most exciting and difficult subjects within the relationships between Amenemhat IV and his predecessor’s family.

7

Let us discuss these prominent women of the Twelfth Dynasty.

Cf. Petrie 1890. Appendix 1: Funerary equipment, Amenemhat III’s pyramid, 1. 9 Appendix 1: Funerary equipment, Amenemhat III’s pyramid, 2. 10 Cf. Petrie 1890, p. 8, 16-17; pl. IV and V. 11 Appendix 1: Funerary equipment, Neferuptah’s pyramid, 1. 12 Appendix 1: Funerary equipment, Neferuptah’s pyramid, 2. 13 Appendix 1: Funerary equipment, Neferuptah’s pyramid, 3. 14 Appendix 1: Funerary equipment, Neferuptah’s pyramid, 4. 15 Appendix 1: Funerary equipment, Neferuptah’s pyramid, 5. 16 Appendix 1: Funerary equipment, Neferuptah’s pyramid, 6. 17 For a complete list of the objects found in Neferuptah’s pyramid see Farag-Iskander 1971. For pottery, see also Allen 1998. 8

Cf. Appendix 1: Relief 1. Cf. Dodson 2004, pp. 92; 95. 3 See below. 4 In fact, documents attest the presence of Queen Aat and the names of Hathor-hotep and Nubhotepet, in addition to the two other daughters, Neferuptah and Sobeknefru (see Pignattari 2008, p. 30 and ff.; Dodson 2004, p. 92). 5 Cf. Leprohon 1980, p. 189 and ff. 6 Cf. Leprohon 1980, p. 191. 1 2

5

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty provides numerous examples of the use of the symbolism of the kingship by the royal women”27. In the Middle Kingdom, and in particular during the Twelfth Dynasty, the use of titles and epithets underwent some significant changes, and some innovations28 were introduced which seem to emphasise the role of women in both the religious and political spheres. This would continue in later stages of Egyptian history, especially during the Eighteenth Dynasty, when important women took inspiration from this period.

From the mortuary context also comes an ivory votive stick found near the mortuary temple of Senwsret I at elLisht engraved with the name of a certain Neferuptah. This princess, however, may be the same as the daughter of Sesnwsret I, whose pyramid is located at el-Lisht18. A second group of sources, whose origin is uncertain or completely unknown, includes a series of sculptures: a headless black granite sphinx19 purchased by M. G. Legrain and published by P. E. Newberry; a block of black granite20 reused as mortar and published by M. G. Daressy; and a fragmentary statue in grey granite published by A. E. P. Weigall coming from Elephantine21, of which only part of the pedestal remains, and which represents a sitting female identified with Neferuptah by the cartouche engraved on the base. Finally, there is a black granite statue of uncertain attribution from Thebes, perhaps inscribed with a dedication to the ka of the princess Neferuptah22. The templar context of Medinet Madi also shows a representation of Neferuptah together with Amenemhat III23.

The name of Neferuptah is often mentioned together with the epithet sAt nsw (king’s daughter), a title that occurs in several documents, some of which allow us to recognise Amenemhat III as her father. The name of this king is explicitly associated with “Neferuptah sAt nsw” on the headless granite sphinx and on the three silver vessels found in Neferuptah’s personal pyramid, where the king is mentioned with his coronation name Ny-Maat-ra. It is important both that Neferuptah bears this epithet in the relief of the temple of Medinet Madi, where the princess is depicted with the king, and that she is described, near sAt nsw, using the expression Xt.f, “of his body”, stressing an immediate family tie with Amenemhat III. The second epithet to consider is iryt-pat, “noblewoman”, which occurs on the aforementioned sphinx and in other documents29. This epithet, also translated as crowned Princess, was usually attributed to the first-born daughter30 and this allows us to draw a first conclusion: of the possible daughters of Amenemhat III – Hetepathor31, Nubhetepet32, Sobekneferu and Neferuptah – it is likely that Neferuptah was the eldest.

Finally, there are also two papyri mentioning a Princess Neferuptah. The first one24, found at el-Lahun, consists of a letter fragment with a seal; the second one25, perhaps from Dendera, consists of five fragments written in Middle Kingdom hieratic. In this case, however, the name of the princess is connected to the pyramid of Senwsret I and therefore may belong to the other Neferuptah. The identity and importance of Neferuptah can be inferred from many clues. Firstly, from the analysis of titles and epithets; secondly, from the enclosing of Neferuptah’s name into the cartouche, a very unusual particular for Egyptian women of Middle Kingdom and the first example in Egyptian history26; thirdly, from the presence of Neferuptah in official contexts, as in the scene in the temple of Medinet Madi; finally, from the fact that they prepared a burial for her inside the pyramid of Amenemhat III. These data confirm the importance of Neferuptah at the end of the Twelfth Dynasty. Let us now explore Neferuptah’s personality and life in relation to Amenemhat IV.

The title iryt-pat is one of many examples of the feminisation of titles which originally referred only to sons: its earliest known use is during the Sixth Dynasty, and during the Twelfth it became standard. Moreover, during the Twelfth Dynasty and especially during the reign of Amenemhat III it was also used in non-royal contexts: for example, it has been found engraved on a statue from Sinai, mentioning a priestess of Hathor and followed by the titles wrt Hts and wrt Hst33. According to Troy, the use of this title, which by this time belonged both to the ritual and the institutional sphere, was instrumental in placing women in a court hierarchy using the same terminology used by officials, thus creating parallelism and complementarity of

Before considering the titulary of the princess, it is appropriate to address the use of titles and epithets in relation to Egyptian women in general. As noted by L.Troy: “the queenship is interpreted as parallel to the masculine role of the king and thus provided with the attributes of kingship. The documentation of the queenship

Troy 1986, p. 133. Cf. for example Grajetzki 2005, pp. 157 and ff. 29 Appendix 1: Sculpture, 3; Relief 1; Funerary equipment, Neferuptah’s pyramid, 3 and 4. 30 Cf. Troy 1986, p. 133 and ff.; Newberry 1943, p. 44; Valloggia 1969, p. 112. 31 There is actually no reliable evidence of the ties between these princesses and Amenemhat III. We inferred that they are daughters of the latter from the presence of the title sAt nsw (see Troy 1986, p. 159) in combination with the fact that their burials are located within the temenos of the Black Pyramid at Dahshur. In fact, the debate on the dating and identification of these women is still a matter of debate among scholars, see Lilyquist 1979. For Hetepathor see Troy 1986, p. 159: De Morgan 1895; Matzker 1986, p. 26. See also Pignattari 2008, p. 53. 32 Troy 1986, p. 159; Matzker 1986, p. 26. Cf. also Pignattari 2008, p. 53. 33 Cf. Troy 1986, p. 133. 27 28

18 Appendix 1: Regalia, 1. This object, together with the fragment of a papyrus (see below), represents the only document belonging to this hypothetical second Neferuptah, daughter of Senwsret I (cf. Troy 1986, p. 158 and Dodson 2004, p. 93). 19 Appendix 1: Sculpture, 1. 20 Appendix 1: Sculpture, 2. 21 Appendix 1: Sculpture, 3. 22 Appendix 1: Sculpture, 4. 23 Appendix 1: Relief, 1. 24 Appendix 1: Papyri, 1. 25 Appendix 1: Papyri, 2. 26 Cf. Troy 1986, p. 159; Dodson 2004, p. 98; Grajetzki 2006, p. 58, 70.

6

Amenemhat IV and the Family of Amenemhat III represent […] a feminine element of the kingship”39; they are the manifestation of a mythical female archetype, and thus symbolise the feminine element in general as representative of the xnr, i.e. that group of priestesses in charge of musical performances during religious celebrations40. The assignment of these roles to Neferuptah herself is supported by an additional element: the presence of the sistrum (type sSSt) that the princess holds as a tribute to the goddess Renenutet in the scene located on the west side of the door of the south wall of the transversal room of the Medinet Madi temple41. This scene is innovative since, for the first time, the sistrum is portrayed as an instrument used by the women of the royal family. It represents the only previous illustration before the Eighteenth Dynasty when this practice became common42.

roles between men and women. The title iryt-pat is also interesting when considered alongside two other epithets taken from those describing Neferuptah: wrt imAt and wrt Hst, usually translated respectively as “great of favour” and “great of praise”. These epithets are associated with the name of the princess in the dedication written on the statue from Elephantine and in the caption describing the scene of the temple at Medinet Madi34. First of all, these epithets show a high social status. Troy, in her study of female royalty, considers in detail these titles in order to define the ritual role of women in relation to the cult of Hathor. Her analysis begins with the wrt imAt title in connection with wrt Hts, “great of Hts sceptre”, a ritual sceptre held by women during special ceremonies. Because of the similarity of the two hieroglyphics, Egyptological tradition has long considered the two titles to be interchangeable, in particular arguing that the former had often replaced the latter without a specific reason. However, Troy says: “it has been common praxis to read the titles wrt Hts and wrt imAt as a commentary on the personal attributes of the royal women as great of “affection”, “pleasure” and so forth. While it is true that the term imAt is used to mean “to be pleasant,” one may detect a reference to the tree itself as the manifestation of the goddess’35.

According to iconographic and textual analysis, the sistrum was originally a symbol, carried in procession and not intended to produce sounds – more like a sceptre than a musical instrument43. In its earliest representations, the sistrum is the determinative near the participants’ name at the worshipping of the goddess Hathor. In Troy’s opinion, the use of the sistrum by women of royal lineage marks the maximum convergence between the role played by women as priestesses and the concept of female royalty. Moreover, in some scholars’ opinion44, the titles wrt imAt and wrt Hst taken together with the epithet of di anx Dt, “living forever”, also present in the scene of Medinet Madi, suggest that we are dealing with a bride or a coregent of a king.

The imAt tree is in fact a symbol of the goddess Hathor and it is connected to her power over the renewal and unity of the elements. The woman holding the titles wrt Hts and wrt imAt can therefore be identified both as the priestess of the goddess and as the one who carries out some specific performance related to music and dance, using specific tools, in this case the sceptre Hst and the tree wrt imAt. It is this latter role which is emphasised when the titles mentioned above are followed by another title, wrt Hts, where the quality of the praise should be interpreted as sung or played36. The association of the titles wrt Hts and wrt imAt with the wrt Hst title clearly indicates that the titulary forms a complex and coherent system referring to the participation of women of royal lineage in the musical activities of a ceremony in which voice and sacred objects are worshipping tools37. According to Troy, women of royal blood are primarily priestesses of the goddess Hathor, the representative of divine kingship, and, from time to time, they are identified with her role as Ra’s wifemother-daughter and Horus’ wife-mother, thus embodying her complementary nature38. Moreover, “the royal women

At this point, it is possible to make some considerations relating to the status and the role of Neferuptah. However, we should not ignore the negative evidence that Neferuptah is never described with the epithet Hmt nsw, “king’s wife”, but always with sAt nsw: it is by this epithet that she is referred to when she appears next to Amenemhat III. Moreover, the lack of titles such as Hnwt tAwy, “lady of the Two Lands”, frequently used in the Twelfth Dynasty “in reference to the sovereignty of the royal women”45, is very significant. This leads to the conclusion that the princess never married or was never a co-regent of a sovereign. In this respect, K. S. B. Ryholt formulated the hypothesis that a marriage to Neferuptah would legitimise Amenemhat IV’s ascent to the throne. In fact, if Amenemhat IV were not of royal blood, the princess would have been destined to marry the designated successor, thus legitimising his presence on the throne46, but this project would have failed owing to Neferuptah’s premature death. This

34 Actually, the restitution of Donadoni 1947, p. 508 shows the sign aA instead of iAmt; however, the close link existing between the two signs witnessed by other documents and the previous translation given by Schott “rich of grace” (cf. Vogliano 1937, p. 28) make the presence of iAmt wrt possible. 35 Troy 1986, p. 83. 36 Cf. Troy 1986, p. 88. 37 Cf. Quirke 1999. 38 Cf. Troy 1986, pp. 53-54. The adoption of this role by Neferuptah is also confirmed by an epithet of doubtful interpretation in the legend to Medinet Madi’s scene and read by Troy: nbt [r dr mrwt] “Lady up to the limit of love” instead of the more commonly accepted nb Dr mrt nsw “Beloved of the Lord of Universe”. However, the interpretation remains uncertain, due to the incompleteness of the text.

Troy 1986, p. 76. About the xnr cf. D.Nord, The Term xnr: Harem or Musical Performers?, in W.K. Simpson and W. M. Davies, Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean and the Sudan, Boston 1981, pp. 137-145. 41 Cf. Appendix 1: Relief 1. 42 In Troy’s opinion, evidence for the use of the sistrum by the royal women begins to accumulate during the reign of Tuthmosis IV (for more information see Troy 1986, p.86). 43 Cf. Giveon 1978, p. 69 e Troy 1986, pp. 85-86. 44 Cf. Newberry 1943, p. 74; Valloggia 1969, p. 111. 45 Troy 1986, p. 134. 46 Cf. Ryholt 1996, p. 210 and Chapter 2: Succession and Coregency. 39 40

7

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Finally, if Neferuptah was a cultural replacement for the royal bride, the presence of the cartouche around her name would be better justified. The presence of the cartouche around women’s names, however, as already shown52, is the subject of many debates and historical controversies. Troy says: “the cartouche is used for royal women from the late Twelfth Dynasty onward. Mertz sees it as an acquired rather than hereditary right. Its use is not consistent in the documentation and it is difficult to discern the extent to which the cartouche represented a formal privilege”53. According to this interpretation, the cartouche would seem to be an official recognition rather than an honour given for its own sake, making the hypothesis that Neferuptah started bearing the cartouche as a post-mortem honour bestowed by the father to his beloved favourite daughter an implausible one54. This is also suggested by the evidence of archaeological sources: Neferuptah’s name bears the cartouche on all her documents, except on those found inside Amenemhat III’s pyramid at Hawara and on the wooden coffin found in her own pyramid.

reconstruction could explain the high status achieved by this woman, including the exceptional honour of having her name enclosed in a cartouche, while also addressing the lack of explicit designation of Neferuptah as a queen. However, it is remarkable that the names of Amenemhat IV and Neferuptah never appear together, and are never connected to each other in the same document. For the sake of completeness, we should mention a document cited by M. Valloggia47 as a proof of the coregency between Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV, a statue in Berlin (A 7). The text engraved on the base of the sculpture is a ḥtpdi-nsw offering formula, and Valloggia has suggested that it is a sculpture of Neferuptah dedicated to Hathor’s temple at Dendera. Taken together with the presence of both the names of the kings in the offering formula, this could lead to the conclusion that Neferuptah was still alive during the coregency of the two sovereigns and it provides the only link between the princess and her father’s successor. However, we must point out that many other scholars interpret the sculpture as an image of the goddess Hathor48.

With the exception of the controversial papyrus from el-Lahun, where the princess bears the epithet mA-xrw, “justified”, none of the documents refer to her as deceased. On the contrary, the name of the princess is often followed by the epithets anxti and anx Dt, suggesting she was very much alive at the time55. Moreover, the papyrus itself can be interpreted as a source for the attribution of the cartouche during her lifetime: it is an official document and there would be no reason to adopt the use of the cartouche unless this practice had as precedent of widely used by the administration for decades. In order to better understand the terms of timing and the reasons that led to the award of the cartouche, it could be useful to analyse the sources and, in particular, to compare the sources found in the the two burials. Firstly, it is interesting to note that none of the objects bearing Neferuptah’s name found in the pyramid of her father include the cartouche, while all the equipment from the princess’s pyramid show it, with the only exception of some fragments from the wooden coffin.

In order to explain the great importance of Neferuptah, it is possible to draw a parallel with the regnal setups of other Egyptian kings: that is, by acknowledging the existence of the so-called princess-queens who, during the middle and end of Ramesses II’s reign, assumed the royal functions of the queen. It is possible that Amenemhat III granted royal dignity and honour to his daughter not because she was the bride of Amenemhat IV, but rather because she became a cultic substitute for the royal bride, since the king’s wives during the second phase of his kingdom are not known. This interpretation would explain many aspects of Neferuptah’s exceptionality. First of all, there is the rich titulary describing her primarily as a priestess, alongside the iconography of the sphinx symbolising the identification of the woman of royal blood with the daughter of the god Amun, in his role as protector of the royal family49. It is remarkable that it is during the Middle Kingdom that the sphinx becomes an attested sculptural type. Secondly, this hypothesis also explains the persistence of the title sAt nsw, as the choice of Amenemhat III not to mean the marriage with his daughter and at the same time to give an account of the absence of explicit links with Amenemhat IV. Thirdly, it does not require us to postulate that the princess died before her father’s successor took the throne, thus explaining her presence beside Amenemhat III in the Medinet Madi temple50 where, as already noted, she plays an active part in the worship ceremony and is given the epithet di anx which during the Middle Kingdom is usually associated with living characters51.

When Petrie discovered the burial added to the pyramid of Amenemhat III, his opinion was that “there can be no doubt that this was for interment of the princess Neferuptah […] who must have died before her father”56. Petrie reports that the remains of two canopic chests were found among various objects. The interior of the king’s chest had been destroyed, and that of the second box had been reduced to fragments. Nothing that can be certainly attributed to an inner, wooden, case is recorded, but the stone chest is of such size that one might be expected57. Owing to the presence of the princess’s burial inside the burial chamber of the king, the archaeologist argues that Neferuptah died before her father. This view seems to imply the premature

Cf. Valloggia, p. 118. Among the former group cf. Matzker 1986, p. 93; Franke 1988, p. 119; while among the latter cf., for example, LD II, p. 120; Brunton 1939, p. 180; Murnane 1977, p. 15. 49 Cf. Troy 1986, pp. 62-64. 50 Cf. Appendix 1: Relief: 1. 51 Cf. Murnane 1977, pp. 267-272; Delia 1979, p. 18; Zecchi 2001, p. 161. Cf. Chapter 2: Succession and Coregency. 47 48

52 53 54 55 56 57

8

Cf. Pignattari 2008, p. 67. Troy 1986, p. 134. Cf. Maragioglio-Rinaldi 1973; Pignattari 2008, p. 65 and ff. Cf. for example Appendix 1: Sculpture 2; Relief 1. Petrie 1890, p. 16. Cf. Petrie 1890 (b), pp. 16-17.

Amenemhat IV and the Family of Amenemhat III communication from bAk n pr Dt mr-Snt. On the verso there are the address and the seal. In the latter, although badly damaged, it is possible to read the name Imn-m-HAt written in a cartouche followed by anx Dt. The text of the recto reads Hwt sAt-nsw PtH-nfrw mAat xrw, “the tomb of the king’s daughter, Neferuptah, justified”. There is no evidence that the Amenemhat on the seal is Amenemhat III: it could be, in fact, Amenemhat IV.

death of the princess and a possible provisional burial anticipating the completion of her own pyramid; the mummy of the princess would be then transferred into the wooden sarcophagus in her own tomb. The alleged link between the two burials is the discovery of gold bands decorating the wooden coffin. They display the name of the princess engraved without the cartouche, using the same order of hieroglyphics as those on the objects found in the Amenemhat III’s pyramid – in particular the alabaster offering table, on which the name of Neferuptah is written with the three signs nfr followed by the name of Ptah, without the anticipation of the god’s name58. In my opinion this reconstruction, which is still controversial among scholars59, is supported by many elements.

From the analysis of the sources, it seems possible to formulate a new hypothesis. The rise of Neferuptah, considering her status and the political role she played, seems to have been the result of a process of gradual growth in importance and influence at court. While only speculation is possible at this stage, it can be assumed that this process started with Neferuptah assuming the role of a simple sAt nsw who then acquired great importance over time, especially in leading worship as a priestess, until she achieved a status comparable to a Hmt nsw with the conferment of the cartouche as a formal recognition (which would confirm Troy’s interpretation66). The process probably ended abruptly with the premature death of the princess, which led to the preparation of a temporary burial, exploiting a set of burial equipment (defined as equipment A67) which had already been prepared before the conferment of the cartouche. This equipment was used until the pyramid was finished, at which time a new one was made in black granite with the standardised use of cartouche and a fixed spelling of Neferuptah’s name.

Firstly, there is the improvised nature of the added burial. The space for the princess’s body is very limited60, suggesting that if the king’s original intention was to bury Neferuptah inside his own tomb, he probably would have commissioned the construction of a separate complex of rooms with better organised spaces. In order to explain the presence of the little added burial inside Amenemhat III’s pyramid, V. Maragioglio and C. A. Rinaldi have even suggested the existence of two Neferuptah, a hypothesis not supported by any other evidence. However, the presence of the princess’s body inside the pyramid of her father is very controversial. Many scholars61 also doubt that Neferuptah was ever buried there on the grounds that the space inside Amenemhat III’s pyramid is so small. On the basis of the hypothesised measurements of the additional sarcophagus, Farag and Iskander62 argue that it could not contain the wooden sarcophagus that would have received the body of the princess, which was found in fragments inside her pyramid. It should be noted, however, that all measures are hypothetical, and that Petrie in his report63 wrote of building a sarcophagus64 to indicate the new one was of stone.

Two pieces of evidence in this discussion must be emphasised. Firstly, we must not overlook the fact that the pyramid of Neferuptah is of a size comparable to the tombs of many kings of the end of the Middle Kingdom. Moreover, it is outside the temenos of Amenemhat III’s complex, which confirms once again the importance of the princess68. The underground rooms for the burial have no external access. There are neither stairs nor ramps, suggesting that the construction of the superstructure took place after the burial of the body and the installation of ceiling slabs sealing the rooms. In contrast to its remarkable size, the structure looks spartan and rough, and this supports the above hypothesis of the progression in Neferuptah’s status: the decision to build a pyramid for her must have been taken near her death, which led to hasty work.

Secondly, in the burial chamber of the Hawara pyramid has a locking system that probably only allowed a single closure with no possibility of re-opening it65: it is highly unlikely that if Amenemhat III had died before his daughter, it would have been decided not to seal the burial until his daughter’s death had also occurred. Finally, there is the evidence of the text of the papyrus Kahun V.12, a letter which contains the text of a

Secondly, it should be noted that burial equipment, as proven by many sources, was usually prepared while its owner was still alive. The most significant evidence

58 Cf. Farag-Iskander 1971, p. 58. Even if Maragioglio and Rinaldi (see Maragioglio-Rinaldi, 1973, p. 360) do note that on the objects from Amenemhat III’s pyramid the two spellings fluctuate, it is still significant that the objects coming from the pyramid of the princess and on all the others who have the cartouche, this does not happen. This is due to an occurred standardisation of spelling of the name rather than to an interchangeability of the two scriptures. 59 Cf. Pignattari 2008, p. 60 and ff. 60 Cf. Petrie. 1890 (b) p. 17 and Maragioglio-Rinaldi 1973, pp. 360-361. 61 Maragioglio-Rinaldi 1973; Verner 2002, 430; Grajetzki 2006, p. 58. 62 Cf. Farag e Iskander 1971, pp. 85-86. 63 Cf. Petrie 1890, p. 17. 64 Cf. Petrie 1890, pl. IV. 65 Cf. Pignattari 2008, p. 61; Lehner 2004, p. 183.

See above. For the equipment found in the tomb of Hawara we use the expression equipment B. 68 Cf. Maragioglio-Rinaldi 1973, p. 358, n. 3; Uphill 2000, p. 80. It should be noted that the other tombs for members of the royal family were not a pyramid, but a shaft tomb and that the two wives of Amenemhat III were buried inside the pyramid of Dahshur (see Pignattari 2008, p. 45 and ff.). In order to get a clearer picture of the situation, it would be useful to know in which spatial relationship the pyramid of Amenemhat III and that of Neferuptah were. Unfortunately, the site conditions do not allow further considerations. 66 67

9

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty to my knowledge, is unique during the Twelfth Dynasty71 and leads us to draw a number of conclusions. We know that Amenemhat III underwent a process of deification that made him an object of worship until the GrecoRoman Period and that there are similar offering formulas belonging to that time72. The presence of nsw-bit among the gods’ names makes Amenemhat III appear as a deified death-king. If this interpretation is correct, this leads to the conclusion that equipment B was made after Amenemhat III’s death. If this were true, it would follow that only a short period of time would have lapsed between the deaths of the princess and of the king. In this regard, it is interesting to note that on the offering table, the name of Amenemhat III does not appear. This could suggest that the table was either made before the king’s death or that it was copied from a preexisting example, meaning that the death of the sovereign occurred while the new equipment was being made73.

for this comes from the tombs of officials, where it is not uncommon to find elements of equipment bearing different titles for the same person: as W. Grajetzki writes of Dagi’s equipment: “titles and title strings never appear on the same monument, making it likely that they represent different stages of his career”69. In short, the various elements of the burial equipment reflected the subsequent stages in the career of the official. In the event that the owner progressed in his career, he must have clearly foregone his right to modify or remake the objects of the equipment now “obsolete”, particularly for economic reasons. However, in the case of a figure of Neferuptah’s importance, the situation is quite different; it is reasonable to believe that a new set of burial equipment which matched hernew position (equipment B) was made. Regarding Neferuptah’s independent burial and equipment B, it is very curious that no canopic chest was found. However, we should remember that the excavators found the entire content of the pyramid severely damaged by water infiltration. Taking this into account, we can make several assumptions to explain the strange gaps in Neferuptah’s equipment: either, for reasons unknown to us, the princess’s canopic chest and jars were left behind when her coffin was transferred, or that Neferuptah’s own pyramid contained just a wooden canopic chest, perhaps the same that was originally in the lithic chest prepared for her in her father’s pyramid. Concerning this, Dodson states: “certainly, the stone chest could never have been removed from the king’s burial chamber”70.

The structure of Neferuptah’s pyramid may also be interesting for another reason: the hastily-built nature of the complex and the burial chamber would be due to the need to transfer her body into, and then seal, the pyramid of Amenemhat III at the sovereign’s death. Unfortunately, it is not possible to be more precise; one cannot rule out the possibility that the presence of the king’s name on the ritual vessels represents him as the donor, and that it was a tribute to the great still-living Amenemhat III at a time when the process of deification had already begun74. This second hypothesis would be plausible if one considers the length and the importance of the reign of this king. Alternatively, the presence of Amenemhat III’s name on the inscription may be interpreted as “an offering the king Nimaatra gives to Geb […]”.

Moreover, equipment B has a particular feature that may help clarify the terms of the chronology of Neferuptah’s life in relation to her father’s reign. This inscription, engraved on the body of each of the three silver ritual vessels, contains the Htp-di-nsw offering formula:

To reconstruct the chronology of Neferuptah’s life, it is worth mentioning a final document: the black granite block75 on which Neferuptah is called snt nTr, “sister of the god”, to be interpreted as a variation of the more common snt nsw. This designation for women of the royal family did not become common until the Eighteenth Dynasty. The only previous use, once again, comes from the Twelfth Dynasty76 and Neferuptah, called snt nTr, is an unicum. It is not entirely clear whether this title would indicate a real family relationship or whether it has rather a symbolic value. In later cases, the term sister would acquire the value wife, and Farag and Iskander77 believe that the variant snt nTr refers to Neferuptah as “sister” of the dead Amenemhat III, emphasising the link between

Htp-di-nsw Ny-MAat-Ra, Geb, PtH-Skr, Wsr, Sbk Šdt, Ḥr Hry ib Šdt, PsDt Aat, PsDt nDst, di.sn prt.xrw ka, apd, t, Ss, mnxt […] n iryt pat sAt nsw Nfrw-PtH mAat xrw An offering the king gives to Ni-Maat-Ra, Geb, Ptah-Sokar, Osiris, Sobek of Shedet who resides in Shedet, the Great Ennead, the Little Ennead, so that they give a funerary offering consisting of bread and beer, beef and fowl, alabaster, cloth […] for the noblewoman, the daughter of the king, Neferuptah, justified. The offering formula has the standard structure of this type of texts, where the opening expression is followed by the name of the god or gods to whom the offering is made. The uniqueness of this particular formula lies in the fact that the first recipient appears to be Amenemhat III himself, mentioned with his crowning name: in this way, he appears to be counted among the gods. This characteristic,

69 70

The other examples cited by Radwan (in Radwan 2013, p. 384-385) represent, in my opinion, different cases coming from different contexts. In particular, the Htp di-nsw formula on sculpture A 7 could bear both kings’ name in order to distinguish them as devoting of the offer. 72 See Widmer 2002, pp. 379-380. 73 Cf. Radwan 2013. 74 Cf. Radwan 2013. 75 Appendix 1: Sculpture, 2. 76 It is known the use of the variant snt nsw for two women tied to Amenemhat I: Dedyt and Neferet (see Troy 1986, p. 106) and for the aforementioned Merestekhi (see above and Ryholt 1996, p. 5). 77 See Farag-Iskander 1957, p. 107. 71

Grajetzki 2009, p. 141. Dodson 1994, p. 29, n. 57.

10

Amenemhat IV and the Family of Amenemhat III sarcophagus and frequent in the Middle Kingdom, is curiously absent from Neferuptah’s.

father and daughter as equal to that of husband and wife. It may be a reference to the aforementioned role Neferuptah assumed as a cultural replacement for the royal bride. However, if the epithet snt nTr is taken at face value, it could indicate instead that Neferuptah was the king’s sister rather than his daughter. There remains the issue of which sovereign this document refers to, Amenemhat III or Amenhemat IV. This document cannot be chronologically placed, even if the presence of the cartouche suggests an advanced stage of the princess’s life. Taking into account the identity of Amenemhat IV78 and the probability that he was not the son of his predecessor, the epithet snt nTr may ultimately refer to a time when Amenemhat IV had already been designated successor and perhaps even coregent with Amenemhat III; and it could form a link between Amenemhat IV and Neferuptah represented by her father.

The first text taken into account is the following one: dd mdw inq.n iwf.t Hn.n awt.t anx n mwt.t “Words to be said: we wrap your flesh, we place your limbs. Live! May you not die!” This text is similar both to text no. 17 of Hatshepsut’s sarcophagus83 and to others from the Eighteenth Dynasty, but it has no precedent among those of the Middle Kingdom. The following text is the most interesting one because, before the discovery of Neferuptah’s tomb, the formula was known only from text no. 25 of Hatshepsut’s sarcophagus, upon which it occupied the horizontal line of the front. As noted by Grajetzki, “it seems plausible that the spell had the same position on her coffin”84.

As for the phraseology of titling given to royal women, it has already been noted79 that the Twelfth Dynasty was often taken as a model for the Eighteenth Dynasty and that some changes introduced at the end of the Middle Kingdom were reinstated at the beginning of the New Kingdom. Perhaps this parallel with the later period could be useful to shed light on a context that otherwise, remains difficult to assess, allowing a further step in the reconstruction of Neferuptah’s story.

This text is found parallel to text no. 35 of Hatshepsut’s sarcophagus, placed vertically on the back. Its reconstruction is possible since it is the only case in which the names of the princess and the queen are written, on both sarcophagi, before the expression anx.ti im “may she live!”

After the titles and epithets, the most interesting document of Neferuptah’s remains the wooden coffin due to the inscriptions engraved on golden sheets which were attached to it80. Decorating sarcophagi with inscriptions was a typical Middle Kingdom custom and there are numerous parallels with other sAt nsw81; however, as Grajetzki writes: “the coffin of the ‘king’s daughter’ Neferuptah was evidently decorated with another textual program. […] […]. The closest parallels for these texts concerning Neferuptah are found not on a Middle Kingdom coffin, but on a considerably later monument, the sarcophagus of the ‘great king’s wife’ Hatshepsut from the early Eighteenth Dynasty”82.

“Words to be said by Nut: I considered the daughter of King, Neferuptah, may she live! May you not die. Any obstacle may be removed from you. Daughter of the king Neferuptah: may you live! Thot gave you the gods”. From this analysis, Grajetzki concludes that Hatshepsut knew this form and type of text was typical of Middle Kingdom coffins, and that she was inspired by models of the sarcophagi made for Hmt nsw, confirming the roles performed by Neferuptah as king’s wife while continuing as sAt nsw. It is not possible to determine with certainty the importance of Neferuptah’s role, especially in terms of political influence. However, Troy suggests that “access to political power appears to be related to the manipulation of those elements which have been used to define and characterize the queenship”85. In particular, she identifies the focal point of these elements in the sacred role belonging to women of royal blood as a representative of the goddess Hathor and as the female counterpart to the male role. The role of the priestess, she says, “created a focus for political activity which, under favourable conditions, could be used to bring a female candidate to the throne”86. This idea should not be neglected, as after all the Twelfth Dynasty ended

The text was probably inscribed on a horizontal line that ran along the highest margin of each of the four sides and in different columns, perhaps two on the short sides and four on the long sides. The inscription is preserved only in part; however, it is possible to make the following observations and identify some parallels with other texts. Both columns and lines often begin with the formula ddmdw, “words to be said”, followed by the title of sAt nsw and the princess’s name. Placing the name just after the formula was not common in the Middle Kingdom, but it became customary in the New Kingdom, starting with Hatshepsut. On the other hand, the formula imAhy Hr + [god], “to the venerable”+ [god], found on Hatshepsut’s See below. See above. 80 See Farag-Iskander 1971, p. 48 and ff. and Grajetzki 2005, pp. 55-61. 81 As an example for all, the sarcophagus of the princess Nubheteptikhered (back to the Thirteenth Dynasty). 82 See Grajetzki 2005, pp. 55-56. 78

Like Grajetzki (see Grajrtzki 2005) for the numbering of the texts is followed Hayes, Royal Sarcophagi of the XVIII Dynasty, 1935, Princeton. 84 See Grajetzki 2005, p. 59. 85 Troy 1986, p. 140. 86 Troy 1986, p. 141. 83

79

11

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Amenemhat IV, around 1763 BC, and reigned for a few years. As in Neferuptah’s case, Sobekneferu’s existence is attested by many sources from different contexts, but some key differences are evident: the absence of funerary evidence, the clear dominance of the architectural and sculptural works, and the presence of numerous examples of glyptics. All these sources present this woman as the reigning king, but they do not say anything about her life at court and her family.

with a woman’s accession to the throne. Unfortunately, the iconography and titling87 of Sobeknefru cannot help to confirm this hypothesis, since the queen is always presented as the reigning king and never as a priestess. The comparison with Hatshepsut is again enlightening. At the end of the review of documents relating to the reign of Sobekneferu, G. Callender writes: “it seems likely that Sobekneferu was one of those rulers to whom [Hatshepsut] paid particular attention, for she appears to have imitated and further developed some Sobekneferu’s ideas”88. The queen of the New Kingdom, in fact, appears to have deliberately followed in the footsteps of Amenemhat III’s daughter firstly as a way to legitimise her presence on the throne; secondly, in seizing the control of the traditional attributes of royalty; and finally, in representations of herself as a ruler89. Interestingly, when she became co-regent, Hatshepsut passed to her daughter the task of representing the female counterpart of royalty. In the documentation of Hatshepsut as king, at Deir elBahari and Beni Hassan, it is Neferure who represents the feminine role in relationship to Hatshepsut. She is depicted as Wife of the God and, in her iconography, divine as well as royal daughter. In this way, the queen Hatshepsut also emphasises the role she herself had played up to that point. As her mother did, Neferure now became the most important priestess90.

On what basis, then, is it possible to establish ties between Sobekneferu and Amenemhat III’s family? Is it possible to prove that she was the king’s daughter? As with Neferuptah, the name of Sobekneferu’s mother is not known, but from the analysis of the sources a blood tie with Amenemhat III seems very likely. There are some positive pieces of evidence to support this: for example, both the frequency with which their names occur together93, as on the block from Hawara with the deity Dehdehet94 or in the column fragment from Hawara95, and the frequency of the occurrence of Sobekneferu’s name in the pyramid complex of Amenemhat III at Hawara96, suggesting that Sobekneferu presided over the end of building the “Labyrinth”97. A statue found in Gezer98, Palestine, is also interesting; it could represent Sobekneferu before her ascent to the throne, since it indicates her as “Neferusobek, the king’s daughter”, without any cartouche. However we also know there was another princess called Sobekneferu’, one of Senwsret I’s daughters, which makes the attribution of the little sculpture very uncertain.

Using Hatshepsut’s case as a parallel example, it is possible to speculate that Sobekneferu took over her sister’s roles and concluded the process of advancement that, in Neferuptah’s case, was interrupted at the time of her death. It may be more likely that this occurred with the appearance of Amenemhat IV, who from the analysis of the documents91 seems to have associated himself with the throne in the final moments of Amenemhat III’s reign. It is plausible that Hatshepsut was aware of both the model of Amenemhat III’s kingship and the internal dynamics that characterised it, as an example for her own situation.

Lastly, there is a fragment of a column found by Petrie at Hawara, probably near the chapel for the king’s worship, set on the northern side of the pyramid. It bears the inscription […] mnw.s n it.s dt […], “[…] its monuments to her father forever”99. Even if it does not include any names, this text cannot refer to any other person but Sobekneferu100, who was significantly active in this place101. As mentioned above, however, the expression “father” could refer to a deity102. Moreover, this formula is often used in reference to Amenemhat III on monuments to Amenemhat IV103, whose relationship to his predecessor is far from clear. Despite an inevitable degree of uncertainty, it is very plausible that Sobekneferu was the daughter of Amenemhat III. Let us now analyse what kind of relationship she had with Amenemhat IV.

1.2. Sobekneferu92 The questions concerning the relationship between Amenemhat IV and Sobekneferu, the other major female player of the Twelfth Dynasty, are different from those regarding Neferuptah, yet they are equally difficult to answer. Sobekneferu ascended to the throne after See below. Callender 1998, p. 52. 89 See below: Sobekneferu. 90 Cf. Troy 1986, p. 141. 91 I am especially referring to the anonymous graffiti RIS 7 (5 B) and to the temple of Medinet Madi (8 A), which, according to the reconstruction proposal, belong to the last decade of the reign of Amenemhat III (see Leprhoon) and would have seen a partial modification of the decorative program to introduce the figure of Amenemhat IV, and which would then be concluded in the first period of his kingdom. 92 The choice of using the form Sobekneferu, instead of Neferusobek, is only due to a certain tradition of studies and not to linguistic reasons. The structure of the name of Sobekneferu is in fact the same as Neferuptah’s (nfrw + god, with or without the anticipation of respect for the name of the deity). 87 88

See, for example, Callender 1995, p. 228, Dodson 2004, p. 95. Appendix 2: Sculpture 5. 95 Appendix 2: Sculpture 4. 96 Appendix 2: Sculpture 1-6. 97 See below. 98 Appendix 2: Sculpture 15. 99 Appendix 2: Sculpture 6. 100 Zecchi 2001, p. 133. 101 See below p. 63 and ff. 102 Cf. Grajetzki 2006, p. 62. 103 See A 8 (the scene on the West jamb of the short corridor, referred to Amenemhat III) or B 16 (referred to Hathor) and A 6 (referred to AmonRa). 93 94

12

Amenemhat IV and the Family of Amenemhat III According to some scholars, Sobekneferu was the sister or stepsister of Amenemhat IV; according to some others, she was also his wife104. After the brief reign of Amenemhat IV, his wife-sister would have then ascended the throne without any problem. In these terms, the succession would have followed a linear path. However, there are elements which raise some doubts as to whether this conclusion is correct. First of all, the name of the queen never appears linked to that of her predecessor’s, but very often to Amenemhat III’s. This fact, considered an argument in favour of the filial bond between Sobekneferu and the king105, has led some to theorise a co-regency between the king and his daughter106. On the other hand, it seems more reasonable to believe that “family connections and loyalties to her deceased alleged father seem to be the key to events and behaviour of this female king”107. What is certain is that Sobekneferu reigned with all the attributes of a canonical sovereign. As for onomatology and titles, all her five names are known108; however, there are still many unanswered questions. Sobekneferu (sbk nfrw), whose name means “the beauty of Sobek”, was the first ruler to bear the theophoric nomen and praenomen of the crocodile god, chief deity of the Fayyum, demonstrating the royal intention to maintain a link both with this god and this region.

the epithet sA ra, son of Ra, keeps the male form, confirming the characteristic oscillation between the two genders. The presence of other similar documents113 as well as the fact that such an ambiguity appears in some documents related Amenemhat IV114, supports the second hypothesis. Another document to be considered is the graffito from Kumma in which the queen’s name is written nfrwsbk,without the usual anticipation of the god’s name. It has been suggested115 that this was the real pronunciation of the name, but more likely it confirms a certain lack of regularity in writing. Doubts about the titling of the queen are also raised by the sphinx from Dab’a116. However, in my opinion, there is another item which could be useful in this reconstruction: a steatite scarab from at the British Museum117, where the queen’s name is not enclosed by the cartouche, although it is accompanied by the royal epithets Dd anx and anx Dt. Because of this peculiarity, it has been speculated that the object belongs to the first months of the reign of Sobekneferu or that it could even hide the ambition of the princess to inherit the throne of Egypt118. There are certainly not many sculptural documents belonging to Sobekneferu’s reign, but, considering the shortness of her reign, they are of considerable interest. In addition to the statuette from Gezer of uncertain attribution and to the sphinx from Tell Dab’a, the three sculptures from Tell Dab’a119 are very important and interesting. These headless life-sized basalt statues are finely worked: two of them depict the queen seated on the throne, while the third one shows her kneeling on a rectangular platform. Sobekneferu wears a long dress, but unfortunately it is not possible to identify which type of crown she is wearing. Another statue made of quartzite, but in a poor state of preservation, represents the queen portrayed standing, in a long dress supported by straps that leave the breasts uncovered, and are fixed to a hem that runs beneath the bust line. A double-shell pendant typically worn by the rulers of the Twelfth Dynasty hangs from her neck. The lappets of a nemes remain on the figure’s upper torso. The dress is unique because it combines elements of female dress with a male skirt with its typical knot at the waist. The name of Sobekneferu is enclosed in a cartouche engraved on the belt, which is typical of the rulers. This is the most interesting example of the adaptation of male emblems to suit a woman’s traditional dress. Moreover, the inscription on the belt, “daughter of his body, Sobekneferu, living like Ra forever” (sAt nt ht.f, sbk-nfrw, anhty mi ra dt) is very similar to the expression “king’s daughter of his own body”, perhaps another reminder of the queen’s royal descent. In this case, however, the word king is not included and this could mean that the filial bond refers to Ra and not to Amenemhat III; supporting this is

Of interest to this debate, and notable for its completeness, is a cylinder seal in white schist which today is housed in the British Museum109. It bears four names of the queen: the (female) name of Horus Meretera (Hrt mrt-ra), the name Nebty, Daughter of Power – Lady of the Two lands (nbty sAt sxm nbt tAwy), the name of golden Horus, Stable of appearance (Hr nbw ddy-haw), and the nsw-bity name Nefrerusobek (nsw bity nfrw-sbk-Sdty). The only missing one is the nomen Sobek-ka-ra (sbk-kA-ra), known through other documents110. First of all, it is particularly interesting to notice the oscillation of the ending -t, indicating the feminine gender. It is indicated for the name of Horo (Hrt) but not in the name of golden Horus (Hr nbw). This peculiarity could mean both that the queen was not afraid of officially reporting her sex, and that her short reign prevented any standardisation in the writing of the different names. For example, there is a similar cylinder seal111 which presents a faded record of the name of the queen with the reversal of the prenomen and first nomen, respectively sbk-kA-ra and nfrw-sbk112. Also in this case, 104 See Callender 1995, p. 228, the scholar points out that the reigning queens of ancient Egypt followed their husband on the throne. 105 See p. 53. 106 See Chapter 9: Amenemhat IV and the end of the Dynasty and Conclusions, see also Newberry, 1943, p. 74-75 and Gardiner 1961 p. 130. 107 Zecchi 2010, p. 84. 108 For the onomatology of the queen see Pignattari 2008, appendix p. 87-90; Aufrère 1989, pp.1-14; Valloggia 1964, pp. 45-53. 109 Appendix 2: Gliptycs 4 (Pignattari 2008, pp. 74-75 e 87 and ff.). 110 Cf. for example Appendix 2: Sculpture: 7; 10-15. 111 Cf. Appendix 2: Glyptics 3. Cf. Callender 1998, p. 50 and Aufrére 1989, p. 13. 112 Some authors (see, eg. Valloggia 1964, p. 53) argue the nomen is Sobek-ka-ra, while the prenomen Sobekneferu, it is still an uncertainty of

background on the subject (see Zecchi 2010, p. 85, n. 336). 113 Appendix 2: Glyptics 4; Sculptures: 7; 13. 114 Cf. Chapter 2: Succession and Coregency and 1 A; 2A; 16 A; 13 A. 115 Valloggia 1964, p. 45. 116 Appendix 2: Sculpture 14; cf. Pignattari 2008, pp. 87-90. 117 Appendix 2: Gliptycs 2. 118 Cf. Callender 1995 1995, p. 233. 119 Appendix 2: Sculpture 11, 12, 13.

13

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty temple ex novo129 in that place, all surviving architectural evidence focus on Hawara. The fact that the dedicatory inscriptions of statues found at Tell Dab’a mention “Sobek of Shedet”, suggests that also these sculptures may come from the Fayyum, and that they were moved in a later time, perhaps by the Hyksos, who installed their capital at Tell Dab’a130.

the fact that, in several documents, Sobekneferu actually calls herself daughter of Ra120. There is one other document that is considered a portrait of Sobekneferu: it is a small statue in green schist, which is currently held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York121. It depicts a woman wrapped in the heb sed garment, in the typical iconography of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Dynasty rulers. The eye cavities are deep, but the eyes are prominent and the face appears healthy, revealing a woman in the prime of life. She wears a special wig leaving the big ears uncovered, according to the artistic custom of the time. The wig almost reaches the shoulders, which are square and unnatural. Their extreme stylisation is emphasised by the fact that the figure seems to have no neck122. The queen wears a diadem on her forehead, showing a uraeus flanked by two vultures with outstretched wings. It is unique in Egyptian statuary, as it is the only sculpture of a woman in the role of heb sed. As reported in the Metropolitan’s labeling: “The style, material and general pose of the figures are all known in the Middle Kingdom, but the regalia is unusual […]”123.

Even if some have described as “impalpable” the traces of Sobekneferu’s activity in Hawara131, the general consensus is that the immense funerary temple of Amenemhat III was completed by the queen after her father’s death132. Lepsius and Petrie found a considerable number of red granite columns, some of which were engraved with the queen’s name, so that, according to Petrie133, her name appears as frequently as her father’s. On the other hand, he also134 noticed that the name of Amenemhat IV never appears in the site and Callender argues that this demonstrates it was the queen and not Amenemhat IV who completed the construction of the “Labyrinth”135. Maybe it was Sobekneferu who established at Hawara the cult of the ruler and this could be proved by the already mentioned inscription discovered in the northern chapel of the pyramid136. The constant reference made by Sobekneferu to Amenemhat III’s reign, often read as an attempt to give her own reign the necessary authority, should not necessarily be interpreted as synonymous of political instability137. A similar expedient was adopted, some centuries later, by Queen Hatshepsut, who constantly associated her name with her father, Thutmosis I.

Finally, let us touch upon Sobekneferu’s activities as sovereign. Among the epithets that accompany the queen’s name, very often Sdty directly follows the name; it means “the Shedita”, “the one who comes from Shedet”, an epithet of the crocodile god from Fayyum124. It usually accompanies Sobekneferu’s name both inside and outside the cartouche. For example, a bead125 probably from the Fayyum contains the following inscription: King of Upper and Lower Egypt Sobekkara, who lives eternally, beloved of Sobek from Shedet, Horus who resides in Shedet, Lord of the Lands of the Lake which resides in the palace (nsw bity sbk-kA-ra anx dt, mrt sbk Sdty, Hr Hry Sdt nb tA-ib-S Hry aH). Shedet was the chief town of the Fayyum, and the site of an important temple dedicated to Sobek; Amenemhat III greatly contributed to its monumentalisation. Once again, we have a document emphasising how important the Fayyum region was at that time: a religious and economic key centre. Consequently, the clergy of Sobek were now the clergy of the new dynastic god126.

There are different opinions concerning the end of Sobekneferu’s reign. It is possible that, at the end of the dynasty, the country was in serious trouble. The only graffiti dating back to the queen’s reign138 fixed the water level of the river to 1.83 m, a very low measure, especially when compared with the very high average recorded during the previous kingdoms139. The low water level of the river could be indicative of a possible drought, a probable cause of economic problems and, later, of the queen’s loss of power140. According to some scholars, it is likely that there was a violent end to Sobekneferu’s reign, which brought about an inevitable collapse for the whole dynasty. This thesis is normally considered together with that of the “struggle for succession”141, becoming, in a certain sense, the natural consequence.

Therefore, it is small wonder the only evidence of building activity attributable to Sobekneferu comes from this region. If we exclude the lintel of Herakleopolis127, based on which Matzker128 hypothesises that the queen built a

It is more likely, however, that this material has been brought to the place of discovery in later times, cf. Pignattari 2008, p. 76. 130 See Conclusions. 131 Cf. Cimmino 1996, p. 235. 132 Cf. Petrie 1920, p. 197; Callender 1995, p. 230; Zecchi 2001, p. 134; Zecchi 2010, p. 85. 133 Cf. Petrie 1920, p. 197. 134 Cf. Petrie 1920, p. 197. 135 Cf. Callender 1995, p. 230 and Zecchi 2001, p. 134. 136 Appendix 2: Sculpture 6. 137 Cf. Grajetzki 2006, p. 62. 138 Cf. Appendix 2: Graffiti 1. 139 Cf. Vandersleyen 1995, p. 104. 140 For the causes of the end of Sobekneferu’s reign, see infra. 141 Cf. Chapter 9: Amenemhat IV and the end of the Dynasty. 129

See Callender 1995, p. 235. This kind of statues was revived by queen Hatshepsut, in this regard Callender (see Callender 1995, p. 230) believes that this is just one of several aspects introduced by Sobekneferu and taken by the queen of the Eighteenth Dynasty. For more information about the parallel between Hatshepsut and Sobekneferu see Callender 1995, p. 234, 236, Callender 1998. 121 Appendix 2: Sculpture 9; cf. Pignattari 2008, pp. 79-79. 122 Cf. Callender 1995, p. 235. 123 Callender 1995, p. 236. 124 Cf. Habachi 1954, p. 470; Zecchi 2010. 125 Cf. Habachi 1954, p. 463. 126 Cf. Conclusions and Zecchi 2010, pp. 37-53. 127 Appendix 2: Sculpture 7; Cf. Daressy, ASAE 17, pp. 34-35. 128 Matzker 1986, p. 175. 120

14

Amenemhat IV and the Family of Amenemhat III the second denomination is associated with the women of the royal family.

Even Sobekneferu’s place of burial is unknown, yet another missing piece of information in the reconstruction of her identity. Mackay142 suggested that one of the small pyramids of Mazghuna, a town just south of Dahshur, could belong to the queen. This hypothesis is validated by some scholars, but it is categorically rejected by others. The problem is that there is no trace of her name in any of the two pyramids, although the haste with which these buildings were built accords with the brevity of her kingdom143.

The different interpretations range from those who believe that the epithet refers to the crown, thus establishing a link with the goddess Nekhbet, to those attributing it to the king, thus denoting a special relationship between the woman and the king145. In this regard, Troy noted that the first iconographic forms related to the role of the women belonging to a royal lineage refer to the symbolism of the Two Ladies, the cobra and the vulture, personifications of the two crowns, who being regenerating elements, act as female counterparts of the king146. For example, the vulture Nekhbet, the White of Hierakonpolis, is the patron of Upper Egypt and since the first representations she played the role of Horus-female; consequently, the crown with vulture associates its wearer to the role of Nekhbet as the embodiment of power over the Upper Egypt. The symbolism of the vulture is also linked to the role of the king’s mother: the vulture is in fact the hieroglyph for the mother and in some passages of the Pyramid Texts the maternal role of Nekhbet is related to her identification with the White Crown. The role of Nekhbet could evoke the figure of an archetypical woman: the mother who gives life, the feminine aspect of the kingship. In the Middle Kingdom, references to the vulture become more numerous. One example is the title of HnmT nfr HDt; when a woman of royal blood wears the crown, she becomes the union with the goddess, and this act, in Troy’s opinion, leads to a logical interpretation of the meaning of the title147.

For example, Grajetzki considers Hawara or Dahshur likely places for Sobekneferu’s burial. The author also refers to a papyrus found in Harageh, in the South of the Fayyum, which mentions a place called SekhemSobekneferu, perhaps the name of the queen’s pyramid, and a pillar of the Thirteenth Dynasty which refers to the Sna (place of production, storage) of the queen, perhaps related to her funerary cult, so that it would remain active for some time after her death144. If we wanted to take stock of Sobekneferu’s kingdom, it does not seem possible to disagree with Grajetzki when he defines her kingdom “a quite normal reign”. Considering the various kinds of documents from several different sites, Sobekneferu in the short time in which she reigned or at least during the first period, seems to have been busy managing the long peace obtained under Senwsret III, as her predecessor did. The difference of the queen’s reign lies, on the one hand, in the constant reminder of her father’s auctoritas in order to ensure the stability of the throne, a goal which was also pursued by her construction works, and on the other hand, in the lack of any reference to her direct predecessor.

Perhaps, since the kingdom of Senwsret III, HnmT nfr HDt was used for the most important wife of the king, although it is uncertain and still debated whether at the time of this king this name constituted only the proper name of the queen that turned into a title only in a second moment148. It is also associated with Aat, wife of Amenemhat III, who is then shown on the false door of her tomb wearing a crown with a vulture149.

1.3. Hetepti At this point, it seems clear that the only character who could represent a direct link between Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV and, at the same time, could help decisively to determine the nature of the relationship that binds them is Hetepti. However, this female figure is difficult to be interpreted, and this is why any consideration remains purely hypothetical. On the scene engraved on the West jamb of the short corridor in the temple of Medinet Madi (A 8), Amenemhat IV is depicted with his family on the day of the consecration of the sanctuary. The king is moving into the building followed by some characters among whom there is only one woman, Hetepti, identified by the description: “the noblewoman, Lady of the Two Lands, the mother of King Khnemet-Nefret-Hedjet Hetepti”. The woman bears the titles Hnwt tAwy “Lady of the Two Lands” and HnmT nfr Hdt. Both titles are typical of the royal wives. In particular, for the first time during the Middle Kingdom,

If, therefore, it clearly attests the desire to emphasise a close relationship between the king, the royal women and Hetepti, it should be noted that the latter, who bears the title of mwt nsw, does not include in her otherwise rich titling the epithet of Hmt nsw, king’s wife. This makes it very doubtful whether she could have been the wife of a king, especially of Amenemhat III. Although the lack of an epithet cannot be considered a crucial proof in favour of this conclusion, there are other clues: firstly, just two official wives of Amenemhat III are known with certainty150. For the meaning and the value of this title, cf. Tallet 2005, p. 17; G. Brunton, The Title “Khnumt Nefer-Hezt”, ASAE 49 (1949), pp. 99-110; G. Callender, A Note on the Title Xnmt-nfr-Hft, SAK 22 (1995), pp. 4346; L.K. Sabbahy, Comments the Title Xnmt-nfr-Hft, SAK 23 (1996), pp. 349-352; Betrò 2007, pp. 59, 64. 146 Cf. Troy 1986, p. 118. 147 Cf. Troy 1986, p. 118. 148 Cf. Tallet 2005, p. 17. 149 Cf. Troy 1986, p. 118 and Pignattari 2008, p. 45 and ff. 150 Cf. Pignattari 2008, p. 45 and ff. 145

Cf. Mackay 1912. For a detailed discussion of this site, please refer to Chapter 8: The tomb. 144 See Grajetzki 2006, p. 63. 142 143

15

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty legitimised by Ra. Emphasising the right of the king to rule, it could be an indicator of the sovereign’s need to recall explicitly in his nsw bit name his legitimacy, thereby consolidating his presence on the throne. However, one of the most significant clues of Amenemhat’s non-royal origin, in my opinion, is the fact that the queen Sobekneferu constantly associated her name to Amenemhat III’s, but never to Amenemhat IV’s. This has led some scholars to hypothesise a real damnatio memoriae against the queen’s direct predecessor158. In this regard, it could be argued that the choice of Sobekneferu was motivated in order to link her presence on the throne with the kingdom of a great ruler as Amenemhat III was, rather than to the other of certainly lower magnitude. On the basis of the sources, however, there is no reason to think that Amenemhat IV’s reign was characterised by such a weakness and instability that could not be taken by Sobekneferu as a guarantee for her kingdom. Maybe the queen’s choice was caused by the opportunity and the desire to boast much closer ties with Amenemhat III159.

Scheme 1: Amenemhat III’s family.

Both wives lived during the early part of his reign and were buried at Dahshur: therefore, they were presumably already dead at the time of construction of the temple of Medinet Madi, since the building dates back to the second part of the reign151. Secondly, if Hetepti had been the wife of Amenemhat III, there would be no explanation for her absence in the temple of Medinet Madi at the side of her husband, who is instead accompanied by Neferuptah152, while Hetepti is represented in a scene which, on the base of stylistic considerations, may not have been part of the original decorative project153. On the basis of these same considerations, Ryholt154 concludes that Amenemhat IV did not have royal blood. However, even if Hetepti never married the king, and she was only one of the royal ladies, nothing prevents Amenemhat IV from being the son of Amenemhat III and Hetepti, who finally reached her high status at the time of the accession of his son – she was remembered only as the king’s mother. There are actually other clues that raise doubts about the descent of Amenemhat IV from his predecessor, although on two documents, both from Medinet Madi (8A: the scene on the West jamb of the short corridor and the statue located inside the central niche), we read “The King of Upper and Lower Egypt Makherura, endowed with eternal life, did as his perfect monument for his father, the king of Upper and lower Egypt Nimaatara […]”. Dodson155 has pointed out that even if Amenemhat IV called Amenemhat III “his father” (it.s nsw bit niMAat-Ra), it cannot be concluded with certainty that there is a family bond between the two kings. If it is considered a recurrent and stereotyped expression, the formula could mean simply “predecessor” or, considering the traditional use of this formula, it could refer to a deity, suggesting that the document may date to a moment in which Amenemhat III had already been deified156.

Let us now analyse who Amenemhat IV was and how his ascent to the throne could be justified. According to Ryholt160, Amenemhat III’s reasons for choosing to appoint the future Amenemhat IV as his successor should be sought in the latter’s belonging to the family of an important royal official: the imy-r AHwt anxw (Overseerer of the Fields, Ankhu)161. The existence of this man is known from a number of documents that allow us to reconstruct his life. Ankhu is described as wHmw, herald, in two rock inscriptions from Aswan162; he is represented in a sculpture from the Shrine of Heqaib in Elefantina163, and is mentioned in a stone block164 belonging to a funeral chapel (A 14) found in an unknown location of the Fayyum and now conserved at the Metropolitan Museum of Boston. These two last documents bear Ankhu’s name designated by very important ranking titles165 as iry pat, Hty-a, xtmty bity; in particular, from A 14 we know from Ankhu’s words that his career began during the reign of Senwsret III for whom he was Scribe of the Temple (Ss Hwt nTr nsw bity xr-kAw.Ra) and later, when Amenemhat III was still a young prince, he became his Smsw, for some scholars to be interpreted as a sort of bodyguard166. In the same

To determine Amenemhat IV’s identity, an onomastic analysis provides important clues. As noted by Vandersleyen157, the enthronement name of Amenemhat IV, MAa-xrw-Ra, literally means the one who has been

See Chapter 9: Amenemhat IV and the end of the Dynasty and Conclusions, cf. also Brunton 1939. 159 See Conclusions. 160 Cf. Ryholt 1997, pp. 209-212. 161 For the analysis of this title, cf. below and Grajetzki 2009, p. 86 and ff. For the documents concerning the name of Ankhu, cf. Franke 1984, p. 139, n. 177. 162 Cf. Petrie 1888, nn. 175, 176. 163 Cf. Habachi, God’s Father and the Role they palyed in the History of the First Intermediate Period”, ASAE 55 (1958), p. 188, pl. III; Habachi 1985, pls. 46-48. 164 Cf. Simpson 1972. 165 For the distinction between “function titles” and “ranking titles” cf. below and Grajetzki 2009, p. 5 et seq. 166 Cf. Leprohon 1980, p. 255, n. 30.

158

151 For historical considerations that lead to this conclusion see Pignattari 2008, p. 50, n. 128. 152 See above. 153 See below. 154 Cf. Ryholt 1996, p. 210. 155 Cf. Dodson 2004, p. 95. 156 This would confirm that the scene 8A / O was added in a later time, when Amenemhat IV was already reigning alone. 157 Cf. Vandersleyen 1995, p. 116.

16

Amenemhat IV and the Family of Amenemhat III inscription, Ankhu also bears the title imy-r AHwt167 and is also called ms n snt nsw Mr.s-tx, son of the king’s sister, Merestekhi. Given that in most of the documents referring to Ankhu in which his mother appears, she does not bear this title168, it could be surmised that the epithet snt nsw was given to her only when his brother became king. This fact would also have allowed Ankhu to acquire the most important ranking titles which, in fact, are found only on the monuments where his mother bears the new titling linked to the king169. As shown by Grajetzki: “These high titles were obviously a special honour given by the king to a close relative”170. On the basis of chronological considerations, Ryholt identifies this king with one of Amenemhat III’s successors and in particular with Amenemhat IV, so that the latter would be one of the two sons of Hetepti, the brother of Merestekhi and then uncle of Ankhu.

Scheme 2: Ryholt’s hypothesis.

example, Grajetzki174 believes that Ryholt’s reconstruction should be post-dated to the debut of the Thirteenth Dynasty. Now, assuming also that the title of snt nsw was attributed to Merestekhi posthumously175, if Ankhu began his career during the reign of Senwsret III continuing during his successors’, he would have been old when his uncle became king. However, considering both the periods of co-regency between Senwsret III and Amenemhat III, and Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV, and the previous reigns of the last kings of the dynasty, Grajetzki’s hypothesis may be plausible and even compatible with two other considerations. Firstly, the fact that Hetepti, in the reliefs of the Medinet Madi temple, is represented alive and actively participating in the consecration ceremony when Amenemhat IV had already become the only ruler. Secondly, the fact that the conclusion of the dynasty and the rise of a new family of non-royal lineage would be consistent with the beginning of a new dynasty, the Thirteenth, which is unanimously reported by the Turin Canon, the list of Saqqara, and that of Manetho. However, these events could have occurred regardless of any possible link between Ankhu and the royal family.

It is not possible to say what kind of position Amenemhat IV filled before ascending the throne, but the fact that he was adopted becoming Sobekneferu’s brother would explain why, in Manetho’s list, the queen is called Amenemhat IV’s sister. If this reconstruction cannot be denied a priori, it is true, however, that there is no evidence allowing us to connect with certainty the acquisition of exceptional titling by Ankhu and Merestekhi with the rise of Amenemhat IV. From a source review, it seems possible that the brother-king of Merestekhi could be identified with Amenemhat III himself and this could be validated by several considerations. Firstly, according to the already-mentioned hypothesis171, Amenemhat III was not the son of his predecessor, placing him in a position very similar to that of Amenemhat IV as for family ties and relationships. Secondly, the fact that the only documents where Merestekhi does not carry the title of King’s Sister are the two Aswan graffiti: by their very utilitarian nature, they do not lend themselves to elaborated texts, preferring a synthetic form. It is therefore impossible to determine if this honorary title appeared out of nowhere, at a given moment in the career of Ankhu. His career seems to take place precisely during the reign of Amenemhat III for whom he was imy-r AHwt – and this is a further consideration – a position he may have received, also as noted by Ryholt172 “[…] from Amenemhat on his accession as a reward for his previous loyalty”. Finally, it is remarkable that the document 14 A, celebratory of Ankhu’s life, comes from the Fayyum, a region much more linked to the figure of Amenemhat III than to the one of Amenemhat IV173.

Lacking documents proving a safe family bond between the two figures, it is necessary to appeal to indirect evidence. As for Amenemhat IV, the only certain element about his identity is that he was one of Amenemhat III’s successors. The origins of this ruler remain obscure under many aspects and there are several clues both for and against a direct lineage from Amenemhat III. For the purposes of this research, it is now appropriate to investigate the dynamics of the succession, analysing the steps through which the last kings of the dynasty ascended the throne.

It is just an alternative and entirely hypothetical view to be added to other speculations previously voiced. For

Cf. Chapter 3: The Administration. That is to say the two graffiti from Aswan. 169 Cf. Franke 1984, p. 139, n. 177. 170 Grajetzki 2009, p. 88. 171 Cf. Dodson 2004, p. 95; Leprohon 1980, pp. 190-191. 172 Cf. Ryholt 1997, p. 211, n. 727. 173 Cf. Chapter 4: Activity in the Nile Valley. 167 168

174 175

17

Cf. Grajetzki 2005, p. 66 e Grajetzki 2009, p. 88. Cf. Ryholt 1996, p. 212, n. 729.

2 Succession and Coregency 2.1. Succession and Rise to the Throne

In fact, previous scholarship frequently agreed on genealogical6 models where the main line of succession is the one connecting Amenemhat III to Sobekneferu and not, as one might think, the one linking the sovereign to his immediate successor. This implies two consequences: on the one hand, once again the legitimacy of the kingship is clearly related to women of the royal family and, on the other hand, the lineage between Amenemhat IV and his predecessor remains uncertain.

2.1.1. Part I In order to define the identity of Amenemhat IV we must also verify the existence of an independent kingdom at that time and determine the way he ascended to its throne. In reviewing the documents referring to the reigns of the last three kings of the Twelfth Dynasty (in order to define their chronology), P. E. Newberry1 pointed out that there is no evidence to suggest a coregency between Amenemhat IV and Sobekneferu; indeed, there are some documents naming the latter as Amenemhat III’s co-regent2. Considering that the reign of Amenemhat III lasted for a long period of time, it is likely that he appointed two co-regents to his throne, with the first one dying or being deposed before the appointment of the second. In this scenario Amenemhat IV, the first one to be chosen, therefore disappeared from the historical scene before Amenemhat III’s death and was immediately replaced by Sobekneferu. Therefore, as Newberry concluded, it would be likely that Amenemhat IV never reigned alone, but was only his predecessor’s co-regent. However, this interpretation seems unlikely, given the weakness of the evidence of co-regency between Sobekneferu and her father3 and despite the fact that W. K. Simpson4 has shown that monuments dated to the reign of one of the two kings can be found throughout the entire course of the co-regency,. In fact, there are many documents presenting Amenemhat IV as the sole ruler on the throne, including royal lists, the inscription corpus from Sinai, different recordings of the Nile’s level in Nubia, and finally the monuments and objects bearing only Amenemhat IV’s name5.

If we consider Manetho’s list, Sobekneferu, in Greek Scemiophris, ranks as sister (or step-sister) of Amenemhat IV7, so that both Amenemhat III’s successors are recognised as members of the same family. For those who support a non-royal origin for Amenemhat IV, the accession to the throne by Amenemhat III’s daughter can only be the consequence of two possible situations, both deriving from the lack of a direct male descendant. According to the first hypothesis, Amenemhat III chose to legitimise the reign of his designated successor by arranging a marriage between Amenemhat IV and one of his daughters; Neferuptah was initially chosen as the bride, but because of her untimely death, she was later replaced with Sobekneferu. This interpretation is supported by the fact that all the queens of ancient Egypt became reigning monarchs, ascending to the throne after their husbands’ deaths8. At the end of Amenemhat IV’s reign, his wife would have then become sovereign without difficulty and, in this sense, the succession would have finally followed a linear path. However, there are reasons to doubt this interpretation. As has already been mentioned9, the names of Neferuptah and Sobekneferu never appear associated with that of their possible husband, but very frequently with Amenemhat III’s; moreover, both Neferuptah and Sobekneferu are never designated as Hmt nsw, but always and only as sAt nsw, and this makes a marriage between Amenemhat IV and one of them unlikely.

We will discuss the slim possibility of Amenemhat IV’s co-regency and its potential duration; meanwhile, the sources show it seems certain that the king reigned alone. It remains unclear how he became king. Judging by the sources, Amenemhat IV’s ascension to the throne seems to be inextricably linked to Sobekneferu.

According to the second hypothesis, supported especially by Ryholt10, in order to compensate for the lack of a direct heir, Amenemhat III would have chosen instead a trusted older man, legitimising his position by a marriage

Cf. Newberry 1943. Cf. also Gardiner 1971, p. 130. 3 See Conclusions and cf. Gardiner 1961, 130; Valloggia 1969, p. 122; Pignattari 2008, pp. 72-74. 4 Cf. Simpson 1956, p. 215 and Murnane 1977, p. 19 and see below, 2.2: Coregency. 5 Evidence in favour of an independent kingdom of this king can also be seen in some scenes decorating the walls of the temple of Medinet Madi (A 8), especially the inscriptions on the two jambs of the short corridor and the scene on the West jamb of the same corridor presenting elements deviating from the usual in location and characteristics (cf. Donadoni 1947, pp. 347-348; Zecchi 2001, p. 153). 1 2

Cf. Dodson 2004, p. 92 and 95. It is thus mentioned in a manuscript, a copy of the version given by Syncellus (800 d. BC) of the African’s version of Manetho’s epithome. This information is not present in the version of Eusebius. Cf. Grajetzki 2006, p. 61 and Gardiner 1961, p. 130; Ryholt 1997, p. 213, n. 732. 8 Cf. Callender 1995, p. 228 and cf. also Matzker 1986, p. 26. 9 See Chapter 1: Amenemhat IV and the family of Amenemhat III. 10 Cf. Ryholt 1997 p. 294 and the man called Ankhu, Chapter 1: Amenemhat IV and the family of Amenemhat III. 6 7

19

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty with Neferuptah11, who would have not been replaced by Sobekneferu after her death. When Amenemhat III died, the designated successor would have still ascended to the throne, but this transfer of power would have taken place only after a struggle for succession between the faction supporting Amenemhat IV and that in favour of Sobekneferu, Amenemhat III’s legitimate descendant. This first stage of this conflict, which ended with the victory of the first faction, is indirectly supported by the absence of significant buildings bearing Amenemhat IV’s name, since most of his economic resources must have been used to finance the struggle for succession. At Amenemhat IV’s death, the struggle would have begun again, and Sobekneferu would have been the leader of a coup d’état trying to restore the legitimate descendants of Amenemhat III to the throne instead of those of his successor. In this regard, some scholars12 do not believe that there was a rift between the Twelfth and Thirteenth dynasties, but that the latter was only the result of the dispute between the Amenemhat IV’s sons and Sobekneferu which occurred after Amenemhat IV’s death13. According to this theory, the queen ousted Amenemhat IV’s descendants from the throne, and he then returned after the queen’s death, thus inaugurating the Thirteenth Dynasty in continuity with the previous one. Furthermore, the fact that Sobekneferu’s name never appears associated with that of her predecessor supports the hypothesis of a form of damnatio memoriae to damage Amenemhat IV.

deity, sharing respect and protection for the monuments of their predecessors, maintaining the worship of their local gods and promoting the spread of their cults through their buildings. They are groups of rulers engaged in military exploits to defend their country. “In this network of beliefs, the king is the nTr nfr, or the junior partner, of the nTr aA […] the creator. […]. The king was the direct and physical offspring of the creator sun-god, his deed upon earth”15. On this basis, the creator god could theoretically impregnate any woman, who would thus become the legitimate mother of the future king. According to the same principle, the king became legitimate only upon his accession to the throne, when he was provided with all the necessary titles and regalia. This idea makes the system of succession rather obscure, although it is undeniable that a strong king could and would exert pressure in the choice of his successor. It is clear that the kings of the Twelfth Dynasty ensured their longevity thanks to the introduction of the mechanism of co-regency, which provided a simultaneous manifestation of nTr nfr and nTr aA. Theoretically, however, other principles remained firm and it is not a coincidence that, as will be explored16, scholars have not yet found a precise way to identify and codify the process of establishing co-regency. It is, therefore, the Twelfth Dynasty with its two centuries of unbroken succession which is unusual, rather than what happened afterwards. It is only when taking into account some features found in the mechanism of inheritance and legitimacy during the Thirteenth Dynasty that it is possible to draw some conclusions which clarify the last stages of the previous dynasty.

This seems to be a plausible reconstruction of the events, though it seems not to take adequately into account either the sources available, nor the culture and the mentality of the civilisation producing them. If, as will be later discussed, there are no signs that suggest a civil war, it is appropriate to explain the concepts of succession and legitimacy.

In her study of the tombs of Thirteenth Dynasty’s kings, D. Landua-McCormack17 looks at the different ways many rulers of this period justified their presence on the throne, among others: the reference to a divine birth, the use of propagandistic literature, co-regency, the establishment of a bond with the previous dynasty, and the introduction of different mechanisms such as succession along the fraternal line or the so-called circulating-succession (discussed later in the chapter).

2.1.2. Part II An understanding of the ideas of royal succession and its accompanying concept legitimacy is often essential to understand the rise of a sovereign and to properly evaluate a given historical period. Specifically for this discussion, the way in which rulers acceded to the throne seems to be one of the most important differences, if not the most significant difference, between the Twelfth and Thirteenth dynasties. As noted by Quirke14, the study of royal succession in Egypt is often complicated because in Europe a dynasty is identified with a single family, basing the transfer of power on birthright. In fact, judging by Manetho’s evidence, in ancient Egypt families seem to he been of secondary concern to the formation of dynasties. Instead these are configured as groups of rulers who share a city of origin and the consequent protection of the local

In discussing divine birth and the use of literature, there are two texts that may help to clarify. Unfortunately, it is difficult to ascertain the exact time of their composition. They are The Prophecy of Nepherty and the stories of the Papyrus Westcar. The similarities between the two texts are very interesting: both of them make explicit reference to the mythical age of the pyramids and they probably both belong to the propagandistic literature that finds its origin during the Twelfth and Thirteenth dynasties. The Prophecy of Nepherty is known as a complete text only from an Eighteenth Dynasty papyrus conserved in St. Petersburg’s Museum. It was originally composed during

Cf. Chapter 1: Amenemaht IV and the family of Amenemhat III. Cf. for example Gardiner 1961, p. 137; Grimal 1988, p. 241; Ryholt 1996, p. 209; Dodson 2004, p. 102. 13 See Chapter 9: Amenemhat IV and the end of the Dynasty. 14 Cf. Quirke 1991, p. 137. 11

12

15 16 17

20

Quirke 1991, p. 137. See below, 2.2: The Coregency. Cf. Landua-McCormack 2008, chapter 2, p. 99.

Succession and Coregency to the throne and the celebration of his first sed-festival could be very short. In particular, during the Thirteenth Dynasty, some kings celebrated this festival after only the first few years of their reign, perhaps with the intention to emphasise and consolidate their presence on the throne23.

the Twelfth Dynasty and probably during the reign of Amenemhat I. It is an ex eventu prophecy declaring the accession to the throne of Amenemhat – abbreviated to “Ameny” – as the victory of order over chaos raging in Egypt. The text says that a king shall arise in the South, Ameny; justified, he will receive the White Crown, he will take the Red Crown; he will join the Two Powerful, he will pacify the Two Lords18. In the text, the southern origin of the future king is clarified by two topographical references: tA-sty and Xn-nxn; G. Posener concludes that the two localities should be identified with the first nome of Upper Egypt, the border district of Elephantine19. This text is unique in setting thae prophecy concerning the distant future in an old and happy age – during the reign of King Snefru, the founder of the Fourth Dynasty.

During the Thirteenth Dynasty, many nobles probably unconnected by family ties to royalty rose to power, so it is appropriate to speculate whether there is a common origin for these men. In other words, “it is interesting to pursue the backgrounds of these men in order to determine which branches of the government may have profited from the loss in power of the kingship, allowing members of their order to become rulers”24. By analysing the cases in which it is possible to trace the lineage of the kings from former non-royal roles, it becomes clear that their main area of provenance was the military sector, with no evidence of non-royal origin kings coming from a previous job such as vizier or treasurer25.

The Papyrus Westcar is known in a Sixteenth or Seventeenth Dynasty version, but again in this case, the original probably dates to the Middle Kingdom. It is a collection of stories written in a simple and familiar style, full of words typical of spoken language and probably addressed more to people eager for wonderful things than to people of refined culture20. One of these stories is set at the court of King Cheops (Fourth Dynasty) and is about the birth of triplets of non-royal lineage, who according to a prophecy are intended to ascend the throne, as they are the true sons of the god Ra. The king himself did not oppose the prophecy and, as in the case of the Prophecy of Nepherty, the irrelevance of human designs, which cannot interfere in divine decisions, is once again emphasised.

As for the introduction of special mechanisms, at the end of his analysis of monarchic ideology of the Thirteenth Dynasty26, Quirke suggests that the more stable phase of this period could have been the result of the so-called circulating-succession, a system where the most powerful families shared the inheritance of the throne. This would eliminate the rivalries between different groups of power; at the same time, this would explain the brevity of the reigns of most kings of that dynasty. How can these points of information help to explain Amenemhat IV’s accession? Certainly, it is not possible to reach a definitive solution to the problem, but it is possible to make some observations and note some parallels with other cases.

The concept of “divine lineage” may have been confirmed through words or titles that seem to have spread – but not to have been first formulated21 – during the Thirteenth Dynasty. One of these is “god’s Father” (it nTr) to designate the earthly father of a king of non-royal lineage. Another interesting example is the use of the nomen Amenemhat by eight kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty, six of whom used it as part of a double-name. Beyond the possible hypotheses about the significance of this original choice22, it undoubtedly makes reference to the great kings belonging to the previous dynasty.

For example, the hypothesis of circulating-succession formulated for the Thirteenth Dynasty may have had a precedent with Amenemhat IV. This theory has been adopted by some scholars but criticised by others27 and it is clear that locating its roots in the Twelfth Dynasty may be controversial. Nevertheless, the possibility that the rise of Amenemhat IV may have resulted from an initial effort to share power cannot be excluded. This arrangement may in fact have been attempted earlier in Amenemhat IV’s life, with a temporary setback during Sobekneferu’s reign, whose accession to the throne, more or less controlled by

Even the celebration of particular events, such as the sedfestival, could become an effective mechanism for power legitimisation and consolidation. This ceremony usually took place after the king had reigned for some years, originally after the first thirty years, in order to regenerate and rejuvenate his strength, his spirit and his presence on the throne through direct contact and exchange of gifts with the gods. In reality, the period between a king’s accession

Cf. for example Sobekhotep I and the several little sculptures of an unknown ruler wearing the heb-sed coat, discovered in Semna and dated to Middle Kingdom (Vercoutter 1975, pp. 227-228). 24 Landua-McCormack 2008, p. 413. 25 Cf. Landua-McCormack 2008, p. 414 and 423. About the vizier and the treasurer see Chapter 3: Administration. 26 Cf. Quirke1991, p. 138. 27 For an accurate discussion see Landua-McCormack 2008, p. 141 and ff. and J.Goody, Circulating Succession among the Gonja in J. Goody, ed., Succession to High Office, Cambridge Papers in Social Anthropology 4, 1966, pp. 142-176. 23

18 Cf. M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. I, p. 139 and ff., Berkeley 1973. 19 Cf. Posener 1956, pp.47-48. 20 For these two texts, cf. M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. I, Berkeley 1973. 21 For example, the title it nTr was already in use during the Twelfth Dynasty if not even earlier, during the First Intermediate Period. 22 See Chapter 9: Amenemhat IV and the end of the Dynasty, in particular the problem of the filiative nomina.

21

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty other social components28, may have been an attempt to nip this process in the bud.

subject to debate, as far as the reign of Amenemhat IV is concerned, we can assume its report is valid37.

Once crowned, the new king would have several mechanisms by which he could legitimise his reign.

Although different versions of it exist,38 Aegyptiaca, the historical work by Manetho commissioned by Ptolemy II Philadelphus (280 BC), reports Amenemhat IV’s reign lasted eight years; in the Abydos List, Amenemhat IV figures as the sixty-fifth and last ruler of the dynasty, who was followed by Ahmosis, the first king of the Eighteenth Dynasty; he occupies the thirty-eighth position in the Saqqara List and he is also registered among the rulers mentioned in Tuthmosis III’s Festival Hall at Karnak. All lists mention the kings with their nsw bit, with the exception of Manetho’s where reference is made to the king Ammenemes.

It is difficult to doubt that the Prophecy of Nepherty can be dated to the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty. It has already been proposed that this text was reused by the rulers of the Thirteenth in order to legitimise their presence on the throne. As a purely hypothetical interpretation, one might venture to assert that Amenemhat IV himself may have done this. There is no doubt that, during his reign, this king frequently invoked the figure of the mythical ancestor Snefru, with whom he tried to establish a privileged relationship29; moreover, he often used the diminutive form of his name, Ameny30, which linked him to Amenemhat I.

Amenemhat IV has all five names belonging to an Egyptian ruler, even if, as noted by Matzker39, the documents showing his entire titling are few: only the Pillar from Karnak (A 6) and a stela from Serabit el-Khadim (B 12). The name associated with the epithet sA ra is Imnm-hat (Amon is at the head), while, as we already noted, the first name that follows the epithet nsw bit which designating the king in his leading role in the Two Lands, is MAa-xrw-Ra (the justified/legitimised by Ra); some considerations have been previously made about the possible implications of its meaning. His Horus’ name is xpr-xprw (Transformation of the transformations), while his Golden Horus’ name, Sxm-ntrw (The Power of the Gods), is structured according to the formula X-nTrw, common to Senwsret II and some sovereigns of Thirteenth Dynasty40. Finally, his Nebty’s name is (s)HAb-tAwy (The one who has adorned the Two Lands). X-tawy formula, a structure that would be preferred by many sovereigns of the Thirteenth Dynasty for their Horus’ names41, probably was intended to communicate both a message of stability and a promise of active intervention in order to, for example, enlarge the borders or protect the country. The latter formulation has interesting precedents in the Nebty’s names of several kings of the Twelfth Dynasty: Amenemhat I (SHb-tAwy), Amenemhat III (iT-iwat-tAwy); the formula was also adopted by Sobekneferu (St-sxmnbt-tAwy).

As for the use of specific titles and names as clues to a king’s non-royal origin and means of creating legitimacy, the possible meaning of Amenemhat IV’s nsw bit31, MAaxrw-Ra, literally the one who has been legitimised by Ra, has been repeatedly interpreted as an indication of his need to emphasise the legality of his role. Finally, it is interesting to note, although it is not directly relevant for Amenemhat IV, that the device of the heb-sed may have been used by Queen Sobekneferu32. These are the possible scenarios and mechanisms by which Amenemhat IV could have ascended to the throne. His reign is first attested in the King Lists (gnwt), where he appears as Amenemhat III’s successor. “In ancient times, list of kings in Egypt served a purpose other than history in the modern sense of the word. Thus, if a king was unfavorable or unfamiliar, he might be omitted from the work entirely”33. The most important list is the well-known Turin Canon34, a papyrus written during the reign of Ramesses II on the basis of an earlier unknown document. This list seems to have been organised on the basis of both topographic – the location of the capital city – and genealogical lines, as well as other criteria not fully understood yet35. As for Amenemhat IV, the Canon, recorded a length for his reign of 9 years, 3 months and 27 days36. Although the reliability of this document is

Accession to the throne did not conclude the mechanism of succession. Up to now, the issue of a possible co-regency between Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV has been

28 The reference is to the clergy of Sobek of Shedet, cf. Chapter 9: Amenemhat IV and the End of the Dynasty. 29 See Chapter 5: The Borderlands, 5.4 Sinai. 30 For a new dating proposal of the Prophecy of Nepherty, cf. for example Ryholt 1990, p. 109. 31 Cf. Vandersleyen 1995, p. 11 and Chapter 1: Amenemhat IV and the family of Amenemhat III. 32 If it would be proved the correctness of the attribution to her reign of the sculpture in green schist Appendix 2: Sculpture 9. 33 Landua-McCormack 2008, p. 21. 34 P. Torino 1874, verso. Gardiner,1959; for other publications and comments about this document, see Ryholt 1997, pp. 9-10, n. 19; Ryholt 2004 and Ryholt 2006. 35 Cf. Redford 1986, p. 162; Ryholt 2004, p. 138. 36 For the sake of completeness, the debate generated by the discovery of a graffito with the regnal year 13 and attributed to Amenemhat IV,

made by F. Hintze in Semna, has to be mentioned. This discovery called into question the relative chronology of the dynasty and the duration of coregency between the sovereign and his predecessor (see Bell 1975, p. 229, n. 11; Murnane 1977, p. 26; Leprohon 1980, 195-197). However, it is now an accepted opinion that the graffito from Semna belongs to another king, probably of the Thirteenth Dynasty. (cf. Eaton-Krauss 1982; Franke 1988, p. 12 and Matzker 1988, p. 106). 37 Cf. Chapter 9: Amenemhat IV and the end of the Dynasty. 38 Eusebius (260-340 d. C.); Africanus (160-240 d. C.). 39 Cf. Matzker 1986, pp. 17-18. 40 Cf. Landua-McCormack 2008, pp. 451. It shows Sobek-hotep I (anxnTrw), Sobek-hotep II (qaw-nTrw) and Awibra-Hor (nfr-nTrw). 41 Cf. Landua-McCormack 2008, pp. 450-451. Among the fourteen Horus names we have, nine of them present this structure.

22

Succession and Coregency In order to understand the complexity of the co-regency issue in Egypt, Murnane continues, it is important not to conceive of it in terms of the closest model to us: that is, the one derived from Ancient Rome where the notion of power (imperium) was a title given to specific and limited executive power, and which could be more or less collegial. In Egypt, the inherent limitation in such an idea was not present: the king’s power was a gift from the gods, embodied by a divine individual, and in case of co-regency was doubled without reducing the status of either party.

excluded from our analysis. Because of the importance and complexity of this idea, a separate discussion is necessary. 2.2. Co-regency Kingship in Egypt, once granted, was complete and absolute: neither co-regent could be more nsw than the other42. “The Twelfth Dynasty begins with the first clearly attested instances of joint rule in Egyptian History”43. The mechanism of co-regency, the vexata quaestio of Egyptological studies, comes into wide use, and may even originate, in the Twelfth Dynasty. The idea of coregency is so complex and exposed to so many different readings and interpretations because we must always work with indirect evidence, even if we rely on testimonies and evidence from the sources. Regardless of the type of evidence considered more or less indicative of co-regency, it is important to point out that it will always be an theory composed by us a posteriori, and not the result of a real ancient Egyptian theorisation. We have to take into account that although scholars may try to give explanations for and to understand the mechanism of co-regency, no ancient source discusses it.

In Murnane’s opinion, the clearest indication of the existence of a co-regency is a “double-date”46: that is, a document simultaneously dated to two separate sovereign’s regnal years. If it is true that from the presence of this evidence we can deduce a possible co-regency, however, its absence does not necessarily lead to the opposite conclusion. So far, the last phase of the Twelfth Dynasty has not delivered any such documents, which greatly complicates the identification of a possible co-regency between two sovereigns and its duration. Considering Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV’s reigns, the problem of a possible coregency only complicates an already complex question, involving the definition of history and the nature of family relationships through which the individuals at the end of the dynasty are related. In recent years, studies have produced very different interpretations, which can be summarised as belonging to three separate schools of thought. In addition to a categorical denial of any common kingdom between two sovereigns, some scholars have instead proposed that Amenemhat IV’s reign began as a brief co-regency with Amenemhat III, while others have questioned whether Amenemhat IV’s kingdom47 was independent at all. We must thus begin by analysing the two opposing positions: co-regency or not?

This premise leads to two main conclusions. Firstly, it configures co-regency as an exceptional mechanism, activated to ensure the continuity of the dynasty and the transfer of power without interruption from one ruler to another; in short, a practical mechanism, in which the relationship between the two kings and their roles seems to be defined from time to time more as the result of contingent circumstances than as one dictated by tradition. Secondly, the lack of ya precise theory governing the mechanism of co-regency implies that any difference in the roles and the degree of power between the two kings was masked by the mantle of royalty worn by both. This makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to discern the historical reality of a given kingship, as facts are often sacrificed in favour of preserving the mythical role of the sovereign. As clearly explained by Murnane44, once the elements of titling are formally assigned – that is, when the name and first name are recorded inside the cartouche – there is no alternative but to consider their owner a king. After the coronation, he is officially recognised as king of Upper and Lower Egypt with all the majesty this title implies. Thus, although each king may then carry out specific functions that make him the leader of a particular sphere of influence, in the case of co-regency, the lower partner has the same status as the greater one: “both partners had full titling and enjoyed all the powers that the king possessed on the level of myth […] any real difference in status is not expressed formally”45.

Valloggia48 ranks among the staunchest supporters of coregency. He dedicated an extensive article to this argument by reviewing the documents in support of his hypothesis, and also attempted to pinpoint the start, duration and end of the co-regency. Valloggia’s analysis was later picked up by Murnane who reviewed and corrected some elements, coming to the same general conclusions. Other authors report their position without delving into the topic, and finally others consider it unlikely that the two rulers shared the throne49. As already mentioned, for the second half of the Twelfth Dynasty we have no double-dated inscriptions by which it is possible to determine co-regency. However, there

Cf. Murnane 1977; Delia 1979; Murnane 1981; Delia 1982; Simpson 1956; Obsomer 1993; Eaton-Krauss 1982. 47 Cf. Newberry 1943; for the coregency between Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV cf. also Murnane 1977, pp. 13-20; Valloggia 1969; Leprohon 1980, pp. 195-197; Ryholt 1997, p. 212. 48 Cf. Valloggia 1969. 49 Franke 1988; Vandersleyen 1995, pp.103-105; Hirsch 2004, p. 129. 46

42 43 44 45

Cf. Murnane 1977, p. 242. Murnane 1977, p. 1. Cf. Murnane 1977, p. 242. Cf. Murnane 1977, p. 243.

23

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty is a record of the level of the Nile from Semna50 (B 5) connecting the regnal year 44 (46 or 48) of one ruler to the year 1 of another. This document has been the subject of much debate due to the fact that it lends itself to different

an analogy between two events57 that happened during the years reported. However, according to Murnane, xft “more frequently conveys simple equivalence”58. Without being able to reach a definitive solution, it seems convenient, for the moment, to accept the simpler explanation, which translates xft as “corresponds to” without adding further meanings.

interpretations: HAt-sp 1 xtf HAt-sp 44. The state of preservation of the graffiti has led several scholars to recognise two possible lacunae in the text. The first may be between the second HAt-sp and the number of years, but this blank space could also be due to an irregularity in the stone rather than to the loss of a part of the inscription51. The second lacuna may occur in the numerals, which, in W. Barta’s opinion52, are incomplete due to the disappearance of some signs. On the basis of these considerations, Franke53 integrates the number 44 with two additional units and, assuming using other evidence that Amenemhat III reigned for 46 years54, he concludes that the date refers to the last years of the king’s reign, while the “year one” refers to the first year of his successor. Franke believes, however, that this document is not sufficient to prove the existence of a co-regency between the two kings; these dates, in fact, may simply signal that the passage of the kingdom from Amenemhat III to Amenemhat IV occurred in the same calendar year, so that the year 46 of one king would thus be transformed into the year 1 of the other without the two sharing the throne. Another hypothesis, in light of the addition proposed by Franke, sees instead the association of the two dates as indicating a co-regency which lasted for only one year.

Finally, as for the proposal to integrate the units , there is in my opinion no objective evidence suggesting the presence of a blank and thus no reason to integrate number 44 with two additional units. This conclusion is supported both by the annual regularity of the Nile level recordings and the fact that the last certain attested document belonging to Amenemhat III’s reign (which comes from Nubia) is dated to his 43rd regnal year59. Thus, why would we assume a gap of two years? A final piece of evidence, though less certain than others, is the fact that this graffito, like all those dated with certainty to Amenemhat IV’s reign, comes from the fortress in Semna60. Thus, the graffiti from Semna could refer to the first year of co-regency between the two sovereigns and thereby could represent the missing double-date; unfortunately this interpretation is too ambiguous to be considered indisputable evidence. Lacking the support of double-dates, the “burden of proof”, in Murnane’s words, to determine co-regency is entrusted to archaeological material, in particular to the interpretation of those testimonies that show associated figures and texts. This evidence category is swide-ranging, from temple decorations and building projects, monuments and private objects, papyri, to glyptic finds.

Since this graffito is in poor condition and therefore difficult to read, it is appropriate to bear a few things in mind. Firstly, the kings’ names themselves are not reported. Secondly, we need to consider the implications

L. Habachi, when defining the characteristics of monuments that can be considered evidence of co-regency, argues that both rulers should be the same size and mentioned with equal expressions61: “whenever a name of either is mentioned, the corresponding name of the other is seen”. As an example, Habachi mentions two cases involving Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV: the pedestal of Karnak (A 6) and the temple of Medinet Madi (A 8).

and . If the inscription was intended of the signs to record only the transition from one ruler to another, as Franke hypothesised, in my opinion Amenemhat III’s regnal years would be listed first and his successor’s listed second. However, the contrary is true. The inscription, therefore, seems to emphasise an association between the two kings rather than a transfer of power. Another problem concerns the correct interpretation of the preposition xft55, the subject of a long debate between Murnane and R. Delia, who are respectively for and against the value of double-dated inscriptions in determining co-regency. The preposition xft certainly establishes a correlation between two juxtaposed elements, but we do not know if it also indicates a real equality (i.e. “x is the same as y”). In Delia’s opinion, when xft56 connects two regnal years, it does not indicate a synchronism between the two dates, but

The pedestal of Karnak poses intriguing questions, and as noted by Valloggia has the highest number of indications of co-regency. The text displays a form which is consistent with the standard monument dedication inscriptions to a deity. What is surprising is the precise parallelism used to balance the depiction of the kings: the same words and expressions have been used for both kings and for the complete titling of the five names. In this regard, it is interesting to note the graphic form of Amenemhat IV’s Horus’s name attested in very few other inscriptions62.

50 Cf. Dunham-Janssen 1960, R. I. S. 7, p. 132, Hintze-Reineke 1989, n. 511. 51 Cf. Murnane 1981, n. 6 p. 74. 52 Cf. Barta 1979, p. 2. 53 Cf. Franke 1988, p. 120. 54 See below. 55 Cf. Delia 1979; Murnane 1981; Delia 1982. 56 Cf. Delia 1979; Murnane 1981; Delia 1982.

57 58 59 60 61 62

24

Like “(what happens in) x corresponds to (what happens in) y”. Murnane 1981, p. 75. Cf. Peden 2001, p. 42. See Chapter 5: The Borderlands, 5.1 Nubia. Cf. Habachi 1954, p. 465. Cf. Valloggia 1969, p. 117; Pillet 1924, p. 68.

,

Succession and Coregency proceeding gradually towards the entrance, considering that the building of a temple begins “d’habitude, par le fond, c’est à dire par les sanctuaires et se poursuivait en direction de l’entrée […]”71. Considering the types of representations and actions involving Amenemhat III, we must admit that there are elements that do not lead us to think he was dead when the decoration was made. On the contrary, there is much that indicates the opposite.

To paraphrase M. Pillet, it is highly unlikely that this object dates to Amenemhat IV’s reign only, and his predecessor’s presence is merely a simple tribute to the memory of his dead father. It is much more probable to consider it “une nouvelle preuve de la corégence […]”63. In the classification of documents supporting co-regency, “buildings decorated by both rulers are one of the most characteristic traces (left by a co-regency)”64. Much more uncertain is the interpretation of the temple at Medinet Madi (A 8)65,which is cited as evidence by both supporters and opponents of the co-regency theory. This structure, one of the few Middle Kingdom temples preserved today, indubitably reflects the participation of both rulers in its decoration. However, it is not clear to what degree and in what roles each king undertook this work. The two entrance doors, the vestibule, the hypostyle hall and the sanctuary are symmetrically (east and west) consecrated in the names of Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV. However, the three niches66 are decorated only in Amenemhat III’s name, who is represented making offerings to the god “Sobek-Horus, who resides in Shedet”, and to the goddess “Renenutet, the living of Dja”.

Firstly, the temple inscriptions and scenes show that both kings72 enter the temple73, greeted by the gods, an act that represents a moment of strong union and transmission between the parties involved. It is also significant that Amenemhat III is never accompanied by the epithet mAaxrw (justified) which normally accompanies deceased people. Furthermore, M. Zecchi notes that the king’s name is consistently followed by the expression di anx (endowed with life), which during the Middle Kingdom is often associated with still-reigning sovereigns74. In particular, in documents mentioning two sovereigns, the living one usually bears this epithet, while the deceased one’s name is regularly followed by mAa-xrw. It is true that the epithets di anx and mAa-xrw do not exclusively designate a living person or a dead person respectively – in fact, we know of opposite uses for both75 – but as Zecchi writes: “what must be noted is the contrast of the use of di anx and mAa-xrw as epithets of Amenemhat III”76 inside the temple. In the scenes from the western part of the building, the sovereign is shown actively participating in the rituals, and is given the epithet mAa-xrw only in the scene on the west jamb of the short corridor in the temple of Medinet Madi (A 8), the subject of an interesting chronological debate77. Here, Amenemhat IV claims di pr n nb.f m Hwt-nTr [nfrt] mnxt n it.f nsw-bit n-mAat-ra mAa-xrw, thus naming himself as the only one who has carried out the entire work of building the temple. In addition, as noted by Valloggia78, a study of the inscriptions carved on the jambs (A = B) and continuing with the purification ceremony (K) carved on the western wall of the pronaos (which is in contrast to the founding ceremony (E) on the opposite side), it can be seen that the parallel scenes repeatedly attest to an equality between the two kings. The acts of the two sovereigns are in both cases indispensable and complementary to the birth of a temple, and from these elements Valloggia considers the Medinet Madi temple as evidence in favour of co-regency.

Donadoni’s67 initial interpretation concluded that the temple construction was begun under Amenemhat III and only completed by his successor: that Amenemhat IV completed the decoration because he wanted to commemorate his predecessor’s work, but consecrated only half of the edifice, the western part, to the deceased Amenemhat III68. However, Donadoni does not take into consideration that Amenemhat IV’s name or image never appears in the three niches, which makes the hypothesis that the decoration was concluded by the latter when he was reigning alone implausible. In fact, why should an independent king have omitted representations of himself from the most important part of the temple, instead reserving it for his deceased predecessor69? Valloggia70 concluded that the temple decoration was started only after the construction was already completed, starting from the bottom and then Pillet 1924, p. 66. Muranane 1977, p. 200. 65 For bibliography about Medinet Madi temple, cf. Vogliano 1937; Donadoni 1947; Bresciani 2006; Zecchi 2001, p. 150 and ff.; Hirsch 2004, pp. 139-140, 376-383, doc. 342a-344; Zecchi 2010, pp. 60-84. For a detailed bibliography for each scene see document A 8. In this chapter, the identification of each scene follows the one used in Donadoni 1947. 66 See Western niche, West wall: Donadoni, 1947, pp. 511-513 (X); Hirsch, 2004, pp. 360-361 (321st); Bresciani 2006, p. 35 (B, 1). East wall Donadoni, 1947, pp. 513-514 (X); Hirsch, 2004, pp. 360-361 (321j); Bresciani, 2006, p. 36-37 (B, 3). Back wall: Donadoni, 1947, pp. 514515 (X); Hirsch, 2004, pp. 361-362 (321st); Bresciani 2006, p. 36 (B, 2). Eastern niche, West wall: Donadoni, 1947, pp. 519-520 (W); Hirsch 2004, p. 362 (321l); Bresciani 2006, p. 40 (C, 1); east wall: Donadoni, 1947, pp. 520-521 (W); Hirsch, 2004, p. 362-263 (321m); Bresciani 2006, p. 40 (C, 3), back wall: Donadoni, 1947, pp. 521-522 (W); Hirsch, 2004, p. 363-364 (321N); Bresciani 2006, p. 40-41 (C, 2). Central niche, West Wall: Donadoni, 1947, pp. 515-516 (Y); Hirsch 2004, p. 364 (321st); Bresciani 2006, p. 38 (A, 1). East wall: Donadoni, 1947, pp. 516517 (Y); Hirsch, 2004, pp. 364-365 (321P); Bresciani 2006, p. 38 (A, 3). Back wall: Donadoni, 1947, pp. 517-519 (Y); Hirsch, 2004, pp. 365-366 (321q); Bresciani 2006, p. 39 (A, 2). 67 Cf. Donadoni 1947, p. 334. 68 Donadoni 1947, p. 334. 69 Cf. Zecchi 2001, p. 161. 70 Valloggia 1969, p. 114. 63 64

From a close study of these parallel scenes, some observations about the two kings’ iconology and phraseology can be made: the inscriptions on the two papyriform columns of the pronaos (C = D), the scenes engraved on the jambs of the main door (G = H), and Valloggia 1969, p. 114. Cf. scene on the jambs of the entrance door, A=B. 73 Zecchi 2001, p. 161. 74 Cf. Zecchi 2001, p. 161; Murnane 1977, pp. 267-272; Delia 1979, p. 18; Zecchi 2010, p. 81 and ff. 75 Cf. Murnane 1977, pp. 267-272; Leprohon 1980, pp. 308-309; Zecchi 2010, pp. 81-82. 76 Zecchi 2010, p. 82. 77 See below. 78 Valloggia 1969, p. 115 and Zecchi 2001, p. 161. 71 72

25

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty five sentences, each one in direct response to one of Amenemhat III’s names82:

the inscriptions on the jambs of the internal door of the transversal room (P = Q) show the two sovereigns performing the same acts accompanied by the same descriptions. The only differences concern the kings’ names and the god represented in the scene: Renenutet for Amenemhat III and “Sobek-Horus who resides in Shedet” for Amenemhat IV. The scene from the external part of the shrine architrave (I) also presents two symmetrical scenes where the two rulers seem to imitate one another in symbolic action just before abandoning the pronaos. The goal is to reiterate the legitimacy of the royal power which is renewed and guaranteed simultaneously by the two gods present for both kings79.

[...] |[I gave to Horus Aa-bau all the life, forever];| I gave the Two Ladies Iti [-iwat-tawy all the strength, forever].| I gave to the golden Horus Wah-ankh all [...] and all the stability, [forever].| I gave to the beautiful god Nimaatra all the health,[ forever].| I gave the son of Ra, Amenemhat, all the lands and the mountains [...] In the second scene, the goddess receives a series of specific offerings aimed at obtaining intangible gifts specifically related to royalty; she says:[...] I caused you to celebrate [jubilees like Ra], forever.| I made you king of Upper and [Lower Egypt, like Ra], forever. |I gave you all the protection and all the stability, [like Ra], forever. I gave you [...]

In the transverse room and inside the niches, the themes of the engraved scenes change radically. Starting from the internal lintel (R), the two scenes are symmetrical, but not identical. In the western part, Amenemhat III is involved in the rite of snTr (giving the incense) to Renenutet, while on the eastern side, Amenemhat IV performs the rite of sqr t HDt (offering white bread) in honour of Sobek-Horus. However, although different, the acts committed by the two kings share the same symbolic meaning and, in a certain sense, they are complementary to each other80. The scenes on the west (S) and east (T) sides of the door of the south wall of the room, both dedicated to the goddess Renenutet, are even more significant, as they seem to break the previous pattern of Renenutet on the west/SobekHorus in the east of the sanctuary. On the western side, on the right, king Amenemhat III is making an offering to the goddess Renenutet. The king, accompanied by his daughter Neferuptah81, wears the Atf crown and holds a sceptre and a mace in his hands; facing them over an offering table is the goddess, shown with the body of a woman and the head of a cobra.

The scenes adjacent to those just described, (U) and (V), respectively on the west and east wall of the transversal room, are extremely damaged; both of them probably depicted an offering theme with formulas dedicated to the god Sobek-Horus. Scene (U), located on the western side, is the best preserved and shows Amenemhat III followed by his kA, represented in human shape with the sign kA on the head and holding a banner with the king’s Horus-name. The scene was probably illustrated by five columns of hieroglyphs, most likely each bearing one of the king’s names83. Nothing remains of the other scene, (V), but judging from the ancient descriptions, it portrayed a king depicted in the act of making an offering to Horus and to Sobek, and – in E. Hirsch’s opinion – followed by a prince84. Unfortunately, it is not possible to verify whether the scene’s descriptions were different from those in the parallel one.

The scene engraved on the east side (T) was probably structured in the same way, with Amenemhat IV portrayed under the falcon Behdety, facing Renenutet and separated from the goddess by an offering table. Therefore, the two scenes appear parallel and from this point of view may rightly be counted among those elements in favour of coregency: the protagonists are the two reigning monarchs, portrayed with the intention to emphasise the monarchy. All this is more evident if we consider the kind of offerings made to the goddess and the scene description. Amenemhat III offers a group of goods; he is described as Htp di nsw, “aiming to satisfy the goddess’ material needs”, and in return he receives life, stability, and health. On the other side, Amenemhat IV makes an offering called Htpw nTr, including a young ox (rnn iwA). Amenemhat IV in return receives jubilees and royalty. It should be noted, however, that the answers given by Renenutet are different in the two scenes: in the first one, the goddess pronounces

Another open issue is represented by Amenemhat III’s statue85 with the goddess Renenutet discovered during the third excavation campaign conducted by A. Vogliano86. According to Donadoni, these sculptures represent proof of the original conception of the sanctuary, solely by Amenemhat III, and dedicated solely to the goddess Renenutet. This would prove that Amenemhat IV was responsible for the entire decorative cycle and the introduction of the god Sobek to the temple, who appears in the back niches receiving goods from Amenemhat III. However, this hypothesis seems unlikely. As noted by Zecchi87, if Sobek was introduced to the temple thanks to Amenemhat IV, this would have been a theologically revolutionary act and a distortion of his Amenemhat III’s Cf. Zecchi 2010, p. 70. Cf. Zecchi 2010, p. 71. 84 Cf. Vogliano 1937, p. 29; Donadoni 511 (V); Hirsch 2004, p. 381 (doc. 342n); Bresciani 2006, p. 32 (D6). Actually, neither Vogliano, nor Donadoni, nor Bresciani mention the prince quoted by Hirsch. 85 JE 66322; Milan, inv. 922. 86 Cf. Vogliano 1937. 87 Cf. Zecchi 2001, p. 161. 82 83

79 80 81

Cf. Zecchi 2010, pp. 67-68. See below. See below.

26

Succession and Coregency intentions, forcing him to be shown in the act of presenting offerings to this god. This interpretation does not explain the reason why the new ruler would not have changed the sanctuary’s actual name, which is dedicated only to the goddess Renenutet, the living of Dja (xt nt DAa). Finally, it would have been more unusual for Amenemhat III himself, who paid so much attention to Sobek in other areas of the Fayyum, to decide not to include Sobek in this temple; equally, it would have been strange if his successor made this choice during his own reign, when he seems to have omitted the crocodile god from other temples. As has already been shown88, the theology of the temple was intended to provide a distinction, but also a complementarity, between the roles of the two gods. Finally, the presence of the statues, in my opinion, cannot lead to any conclusion about the history of the temple, especially if we consider that it is not possible to determine the statues’ original locations. There is no evidence to suggest that there were no other sculptures along with these ones, representing the other god and the other sovereign.

to Amenemhat III alone, during a time when any coregency had not yet begun. It is possible that the division between east and west originally affected just the two deities and not the sovereigns: on both sides, the intent was always to show Amenemhat III. This phase would have ended with the decoration of the three niches, where there is just one protagonist: Amenemhat III, depicted while making offerings to the two gods. This supports the idea that Amenemhat III was intended to be present on both sides from the beginning. This phase would be followed by another one, in which Amenemhat IV was associated with the throne as a co-regent. At this point, it is possible that a part of the decoration not yet completed was begun. Both kings would have contributed to the creation of the sanctuary and Amenemhat III’s name, since he was still alive, would have continued to be consistently followed by the epithet di nx. Thus, the two rulers shown as equals expressed the equal association of the two kingdoms also from a sacral point of view. Finally, the third stage could be connected to the latest scenes, added when Amenemhat III died and Amenemhat IV became the only ruler.

In order to provide a general interpretation, it has been suggested89 that Amenemhat III may have died while the decorative programme was already under way. The king would have offered his co-regent the chance to be shown beside him, while keeping for himself the right to appear in the niches, the most sacred part of the temple. Amenemhat IV, at his predecessor’s death, would have merely completed the work by adding a few scenes, such as M and N on the east and west jambs of the small corridor depicting both the new king Amenemhat IV, although arranged on the western and the eastern side, omitting Renenutet’s name and showing some specific graphics90; the inscriptions on the areas between the lateral niches and the wall of the transversal room, Z3 and Z4, where the king’s name is composed in a different way from that of Amenemhat III and in a space that does not appear to be specially prepared for the purpose; and finally the scene, on the west jamb of the portal, between the hypostyle room and the shrine (O), that breaks the west / east temple axial duality91. It is plausible that the consecration ceremonies, with the dedication to Amenemhat III, took place after the building’s completion and that they were officiated by Amenemhat IV with his family.

We may wonder why, in the second and third phases of construction, those in charge did not change the decoration of the niches by including Amenemhat IV. For one, it is possible that the inclusion of the two groups of statues (s1 and s2) (and perhaps a third lost one) served as compensation for Amenemhat IV’s omission from the wall decoration. Having already completed the scenes for the walls, it was decided not to compromise the whole work with last-minute alterations. For another, the answer may come from a comparison of the shortness of Amenemhat IV’s reign with his predecessor’s fame and prestige, which could serve as a legitimising force – even more so if we take into account the possibility that Amenemhat IV did not have royal blood. Besides, the addition of his name to the doorposts of the niches may still express Amenemhat IV’s intention to be present in the most sacred part of the temple. The importance of Amenemhat IV in this temple is further enhanced if we consider the symbolic meaning of the decorative cycle as an allusion to the establishment of monarchy92. In fact, the two protagonist gods, Sobek and Renenutet, are complementary in an agricultural sense; the goddess is the protector of the harvest, the god a Fayyum patron linked to water and fertility. They are also respectively identified with the cobra-uraeus associated with Wadjet and with the falcon god Horus, acting as guarantors of the king’s right to rule. The theme of kingship is also explicitly conveyed in the scenes carved on the lintel inside of the door (R): both ceremonies, Giving the incense (di snTr) and Offering the white bread (sqr t HDt), seem to be connected with the kingship legitimacy93. This connection with the theme of royalty, considered in the context where it is inserted, reinforces, in my opinion, a possible coregency.

In my opinion, however, if this interpretation were correct, the relationship of equality required by co-regency would be greatly disproportionate: we cannot overlook the fact that in the heart of the sanctuary, the sancta sanctorum, the role of greatest importance is exclusively reserved for Amenemhat III. We could then distinguish three phases for the temple. The first one, relating to the project, construction and initial decoration phase, we can attribute Cf. Zecchi 2010, p. 80. Cf. Zecchi 2001, p. 162. 90 Sobek’s name is written with the hieroglyphic of the crocodile, instead of the crocodile laid on the naos and the toponymous Shedet is not followed by the city determinative. 91 Cf. Donadoni 1947, pp. 348-350. 88 89

92 93

27

Cf. Zecchi 2001, p. 160. See Chapter 7: Amenemhat IV: The Cult and the policy.

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty linked to another document mentioned by Valloggia98 as further evidence of co-regency, the statue in Berlin (A 7). As with the pedestal at Karnak, the inscriptions engraved on the base of this sculpture are perfectly parallel in structure, meaning and expression, acknowledging the equal role of the two kings.

In conclusion, the temple of Medinet Madi provides interesting information concerning two major questions: the existence of coregency between Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV and the existence of an independent kingdom under Amenemhat IV. I thinks this document provides enough clues to come to an affirmative answer to both questions.

A case similar in some ways to the temple of Medinet Madi is the Shrine of the Kings of Serabit el-Khadim, in Sinai. It was built outside the main temple dedicated to the goddess Hathor, patroness of the turquoise mines. Several scenes and inscriptions are engraved on the walls of the building; they were studied for the first time by Petrie99 who put the construction in the Eighteenth Dynasty, in particular during Queen Hatshepsut’s reign. This attribution was based on the misreading of the name enclosed by a scroll in some of the inscriptions. Thereafter, the analysis conducted by J. Černý100 concluded that the kings’ names were those of Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV. In particular, we certainly know that Amenemhat III was active in Serabit el-Khadim until year 45 of his reign – which would indicate he reigned into old age – by the stela IS 543. This is dedicated to the Sealbearer of the God, Ptahwer, son of Itu, justified and commemorates the opening of a mining tunnel in the first expedition he directed. At the top of this stela we can read: “Year 45 under the majesty of the perfect god, lord of the Two Lands Nimaatra, who lives eternally”. Consequently, we can safely say that the works at the Shrine of the Kings, begun with this sovereign, continued at least up to this date, as indicated by the texts and reliefs101 which mention Ptahwer as the project supervisor of the chapel. These include stela IS 108 and the document B 16 (b), which are particularly interesting because they belong to the chapel decoration: they are located in the eastern half, attributable to Amenemhat III. On the other hand, on the west side of the chapel, we find Amenemhat IV’s name and his Sealbearer of the God Djaf-Horemsaf, who is also mentioned on other stelae102. As for co-regency, the comparison between the documents B 15 (a) and B 16 (a) and (b) is particularly interesting. In the first one, the inscription records the construction of the chapel (xA) by Amenemhat IV, “King of Upper and Lower Egypt Makherura” and the different offerings made in this circumstance and identifies the xtmw nTr DAf Hr-msA.f as the project supervisor. At first glance, it would seem that the only person responsible for this construction was Amenemhat IV. Document B 16 (a-b), however, includes Amenemhat III’s cartouche and shows him represented with the epithet nsw bity, anx Dt. Another supervisor, xtmw nTr PtH-wr, is also mentioned. Amenemhat’s special iconography in B 16 (a) further complicates the situation. There, although the king bears the epithet anx Dt, he seems to be represented as a dead person and as a god among

Before moving on to the other documents supporting the idea of co-regency between these two sovereigns, it is appropriate to briefly discuss the scene engraved both on the western and eastern sides of the door of the southern wall of room (S)94. It is one of the most interesting and complex scenes. Between the two figures of Amenemhat III and the goddess, under an offering table, is shown “the hereditary princess, very great, great of praise, loved by the ladies universal, the king’s daughter, of his body, his beloved, Neferuptah living eternally” (iryt-pat aA wrt, Hst wrt, nb r Dr mryt nsw sAt nsw n ht.f mryt.f nfrw-ptH anx dt). Neferuptah holds a sistrum in her hand to appease the goddess, thus actively including herself in the ritual. Now, besides the heated debate that has been aroused by the interpretation of Neferuptah’s role in the scene, her very presence in this context raises some chronological questions. Firstly, as already noted, the stipulations made for her father may be also valid for Neferuptah: there are no clues suggesting she was already dead when the scene was created and, on the contrary, the lack of the epithet mAa xrw and the type of religious actions she is shown performing suggest the contrary. Building on our previous conclusions, therefore, we can say that Neferuptah was still alive when the period of co-regency began. Furthermore, the fact that she is represented next to her father with the epithet sAt nsw makes unlikely, once again, the assumption that she was Amenemhat IV’s wife95: otherwise, why would she not be represented in the eastern part next to her husband and with the epithet Hmt nsw? The most reasonable conclusion, as already discussed96, seems to be that Neferuptah fulfilled the role of the royal wife in ritual while Amenemhat IV was reigning as co-regent97. This is obviously a hypothetical conclusion; however, it can be 94 Cf. Donadoni 1947, p. 506-508; Hirsch 2004, 358-359 (doc. n. 321g); Bresciani 2006, p. 31 (D, 10); Zecchi 2010, p. 69. 95 Cf. Newberry 1943, p. 74; Valloggia 1969, p. 112; Ryholt 1996, p. 210. 96 See Chapter 1: Amenemhat IV and the family of Amenemhat III. 97 These chronological considerations may be related to the scene (V) as interpreted by Hirsch, since the prince’s presence is dated by the scholar to Amenemhat IV’s reign. The king would have represented himself as a child following Amenemhat III in order to show himself as his successor and reaffirm his legitimacy to rule. Against this interpretation, one might argue that Amenemhat III does not appear anywhere in the eastern half of the temple, perhaps except for the scene (L), and that his inclusion in Amenemhat IV’s work would have been rather unlikely. The new sovereign would have in fact deliberately broken the symmetry of the temple to his disadvantage. We might assign this scene to Amenemhat III’s reign when he was still alive and had already chosen Amenemhat IV as his successor, but not yet appointed co-regent. Proceeding through completely hypothetical considerations, we could also explain the unusual diversity of the caption of scenes (S) and (T), perhaps with the intention of a chronological difference between the two rulers: in the first one, the five names may be a matter of fact, while in the second one the emphasis is on the kingship guaranteed and confirmed by Renenutet, to emphasise the moment of accession of the new king to the throne.

See Chapter 1: Amenemhat IV and the family of Amenemhat III. Cf. Petrie 1906. 100 Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, pp. 36-37. 101 Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, nn. 108; 109; 124 b. 102 Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, nn. 123-125, pp. 127-131. 98 99

28

Succession and Coregency that we can make at this point is that the decoration of the Shrine of the Kings of Serabit el-Khadim should not be part of the documents in favour of possible co-regency. Nevertheless, it can be attributed to a later time when Amenemhat IV was the only king, and therefore it is chronologically later than the temple of Medinet Madi, at least in what has been identified as the second phase of the temple, that of the decoration equally distributed between two rulers. However, it is significant that, even in this case, the work of Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV is linked to a monument aimed at the celebration of the monarchical institution109.

other gods, while Ptah and Snefru act as the illustrious deified ancestors. At this point, it is possible to formulate several hypotheses. On the one hand, the iconography seems particularly associated with Amenemhat III undergoing a post mortem deification process103 shortly after his death. On the other hand, the isolation of the place makes it a useful location for what might be termed extreme artistic experiments104. Therefore, we might assert that Amenemhat III decided to represent himself as deified while still alive. After all, this idea should not be surprising when this sovereign’s personality is taken into account. Otherwise, taking into account the king’s actions and the context in which this scene is included, it could be concluded that in this case the epithet “living forever” does not necessarily refer to a living person. “It is not uncommon, for example, to find kings referred to as ‘given life’ in their tomb or in monument clearly meant to be commemorative”105; thus, the representation should be attributed to Amenemhat IV, who would thus be paying tribute to his predecessor. This suggestion has already been made by Černý; however, on the basis of stylistic comparisons with other inscriptions106, he dated B 16 (b) to Amenemhat III’s reign.

The glyptic objects are among the documents which testify a possible co-regency, but some clarifications should be made. The association of different rulers’ names on seals and small objects is, in general, a very frequent and well-attested phenomenon, as in the reigns immediately preceding Amenemhat IV’s110. To explain the presence of more than one sovereign’s name engraved on the same scarab, Petrie111 came up with the theory of reissue, athe practice by which a younger king would have re-used for himself beetles already prepared by his predecessors. If this explanation seems in some ways implausible, it is more likely that the associated cartouches on the same scarabs are the result of an attempt to enhance the present king commemorating an older sovereign’s and guaranteeing the continuity with the past. Finally: “ambiguity of meaning is, as always, the main problem”112. In our case, problems in interpretation are increased by the frequent use of the first name Amenemhat. Thus, any evaluation of these sources must follow the analysis of each specific case, assessed by drawing parallels with previous cases.

We could assume that the decorative programme was established and started during Amenemhat III’s sole reign, during which only B 16 (b) was completed; perhaps the decorative cycle was then partially modified by Amenemhat IV, who, in addition to the enlargement to the west of the Shrine of the Kings with the second Geb’s chapel, finished B 16 (a) and completed what had already been partly made before moving onto his own project of monumentalisation of the Shrine of the Kings. As noted by Murnane, “although Djaf-Horemsaf does claim responsability for the structure, he seems not to have been working contemporaneously with Ptahwer and may only have finished what Ptahwer had begun”107. To establish the chronology of the works at the Shrine of the Kings, some considerations may be useful. As Donadoni concluded for the temple of Medinet Madi, the construction of the chapel would have been started by Amenemhat III and completed by his successor, who would take credit for the whole work. Murnane108 therefore attributes the beginning of the construction of the Shrine of the Kings to the period of co-regency. As it is conceivable that this building dates back to this moment, there is no evidence, however, to confirm this: there are no parallel texts or representations of both kings together. In my opinion, the only possible conclusions are that both rulers participated in the building of the chapel, in very close but different moments, and that indeed there is evidence which suggests the desire to emphasise this difference in participation. The hypothesis

Valloggia113 has cited some small documents dating back to Amenemhat IV’s reign which bear double titling and which he considers very useful in clarifying the final stages of coregency. Among the few known commemorative scarabs belonging to this king, two of them are particularly interesting (A 19 and A 20). The composition of the inscription on the bottom (prenomen / name of Horus / nomen), as noted by Valloggia, is extremely rare during the Twelfth Dynasty. Along with these two objects, there are a tablet in the British Museum (A 17) and a cylinder seal published by Newberry (A 24)114 which contains the following inscription arranged in three columns. On the left, “King of Upper and Lower Egypt Nimaatra” (nsw bit ni-mAat-ra); in the middle “Son of Ra, Ameny” (sA ra, imny); on the right, “the Perfect god, Lord of the Two Lands, Amenemhat” (ntr nfr nb tAwy imn-m-HAt). Before commenting on these two documents, we must bear in mind that the name Ameny is nothing more than an

103 See Chapter 1: Amenemhat IV and the family of Amenemhat III and cf. Widmer 2002. 104 Cf. Appendix 2: Sculpture 6. 105 Murnane 1977, p. 268. 106 Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 129. 107 Cf. Murnane 1977, p. 205. 108 Cf. Murnane 1977, pp. 17 and 205.

See below and Tallet 2005, p. 154. Cf. Leprohon 1980, pp. 310-313. 111 Cf. Petrie 1889, pp. 9-10. 112 Murnane 1977, p. 223. 113 Cf. Valloggia 1969, p. 120. 114 Cf. Newberry 1905, pl. 6, n. 19. 109 110

29

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty kind of inscription is not significant for co-regency, there is no reason to believe that it should be placed at the end of the co-regency period. As for the two scarabs, they may have been made when Amenemhat IV was co-regent to the throne. Thus, it would record the valid nomen for both, the prenomen of the oldest reigning monarch, and the name of Horus of the new designated king who is remembered as the new Horus’ earthly incarnation. It should also be noted that the use of “Horus, protector of his father”, although not limited to a co-regnant sovereign, may explain the use of the particular name of Horus found in Amenemhat IV’s seals: “on the level of myth, the junior partner could be regarded as a ‘Horus Protector of his father’, regardless of whether he was able or willing to assume this role in practice”122.

abbreviation for Amenemhat115, and thus may designate either sovereign. Judging from the direction of the signs composing the epithets nsw bit and sA Ra, Valloggia116 believes that A 17 should be read from right to left, concluding that in this case Ameny stands for Amenemhat IV. The middle column of hieroglyphs, however, must refer to Amenemhat III: why would both the short form and the full form of a name occur in the same document, if both refer to the same person? In addition, as Valloggia adds, the epithet nfr ntr nb tAwy “est très souvent apparenté à Amenemhat III”117. In the case of the cylindrical seal, where the attribution of the diminutive is less clear, Valloggia118 detects three peculiarities which allow him to attribute Ameny to Amenemhat IV. At this point, we have to analyse the position occupied by the respective sovereigns’ names. It is clear that in the documents A 19, A 20 and the cylinder (A 24), the position of Amenemhat IV’s name is the most emphasised: the praenomen and the name of Amenemhat III highlight both the name of Horus and Ameny, referring to Amenemhat IV. This structure is also evident in two other Twelfth Dynasty documents, both attributable to queen Sobekneferu’s reign. These are the block from Hawara and the limestone statue base119 in which the queen’s name is flanked on both sides by her father’s name. As demonstrated by Habachi120, there is no need to consider this type of monument as proof of coregency between the two sovereigns; instead, they should be interpreted as a manifestation of a daughter’s respect towards her father. Thus, as Valloggia concludes, A 19 A, A 20 and the cylinder should be placed chronologically at the beginning of Amenemhat IV’s solo reign. In contrast, A 17, where the emphasis is on Amenemhat III’s name but where Amenemhat IV’s titling is well developed, should be dated to a time when the reign of the latter was already well-established; thus it highlights the intention to recall and honour his predecessor’s memory. Finally, in Valloggia’s opinion, none of the four analysed documents date to a time of co-regency, but A 19 A, A 20 and the cylinder seal would mark its end.

So far, we have analysed official documents; however, private monuments can provide evidence of co-regency as well. At the same time, they are a reflection of the ways in which contemporary Egyptians saw their sovereign. The double cartouche in a private stela could be explained by the simple fact that the dedicator served during the reign of both sovereigns rather than indicating a period of co-regency, but it is opportune to review the various testimonies which bear the names of both Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV. The first is the stela of Setemsaf (A 11), whose name is framed by the kings’ nsw bity names enclosed inside cartouches: first Amenemhat III and then Amenemhat IV. If the stone had been engraved during Amenemhat IV’s solo reign, the latter would probably have been named first, not his predecessor; moreover titles, position and epithets, in particular anx Dt, are the same, so that the sovereigns are represented “sur le mème pied d’égalité”123. The stela of Senwsret and Sobekhotep (A 12) seems to present a comparable case: here, the two kings’ prenomina are written in the same position, designated by the same titles and separated by the sign anx in analogy to the distribution of the document A 6 inscriptions. The only difference is the god associated with the king: Osiris protects Amenemhat III, while Wepwawet protects Amenemhat IV. However, both perform the same function of guarantors of offerings to the dead.

Strong objections to this interpretation have been raised by Murnane121. Firstly, considering that Imn-m-HAt is applicable to both sovereigns, he considers it more accurate to attribute the form Ameny to the bearer of the first name: that is, to Amenemhat III on the cylinder, and Amenemhat IV on the tablet. The use of an abbreviation might stem from the desire to avoid an unsightly repetition. Secondly, Murnane points out that there is no basis for arguing that, in the analysed cases, the epithet nfr ntr should be attributed to Amenemhat III; as there is no rule about this, nothing prevents this epithet from also applying to Amenemhat IV. I think also that if we accept, as Valloggia does, that this

Let us now analyse a category of evidence that could be called circumstantial. Among the papyri discovered at Kahun, one of them is particularly interesting to the coregency discussion. This is the papyrus VI. 21 (A 38) dated on the recto to the regnal year 45 of an unnamed king, identified with Amenemhat III on the basis of length of the reign. The verso of the same papyrus presents a count of oxen dated to the regnal years 9 and 10 of another unnamed ruler. F.L. Griffith124 concluded that the dates on the recto must refer to Amenemhat III’s successor, Amenemhat IV. While recognising the likelihood of this,

115 Cf. Newberry 1943, p. 74 and literary texts as the Prophecy of Nepherty. 116 Cf. Valloggia 1969, p. 121. 117 Valloggia 1969, p. 121. 118 Cf. Valloggia 1969, p. 122. 119 Appendix 2: Sculptures 5 and 10. Cf. Petrie 1890, pl. 11. 120 Cf. Habachi 1952, pp. 464-466 and Pignattari 2008, p. 74. 121 Cf. Murnane 1977, pp. 16-17.

Murnane 1977, p. 264. Valloggia 1969, p. 118. 124 Cf. Griffith 1897, p. 43. 122 123

30

Succession and Coregency contemporary use of two names could cause this kind of confusion130.

Valloggia also noted its purely hypothetical nature: if we accept that Amenemhat III’s 45th year corresponds to Amenemhat IV’s 9th / 10th years, we would conclude that the latter sovereign never reigned alone or that the Turin Canon contains incorrect information on the length of his reign. However, since nothing forces us to believe that the recto and verso were written at the same time, Griffith’s hypothesis can be considered valid without having to consider the co-regency theory125.

Finally, I would like to draw attention to a particular monument belonging to Amenemhat IV’s reign: it is a quartzite block now in the Cairo Museum (A 4). The function and origin of this artefact are still uncertain, but it clearly shows funereal features, while the deletion of the cartouches suggests that it was placed in an accessible and visible location. We might wonder why they have been erased and why only some of the cartouches – only those including MAa-xrw-Ra – have been preserved. Brunton131 interprets this mutilation as the effect of a damnatio memoriae perhaps made by this king’s successor, Sobekneferu. The hypothesis of a possible dynastic struggle is the subject of strong debate among scholars132, but if the intention was to deny the legitimacy of Amenemhat IV’s reign, we would wonder why just this enthronement name was left, unless the purpose would have been that of avoiding the association of Amenemhat IV with another person, perhaps a possible co-regent. I would note that the final -t is plausible also for Ni-mAatra. The hypothesis that this document could be proof of co-regency has already been advanced by Habachi133, who proposes the same structure for the distribution of the cartouches as that in document A 17 (praenomen/Ameny/ nomen). This association of names, combined with the presence of two grooves on the upper surface of the block, perhaps sockets ffor two statues, would indicate that it was erected during the common reign of the two sovereigns. It is not possible to come to any definitive conclusions about this document, especially when considering the ambiguities accompanying the association of cartouches. It also seems more likely that the deletion of names could be attributed to an later period, perhaps during Akhenaten’s reign, at the time of persecution against Amon’s clergy and that the cartouche contained the king’s name.

A similar case, representing a kind of counter-check on the latter conclusion, is given by the document A 40 where two wills are recorded in succession; the first one is a copy. They date respectively to Amenemhat III’s 44th year and to Amenemhat IV’s second year. They are probably two subsequent texts written on the same physical document but not at the same time. Even the presence of orthographic anomalies may be indicative of coregency. Valloggia126 reported the presence of a curious graphic anomaly in Amenemhat IV’s praenomen on Khuy’s stela (A 13). On the central column of hieroglyphs where the dedication inscription is engraved, the cartouche enclosing the ruler’s nsw bit shows, , the crudely engraved sign instead of below that normally accompanies the writing of mAat. As noted by Valloggia, all the components of the two sovereigns’ praenomina, Ni-mAat-Ra and MAa-xrw-Ra, are condensed inside a single cartouche: Ni-mAa-xrw-Ra, and concludes: “un document de cette nature serait évocateur dans la perspective d’une parfaite continuité de la lignée”127. There is also another example which is similar to Khuy’s one and in some ways also more significant. This is the toilet box from Thebes (A 16), on which in the description of the scene engraved on the cover, above the sign of the Amenemhat IV’s praenomen, the sign was traced. Considering the unusual location of the added sign, Murnane128 believes that this anomaly could be attributed to an engraver’s mechanical error, but it could also indicate that at that time both kings’ praenomina were in use. We would be in front of an indirect proof of coregency. Considering that every single clue, however weak, must be taken into account, the presence of an unusual hieroglyph included in Amenemhat III’s name does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that both sovereigns’ names were in use simultaneously. Nothing prevents us from dating the documents to a time when the succession had just occurred and when the new king’s praenomen was not well in use yet. We know of other mistakes in recording new kings’ names,129 even if nothing excludes the possibility that the

For the sake of completeness, we must finally mention the group of granite anepigraphic naoi134 from Amenemhat III’s pyramid complex at Hawara. Inside these, two sovereigns are represented, one in the act of giving life to another, who receives it in the form of an anx sign. The first ruler wears a khat wig, rarely attested in statuary, while the second one wears the nemes, the king’s distinctive headgear. Ryholt, establishing a parallel between these naoi and the column fragment depicting This document can belong to the first moments of coregency; this could be suggested by the presence of God Sobek between other gods mentioned in the text which was carved on the toilet box. Considering the abandonment from which this god seems to suffer during Amenemhat IV’s reign and the distance of Kemeni’s tomb from the Fayyum region, we could think that the toilet box was made at a time when Sobek was still influential, at the beginning of the coregency. 131 Brunton 1939, pp. 179-180. 132 See Chapter 9: Amenemhat IV and the End of the Dynasty. Cf. Ryholt 1997, p. 293 and ff. 133 Cf. Habachi 1977, p. 30. 134 Naoi are conserved at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (JE 43289) and at the NyCarlsberg Glyptotek at Copenaghen (ÆIN 1482); Vandier 1958; p. 196, tavv. 64-65; Seidel 1996, pp. 101-103, table 28.a; Zecchi 2001, pp. 142-143. 130

125 For a different attribution cf. Collier-Quirke 2006, p. 37; cf. also Murnane 1977, pp. 224-226. 126 Cf. Valloggia 1969, p. 119. 127 Valloggia 1969, p. 120. 128 Cf. Murnane 1977, p. 16. 129 Cf. the lack of standardisation in writing Sobekneferu’s name in Aufrère 1989, p. 13; Pignattari 2008, p. 76.

31

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty parts of the country during Amenemhat III’s reign, it is possible that Sobekhotep was transferred elsewhere after the regnal year. Indeed this would seem to be the most likely hypothesis if we take into account another relevant document belonging to Amenemhat IV’s reign. The papyrus A 36 mentions the xtmw hrya Sobekhotep, already identified with our Sobekhotep by Franke142. On the basis of this document, it could be argued that this official, repeatedly sent on missions to the Sinai, ended his career in the city of el-Lahun. From these considerations, Valloggia’s argument is greatly weakened and the starting point of co-regency remains unknown; at best, with a good margin of uncertainty, the year 42 can be assumed as the terminus post quem for the beginning of co-regency.

Amenemhat III and Queen Sobekneferu, where the king is represented by his Horus-sign handing the anx sign to the queen’s one, thus135 proposed that the two naoi figures represent Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV during the adoption ceremony of the second one as co-regent. If this interpretation is correct, these documents would represent the missing testimony of Amenemhat IV’s presence in Hawara. However, this is only a hypothesis: in fact, even if we accept that the rulers represented are Amenemhat III and his successor, as in the column fragment, the two naoi may have been the work of the younger sovereign alone to celebrate the deified king136, or even, a Thirteenth Dynasty ruler’s tribute to his illustrious predecessor137. This concludes the review of the material which seems to suggest co-regency; ultimately, there is a considerable number of documents in which the two kings’ names are symmetrically associated. It is also notable how this association is attested in various contexts, across different monument categories and over a considerable geographical area: dedications to deities in the Theban area, funerary private stelae, a templar complex in the Fayyum. In addition to these documents, there are less explicit ones which nonetheless may be considered useful evidence. As Murnane said: “although no double date has been found, a coregency would provide a plausible explanation for this association”138. However, determining when and how this co-regency began is another matter. Valloggia has already tried to answer this question: as for “when”, he bases his argument on the stela of the officials Senwsret and Sobekhotep (A 12); the Assistant Treasurer Sobekhotep is also attested in the inscriptions of Wadi Maghara139, Sinai, during Amenemhat III’s regnal years 41 and 42. In the same inscriptions, his colleague Sobekhotep is called “Khuysobek son of Senwsretseneb”. Valloggia identifies this Senwsretseneb with the Senwsret mentioned in the stela and, assuming that the Sinai inscription predates the construction of the funerary stela because of the presence of Amenemhat III’s name alone, he places the beginning of co-regency during Amenemhat III’s regnal year 42. The weaknesses of this argument were highlighted by Murnane140, who noted that firstly, due to the presence of different onomastic forms in designating Senwsret, it is curious that the name abbreviation is used in a monument for eternity as a stela at Abydos and not in a simple commemorative inscription of an expedition. Moreover, there is no obligation to assume that the A 12 stela was sculpted at the time of the two officials’ death, nor that the two officials’ disappearance from Sinai is synonymous with their death. In fact, on the one hand, “well-to-do Egyptians thought it prudent to prepare for burial long before they were overtaken by death”141; on the other hand, considering the high frequency of expeditions to different

Before attempting any reconstructions, we should lay some groundwork. Firstly, we have to determine the length of Amenemhat III’s reign as precisely as possible. The Turin Canon143 assigns him 40 + x regnal years and, since the part of the text referring to the units has been lost, we must consider a maximum duration of 49 years. Beyond the problem of the Canon’s reliability144, there is no reason to cast doubt on the information provided by the papyrus, since a reign longer than 50 years is highly unlikely. Nevertheless, we can be more precise: the document bearing the longest regnal date associated with Amenemhat III is an inscription from Sinai145 dedicated by “Ptahwer, son of Itu, justified”, the header of which reads: “Year 45 under the majesty of the Perfect God, Lord of the Two Lands, Nimaatra, who lives eternally […]”. Furthermore, if one accepts Griffith’s interpretation of the Kahun papyri146, we have, for example, proof of a 46th year of reign, occurring in a hieratic account dated rnpt-sp 46 Abd 1 Axt sw 22147. Although it is a very high regnal year, and probably belongs to Amenemhat III, the sovereign’s name is not mentioned. Considering the fact that we possess, except for rare exceptions148, at least one document for each year of his reign, I believe that the lack of evidence dating later than a 45th / 46th year of reign can be considered ex silentio proof to establish the end of Amenemhat III’s reign: this king’s death should be placed in one of these years. Once again, data coming from the Sinai inscriptions allow more clarity and add other points of discussion. Expeditions organised by Amenemhat III are continuously recorded from the 38th to the 45th year, with the exception of the year 39149, while we also know of expeditions dating to the years 4, 6 (both testifying three times in

Cf. Franke, p. 310, n. 508. Cf. Gardiner 1959, pl. 3, col. 6, frg. 72. 144 About the reliability of the Turin Canon, see Chapter 9: Amenemhat IV and the End of the Dynasty. See Ryholt 1997, p. 9-18 and EatonKrauss, 1982, also about the possible term of 13 years for Amenemhat IV’s reign. 145 Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, n. 54, p. 80. 146 Cf. Griffith 1897, pp. 85-86. 147 Cf. Collier-Quirke 2006, pp. 52-53 (pK. VI. 19; pUC 32169), recto. 148 Cf. Matzker 1986, p. 29 and ff. 149 Cf. Murnane 1977, p. 1; Matzker 1986, p. 37. 142 143

Cf. Ryholt 1997, p. 209. Cf. Habachi 1954, p. 465-567; Murnane 1977, pp. 21-22. 137 Cf. Zecchi 2001, p. 143. 138 Murnane 1977, p. 18. 139 Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, pp. 68-69. 140 Murnane 1977, p. 18. 141 Murnane 1977, p. 18. 135 136

32

Succession and Coregency Serabit el-Khadim and in Wadi Maghara), 8 and 9 (?)150 of Amenemhat IV. As noted by Valloggia151, the expedition of year 6 seems to be exceptional. In fact, we do not know another case of such a quantity of inscriptions dating back to the same year; therefore, as Valoggia continues, we must conclude that at this time Amenemhat IV was already reigning alone, because “si Amenemhat III vivait encore, il aurait certainement été associé à une entreprise de cette envergure”152.

is the aforementioned papyrus A 40 with reference to p.Kahun I.2 (UC 32167)157 dated to regnal year 29. The document A 40 bears the date Year 44, Shemu month 2, day 13, and is most likely attributable to Amenemhat III158. The historical moment of the previous reconstruction should be correspond to few months later to the recording of the Nile level bearing the date to 44 xft 1 and previously described. The will of Wah, dated to the Year 2, Month Akhet 2, day 18, would be written few months after his brother Ihyseneb’s and would correspond to Amenemhat III’s 45th regnal year, (in line with the scheme of correspondences). One might raise several objections: firstly, the time gap between the two wills is too short and it would lead to a dating of the will of Wah to the second year of another sovereign, perhaps Sobekneferu; secondly, Wah’s oddity to choose to date his will to Amenemhat IV’s second year, rather than to Amenemhat III’s 45th.

If one considers the onomastic characteristic of official members of expeditions, a new element emerges: all the expeditions dated to Amenemhat IV’s reign are ascribed to the xtmw nTr imy.r ahnwti wr n pr Hd DAf Hr-m-sA.f153, who is not mentioned in the inscriptions of Amenemhat III’s reign. Conversely, during the last stage of the Amenemhat III’s reign the xtmw nTr imy.r ahnwti wr n pr Hd ptH-wr. is found. Actually, none of the characters mentioned in the Amenemhat IV’s inscriptions appears in those of his predecessor. As Murnane154 notes, it is unlikely that both sovereigns organised independent expeditions directed to the same place during the same year: costs and administrative problems would have been excessive and unnecessary. Therefore, the expeditions organised by Amenemhat IV and recorded between regnal years 4 and 9 may not have occurred during his predecessor’s regnal years 38-45. This makes it possible to assume that,Amenemhat IV reigned alone fom his fourth regnal year, organising expeditions with different people from those employed by Amenemhat III. If we can correlate year 45/46 of Amenemhat III with year 3 of Amenemhat IV, the beginning of co-regency should occur during Amenemhat III’s regnal years 43/44 with a total length of about three years. This hypothesis would also be compatible with the hypothetical double date of Semna.

However, we cannot exclude the possibility that Ihyseneb’s death occurred shortly after the writing of his will, inducing his brother to produce one in turn. Moreover, we do not know much about the testamentary procedures in use in ancient Egypt, and so it is possible that the will was revealed to the beneficiary before the death of the testator and that this has also led Wah to sign his own will. In addition, if we assume that the hypothesis of total equality between the two co-regents is correct, and that the count of the years could proceed separately for the two sovereigns, it is possible that Wah decided to tie himself to the king who would rule longer in the future. At the end of this analysis, the evidence in favour of co-regency can be considered sufficiently convincing; however, the same material can lend itself to different interpretations. The interpretations relating to the inscriptions from Sinai, together with those relating to the double-dated graffiti, seem to tip the balance in favour of a co-regency that began in Amenemhat III’s 44th regnal year and finished just three years later.

The stela from Wadi el-Hudi (B 32) and the graffiti from Shatt el-Rigala (A 18), dated respectively to years 2 and 3 of Amenemhat IV’s reign, do not represent an obstacle to this: it is possible that the organisation of expeditions to these places was entrusted exclusively to Amenemhat IV while he was ruling in co-regency. It is true that monuments mentioning only one of the two sovereigns can be found for the whole duration of the proposed co-regency155, but it seems reasonable to assume that especially at the organisational level of the borderlands, they proceed to a division in areas of influence between the two sovereigns. The fact that we do not know the “graffiti level” of the floods in the fortresses of Nubia bearing Amenemhat III’s name after his 43rd (44th?) regnal year156 may suggest that the whole region was entrusted to his successor once he had become co-regent. Finally, there is also another document that could confirm this correspondence, which Cf. B 6-14; Matzker 1986, pp. 38-39. Cf. Valloggia 1969, p. 129. 152 Valloggia 1969, p. 129. 153 Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, nn. 118, 119, 120, 121,122, 123. 154 Cf. Murnane 1977, p. 19. 155 Cf. Murnane 1977, p. 19 and Simpson 1956, p. 215. 156 Cf. Peden 2001, p. 42; Hintze-Reineke 1989, n. 497 (RIK 114). 150 151

157 158

33

Cf. Collier-Quirke 2004, pp. 118-119. Cf. file of A 32.

Part 2 Analysis of the Reign

3 The Administration 3.1. Part 1: General Features

are no locals announcing important functions at the royal court”3.

3.1.1. The complexity of administration as a theme/topic and the peculiarity of the second half of the Twelfth Dynasty: clarifications and methodological premises.

The same tradition in Egyptology was also unanimous in distinguishing between “a before” and “an after” in relation to Senwsret III’s reign, when there would have been a break in a centralistic sense intended by the ruler to consolidate royal power threatened by the nomarchs (provincial governors). Senwsret III’s reforms would have caused the disappearance of the great provincial families and especially of the figure of the nomarch (Hry tp aA) itself, who was entrusted with the province administration with the help of local bureaucrats. Beginning in the second half of the Twelfth Dynasty, information on these officials dwindles considerably, and this has led some researchers to hypothesise a deliberate elimination of these figures.

As Wolfram Grajetzki noted, “The […] Twelfth Dynasty was one of the strongest to rule over Egypt. Eight kings reigned over about two hundred years. For titles and administration […] it is possible to divide the period into several phases. […] Around the reigns of Senwsret II and Senwsret III many new titles appear. […] it will be shown that there is also a clear difference from the early Middle Kingdom in the way officials are represented on monuments”1. While an analysis of the administrative system of any state is always a complex task, the Twelfth Dynasty raises some of the most difficult questions in Egyptian history, thus making some considerations and methodological clarifications necessary. Studying any particular sovereign’s administration means always keeping two opposing ideas in mind. On the one hand, the sources available reflect a certain reality, and they enable us to obtain a significant amount of information about organisation, charges and the efficiency of the system in place. On the other hand, such a “mirror” provides only a partial view of reality, and can lead to many short-sighted conclusions. This bias is due to both the incompleteness of the sources and to the fact that, at the heart of any inscription, there is always a selective precedent by which a society chooses to present itself in a certain light. In our specific case, the conclusion that “a cultural preference specific to the Late Middle Kingdom produced the data set for the period”2 seems to be valid.

Over time, this theory became regarded as too drastic, and some more detailed observations were arrived at by a more critical examination of the sources. Firstly, a distinction must be made between the disappearance of the position of nomarch and the disappearance of the great tombs which were the greatest manifestation of the provincial notables’ power4. The first documents a change in the administrative system, while the second indicates a different distribution of economic and human resources5. Secondly, the title Hry tp aA was not associated with all nomes, as it would be if it were a real constitutional position, but only with some of them; moreover, this title is also attested between the end of Senwsret III’s reign and the beginning of his successor’s6. Thus, the nomarchs would never have been a powerful political group in opposition to the central power. Their disappearance, rather than a conscious and categorical act brought about by specific political decisions, would therefore be the result of the process to centralise power. The same process would have made the nomarchic role itself unnecessary and would have forced the great provincial families to insert themselves into the new central administration. Instead of the old system under the nomarchs, a transition to management by restricted spatial units, e.g. city-sized7 districts like Abydos or el-Lahun, is evident. A “governor” (HA.ty-a)8 was placed at the head of each district; he was appointed by the central government and his function seems not to have been transmitted by inheritance. The title of HA.ty-a is also found in the most distant territories under Egyptian control, where the

Some specific examples of the complexity within this field of research can be found in the second half of the Twelfth Dynasty, starting from Senwsret III’s previously discussed reforms. Previous scholarship, perhaps overly simplistically, viewed the administration of the country during the Middle Kingdom as divided into two sectors: the management of the provinces and the central government. It is interesting to observe what once again Grajetzki notes: “both the early Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period seem to have been times when the central government was worried about its power. […] In both periods, the king needed the help and the support of local governors to rule the country. At the high point of the Twelfth Dynasty the opposite picture is visible. There

3 4 5 6

1 2

Grajetzki 2009, pp. 3-4. Quirke 2004, p. 9.

7 8

37

Grajetzki 2009, p. 112. Cf. Franke 1991. Cf. Franke 1991, p. 52. Cf. Franke 1991, p. 54. Cf. Tallet 2005, p. 86 and ff. Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 111; Ward, nn. 865-889.

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty and, in parallel, an unprecedented codification of officers’ roles and functions. Therefore, these reforms should not be seen as a caesura in terms of a change in method, but rather a definition and clarification of a preexisting practice. This process is reflected in the information provided by sources and had a clear impact at the iconographic level, as seen in the titling of officials and in the projects undertaken by them. As for the administration, the documents of the Late Middle Kingdom contain lists of officials’ names with their corresponding tasks, recorded using standardised and expressions that were as short as possible 14: “[…] Late Middle Kingdom stelae restrict their content to name and principal title, and it has been observed that on the one hand this name+title focus represents an act of selection prioritising one form of identity over others and, on the other hand, that that cultural preference produced the data set for the period, so we can argue that the structure of administration, outlined in this period, witnessed a greater precision and demarcation of the official titles”15.

same Egyptian administrative structures were applied; consequently, in very different contexts, it is possible to find similar types of evidence which allow us to theorise as to the organisation of the local administration. Many people collaborated with HA.ty-a: the wHmw – literally “someone who refers to the king”, translated by Quirke as Reporter9 – who probably had legal functions; a secretariat supported by one sS n spAt, Scribe of the district10; and other local institutions, both religious and non-religious. There were also liaison officers who ensured contact between the central and provincial levels of government. During the same period, it has also been suggested that the country itself was divided into three major regions: the first one, in the North, included Lower and Middle Egypt and was headed by Memphis and Ity-tawy (wart mHtt); the second one, in the South, known as “The Head of the South” (wart tp-rs); and the third one formed by Lower Nubia (wart rst), with the latter two being administered by Thebes. This division and the leading role regained by Thebes would have been due to the removal of the southern border of the country under Senwsret III. Moreover, the presence of an office of the vizier attested in Thebes has led some to hypothesise the existence, during this period, of two viziers working together: one for the North and the other for the South. However, as noted by Quirke11, we must be careful: firstly, the sources on administrative structure at our disposal do not show any significant change in the relationship between the king and the vizier, and the existence of an office of the vizier in Thebes does not mean necessarily that there were two officers of the same type at the same time. Secondly, at the national level, the supposed existence of three main administrative areas is attested only by the wart tp-rs, while references to the two others remain confined to the local administration. In the Late Middle Kingdom, for example, the title imy-r tA mHw, Superintendent of Lower Egypt, is frequently present in combination with other common titles among members of the expeditions to Sinai. This title, rather than reflecting the existence of a northern macro-region of the country, may have simply designated “a palace official with authority for levies on the way through the area crossed during their commission to procure material from territories outside Egypt”12.

3.1.2. The reign of Amenemhat IV How can this information help us to understand Amenemhat IV’s reign? We have to verify what the system of administration was at the start of his reign, and whether this system persisted or if there were signs of change. Aside from the question of how this system was installed, the principle that “statism is stronger if there is evidence of the presence of many officials” remains valid. The sources which may help draw a picture of the administration of the Late Middle Kingdom, and in particular during Amenemhat IV’s reign, are documents of different types, first of all the stelae from Abydos16. In this place, the site of an important sanctuary dedicated to the God Osiris, the stelae represented simultaneously both a celebration of the memory of the dead and the manifestation of the cult of the deity on the “Terrace of the Great God”, an expression which probably refers to the area around the temple where the stelae were placed17. Different groups of titles are engraved on these stelae, referring to the administration of lands and supplies, military activity, and religious practices; from the end of the Twelfth Dynasty, titles related to the work organisation or unconnected to a specific task also appear. For example, the position of wr mdw Sma, Superintendent of the tens of Upper Egypt, whose function is still under debate, belongs to the latter group. What makes the sources from Abydos so important is their non-local nature. Abydos was a central Egyptian city and a hub of government activity. The corpus of documents collected here, therefore, transcends the needs of provincial administration, making it a valuable tool for comparative analysis.

A fixed point from which to proceed is a known process of centralisation which was begun in the second half of the Middle Kingdom (1850-1700 BC). Under Senwsret III and, in particular, during the reign of Amenemhat III, this process was accompanied by a trend to define the boundaries of the kingdom more clearly and more precisely. This followed what we might call a “spirit of delineation” which concerned both physical boundaries13 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 112; Ward, n. 741. Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 114; Ward, n. 1452. 11 Cf. Quirke 1990, pp. 3-4 and nn. 8; 9 pag. 7 and Quirke 2004, pp. 115118. 12 Quirke 2004, pp. 115; cf. also Quirke 2004, p. 10-11; for a complete discussion, see Stefanovic 2003. 13 In particular, we refer to the Nubian borders, cf. Quirke 1990, pp. 1-5. 9

10

14 15 16 17

38

Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 8. Quirke 2004, p. 9; cf. Berlev 1978, p. 45. Cf. Simpson 1974; Tallet 2005, pp. 216-218. Cf. Tallet 2005, p. 216.

The Administration 3.1.3. The two branches of administration: the Vizier and the Treasurer

More information may be derived from commemorative stelae of expeditions, from rock inscriptions, seals or seal impressions, to a lesser extent from graves, and finally papyri. The areas that provide most of the material relevant to Amenemhat IV’s reign are borderlands affected by mining activity. Though one should keep in mind the fact that each expedition had such specific features that they cannot be automatically considered to be representative of the administration in general, it is still significant, as noted by Tallet18, that the administrative reorganisation of the end of the Twelfth Dynasty was accompanied by the unprecedented visibility and importance of the marginal areas of the country. This was primarily due to the significant increase in writing samples: testimonies of travellers in the form of graffiti have been found along the routes radiating from the Nile Valley, while many stelae and votive inscriptions are present at mining sites in the eastern and western deserts. Such an abundance of documentation, Tallet continues, is undoubtedly one of the fruits of the efforts made to form an efficient bureaucratic system.

Iit is undeniable that the vizier and the treasurer were the two most important officials at court, with a number of other officials employed under their control21. The division between the two roles becomes clear especially in the Late Middle Kingdom, when the administrative system reached maximum levels of organisation. If it seems undeniable that the vizier was the highest ranking official, hierarchically immediately below the sovereign, it is equally true that the treasurer22 occupied a similar status. For simplification purposes, the central government can be divided into two major branches. The first was headed by the vizier (TAty) through the (xA n TAty) “Bureau of the Vizier”. The Duties of the Vizier is the foremost reference text for this position; it was found in the form of engraved inscriptions at Thebes inside the tomb of Rekhmira, who lived during the Eighteenth Dynasty. In many scholars’ opinion, this text actually datesd back to the Middle Kingdom, probably composed during the Twelfth or Thirteenth dynasties. From this document, it seems that the vizier had the responsibility of managing properly bureaucratic activities: he organised the workforce involved in the royal projects and probably also managed the organisation and administration of the peripheral areas.

The study of these expeditions may therefore be crucial to understanding the administration at the end of the Twelfth Dynasty: firstly, it allows us to draw up a list of the officials involved in these operations, and to better understand the functioning of the state and the conception of power itself; secondly, it is useful to formulate an assessment of the state and its organisation; finally, it gives information on the general conditions of the country.

The other administrative authority was the treasurer (imy-r xtmt), who was in charge of the management of the prHD, literally the “White House”, the Treasury – that is, the economy of the Palace – as well as the supply and control of raw materials and the organisation of civil officers employed in the exploitation, production, and storage of food resources and raw materials. In this way, the treasurer became the protagonist of expeditions searching for precious materials. It should be noted that the members responsible for mining expeditions were often Treasury officials: this is a valid and constant datum for all areas of active mining during Amenemhat IV’s reign23. In some scholars’ opinion24, the prominent position occupied by the officials of the Treasury in the field of mining would be explained by the fact that semi-precious minerals, such as amethyst and turquoise, were part of the government’s monopoly: in order to get access to this type of resource, a vital link with the government was essential. However, it is still an open debate25: other scholars26, in fact, believe that the amount of mining assemblages, either raw or manufactured, coming from very different contexts dating to the Middle Kingdom would instead suggest the

The titling with which officials are mentioned in the sources presents specific and standardised characteristics that are very useful for analysis. The name of the title holder is generally accompanied by two types of titles: the function title and the ranking title. The first, revealing the profession of the official, generally precedes the proper name and underwent mutations over time, and thus are useful for dating purposes. The second category provides information about the social status of the official at court. We can cite five19 major ranking titles: iry pat, nobleman; HAty-a, translated in a way that is not properly correct as “governor”, “foremost of action” or also “member of elite”; xtmty-bity, sealbearer of the king, the most representative of the Middle Kingdom, which, if placed before the name, designates the most important officials; smr wa.ty, sole friend (of the king), held without any other titles, denotes a high status of the owner, but its use became rare since the end of the Twelfth Dynasty, when only the Treasurer seems to bear it regularly; and finally rx-nsw, royal acquaintance, which also becomes a function title for the treasurer’s entourage and, in this case, directly precedes the owner’s name20.

18 19 20

21

For the sectors of the central administration see Quirke 2004, p. 25 and

ff. Cf. for example Grajetzki 2001, p. 51; Grajetzki 2005, p. 42 and ff.; Landua-McCormack 2008, pp. 423-424; Quirke 2004, pp. 18-24; 48; 85. 23 Cf. for example B 32 where Si-hathor is Xrya n imy xtmt, assistant to the treasurer. 24 Cf. Quirke 2004, pp. 18; 23; 25; Doxey 1997, p. 175; LanduaMcCormack 2008, p. 416 and note 1415; Quirke 1990, p. 215 and Tallet 2005, p. 190 and ff. 25 Cf. for exmple Richards 2005, p. 109 and ff. 26 Cf., for example, B. Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, London 1989. 22

Cf. Tallet 2005, p. 109. Cf. Grajetzki 2009, p. 5. For the discussion about this title cf. Quirke 1986, p.108 with note 17.

39

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty existence of private expeditions not organised by the State, or at most, the coexistence of both types of enterprise.

3.1.3.1. The Bureau of the Vizier (xA n TAty) We do not know the name of any vizier (TAty) from Amenemhat IV’s reign; however, we know something about a certain Sn-wsrt-anx30 (C 5, A 15) bearing the titles of imy-r niwt31, TA.ty tAy.ty32. The first and the third titles are the vizier’s standard designation, and they translate respectively as overseer of the city and he of the curtain/ the shrouded one. The figure of Senwsret-ankh is interesting as he allows usto establish a link between the function of vizier and that of another official: the imy-r AHwt33, overseer of the fields. On the basis of the biographical data at our disposal, we know that Senwsret-ankh, before he became vizier, was imy-r AHwt. The function of the imy-r AHwt is not entirely clear: a post present from the Old Kingdom and linked to the local administration, this title becomes part of the titling of the central government only in the second half of the Twelfth Dynasty, as evidenced by the frequent use of the prefix xtmty bity. From the sources34, it appears that the imy-r AHwt was responsible for the cadastre and the land measurements35 after the Nile’s floods.

Treasurer and vizier regularly met with the king, with each other, and with their respective groups of officials to discuss matters of state. It seems likely that the vizier and treasurer were chosen from the lower grades of the corresponding branches of their departments, and if a child aspired to occupy his father’s office, he would almost always have had to go through all previous ranks27. Vizier and treasurer not only differed in their career stages, but also in the quality and visibility where their activity is attested by the sources that, once again, are characterised by a high selectivity. For example, in contrast with the many testimonies and documents concerning the treasurer’s works and their officials coming from sites of national importance, including Abydos, we have almost nothing in relation to the vizier. This leads to the conclusion that the Treasury was the administrative branch in the true sense of the term, the most important one, and its members those with the highest mobility. The scarcity of documents relating to the vizier’s work is puzzling: as the latter managed the organisation of the labour force in the royal projects and the peripheral administration, it is reasonable to imagine that he would be attested in places such as Abydos, too. In order to clarify, we might think of the treasurer (and his entourage) as the operational side and as the one actually employed in the field – the one who, for example, was acting concretely in Abydos: “the officials around the treasurer were more involved in building projects and collecting raw materials from all over the country”28. On the other hand, the vizier and his entourage probably resided in the capital town, where they may have left magnificent tombs and monuments, now lost.

As for Amenemhat IV’s reign, the aforementioned imy-r AH.wt anxw36 has to be kept in mind: among his ranking and function titles, he bears the titles HAty-a and xtmty bity, denoting importance at the level of the central administration37; it nTr38 perhaps implying a certain kind of relationship with the royal family; sS Hwt-nTr39, indicating the official daily managing the economic affairs of the temple; imy-r mrw40 and wHmw41. Even the latter title, translated as reporter, is part of the titles for the officials employed by the vizier, whom he dispatched to various parts of the country. This title could then be specified with terms like wHmw snnw n rsy, second Reporter of the South42. The document A 1643 must also be considered among the testimonies related to the vizier’s bureau. Here the wr mdw Smaw Rn.snb, chief of tens of Upper Egypt Renseneb is mentioned. He is identified with the wr mdw Smaw Rn.snb of the seals A 27, A 28, A 29, and perhaps also with Ren-senb of Franke’s Dossier n. 37344, where he

The selectivity of sources also is present in the corpus of inscriptions from Sinai. No treasurer’s name is extant; however, the lists of people related to him are numerous and very interesting. Recurring titles are xtmw nTr imy-r aXnwty wr n pr-HD; idnw n imy-ra n pr-HD; aw, imy-r aXnwty n pr-HD, and so on. Although knowledge of many titles surely related to the Treasury (pr HD) comes from Sinai inscriptions, the fact that outside of this context such titles are only rarely associated with the treasurer should not be overlooked: evidently, the inscriptions from Sinai reflect only a specific branch of the Treasury, probably related to its activity in the borderlands, as suggested by the recurrence of the same titles in other mining or commercial areas such as Wadi el-Hudi29. Thereby, here I set out to analyse the administration during Amenemhat IV’s reign, keeping the two main branches divided and assigning each attested official to a pertaining sector.

27 28 29

Cf. Franke 1984, p. 234, n. 502. about this men see Chapter 6: The Foreign Lands. 31 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 111; Ward n. 220. Quirke notes that this title can also indicate a position of responsibility on a peripheral level of the administration. 32 Cf. Ward n. 1563. 33 Cf. Quirke 2004, pp. 91 and 111; Ward n. 29. 34 Cf. Grajetzki 2009, p. 86. 35 Cf. above and Franke 1984, p. 139, n. 177. 36 See Chapter 1: Amenemhat IV e and the family of Amenemhat III. 37 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 12 e 111. 38 Cf. Grajetzki 2009, pp. 48; 73; 148, n. 20. 39 Cf. Quirke 2014, p. 121; Ward, n. 1398. 40 It is a variation of imy-r mr, overseer of a canal (cf. Ward, n. 197) 41 Cf. Franke 1984, p.139, n. 177 and Grajetzki 2009, p. 87. About the importance of the correctness of the information reported and the value of eloquence, cf. also Doxey 1998, p. 52 (epithet wHm mrrt). 42 Cf. A 40. 43 Toilet box (MMA 26.7.1438). 44 Cf. Franke 1984, n. 373. Another official bearing this title of uncertain attribution during Amenemhat IV’s reign has to be mentioned: Pnw (Fischer 1957). 30

Cf. Landua-McCormack 2008, p. 419. Grajetzki 2009, p. 69. Cf. B 30 and B 32.

40

The Administration first title is frequently attested in the early part of the Middle Kingdom, while the second, not attested in other documents, is part of the title series Hry sSA n +X, which are related to the possession of specific knowledge in a given field. In this case, the title is explained on the box lid: ḥry sStA n iaw-r nswt m Ts xAwwt nb tAwy, the one who has the access to the secret of the meals of the king as the one who prepares the tables of the Lord of the Two Lands53. The combination of such important titles could testify to a direct link with the king54. Among Kemeni’s titles are iry-at wdpw55, hall-keeper and cupbearer and imy-ra st (n) Hsty, storekeeper of the Hsty vases56.

is also Atw n Tt HqA, commander of the crew of the ruler45 and xtmty bity xrp wsxt, sealbearer, director of the broad court, where the title sealbearer may refer to tasks which were part of the security sector at the level of the central administration46. This case is very interesting and enables us to draw some conclusions both of a prosopographical nature and concerning titling. It is unclear whether Ren-seneb actually lived during Amenemhat IV’s reign or under a Thirteenth Dynasty ruler. It is likely that his career began during the Twelfth Dynasty and continued into the Thirteenth. As for the titles he held, it is not clear what the role of chief of tens of Upper Egypt consisted of, but the presence of this official is one of the best attested in Nubia during the Thirteenth Dynasty47. Other titles attributable to Ren-seneb, which are relevant to the military sphere, would be consistent with the typical Nubian-region blending of the administration and the army48, giving credit to the link between Renseheb and the character from the documents considered above.

Imy-r ast57 designated the official in charge of the food supply sector (Sna) on whom all the iry-at and the wdpw depended. The Sna also included the iry-at wdpw, along with wdpw n HqA58, cupbearer of the king and the simplest wdpw59, butler, cupbearer. These sources, as well as Kemeni’s box, confirm the close link between the imy r-a st and the iry-at wdpw. The meaning of the title rx nsw mAa mry.f remains uncertain: the relationship between these three titles has been, in fact, the subject of a long debate60. The fact that they are present on the same document supports the hypothesis that Kemeni was a high-ranking person at the peak of his career. A final observation concerns the presence of the added expression (n) Hsty, a peculiarity attested between the reigns of Sobekhotep III and Neferhotep I, when the treasurer’s office was held by Snb-sw-m-a(.i). Kemeni’s case is the only exception to this system; that is the reason why Grajetzki61 prefers to interpret that feature as a biographical expression, rather than as a real title. The same explanation is also given to Hry sStA n iaw-r nswt m Ts xawwt nb tAwy; nevertheless, the same expressions are found quoted in abbreviated form next to the image portraying the character in the sovereign’s presence and Kemeni himself is represented offering two ritual vases62. This fact might suggest that they are functional titles, not only ranking ones. It should be noted that here, the title translation as hall-keeper does not seem to be suitable: instead of an employee in a warehouse, Kemeni was most likely someone who was in charge of vessels for banquets and ceremonies related to the king. His intimacy with the royal person gives the true meaning and tone of the titles.

The title imy-r pr a(A)rw(t), overseer of a tribunal49, is probably always part of the vizier’s responsibilities; however the doubts surrounding its interpretation make any clarification impossible. 3.1.3.2. The Treasury (pr HD) Contents (imy-ra xtmt) of the “White House” (pr HD) or Treasury dating to Amenemhat IV’s reign are unfortunately unknown. This gap, however, is compensated for both by our knowledge of a number of officials who worked as the treasurer’s employees, as well as the possibility that some treasurers surely working during the end of the Twelfth Dynasty date to this king’s reign, for example we can mention xnty-Xty-m-sA.f Snb50. In this section, I deal also with those officials involved in the management and storage of food and supplies for the palace; this is the sector identified y the sole term Sna. All the goods of the Sna were prepared and stored in a specific “room” with a chamber-keeper(iry-at) and an overseer (imy-r). Similarly, also all those officials involved in the provisional transportation have to be considered part of the treasurer’s staff.

Much of the evidence related to the Treasury’s officials comes from stelae from Abydos. The title imy-r pr n strw63, overseer of the necklace-makers, is the subject of

The document A 16 is important due to the presence of the rx nsw51 mAa mry.f Hry sStA n iaw-r nswt52 Kmni. His

Cf. Fischer 1997, n. 1004b. Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 126. 55 Cf. Ward n. 467. 56 Cf. Ward nn. 314-315. 57 Cf. A 16 and A 13. 58 Cf. Ward n. 769. 59 Cf. for example the A 12. 60 Cf. Grajetzki 2001, pp. 47-48, 52 with notes; Quirke 2004, p. 60. 61 Cf. Grajetzki 2001, p. 53. 62 However is quite strange that the image representing Kemeni making the offering does not reproduce two Hsty, but Dt ones. 63 Cf. A 10.

Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 99. Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 12 and 30 and Quirke 2004, p. 87. 47 Cf. Ryholt 1997, p. 92. 48 See Chapter 5: The Borderlands, 5.1 Nubia and cf. Leprohon 1980, p. 212. 49 For the discussion about this title cf. Kitchen 1990, n.6, p. 25. 50 Cf. Grajetzki 2001, p. 11; Cairo CG 408; Copenaghen ÆIN 1539. 51 Cf. also Ward n. 1156: xrp rx nsw, director of the royal acquaintance, to be interpreted as a variation of the most attested rx nsw or instead as a true title indicating a coordinating role among the closest collaborators of the sovereign. 52 Cf. Ward n. 1004 and ff. 45

53

46

54

41

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty an ongoing debate64 surrounding its correct definition, in order to determine whether it should be included in the Treasury department related to the treatment of precious materials or in the supplying sector (Sna65). The current version has strw as the plural of str, translated as “necklacemakers”. The title overseer of the necklace-makers designates a person of great importance; indeed, during the Twelfth Dynasty, the goldsmith’s art reached high levels of refinement in Egypt. The title iry-at strw, hallkeeper of the necklace-makers, also belongs to the same sector, probably designating one of the imy-r pr n strw’s assistants as suggested by the expression iry-at. Although it is not pertinent to the Sna, a similar title for structure and hierarchical position is iry-at n pr HD, treasury chamberkeeper, indicating someone who manages the storage of goods and the production unit of precious materials66.

“As the economic aspect of the palace, the Treasury must have required transport provision […]”77; as a result, nautical titles have also been included in the section dedicated to the Treasury. Amenemhat IV’s reign provides some examples of titles belonging to this category: three s n imy-HA.t78 a s [n] aHaw and a xtmw, [imy-r] aHaw79, man of the front (of the ships)/ captain, ferryman and sealbearer, overseer of ships. It is not clear whether the latter should refer to a military or economic position or, possibly both. During the late Middle Kingdom, there was a distinction between Treasury officials responsible for overseeing construction projects and those responsible for the management and supply of raw materials and goods coming from outside the Nile Valley. Among the latter group, the xrp skw, director of troops80, is recorded. The stelae from Serabit el-Khadim also mention many officials related to the Treasury. Besides the alreadymentioned xtmw hrya n imy-r xtmt, the xtmw nTr, sealbearer of the God and the imy-r aXnwty wr n pr HD, first overseer of the Treasury are undoubtedly the most frequent and specific titles given to the expedition-leader. The first81 is the best attested title among the sources from Sinai, as well as the most obscure in its meaning. The title xtmw nTr was already in use during the Old Kingdom. Based on the sources, it was used to designate very different officials at very different levels: sometimes it refers to those charged with tasks related to expeditions to distant lands, and sometimes to those in charge of particular funeral ceremonies related to the rites of embalming. At the beginning, this duality led some to suggest that the title designated an embalmer priest, responsible for the procurement of exotic products for the temple. However, this interpretation proved to be incorrect, and the interpretation was further complicated when Middle Kingdom sources revealed that the seal-bearer of the God also designated a particular priest linked to the cult of Osiris at Abydos. Thus, very different functions seem to be represented by the same title82, but is there any contact point between so many different functions? At the end of his analysis, S. Sauneron83 concludes that the key is hidden

The title of imy.r pr n praA67, estate overseer68, is definitely simpler to interpret: it is a synonym for the more widely attested imy-r pr wr69, normally preceded by the epithet xtmty bity, especially during the Late Middle Kingdom and when one wanted to emphasise the role of the official of the central administration “managing the estates beyond the palace walls”70. The title of imy.r pr n praA71 is known from a single document referring to an estate overseer of the pr aA72. Ward considers it “undoubtedly as a synonym for the most attested imy-r pr wr which appears in the same text”73, however, in general, any identification of this modest position with the high official imy-r pr wr can be excluded. Other documents from Abydos attest the existence74 of the xtmw hry-a n imy-r xtmt, sealer and assistant to the treasurer, designating the assistant to the director of the works involved in a royal project. It is a title found in all areas affected by the initiatives of the ruling class, including borderlands such as Sinai and Wadi el-Hudi75. More generic titles are also present, such as imy-ra pr, overseer of the house, or Hry pr, domestic servant76, responsible for the furnishing of the living rooms and reception rooms, employed for the care of valuables and fine fabrics; for this reason the latter is counted among the officials belonging to the Treasury.

in the meaning of the sign xtm : it indicates someone who is in possession of a seal, which presupposes an official responsibility. “le personnage ainsi nommé […] est celui qui a reçu comme insigne de sa puissance le sceau du nTr et qui, par là, est habilité à remplacer et à prendre des mesures en son nom partout où les circonstances l’exigent”84.

Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 68. Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 68. 66 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 58; Ward 477. Also the title iry-at n pr aA,(Ward, n. 476) is directly linked to the royal palace organisation and therefore different from the properly titles belonging to the Treasury sphere. 67 Cf. A 11. 68 Cf. Ward 140. 69 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 61. 70 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 61. 71 Cf. A 11. 72 Cf. Ward 140. 73 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 61. 74 Cf. A 12; B 32. 75 Cf. for example doc. B 32. 76 Cf. A 13 and A 12, for the latter cf. Quirke 2004, p. 58. 64 65

Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 59. Cf. A 12, cf. Quirke 2004, p. 60. 79 Cf. B 32, cf. Quirke 2004, p. 33. 80 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 79 and Ward no. 1173. 81 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 78. 82 Cf. also Sauneron 1952, doc. 12, p. 147 where a commemorative text about an expedition to Sinai is mentioned (Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1952, n. 85, pl. 23): it simultaneously refers to two different Sael-bearers with different roles. 83 Cf. Sauneron 1952, p. 166. 84 Sauneron 1952, p.166. 77 78

42

The Administration can be considered official actions and necessary to the success of the expedition. This interpretation seems to be confirmed by the fact that some of the objects donated by the expedition-leader are also found in a scene depicting Amenemhat IV offering in the Shrine of the Kings (B 18): a series of three sistra, a toiletry bag for libations, a censer and a series of vessels. These objects are quite likely gifts sent by the king through his representative. The particularity of this official’s role seems to become greater at the end of the Twelfth Dynasty with the occurrence of acts of personal devotion made by this character in official contexts93.

Whether the term nTr should be read as referring to the sovereign or to a deity has been the subject of long debate, but ultimately it is plausible to assume that neither interpretations is wrong and that, depending on the context, the god in question could be identified with the king or a living god. Its use in the religious sphere, which occurs later than in the civil one, could be the result of a calque. Sauneron’s conclusion is a clear distinction between the roles of xtmw-nTr as expedition-leader and the xtmw-nTr as priest. As has been noted85, during the Middle Kingdom this title designated the expedition-leader to Sinai; this is a result of the process of the power centralisation which led to the creation of administrative areas specifically for controlling communication routes86. In addition to that, this title is now inextricably linked to the divine character assumed by the sovereign in this particular context.

Sinai also revealed the existence of xtmw n Sms n arryt, seal-bearer of the retinue of the palace-approach94, that is, the officer in charge of the property value of his lord. It is interesting that all of the attestations of this rare title are dated to the late Middle Kingdom and come from testimonies concerning expeditions.

The title imy-r aXnwty wr n pr HD is the second most frequently attested title in Sinai and appears in Serabit elKhadim from the reign of Senwsret I; it therefore seems to be characteristic of the institutional innovations introduced by the Twelfth Dynasty. The expression pr-HD probably refers to the fact that sometimes the Treasury department appointed several “internal overseers” (imy-r aXnwty n imy-r xtmt or imy-r aXnwty n xA n imy-r xtmt), including one who was designated as the principal internal overseer. That title could then be used to designate an official in charge of a mission abroad aimed at finding special raw materials. Imy-r aXnwty wr n pr HD could be a variant of the title imy-r aXnwty wr n imy-ra xtmt87.

Hry-pr and qAw, domestic and reis (foreman)95 are similar cases. The first one, already analysed, in a borderland context indicates a domestic servant external to the Palace context: for example, one employed in expeditions to the mines. The second one is a title frequently found in the inscriptions of Sinai, but of uncertain transliteration and translation. It is remarkable that the sign is which later entered the Protosinaitic alphabet.

or

,

The title imy-r ahnwty n at Hnkwt, interior overseer of the chamber of gifts/linen is of dubious translation. It refers to the area of the administration which controlled the procurement of goods, and it designates a specific department with a complete administrative équipe that also included a superintendent. The term Hnkwt may refer both to flax, a product of great value, and more generally to “products that came to the palace”96. It is remarkable that it is attested in Sinai; this could be explained by the area’s close relationship with luxury and exotic goods from distant lands.

According to the extensive iconographic evidence portraying him as a celebrant88 in the presence of different deities, the expedition-leader is involved in the main ritual celebrating the monarchical institution, and his participation consists of offering loaves of turquoise to the king: “qui mettait le responsable au contact d’Hathor sans laquelle il n’auarait pas pu recueillir la pierre convoitée”89. Moreover, although in most of the depictions of the rites, the king appears as the protagonist, the seal-bearer of the God often accompanies him, thus actively participating in the liturgy. He becomes the coordinator of the different types of clergy responsible for the different ceremonies officiated on site and, ultimately, he represents the ruler when absent. This latter role finds its highest expression in his responsibility to beautify the sanctuary with new architectural elements and cult furnishings90. In addition to food offerings, the expedition-leader is often represented asmaking gifts to the preeminent goddess Hathor in order to hoard her treasure91; as noted by Bonnet92, such gestures are not merely a gift on a personal basis, but

The record of the title Xr(y)-Hbt97, first lector priest preceded by the epithet sAb, judge98, is also interesting. The title Xr(y)-Hbt could refer to the one who acted as the coordinator of a national network for the control of communications relating to the composition of religious texts and sacred images. The analysis of the attestations of this title also suggests the Xr(y)-Hbt had some role in connection with the group of designers involved in the creation of monuments decorated with hieroglyphs. For this reason, he appears also in the Sinai inscriptions among

85 Cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 18; Valloggia 1998, p. 41 and also Quirke 2004, p. 52. 86 Cf. Valloggia 1998, p. 42. 87 Cf. Quirke 2004, pp. 55-57. 88 Cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 136 and ff. 89 Bonnet 1996, p. 137. 90 Cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 137 and Doxey 1998, pp. 36-37. 91 Cf. Stele n. 112, 53, 91, all dated to Amenemhat III’s reign. 92 Cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 145.

See below: digression about Djaf-Horemsaf. Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 54 and Ward no. 1491-1492. 95 Cf. Gardiner, Peet, Černý 1955, p. 67, n. l and Quirke 1986, p. 114, n. 34. 96 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 72. 97 B 16. 98 For the title Hry-tp Xr(y)-Hbt cf. Quirke 2004, pp. 38, 125; Ward n. 1205 and for the same title preceded by the sign sAb cf. Ward n. 1270. 93 94

43

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty the expedition members99. As for the term sAb, Quirke100 suggested to consider it as meaning “a specific individual in a position of state”. I would be inclined to give this title the latter reading rather than keeping the translation “judge” proposed by Gardiner.

by R. Leprohon108 to between Amenemhat III’s reign and the beginning of the Thirteenth Dynasty, a period of which time is relevant, with a good margin of precision, even to Amenemhat IV’s reign. They are the ATw aA (n) niwt109, commander in chief of the city regiment, and the anx n niwt110, officer of the city regiment. The ATw aA (n) niwt occupied the second level of the military hierarchy and probably referred to an officer responsible for two or more geographic districts. Directly under him, there was probably the ATw n niwt, officer of the city regiment, while among the latter’s direct dependents there would have been instead the anx n niwt, whose job definition in terms of skill set is not yet entirely clear. H. G. Fischer111 hypothesised that it was used as a ranking title as well as a function title.

Another title from the Sinai101 stelae, and one which is difficult to place within a specific part of the administration, is aw n stT, interpreter/dragoman from Asia. It is a title attested in the Middle Kingdom in the variant imy-r Aaw, overseer to the foreigner troops, especially among officials employed in Nubia102. In a Sinai context, it is explained by the need to interpret between people of different origins working in the same place. The “spirit of delineation” typical of the Late Twelfth Dynasty is also evident in the precision with which all categories of participants of an expedition and their organisation are listed, so officials such as imy-r n hrtywntr, overseer of stone-cutters103 or simply Xrty-nTr, stonecutter, are included among Treasury’s officials because they are closely linked to this branch of the administration104.

This rebuilt structure, however, is not reflected by the sources: these actually reveal very little proof of the ATw n niwt’s existence, with those that do exist all concentrated in the district of Thebes. For this reason, Quirke suggested that such an organisation would reflect only the exceptional case of the capital town of the South112.

3.1.4. The army

The other stela, held at the University of Pennsylvania Museum, of unknown origin and dated to the late Twelfth Dynasty113, shows the title imy-ra mSa n wHAt114, overseer of the army for the oasis, a title in some ways still unclear. Among scholars there is much debate surrounding the strictly military value of this title, which may just as likely refer to the chief of the labour force employed in the oasis, and whether the term “the Oasis”, refers to one of the oases, or rather should be interpreted as “a unity embracing a group of land […]”115

The army in the Middle Kingdom shows characteristics of capillary organisation and strict hierarchy. Members of the military in the strictest sense of the term should be distinguished from all those who worked in the field of security and from the bureaucratic staff linked to the army. This short section contains evidence concerning members of the army dating back to Amenemhat IV’s reign; they are limited to two cases, both from Nubian fortresses.

3.1.5. Papyri

Nile-level graffiti from Semna fortresses testifies to the existence of a xtmty-bity, imy-ra mSa wr, seal-bearer of the king, chief-overseer of the army105. It is an interesting title, whose real definition, especially with respect to the other title, imy-ra mSa, overseer of the Army, is still unknown.

Due to the peculiarities inherent in the type of document, the group of papyri from Lahun is dealt with separately. The titles attested in these documents, in most cases, are relevant to local government, as they are found only in their local environs and not attested in sources from other sites. However, the number of relevant titles belonging to the central administration is considerable. The corpus of Lahun papyri represents an example of a meeting between the national and provincial levels of government that, if on the one hand shows its wealth, on the other hand requires much analysis.

Another graffito cites a Tsw106, commander. Depending on the context, this title could refer either to the commander of a garrison stationed in a fortress, or to a superintendent of the activities of the fortress. Quirke suggests that rather than being a permanent title, it would indicate a temporary assignment carried out by a soldier during a fixed period of time, and that it is possible to envisage a system of rolling patrol in defense of Nubian fortresses107. For the sake of completeness, we report two other titles attested on stelae. The first one, from Abydos, is dated

Cf. Leprohon 1996, pp. 323 and ff. Cf. Quirke 2004, pp. 97 and 99 and Ward n. 695 and 698. For the name, cf. prosopographic list. 110 Cf. Quirke 2004, pp. 97 and 100 and Ward n. 604. For the name, cf. prosopographic list. 111 Cf. Fischer 1957. 112 The fact that the two dedicators of the stele bear titles that seemed so distant for the hierarchy seems to support the hypothesis of the exceptional nature of this reconstruction. 113 Cf. Fischer 1957 (n. 54-33-1). 114 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 98. 115 Fischer 1957, p. 228. 108 109

Cf. in Gardiner, Peet, Černý 1955, vol. II, p. 128, n. 123 B. Cf. Quirke 1986, p. 115, n. 36. 101 B 14. 102 Cf. Gardiner S 25 and Ward n. 591. For this title in the variant of imy-r Aaw, cf. also Pirelli 2007, p. 91. 103 Cf. Ward n. 311. B 9. 104 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 78. 105 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 97. 106 For this title cf. Quirke 2004, pp. 83 and 102. 107 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 102. 99

100

44

The Administration acted as the intermediary between the centre of power and everything external to it123; he normally stayed at his operational base, but he could also be sent on missions to different areas of the country. In analogy with other documentary papyri from Lahun, it can be concluded that a building project required three high officials: a xrp, a Ss, and a Tsw, whose names usually appeared at the beginning of the list of participants. In this context, the term Tsw refers to the coordinator of the workforce involved in the project implementation124.

This is the case for the sS wHaw, secretary of fishermen116; a title attested only locally at el-Lahun, and referring to the administrator of the weight of fish shipments that regularly arrived there and that were subsequently delivered to the Palace. Another example is that of the staff that revolved around a funerary foundation and its management, which encompassed the use of several titles. There was often a bAk n pr-dt117, servant of the personal estate, reporting his work and maintaining contacts with the imy-r aXnwty, interior overseer of the estate. The first is not a real administrative title, but it is frequently attested in Lahun papyri as part of the letter-format. It is not, in fact, attested in any other type of document such as stelae or scarabs. Its translation remains a matter of debate: pr Dt could possibly be read as funerary foundation, home or property118. Imy-r aXnwty is a title tied to the branch of the Treasury, but here it should obviously be contextualised at the local level, thus probably referring to an interior overseer of a private property.

The most detailed source concerning the administration and management of the temples dating back to the Middle Kingdom comes from Senwsret II’s cult temple at Lahun. It mainly consists of accounts and official letters. The available documents often bear long lists of titles relating to the administration, including the templar one. As for Amenemhat IV’s reign, we know the dwAw, adorers, the imy st-a125, assistant, the wab nswt, pure-priest of the king and the wab ḥry sA n + god, pure-priest for the phyle of the god X, an extended version of the more frequent wab n (+ god’s name)126 identifying one of the priests involved in the celebration of the rites in the temple. We also know of the iry-aA n Hwt-nTr, temple door-keeper, the wtw127, embalmers, the Hsb kAw, accountant of cattle, the Hry wr128, leader in chief, and finally the wAH xt129, placer of offerings.

In the management of the funerary foundation variable staff was involved, including the xrp119, the director; the irw arryt, warden of the portal; and a xtmw, sealbearer. Finally, a number of Smsw, guard and the imy-r pr, overseer of the House, are mentioned. The frequent contact between these characters is reflected not only in the papyri that report letters or fragments of letters, but also in the so-called “letter-format” that was eventually used by students120 and that reflects the structure and content of real letters.

The last category of documents attested in the Lahun papyri is legal records. They report many heterogeneous names and titles and they are helpful in understanding the testamentary procedures and practices in use in ancient Egypt, such as the fact that a woman could benefit from her husband’s will. From this category of documents, we learn of officers at the national level dating to Amenemhat IV’s reign. A similar, though rarer than the aforementioned case of the xtmw hrya n imy-r xtmt, is the case of the xtmw kfA-ib n xrp kAwt130, trustworthy sealer of the controller of works. The peculiarity of the expression kfA-ib shows that this title differs from the simple xtmw, which may be related either to the official’s rank or to the quantity and the value of the job he was responsible for. The available sources indicate an involvement of this official in consignments or in construction projects, and it is interesting to note that for the expeditions to Sinai, there is the variant xtmw nTr kfA-ib. ThisThis once again confirms the appointment of the expedition leaders to Sinai as Seal-bearers131. The extended version of this title, xtmw kfA-ib n Xrp kAwt, could thus perhaps designate an official responsible for a building project in the Nile Valley132.

The provision counts and deliveries coming from Lahun belonged to the sphere of the Treasury of the local administration, and often involved the sector designated for food and its production. For example, provision counts concern the organisation of events and ceremonies for which banquets were also planned and, in these cases, show lists of people depending on the imy-ra pr Hsb n rmT121, the official in charge of monitoring the job and of the management of the workforce. There are thus the imy-ra st, store-overseer, the sS n aqw, secretary to the provisions, and his tAw n sS aqw, bearer for the secretary to the provisions. These “specific” officials were assisted by other officials as the xtmw hrya[n imy-ra xtmt], sealer and assistant to [the treasurer] and his imy-sA122, bodyguard. In other circumstances, when the documents relate to projects commissioned by the Palace, we can also find names of officials of national importance, including the treasurer xtmty-bity, imy-ra xtmt. They are usually assisted by a wHmw n arryt, reporter of the palace-approach, who was also connected to the central administration, in particular the “Big House”, the king’s residence. He usually

Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 32. Cf. Quirke 2001, p. 83. 125 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 127 and Ward n. 433 and ff. 126 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 124 and for the translation of the term sA as phyle, cf. also p. 119. 127 Cf. Ward n. 754.f 128 Cf. Ward n. 971. 129 Cf. Ward n. 671. 130 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 52 and Ward n. 1498. 131 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 52 and above the discussion about Xtmw nTr. 132 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 52 and Ward nn. 1497-8. 123 124

Cf. A 40; cf. Quirke 2004, p. 70 and Ward n. 1357. Cf. A 33; A 34. 118 Cf. Quirke 2005. 119 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 82. 120 Cf. 35 A. 121 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 62. 122 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 67. 116 117

45

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty 3.1.6 List of administrative officials

St-Ht[Hr], xtmw hryan imy-r xtmt (B 32)

anxw, HAty-a, xtmty bity, it nTr, imy-r AH.wt, sS Hwt-nTr, imyra mrw, wHmw, son of Mr.s-tx, it nTr (A 14; cf. Franke 1984, p. 139, n. 177)

Sth-m-sA.f, imy.r pr n praA (A 11) KAy, s n imy-HA.t (A 12) Kki, imy-r pr (A 15)

I.y, s n imy-HAt, (A 12)

Kmni, rxw nsw mAa mry, iry-a.t wdpw, imy-r st (n) Hsty, Hry sStA n iawt-r nswt (m Ts xawwt nb tAwy) (A 16)

I.y n(i), wdpw (A 12) Ib, iry-at n pr HD

qA-mAw, xtmw n Sms n arryt (B 7)

Ib, imy-r st (A 13)

DAf- Hr-m-sA.f, xtmw-nTr, imy-ra Xnwty wr n pr HD (B 13, B 14, B 15, B 16, B 24, B 25, B 26)

Ipw-aAmw, wdpw (A 12) Imny imy-r pr, father of Sn-Wsrt-snbw; husband of the nbt pr x(w)yy-Sbk/SA-St (A 12 and Marseille n. 22)

Papyri anx.ty.fy, iry-at, son of Ipw (A 40, K. I.1; UC 32058)

Imn-m-HAt-snbHnaf, iry-at strw, son of St-Imn (A 10)

Impy, xrp (A 33)

Ini-m-wbA, s n imy-HA.t (A 12, Marseille n. 22)

ink[…]-s, iry-aA n Hwt-nTr (A 37)

In-m-wa (o xA?), son of Hnnt (A 12, Marseille n. 22) Irri, iry-at (A 10)

Ihy-snb dD n.f anx-rn, xtmw hryan imy-r xtmt and xtmw kAf-ib n xrp kAwt, brother of wAH, son of Ipst (A 40, K. I. 1 (r. 6), recto UC 32058; K. XIII. 9-18)

Wnmi (or Kki), iry-at wdpw (A 12)

Iri-sw, bAk n pr-dt (A 33)

Wrḥp, imy-r pr a(A)rw(t), (A 10)

ItA, Smsw (A 34)

WrHp-Rn.f-snb, imy-r pr n strw, son of HD-n-t (A 10)

wAH, wab Hry sA n Spdw nb iAbtt, brother of Ihy-snb dD n.f anx-rn, son of Ipst. (A 40, K. I. 1 (r. 6), recto (UC 32058)

IrrhAb.f, iry-at (A 10)

Ppy, wdpw n HqA (Marseille 22); iry-at wdpw son of It, (A 12)

Rs, tAw n sS kaw (A 36)

PtH-Nfr, wt Inpw (B 14)

Mikt, wab nswt (A 37)

Mnxib, xtmw hrya n imy-r xtmt (B 10)

Htw, imy-r pr (A 33)

Mrrw, imy-r ahnwty (B 20 and Franke 1984, p.191, n. 275)

Hnat, xrp (A 33)

MDAw (A 12; Marseille n. 22, Franke 1984, n. 280)

HA-anx.f, Hry wrw (A 37)

Nfr-mAat (?), xtmw hrya n imy-r xtmt (B 14)

xw-nfri, wHmw n arryt (A 39, A 26)

Ray […], Hry pr (Louvre C 17, cf. Franke 1984, p. 231, n. 352)

xmm, bAk n pr-dt (A 34) Xty-anx, Tsw, son of […]w, (A 39)

Rn.fsnb, Xrty-nTr (B 12)

SA-kA-inw, imy-ra Xnwty (A 33)

Rn.snb, wr mdw Smaw (A 16, A 27, A 28, A 29, Franke 1984, n. 373)

Sn-wsrt, xtmty bity, smr waty, imy-r xtmt (A 40) Sn-wsrt, idnw (A 34)

Rs-snb, xtmty-bity, imy-ra mSa wr (B 4)

Snb, iry at, son of Snb (A 40)

xwyy, iry-at wdpw (A 13)

Snb, Smsw (A 33)

xms, s n aHaw (A 12)

SA-kA-inw, xtmw (A 33)

Xty-snby, imy-r ahnwty n at Hnkt (B 20)

Snb.ti.fy, imy-r st (A 36, A 25)

Spdw, iry-at n pr HD (B 13)

Snbf, imy-r st (A 36)

Snwsrt-anx, imy-r niwt, TA.ty tAy.ty (C 5)

Snbi, irw arryt (A 33)

Sn-wsrt-snb, xtmw hrya n imy-r xtmt (A 13, Marseille n. 22)

Sbk.Htp, xtmw hry (A 36)

Sbk-Htp, xtmw hryan imy-r xtmt (A 12)

SHtp-ib-ra, bAk-im (A 34)

Snbw, imy-r n hrtyw-ntr (B 9)

Gbw, idnw (A 40)

Snaa-ib, xtmw hrya n imy-r xtmt (B 10)

Kwm.n.f, sS n aqw (A 36) 46

The Administration the first register, there are xtmw hry-a n imy-r xtmt Snwsrt-snb and Sbk-Htp who carried out their assignments during the reigns of Amenemhat III and his successor135; this Sobekhotep, perhaps, can be identified with the xtmw hry-a [n imy-r Xtmt] Sbk-Htp of the document dated to Amenemhat IV’s first regnal year136.

Km.n.i, Ss wHaw (A 40, K. I.1; UC 32058) Tti, imy-sA (A 36) Tr[…], imy-r ahnwti (A 34) […].f, wab nswt (A 37) 3.2. Prosopographical Analysis

The treasurer-assistant Sobekhotep is also attested among the inscriptions from Wadi Maghara137 in Sinai, dating to Amenemhat III’s 41st and 42nd regnal years. Senwsret-seneb and Sobekhotep are also the dedicators of another stela138, also coming from Abydos, but dating to Amenemhat III’s reign. The interesting fact is that many characters of the stela A 12 can also be found in this latter.

In this section, the individual characters attested in the documents bearing Amenemhat IV’s name are analysed, where possible, for their genealogical relationships, career, biographical data, and other personal details. Stela A 10 belongs to the imy-r pr n strw, son of Hedjenet (HD-n.t), Werhap-Renefsonb, official of the Treasury and dedicator of a stele showing other characters related to him both by family ties, as the iry-at strw Imn-m-HAt-snbHnaf, and for professional reasons, such as the iry-at IrrhAb.f and the iry-at Irri, probably his assistants. In a certain sense, we are in the presence of a stele of dual nature, both familiar and professional. The presence of officials designated as iry-at, normally used in the Sna sector, makes it plausible that the main dedicator also belonged to the Sna, but as already mentioned, the debate is still open.

In the lower registers, we mention wdpw Ipw-aAm, Ipu “the Asian”139 and the wdpw n HqA and iry-at wdpw Ppy, as well as the imy-r pr Imny and the three s n imy-HA.t (or in the variation s [n] aHaw) I.y, Iny-m-wa (o xA?), KAy, xms140. The fact that so many individuals bearing so many different titles appear on the same stela from Abydos supports the idea that stela dedicators were able to erect votive chapels. They could have participated in the same expeditions by boat coming from the Palace or expeditions directed to Abydos due to a royal commission141.

According to the genealogy reconstructed on the basis of information from the stele, Hedjenet was the mother of Werhap-Renefsonb and Sitamun, the parents respectively of Werhap “the young” and Rensoneb, and AmenemhatSonbhenaef and Hor. Both Werhap-Renefsonb and his nephew, Amenemhat-Sonbhenaef, occupied positions in the same sector, a clue which allows us to suppose that, perhaps, this family relationship enabled the career of his nephew.

The Lahun letters represent a cross-section of a city-center administration. In letter A 33, the two interlocutors are the bAk n pr-dt Iri-sw, servant of the personal estate, Irisu and the imy-ra Xnwty SA-kA-inw, overseer of the estate Sikainu; the presence of an Asian in the foundation, Iker (aAm n Hwt, Ikr), is very interesting. We find also the xrp142, Hnat, the director Henat, the xrp Impy, director Impy, the arryt Snbi, director of the portal, Senebi and the xtmw SA-kA-inw, sealbearer Sikainu, and finally the Smsw Snb, attendant Seneb and the imy-r pr Htw, cupbearer Hetu are also remembered. A 34, in a certain way, represents a similar case: it is a fragment of a letter bearing only the names of the sender, the bAk n pr-dt xmm, and the recipient, the imy-r ahnwti tr[…], an official of the Treasury whose name, however, has been lost.

Khenty-Khety-Hotep (xnty-Xty-Htp)’s case is notable, too: it is a theophoric name of the god Khenty-Khety and perhaps reveals the northern origin of its owner. The document A 13 is a typical family-stela where the iry-at wdpw xwyy133, hall-keeper and cupbearer Khuy, is the main dedicator. In spite of the many other individuals mentioned, only one other man bears an administrative title: the imy-r st Ib, overseer of a storehouse Ib134.

Papyrus A 38, dated on the verso to Amenemhat IV’s reign, does not bear officials’ names, but registers some workers’ names on the recto, probably dated to Amenemhat III’s reign. It is possible to conclude that this document dates to the period of co-regency and therefore that characters

The document A 12 is the Louvre stele C7, already mentioned many times in this paper. It is a pillar of a type very common during the late Twelfth Dynasty, when a thematic change in the choice of secondary characters is notable. According to an extensively and previously testified use, two officials of the same rank share the same monument appearing in the same register; but on the Louvre stela, instead of letting the lower space at the disposal of the respective family groups, we find several colleagues and subordinates, arranged in symmetric groups. In

See Chapter 2: Succession and Co-regency. Cf. A 36. For this title, cf. Quirke 2004, p. 53. 137 Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, n. 27, 28, pp. 68-69. 138 Stela Marseilles 22, cf. Moret 1890, p.113 and Franke 1984, p. 310, n. 508. This stela has been inserted in the prosopographical analysis even if it does not belong to Amenemhat IV’s reign because of the amount of coincidences; for a complete list of correspondences cf. Leprohon 1980, Appendix, p. 336 and ff. 139 About this character see Chapter 6: The Foreign Lands. 140 Cf. Gardiner P 7. 141 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 59. 142 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 82. 135 136

Cf. Quirke 1986, p. 120 and Ward n. 467. Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 66 and Ward n. 313.For the other characters, probably all members of the dedicator’s family, we only report genealogical information only. 133 134

47

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Documents belonging to group B all come from the borderlands and record the presence of officials of the Treasury in charge of the procurement of goods and luxury materials.

mentioned here were also active during Amenemhat IV’s reign, in particular during his second regnal year143. Document A 39 is a fragment of an account relating to the revenue (inw) of high-ranking officials. The date assigned to it during Amenemhat IV’s reign, uncertain as always, is based on several conclusions drawn by Griffith144; the document could equally well belong to Senwsret III or Amenemhat III’s reigns. The presence of a treasurer’s name – the xtmty bity, smr waty, imy-r xtmt Snwsrt, Senwsret – is notable. The epithets xtmty bity and smr waty suggest that he was an official of the highest level linked to the central administration and his presence in elLahun could be explained on the basis of the construction works that affected this area at the end of the Twelfth Dynasty145. Together with Senwsret, a wHmw n arryt called xwnfri146 and the Tsw Xty-anx, the reporter of the portal Khunefer and commander Khetyankh are remembered. This Khunefer could be identified with the owner of the seal from Lahun dated at the end of the Twelfth Dynasty147.

Stela B 32 commemorates Amenemhat IV’s mining expedition to Wadi el-Hudi. The dedicator bears several ranking-titles, of which the most significant is rx nsw mAa. This is the xtmw Hry-a n imy-r xtmt, St-Ht[Hr], seal-bearer, assistant to the overseer to the Treasury, Sit-Hathor; it is known that he led an expedition to the land of Shau or Bia (Saw/biA), both terms designating the desert of the amethyst (Hsmn) in the Wadi el-Hudi. The xtmw, [imy-r] aHaw MnTbt, the seal-bearer and shipmaster Mentjebet, participated in this expedition. This title is of uncertain reading, but considering its frequently abbreviated writing, it seems to be the most probable one151. The fact that Mentjebet is mentioned beside the shipmaster and that the title is preceded by the expression xtmw suggests he held a position of national importance.

Document A 40148 is a deed of conveyance of the wab ḥry sA n Spdw nb iAbtt, wAH, Wah, done in favour of his wife gs-iAb sAt-Spdw sAt Sftw Ddt n.s Tti, the daughter of Gesiab Sat-Sopedu, Shaftu, called Tethys. Besides providing evidence of administrative staff working in the temples during Amenemhat IV’s reign, this papyrus allows us to indirectly theorise that this king’s reign incorporated the xtmw hryan imy-r xtmt and xtmw kAf-ib n xrp kAwt Ihy-snb dD n.f anx-rn149, Ihyseneb called Ankh-ren, son of Ipset.

Stela B 7 from Serabit el-Khadim mentions several officials of the Treasury, firstly the dedicator, the HAty-a SASpdw, foremost of action152 Sa-Sopedu, a title that is too vague to allow us to determine this individual’s role. SaSopedu’s epithets are interesting, he is firm of step (mnnmtt), silent of foot (hr-nmtt)153, the one who does what his lord approves ([irr] Hsst nb.f)154, the one who crosses foreign countries for the lord of the Two Lands (hbhb xAswt n nb tAwy)155. These epithets link the document to the many inscriptions testifying to private Egyptian interests beyond the border of the Delta. Moreover, they are all linked to travelling and exploring foreign lands and are usually brought by envoys of the king in search of raw materials156.

From the same document we learn that there was a xA n wHmw snnw n rsy, Bureau of the second reporter for the South, evidently referring both to the vizier’s representative in whose presence the first of the two deeds was prepared (and then copied in Wah’s papyrus) and the administrative office where this document was filed. This is most probably a reference to the known administrative division of the city into two areas: rst wart / wart mHtt, respectively the southern and northern sectors150. However, it is also possible that the expression n rsy refers to the Fayyum region or, more generally, to Upper Egypt, leaving viable the possibility that Ankhren was stationed in the south of the country. Finally, among those who witnessed the document, the Ss wHaw Km.n.i, Kemeni is mentioned. At the end of the text, before the list of witnesses and, judging by the handwriting, probably added at a later time, we see that the idnw Gbw, Gebu, would have rtutored Wah’s son until his coming of age.

The possibility that Sa-Sopedu was an expedition member to Sinai is suggested by the presence of the xtmw n Sms n arryt qmAw, Kemau. One hypothesis is that Kemau participated to the expedition of the year 4 of Amenemhat IV and that he was employed in the management of valuable goods linked to Hathor’s temple. Inscription B 8 from Wadi Maghara, which dates to Amenemhat IV’s sixth regnal year, mentions a man called Khuy, whose title according to Gardiner is iry-at n pr aA157. However, if we consider the document’s place of origin and the need for brevity typical of this kind of source, as well as the final sign pr, we are inclined to interpret the hieroglyphs of the title as iry-at n pr HD, with a graphic variant of the sign HD written horizontally. On the basis of this official’s role and the regnal year of this document, we

See Chapter 2: Succession and Co-regency. Cf. Griffith 1898, p. 43 and ff. 145 Cf. Grajetzki 2001, p. 8. 146 Cf. A 26 and Martin 1971, n. 1188 pl. 46 (11). 147 Martin n. 1188. 148 About this document and Wah see Quirke 2005, pp. 78-79. 149 Cf. A 40. For titling and documents about this character, cf. Quirke 2004, p. 52 and Ward n. 1498; Franke 1984, p. 145, n. 145. 150 Cf. Quirke 1990, p. 167. 143

Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 33 and Chevereu 1992, n. 371, p. 17. Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 111. 153 Cf. Doxey 1998, p. 341 (10.6). 154 Cf. Doxey 1998, p. 271 (2.16). 155 Cf. Doxey 1998, p. 341 (10.4) 156 Cf. Redford 1992, pp. 80-81 and note 56; for a list of the epithets cf. Blumenthal 1977, pp. 91-93; Doxey 1998, p. 75. 157 Cf. Gardiner, Peet, Černý 1955, p. 71, n. 33, pl. XII.

144

151 152

48

The Administration One of the two dedicators165 of stele B 14 is aw n StT Mntw-Htp, Montuhotep: the title and epithets suggest a non-Egyptian origin for this official, who perhaps hailed from Asia.

are inclined to conclude that this Khuy is not the same as the one mentioned in document A 13. Document B 8 also mentions Xrty.nTr Swty-mAa, the stonecutter Sutimaa [?]. The inscriptions B 9 and B 10 also belong to the sixth regnal year of Amenemhat IV and are closely related to document B 8. The former is referred to as the imy-r n hrtyw-ntr Snbw, Senebu, while the second mentions the two xtmw hrya n imy-r xtmt Snaa-ib and Mnxib, Senaayeb and Menkhyb (?)158. The title of xtmw hrya n imy-r xtmt, as already discussed, referred to the assistant of the director of royal projects. Thus, we could venture an identification between this Sennayyeb and his namesake, the owner of a seal from Lisht159, designated by the titles of xrp and Tsw. This identification is made given that both xrp and Tsw may not be permanent titles, but instead related to a contingent project and often held by Treasury officials160. In the same document, the Hry-pr, qAw Mrru, Mereru is mentioned. Another character with this name is known161, but the comparison between the two title-strings makes a common identification very unlikely.

Among the participants of the expedition of the ninth year, chronicled in B 15, are the xtmw hry-a n imy-r xtmt NfrmAat, Nefermaat, the iry-at n pr HD Ib, and the wt Inpw PtH. Nfr, Embalmer of Anubi Ptahnefer. The dedicatory inscription of the Shrine of the Kings (B 16, b) includes a special feature: aAm Wr-xrp-Hmw, Wrkherephemut, the Asian is mentioned. He bears a long string of titles: he is sAb Hry-tp Xr(y)-Hbt, Ss, and Hm nTr, that is, judge, first senior lector166, scribe and priest. It is interesting to focus on the use of the title of the first prophet of Memphis (Wr-xrp-Hmw) as proper name167 – perhaps related to the individual’s foreign origin – and the mixture of civil and religious titles. The presence of this character inside the Shrine of the Kings clearly indicates his importance and should be placed in relation to another official: Djaf-Horemsaf168.

In document B 13 we find another iry-at n pr HD Spdw162. It is interesting that the same individual also possesses a religious qualification; Sopedu is also Hm-nTr, priest of the goddess Hathor.

Private stelae from Sinai also offer testimonies of officials with long careers. From B 20, for example, we know that some of Senwsret III’s officials kept their position into Amenemhat IV’s reign: this is the conclusion Franke proposed for this document when he identifies the imyrahnwty Mrrw169 mentioned on its western side with the homonymous individual attested in documents dating from Senwsret III’s reign. The main dedicator of this stela is, however, the imy-r ahnwty n at ḥnkwt Ixty-snb, Ikhetyseneby170, represented along with his brothers Rensoneb and Intef. This might be the same person mentioned on the wall-inscription B 21 (c) where we see an assembly of the king and his courtiers and the enumerated merits and qualifications of some of the officials whose name is lost.

On the northern side, in the lower margin of the stela B 13, a character is represented sitting in front of a rich offering table accompanied by an poorly preserved description, which Gardiner translates as imy-r xtmt, kfA-ib Ib-Nt, mAat xrw nbt imAx, treasurer, open-hearted, Ib-Neith, justified, the venerable. He states that this is the only known case of a woman bearing this qualification. If we consider the state of the inscription, the woman’s title may also be that of xtmw kfA-ib or that of xtmty bity. This definition, which is exceptional163, reveals perhaps that sometimes women were allowed to bear some titles of function as ranking title or epithets. In fact, it is unlikely that Ib-Neith was actually a treasurer, but the fact that she appears on an official stela reveals her importance164. It should be noted, however, that nothing in the picture suggests that the character represented is a woman, and it may be more plausible that Ib-Neith’s name was the Treasurer’s matronymic: the text was already deteriorated at the time of Gardiner’s publication, and perhaps the treasurer’s full name was lost. On the same side of the stela, in a long list, the Xrty-nTr Rn.f-snb, Renefseneb is mentioned among the expedition participants.

From Nile-level graffiti from the Semna fortress (B 4), we learn of the existence of a xtmty-bity, imy-ra mSa wr Rs-snb, Res-seneb. The presence of the title xtmty-bity represents, without a doubt, an interesting biographical clue: it emphasises the importance of Res-seneb at both the national and local level: “[…] an army general working on a national scope”171. This allows us to place this official

For the other one, see the digression about Djaf-Horemsaf. For the title of Hry-tp Xr(y)-Hbt cf. Quirke 2004, pp. 38, 125, Ward n. 1205 and for the same title preceded by the sign sAb cf. Ward n. 1270 and Quirke 1986, n. 36, where the use of sAb is marked as indicating «a specific individual in a position of state”. I would be inclined to give this title the latter interpretation, rather than keep the translation ‘judge’ proposed by Gardiner (cf. in Gardiner, Peet, Černý 1955, vol. II, p. 128, n. 123 B). See above. 167 Cf. Gardiner, Peet, Černý 1955, vol. II, p. 128, n. n. 168 See below. 169 Cf. Franke 1984, p. 191, n. 275, identifying him with the imy-ra Xnwty Mrrw (n xpr-kA-Raw) of the inscription IS 81 and with the inscriptions IS 146 and 151. In Gardiner, Peet, Černý 1955, vol. II, p. 128, n. 35 a Hry pr Mrrw is mentioned, however it is improbable that the different title corresponds to the same Mrrw of the document B 19. 170 Cf. Grajetzki 2004, p. 72. 171 Yvanez 2010, p. 17; cf. also Quirke 2004, pp. 98-99. 165 166

158 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 53 and Gardiner, Peet, Černý 1955, p. 71, n. 35, pl. XI. 159 Martin 1478, cf. also Quirke 2004, p. 83. 160 Cf. for example A 31. 161 Cf. B 20. 162 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 58, Ward n. 477. 163 Cf. Gardiner, Peet, Černý 1955, vol. II, p. 123 and Ward n. 1501. 164 Cf. Gardiner, Peet, Černý 1955, n. 120, vol. II, p. 123 and as for the use of function titles and ranking titles by women, cf. Grajetzki 2005, p. 157 and ff.

49

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty at the apex of the military hierarchy operating in Nubia172. Among the Semna and Kumma graffiti, such a wideranging association of titles is found in only one other case: xtmty-bity, imy-ra mSa wr Rn-snb173, seal-bearer of the king, chief-overseer of the army Ren-seneb, official in charge of the Semna fortress during Sobek-hotep I or Sobek-hotep II’s reign. This second document reports:

Considering the great importance of the mining expeditions during Amenemhat IV’s reign, a digression about the figure of the best-attested official of this king’s reign is appropriate. He is Djaf-Horemsaf (dAf-Hr-m-sA.f), or Djaf (DAf), who was the expedition-leader to Sinai during Amenemhat IV’s sixth, eigth and ninth regnal years. In the monuments bearing his name, Djaf bears relevant ranking titles revealing his importance at court, including: sealbearer of the king, royal acquaintance, king’s sole friends, the one who is in charge of the secrets of the two twin Goddesses and Foster-child180 of the king of Upper Egypt (B 13). What is interesting, however, are the two function titles of xtmw-nTr and imy-r aXnwty wr n pr HD, both of which are specific to the expedition-leader.

r n Hapy HAt-sp 3 xr Hm n nswt bjty (Sxm-Ra-xwj-tAwj) dj anX Dt xt.f wnn xtmty bjty jmy-r mSa Rn-snb Hr Ts m mnnw Sxm-(xaj-kAw-Ra)-mAa-xrw Comparing the two documents, it is impossible not to notice the similarities: in the title, in the similar structure of the text, in the same choice of words – unusually long for a Nile-level graffito – in their provenence from Semna174 and finally in the official’s name. Although both Rs-snb and Rn-snb are frequently attested175 names, an common identification between the two officials does not seem out of place: Ren-seneb / Res-seneb would thus have served during both sovereigns’ reigns and perhaps even during the intermediate periods. Unfortunately, document B 4 is now lost and it is difficult to verify from the existing photographs whether these are actually two different names or if the difference is due to a misreading. It is important to remember that the chronology, succession and identity of the two Thirteenth Dynasty kings are still hotly debated176, including the identification of Sxm-Raxwj-tAwj with Sobek-hotep I or with Sobek-hotep II177. However, if we consider the first hypothesis valid, the possibility of identification between Ren-seneb and Resseneb would be further supported, as the amount of time elapsed between Amenemhat IV’s reign and the following king’s would decrease.

Djaf-Horemsaf is probably also the patron of the first rock hall of the Shrine of Ptah and of the final arrangement of the Shrine of Hathor, located just north of the previous one. The monuments testifying to Djaf’s interventions include three official stelae, two of them equipped with an offering table (B 13, B 15, B 25, B 26), and a private stela (B 14) whose original location remains uncertain. His contribution to the Shrine of Ptah is expressed through the many direct references to this deity in B 13, in particular where, on the eastern side, at the bottom of a winged sun-disk with cobras, a scene depicts the king standing with two gods: Ptah on the left, and Hathor on the right. The figures are flanked by the inscriptions “[…] beloved of Ptah, South of his wall, who gives kAw (food)” and “[…] beloved of Hathor, Lady of Turquoise, the One who resides in DADA “; finally, above the figure of Ptah it reads: “[…] Sokar, […] lord of anx-tAwy”. This stela was originally placed in front of the two shrines. In addition to these documents, pillar B 15 is particularly interesting; it dates to Amenemhat IV’s ninth regnal year and defines the final alignment of the stelae in front of Hathor’s portico.

The other army official dated with certainty to Amenemhat IV’s reign is attested in document B 6; he is Tsw, Nb(i)pw178, Neb(i)-pw.

Moreover, in analogy with his predecessor Ptahwer (PtHwr), who worked for Amenemhat III181, Djaf’s interventions at Serabit el-Khadim focused on the Shrine of the Kings. Djaf-Horemsaf was responsible for the widening of the chapel to the west and of the consequent extension of the portico, as evidenced by a wall-inscription inside the chapel (B 15) and by a stela (B 24) that was probably one of two, originally placed in a symmetrical position on the eastern side. In addition, a private stela (B 12), of a kind common in Serabit el-Khadim and dedicated to the god Nemty, was erected in Amenemhat IV’s sixth regnal year as a counterpart to the IS 414 placed by Ptahwer. Both Djaf-Horemsaf and Ptahwer are depicted in front of an offering table on the walls of the Shrine of the Kings

The port of Mersa Gawasis also gives testimony of what has been defined by its excavators as real administrative activity documenting the port control of imported goods, as has also confirmed in the area by the discovery of several wooden boxes where goods were transported179. During Amenemhat IV’s reign, a certain xrp skw Ddi (B 29) also bears the title of royal scribe (sS nsw).

Cf. Quirke 2004, pp. 97-98. Cf. Dunaham-Jannsen 1960, RIS 3, p.131, pl. 93B; Hintze-Reineke 1989, n. 509, p.152; Chevareau 1991, p. 45, n. 8, doc. 2; Yvanez 2010, pp. 17, 46 (SNM 34370). 174 Cf. Chapter 5: The Borderlands; 5.1 Nubia. 175 Cf. respectively PN I, 226, 25 and PN I, 222, 26. 176 Cf. for example Ryholt 1997, pp. 12-13, 71, 208, 296-297, 318-320, 408. 177 For the identification with Sobekhotep I, cf. Baker 2008, 443-444; Quirke 2010, 78-79; Peden 2001, p. 51; while for the identification with Sobekhotep II cf. Baker 2008, p. 444 notes; Tallet 2005, p. 71-72; Yvanez 2010, p. 17, 46 (SNM 34370); Chevareau 1991, p. 45, n. 8, doc. 2. 178 For this title cf. Quirke 2004, p. 83 and 102. 179 Pirelli 2008, p. 16 and see Chapter 5: The Borderlands; 5.3 Mersa Gawasis. 172 173

For the relationship between this title with other pertinent to chief expedition, as xtmw-nTr and imy-r aXnwty wr n pr HD specific to the chief expedition, Quirke hypothesised that: “Ineterior-overseerer was a palace official sent in charge of an expedition detachment” (cf. Quirke 2004, p. 28). 181 As for this character cf. Bonnet 1996, pp. 30-31 and cf., for example, Gardiner, Peet, Černý 1955, n. 108, 109, 110, 124 b. 180

50

The Administration Il s’agirait, inversement, d’un monument royal sur lequel un particulier a été admis à inscrire son nom, à titre de privilège”. In the first case, the primary function is in favour of the individual whose name is written on the document, while in the second one it should be seen as an official monument where the private citizen occupies a marginal position, however privileged.

(B 16) and this confirms the importance of the role of the expedition chief. However, from the cases of the priest of Hathor and treasury chamber-keeper Soped (Hm-nTr n Hwt-Hr, iry-at n pr-HD Spdw, B 13),and in a more interesting way, of the judge, lector-priest, scribe and prophet Ur-kherep-hemu, the Asiatic (sAb, Hry-tp Xr(y)-Hbt, Ss, Hm nTr wr-xrp-Hmw aAm, B 16182), it is clear that combining the duties of religious and administrative roles into a single post was not a prerogative of expedition-leaders. During their stay at Serabit el-Khadim, expedition members were probably responsible for the local religious services, which were perhaps connected to some religious functions they already performed in the Nile Valley183.

But what does this privilege really mean? It has been suggested that the appropriation of such privilege by the sealbearer of the God was due to the multiplicity of the high positions with which he was invested, combined with the remoteness and isolation of the place where he was, according to a practice already known for the Egyptian history187.

It is probable that the increasing importance of the expedition-leader reached its highest level with DjafHoremsaf. The importance attained by this official is then reflected by his representations, as well as the dedicatory inscriptions engraved on the walls of the Shrine of the Kings: that is, in 16 (a), 16 (b) and the scene between them. For example, Djaf’s words “[…] The beautiful present given to her […]” (16 (a), line 31) or “I have done this, by establishing her monuments […]” are more typical of regal phraseology and thus extremely uncommon for an official. Moreover, in the very badly damaged scene between the two inscriptions a man is shown, probably Djaf-Horemsaf himself, before an offering-table; of the inscription above, only the name of the gods Khenty-khety and Ptah-Sokar remain184.

However, as has been noted, the position of the sealbearer of the God was not necessarily permanent and the site could be easily controlled by officials passing through, headed to the Middle East, thus limiting the possibility of acts contrary to the rules in force188. Thus, the personal benefit that sealbearers of the God could obtain can therefore be interpreted as a reward for the worship and the celebrations they guaranteed to the gods and to their sovereign. With this premise, it seems possible to conclude that the sacred role of the sealbearer of the God increased in centrality and importance as the cult of monarchy became prominent189. In this regard, we may also venture some considerations that take into account what has already been stated about the particular value taken by Serabit el-Khadim, especially with reference to the kingship celebration190. The emphasis characterising the western part of the Shrine of the Kings reveals a precise attention paid by Amenemhat IV that could be interpreted as a sort of declaration of stability and autonomy by him, as the new king recently ascended to the throne. Similarly to what his predecessor had done with the temple of Medinet Madi, Amenemhat IV wanted to elect a specific place to celebrate both the kingship and his own reign191.

The structure of the wall inscription is also significant: all of B 16 (a) is in retrograde lines, while B 16 (b) is not, and this creates a convergence towards the image of Djaf. His presence in the context is emphasised by the consequent isolation of the entire west side of the shrine, certainly datable to the reign of Amenemhat IV185. The originality of this intent is proved by the size of the hieroglyphs. The inscription was probably copied from a complete model by a sculptor without taking into account the direction of writing. In fact, signs become smaller as the inscription proceeds from the left to the right, probably because the author realised that the available space was decreasing.

From the documents in our possession, we also know or can assume some biographical information about Djaf; he is in fact one of the few high-ranking characters who left traces of themselves in both types of monuments – public and private – as identified by Vernus. Firstly, Djaf’s name, anything but common, is very interesting. DAf-Hrm-sA.f is in fact a name consisting of the juxtaposition of two proper names, according to a widespread fashion seen especially in the second half of the Twelfth Dynasty. The studies show that even though these are unique names, the independence of the two parts still remains, so that they

In addition, if Djaf and Ptahwer’s presence on the wall of the Shrine of the Kings can still be read as a scene of official nature, the insertion of Htp-di-nsw formulas or the addition of entire offering tables for personal or family use in the official stelae are very significant (B 15). According to P. Vernus186, when on a monument the sovereign and a private citizen are shown together, there are two possible interpretations: “Il s’agirait d’un monument privé mais faisant place à l’expression directe de l’idéologie royale.

Cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 126; 136-137. Cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 156. 189 Cf. also Bonnet 1996, p. 118 with reference to IS 54 of the year 44 of Amenemhat III where an oath is mentioned. It was made by the xtmw nTr Sbk.Hr.Hb (cf. Franke 1984, p. 342, n. 571) to his king in exchange of which he received a sort of official investiture for his task, testifying once again to the importance of the role of this official and his strong link with the king. 190 See Chapter 5: The Borderlands; 5.4 Sinai. 191 See Chapter 7: Amenemhat IV: the Cult and the Policy. 187 188

See below. Cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 138. 184 Cf. also Pignattari 2011. 185 See Chapter 5: The Borderlands; 5.4 Sinai. 186 Vernus 1965, p. 835. 182 183

51

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty can still be used individually and alternatively192. The kind of relationship existing between the two names is still debated among scholars: if that relationship exists, does one name indicate a sort of patronymic, or is it a nickname?

dating of certain individuals to Amenemhat IV’s reign. This is the case of the imy-r xtmt Khenty-khety-m-saf Seneb (xnty-Xty-m-sA.f Snb): both the god mentioned, Khenty-Khety, and the name structure (god + m-sA.f and another name) are significant199.

In our case, we should start from the meaning of the two parts of the name: the word DAf is frequently attested with the determinative of xt “fire”, and means “to burn”193. However, Djaf uses the sign for wig . With this determinative, the Wörterbuch194 has the word DAA translated as “braid of hair” and shows it attested in the Middle Kingdom as a proper name195. For the name Djaf, we could assume either to be dealing with a variant of the same word or that DAf is a variant of DfD, pupil, up to now only attested in the Late Period, but perhaps already present in the Middle Kingdom, and often referring to the pupil of the eye or the solar Eye, or Horus’ Eye196. The late form is Df, which could have a final result in DAf. The second part of the name, Hr-m-sA.f, may be translated as “Horus is behind him (protecting him)”.

As for Djaf’s family, we know that he was the son of a certain Rn.s-snb, who is mentioned in B 12, B 15, B 16 and accompanied by the epithet mAa-xrw. In the fragment of the stele B 25 an official is mentioned. His name is missing and followed by the expression, completed by Gardiner, “with this official, [his] son, who makes [his name] live […]”200. We can surmise that in one of the expeditions ordered by the sovereign, Djaf-Horemsaf travelled with his son, who had already started a career in the administration. Among the sources bearing Djaf’s name, the official pays tribute to numerous deities, for example to Khenty-Khety. If Hathor, Ptah and Soped’s presences are obvious and motivated by local theology201, Khenty-Khety’s is much more interesting202.

Without any doubt it is a unique name, and it is possible that two juxtaposed parts are not connected in terms of meaning. We could, however, venture some hypotheses: either a link to the braid of hair worn by children and the consequent protection afforded to the newborn by the Horus-child, or a genitival link between DAf and Hr that would lead to the following translation: “The djaf of Horus is behind him” (in a protective sense)197. In the documents, the name of Djaf-Horemsaf appears written in many different graphic variants and often abbreviated as DAfy, which could be a diminutive on the model of Imny for Amenemhat. It is interesting to note that the use of these variants does not seem to follow special rules distinguishing between official and private documents; it is true, however, that in the documents where Djaf is mentioned for the first time with his whole name, it is often abbreviated in subsequent mentions.

In my opinion, one more detail worthy of mention is the use of the epithet mAa xrw, “justified” – which is usually applied to the dead – on a private stela and by the dedicator himself. Actually, it is a fairly common phenomenon, especially in the marginal areas of the country where the use of a funerary epithet did not refer to an actual death, but was rather a guarantee of devotion for the future dedicator’s condition203. 3.3. Conclusions The case of Djaf-Horemsaf, along with those shown by the available documents and an analysis of onomastics and titling reveal the existence of a comprehensive class of officials. Grajetzki, in describing the functioning of the central administration, distinguishes between the group of “ministers” and the class of high-level officials. The first category includes those officials who were loyalists accompanying the king, under whose guidance the whole country was directed:they were led by the vizier and the treasurer. Officials of the second category, with the most widely-varying administrative titles, are attested in numerous monuments, and the presence of the same names in different parts of Egypt reveals that they were equipped with a certain mobility, which leads us to assume that they were sent on missions to different places. Their activity is also attested by the presence of numerous seals or seal impressions. Let us consider the case of the imy-r

The spread of the double name has been the subject of much study and analysis, and has been interpreted as a manifestation of the “spirit of delineation”, a characteristic of the end of the Middle Kingdom198. Therefore, on the basis of the name structure, it is possible to suggest the Cf. Vernus 1971, p. 193. Cf. Wb. V, p. 522. 194 Cf. Wb. V, p. 523. 195 Cf. Wb. V, p. 520. 196 Cf. Wb. V, p. 573 (1-7). 197 Another hypothesis to be verified is the possible link of this onomastic form with the case of a hieratic papyrus from el-Lahun (cf. Collier-Quirke 2006, pp. 50-51; pK. VI.18, pUC 32130) containing two lists of names disposed in two columns and connected in pairs. In Quirke’s opinion (personal author’s), in the first column they recorded the names given at the birth to which they added those of the second column once the owner reached adulthood. The fact that not all names in the first column present an association with a name in the second one could be explained by the premature death of the owner. 198 Cf. P. Vernus, Le surnom au Moyen Empire, Parigi 1989 and S. Quirke, Identifying the Officials of the Fifteenth Dynasty, in M. Bietak-E. Černý, Scarabs of the Second Millenium BC from Egypt, Symposium, Vienna 10th-13th January 2002, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna 2004, p. 171. 192 193

Cf. Vernus 1970, p. 157 and DAf-Hr.-m-sA.f, Nmty-m-sA.f. The dedicator’s name of the Abydian stela A 11, the imy.r pr n praA Sth-m-sA.f, shows the same genesis of the name. 200 A typical phraseology of the last part of the Twelfth Dynasty identifying the other dedicators as sons, brother or father of the main one (Fischer 1957, p. 225). 201 See Chapter 5: The Borderlands; 5.4 Sinai. 202 See below. This theme, showing considerations valid in general for Serabit el-Khadim and not for the administration properly, will be treated as digression about these gods in Chapter 5: The Borderlands; 5.4 Sinai. 203 Cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 158, Leprohon 1980, p. 308 and ff. and also Rosati 2009, p. 169. 199

52

The Administration st Snb.ti.fy204 (A 36 and A 25) or the three seals205 of the wr mdw Smaw Rn-snb (A 16, A 27, A 28 and A 29), whose tomb was discovered untouched in Thebes; or also the case of the seal-impression of the wHmw n a-rryt xw-nfry206 discovered at el-Lahun (A 39 and A 26). Amenemhat IV’s name is found in various stelae from Abydos: in addition to those of the two Hry-a n imy-r xtmt S-n-wsrt and Sbk-Htp (A 12) or that of the imy-r pr n praA SwtH-msA.f (A 11) where the king is remembered together with his predecessor, we can then mention also the two stelae of the iry-at wdpw xuy (A 13) and the imy-r pr n strw WrHpRnfsnb (A 10).

Imny, imy-r pr father of Sn-Wsrt-snbw; husband of the nbt pr x(w)yy-Sbk (A 12 and Marseille n. 22, Franke 1984, n. 92) Imn-m-HAt-snbHnaf, iry-at strw son of St-Imn (A 10) Imn-m-anx (10 A) In.m.wa (A 12, Marseille n. 22) son of Hnnt (A 12, Marseille n. 22, Franke 1984, n. 148) In.it.f brother of Hty-snb (B 20, b) Ixty-snb imy-r‛hnwty nat ḥnkt (B 20) IrrhAbf, iry-at (A 10)

The question asked at the beginning of this chapter – that is, if the administrative system created in the second half of the Twelfth Dynasty was continued into Amenemhat IV’s reign – can therefore find an answer, even if partial. By analysing the sources, it can be concluded that there was a class of officials employed by the king whose activity, as witnessed in different parts of the country, has testified to the variety and detailed definition of an efficient and operational system that was ultimately quite similar to the one developed by Senwsret III and perfected by Amenemhat III.

Irri, iry-at (A 10) Iry, nbt pr (A 11) Irfa-nx-sqr, son of Ip (A 13) Irt, mother of qmAw (B 7) Ir-its, daughter of It and mother of Iw (A 13) It, nbt pr, daughter of Hnnt (A 12) It, mother of Ir-its (A 13) It, mother of the wdpw Ppy (A 12)

3.4. Prosopographical List

It, mother of the iry-at wdpw Wnmi (or Kki) (A 12)

i

Itti, nbt daughter of Ipy (A 12)

I[…], mother of Mrrw (B 10)

a

I.y, s n imy-HAt (A 12)

anxw, Haty-a, xtmty bity, it nTr, imy-r AH.wt, sS Hwt-nTr, imyra mrw, wHmw, son of Mr.s-tx (A 14, cf. Franke 1984, p. 139, n. 177)

I.y n(i), wdpw (A 12) Iw, daughter of Ir-its (A 13)

anx.f, father of Ib (A 13)

Iw.snb, Ss (B 14) Ii, daughter of Mry; nbt pr (A 12)

w

Ib, son of HDt (A 13)

Wnmi (or Kki), iry-at wdpw son of It (A 12)

Ib, imy-r st, son of anx.f (A 13)

Wr-ni-PtH (A 10)

Ib, iry-at n pr HD (B 15)

Wrḥp, imy-r pr a(A)rw(t) (A 10)

Ib, son of Hnw, father of xwy (B 15)

Wrḥp (A 10)

Ib-anx, son of Hnw (A 13)

Wrḥp-Rnfsnb imy-r pr n strw, son of HD-n-t (A 10)

Ib.Nt, xmty bity/ xtmw kfA-ib Ib-Nt (B 13)

Wr-xrp-Hmw, aAm, sAb, Hry-tp Xr(y)-Hbt, Ss, Hm nTr (B 15)

Ibw, wr sinw (B 15)

p

Ip, father of Irfa-nx-sqr (A 13)

Ppy father of Mi-rt (A 12)

Ipw-aAmw, wdpw (A 12)

Ppy daughter of Hnnt (A 12)

Ipy, mother of Itti (A 12)

Ppy wdpw n HqA (Marseille 22); iry-at wdpw son of It (A 12; Franke 1984, n. 237)

Imny (A 12)

PtH-wr, imy-r aXnwty wr n pr HD (A 20) PtH.Nfr, wt Inpw, father of Gb.wr (?) (B 15)

Cf. BM 32568. Cf. Martin 1971, n. 1593 pl. 24 (31). 205 Cairo: JE 75162 cf. Martin 1971, n. 832 pl. 4 (7); Boston: MFA 723615 cf. Martin 1971, n. 833 pl. 39 (2); Cf. Martin 1979, n. 17 pp. 217 and ff. 206 Cf. Martin 1971, n. 1188 pl. 46 (11). 204

PtH-Htp (A 10) Ppi-Hmt, mother of MDA (A 12) 53

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Rn.snb (B 15)

Prt, mother of Hnwt-sn (C 5)207

Rn.snb (10 A)

f

Rn.snb, brother of Ixty-snb (B 20)

Fn (B 15)

Rn.s-snb, mother of dAf Hr-m-sA.f (B 12, B 13, B 16) m

Rswnfr (A 10)

MAt, nbt pr, mother of Sbw (B 9)

Rsw (A 10)

Mmyt, mother of Mnx-ib (B 10)

Rs-snb, daughter of Mrt (A 12)

Mn-Tbt, xtmw, [imy-ra] Ahaw (B 32)

Rs.ti Hmty (?) (12 A)

Mnx-ib (?), Xry-a xtmt n imy-r xtmt, son of Mmyt (B 10) h

MtnTu-Htp, aw (B 14)

Hnwt-sn wife of snwsrt-anx and daughter of Prt (A 14; C 5)

Mi-rt, nbt pr daughter of Ppy (A 12) Mrrw, imy-r ahnwty (n xpr-kA-Raw) (B 20 and Franke 1984, p.191, n. 275)

H

Mrrw, Hry pr and reis (B 10)

Hpw, daughter of Smwt (A 13)

Mrrw (B 27)

Hnw, father of Ib-anx (A 13)

Mrryt, mother of St-Ht[Hr] (B 32)

Hr, son of St-Imn (A 10)

Mr.s-tx, snt nsw mother of anxw (A 14)

Hri-m-Hb (A 10)

Mrt mother of Rs-snb (A 13)

HDt (A 10)

Mrt, nbt pr daughter of SASt (A 12)

HDt, mother of Ib (A 13)

Mry, father of Ii (A 12)

Hdt, mother of xwy (A 13)

Mry, father of Nfr (A 12)

HD-n-t, mother of Wrḥp-Rnfsnb (A 10)

Ms, nbt pr, daughter of It (A 12)

HDrt, mother of Spdw (B 13)

MDAw, son of Ppi-Hmt (A 12; Marseille n. 22, Franke 1984, n. 280)

Hnw, mother of Ib (A 13)

n

Hnnt, mother of Htpw and of In-m-wa (or xA?) (A 12, Marseille n. 22)

Hnnt, mother of the nbt pr It and of the nbt pr Ppy (A 12)

Nb (i) pw, Tsw (B 20)

Hnt, mother of Htpw (A 12)

Nfr, son of Mry (A 12)

Htpw, son of Hnt (A 12)

NfrmAat (?), xtmw hry-a n imy-r xtmt (B 14) Nn, daughter of di-mwt (A 13)

x

Nxt, Xrty nTr (B 8)

xnty-Xty-Htp (A 10) xwyy iry-at wdpw, son of Ib and of Hdt (A 13)

r

xwy-sbk mother of the xtmw hry-a n imy-r xtmt Snwsrtsnb, wife of the imy-r pr Imny (A 12, Marseille n. 22)

Ray […] Hry pr (Louvre C 17, cf. Franke 1984, p. 231, n. 352)

xnms, s n aHaw (A 12)

Rn.f[…] (B 12) Rs-snb xtm-bity, imy-ra mSa wr (4 B)

s

Rn.snb, wr mdw Smaw (A 16, A 27, A 28, A 29, Franke 1984, n. 373)

SAt-Imn, daughter of snwsrt-anx and Hnwt-sn (A 37, B 5) SAt-Hwt-Hr, mother of Sobekhotep (?) (B 11)

Rn.fsnb Xrty-nTr (B 13)

Snaa-ib, xtmw hry-a n imy-r xtmt (B 10) Sn-wsrt (B 15)

Note that in document A 15 the same character is called Ty according to an unusual writing that led Franke (1984, n. 502, p. 307) to assume it could be an abbreviation of the same name. 207

54

The Administration DAf- Hr-m-sA.f, xtmw-nTr, imy-ra Xnwty wr n pr HD (B 13, B 14, B 15, B 16, B 24, B 25, B 26)

Snwsrt-snb, xtmw hrya n imy-r xtmt son of the imy-r pr Imny and of the nbt pr xwy-sbk (A 12, Marseille n. 22, Franke 1984, n. 508)

Ddi, xrp skw Ddi sS nsw (B 29)

Snwsrt-anx imy-r niwt, TA.ty tAy.ty (A 37, C 5) Papyri

Spdw, iry-at n pr HD, Hm nTr n Hwt-Hr son of Hdrt208 (B 13)

Ink[…]-s, iry-aA n Hwt-nTr (A 37)

Sbk-ḥtp, xtmw hrya n imy-r xtmt, son of SASt (A 12, Marseille n. 22, Franke 1984, n. 508)

Impy, xrp (A 33)

Sbk-ḥtp, son of […] (B 11)

Ihy-snb dD n.f anx-rn, xtmw hryan imy-r xtmt and xtmw kAf-ib n xrp kAwt, brother of WAH, son of Ipst (A 40, K. I. 1 (r. 6), recto (UC 32058); K. XIII. 9-18)

Smwt, father of Hpw and of di-mwt (A 13) Snbw, imy-r n hrtyw-ntr, son of mAt (B 9)

Iri-sw, bAk n pr-dt (A 33)

Snbw (B 20)

Ikr, aAm n(y) Hwt (A 33)

Snb, iry-aA n Hwt nTr, son of Snb (A 40, K. I.1; UC 32058)

ItA, Smsw (A 34)

Snnti (A 10)

anx.ty.fy, iry-at, son of Ipw (A 40, K. I.1; UC 32058)

Sk209 (B 15) St-Imn, mother of Imn-m-HAt-snbHnaf and of Hr (A 10)

wAH, wab Hry sA n Spdw nb iAbtt, brother of Ihy-snb dD n.f anx-rn (A 40, K. I. 1 (r. 6), recto (UC 32058)

Sth-m-sA.f imy.r pr n praA (A 11)

bAkt (A 33)

St-Ht[Hr], xtmw hryan imy-r xtmt, son of Mrryt (B 32)

mikt, wab nswt (A 37)

sSSt (A 11)

Rn(=i)-snb, bTy (A 33) Rn=f-snb, son of SA-nb (A 33)

S

Rs, tAw n sS kaw Rs (A 36)

SAst, mother of xtmw hrya n imy-r xtmt Sbkḥtp (A 12), perhaps to be identified with

Rn.i-snb, bTi (A 34)

SAst, mother of Htpw, KAy and of Mrt (A 12)

HA-anx.f, Hry wrw (A 37) Htw, imy-r pr (A 34)

k

Hnat, xrp (A 33)

KAy, son of Kkity or SASt (A 12, Marseille, n. 22, Franke 1984, n. 708)

HA-anx.f, Hry wrw (A 37)

KAy, s n my-HA.t son of SAst (A 12)

xw-nfri, wHmw n arryt (A 31, A 26)

Kky, mother of KAy (A 12)

xmm, bAk n pr-dt (A 34)

Kki, imy-r pr son of snwsrt-anx (A 37)

Xty-anx, Tsw, son of […]w (A 39)

Km-Itf (A 10)

SA-kA-inw, imy-r a-Xnwty (A 33)

Kmni, rxw nsw mAa mry, iry-at wdpw, imy-r st (n) Hsty, ḥry sStA n iaw-r nswt (m Ts xawwt nb tAwy) (A 17)

SA-kA-inw, xtmw (A 33)

q

Snwsrt, xtmty bity, smr waty, imy-r xtmt (A 39)

qmAw, xtmw n Sms n arryt (B 7)

Snwsrt, idnw (A 34)

SA-nb, son of Rn=f-snb (A 33)

Snb, Smsw (A 33)

g

Snb, iry-at, son of Snb (A 40)

Gb.wr, father of PtH.Nfr (B 13)

Snbi, arryt (A 33)

ddi-mwt, son of Smwt and mother of Nn (A 13)

Snb.ti.fy, imy-r st (A 36) D

Snbf imy r st (A 36) Sbk.Htp, xtmw hry-a (A 36)

For this name cf. Wb. III, p. 214. The possibility that it is a proper name seems to be confirmed by the presence of the epithet wHm anx (cf. Gardiner 1955, vol. II, p. 15, n. f.; Ranke, p. 321, 7). 208

SHtp-ib-ra, bAk-im (A 34)

209

Kwm.n.f, sS n aqw (A 36) 55

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Km.n.i, Ss wHaw (A 40, K. I.1; UC 32058)

imy-r aXnwty, Interior overseer

Gbw, idnw (A 40)

imy-r aXnwty wr n pr HD, Chief interior-overseer to the Treasury

Tr[…], imy-r aXnwty (A 36)

imy-r aXnwty n imy-r xtmt, Chief interior-overseer to the Treasury

Tti, imy-sA (A 36) Tti, wife of WAH (A 40)

imy-r ahnwty nat Hnkwt, Interior-overseer of the chamber of gifts/linen (?)

[…].f, wab nswt (A 37)

imy-r st (Sna), Overseer of the Storehouse

Characters of uncertain attribution

imy st-a, Assistant

anx-ib, anx n niwt, son of Ddt-nbw (Leprohon 1996)

imy-sA, Bodyguard

aipi-anx, wife of Stx (Fischer 1957)

iry.-a.t n pr aA, Hall-keeper of the Palace-approach

ainw, imy-r mSan wHAt (Fischer 1957)

iry-aA n Hwt-nTr, Temple door-keeper

wnw, anx n niwt, son of ainw (?) (Fischer 1957)

iry-a.t n pr HD, Treasury chamber-keeper

wnw, son of Stx (Fischer 1957)

iry-a.t wdpw, Hall-keeper and cupbearer

Pnw, wr mdw Smaw, Hry pr (Fischer 1957)

iry-a.t strw, Hall-keeper of the Necklace-makers

Htpwi, son of ainw (?), anx n niwt (Fischer 1957)

ATw aA (n) niwt, Commander-in-chief of the city regiment

Htp.ti, wife of ainw (Fischer 1957)

wab nswt, Pure-priest of the king

sA-MonTw, ATw aA (n) niwt, son of It-n-it.f (Leprohon 1996)

wab ḥry sA n + god, Pure-priest for the phyle of the god X, an extensive version of wab n (+ god)

snwsrt, son of wnw (Fischer 1957) SA-MonTw, ATw aA (n) niwt, son of Ibi (Leprohon 1996)

wAH xt, Placer of offerings

Stx, anx n niwt, husband of aipi-anx and father of wnw (Fischer 1957)

wdpw, cupbearer wdpw n HqA, cupbearer of the king

3.5. List of Administrative Titles

wHmw, Herald Arald

aw n StT, Interpreter/Dragoman from Asia

wHmw n arryt, Reporter of the palace-approach

arryt, Warden of the Palace Approach

wHmw snnw n rsy, Second reporter of the South

anx n niwt, Official of the city-regiment

wr mdw Smaw, Chief of tens of Upper Egypt

imy-r AH.wt, Overseer of the fields

wt Inpw, Embalmer of Anubis

[imy-r] aHaw, Overseer of ships

wt, Embalmer

imy-r mrw, perhaps a variant of imy-r mr, Overseer of a canal

bAk n pr-dt, Servant of the personal estate210 Hry pr, Domestic servantHry sStA n yawt nswt m Ts xawwt nb tAwy, The One who has the access to the secret of the meals of the king as the one who prepares the tables of the Lord of the Two Lands

imy-r mSa wr, Overseer of the Army imy-r mSa n wHAt, Overseer of the army for the oasis imy-r n hrtyw-ntr, Overseer of the stone-cutters

Hry wr, Leader in chief

imy-r pr, Overseer of the House

Hsb kAw, Accountant of cattle

imy.r pr n pr-aA, Chief overseer of the Palace

xrp, Director

imy-r pr a(A)rw(t), Overseer of the Tribunal

xrp skw, Director of troops

imy-r pr wr, Chief overseer of the Palace

xtmw, Sealbearer/Sealer

imy-r pr n strw, Overseer of the Necklace-makers (?)

xtmw hry-a n imy-r xtmt, Sealbearer and Assistant to the treasurer

imy-r pr Hsb n rmT, Estate overseer, Accountant of people imy-r niwt, TA.ty tAy.ty, Overseer of the city and He of the curtain/ the Shrouded One imy-r xtmt, Treasurer

Professor A. M. Bakir established bAk n pr Dt is an epistolary formula, like old-style “your most humble servant” in English letters. 210

56

The Administration xtmw kfA-ib n xrp kAwt, Trustworthy sealer of the controller of works xtmw n Sms n arryt, Sealer of the retinue of the Palaceapproach Xtmw nTr, Sealbearer of the God xtmw nTr kfA-ib, Trustworthy sealer, a designation typical of the expedition leader to Sinai as the Sealbearer of the God Xrty-nTr, Stone-cutter hrya n imy-r xtmt, Assistant to the Treasurer s n aHaw, Ferryman s n imy-HA.t, man of the front (of the ship)/captain sAb Hry-tp Xr(y)-Hbt, Judge or First lector Priest sS n aqw, Store-overseer sS n DADAt n wart tp-rsy, Scribe of the called-up labourers of the Head of the South Ss wHaw, Secretary of the fishermen Smsw, Attendant or guard qAw, Reis tAw n sS aqw, Bearer for the secretary to the provisions dwA, Adorer

57

4 Activity in the Nile Valley

Figure 1: The figure shows the distribution of architectural documentation belonging to Amenemhat IV; the documents dated to coregency with Amenemhat III are included.

4.1. The Delta

Determining the presence of a ruler in this border region is essential to understanding the degree of stability and control of this area of the country. The localities in the eastern part of the Delta were particularly strategically important both as a starting point for expeditions to Sinai and as a station for the trade-routes of the Mediterranean from and to Syria2. We must consider the report and the analysis of the sources coming from that area as a sign – even if only hypothetically – of the presence and the activity of the ruling sovereign3. Additionally, before moving to a review and interpretation of the documents referring to Amenemhat IV, it is appropriate to point out that his interest in this region would not have been a novelty in the context of Egyptian domestic policy: even his predecessor seems to have worked with intensity in both the Memphise area and in the Delta generally 4.

The Delta is an area which presents considerable problems when researching its history, and this holds true throughout the whole history of Ancient Egypt. The morphology of the territory and the subsequent heavy urbanisation in the region have frequently compromised the preservation of evidence beyond repair, and the evidence we do have often presents considerable problems of interpretation. For the Middle Kingdom, the situation is even more complicated due to the intervention of the. With their headquarters in Avaris, they are often accused, more or less reasonably, of having been the cause of the moving of most documents dated to the Eleventh or the Twelfth Dynasty that were discovered in the area1.

2

Cf. also the documents dating to Sobekneferu coming from Tell elDaba (Appendix 2: Sculpture 12-14). 1

3 4

59

See Chapter 6: The foreign Countries. Cf. for example Leprohon 1980, p. 197 (documents 24; 25; 26; 27-29). Cf. Leprohon 1980, pp. 197-198.

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty As noted by Daninos-Pacha9, all periods between the first Ptolemaic and the end of the Byzantine are abundantly represented at the site, with the exception of that immediately previous to the Ptolemaic. This leads to the conclusion that documents belonging to earlier periods were transported there from other places. As for the group of colossal statues, the archaeologist assumed they came from Tanis following the will of the Ptolemaic rulers; he offered no hypothesis concerning the two sphinxes, however. It is plausible that the same origin could be considered as that assumed for Ramesses’ statues. L. Habachi and Daressy 10 both think that these two sculptures were originally located near the god Atum’s shrine in Heliopolis11. This latter hypothesis seems, at least, more plausible, especially taking into account a number of other known cases and the dedication engraved on the sculptures.

Most of the evidence of Amenemhat IV’s activity in this region consists of sculptures, namely sphinxes or parts of sphinxes. On 30 October 1891, in the modern city of Abukir (about 13 km north-east of Alexandria), the mission led by A. Daninos-Pacha unearthed two red granite sphinxes, now in the Museum of Alexandria (A 1 and A 2). They were found reversed on their pedestals in the north-west corner of the courtyard of a small temple dated to the Ptolemaic period. The sculptures came to light after the opening of a trench dug south-east of the ruins. According to the excavation report, the heads and part of the forelegs of the two sphinxes, which would have originally been placed at the entrance of the court, were partially crumbled. The first of these sculptures (A 1) shows an inscription engraved on the chest where, despite an attempt to erase it, we can still read the epithet sA ra followed by a cartouche around mAa-xrw-ra, Amenemhat IV’s enthronement name. The same cartouche is also reproduced between the forelegs, followed by the title anx Dt. The second sphinx (A 2) is very similar to the first one, but slightly smaller; around the baseis engraved the titling and cartouches of Ramesses II, which replace “certainement à ceux déjà existant d’Amenemhat IV”5, an interpretation subsequently confirmed by G. Daressy6.

Interestingly, on the first sculpture showing Amenemhat IV’s name, the epithet sA ra is not followed by the king’s nomen, Imn-m-hAt, but by his enthronement name. Habachi assumed that this was an error as the result of a later rewriting of the name, coming after a previous deletion of the correct form, Imn-m-hAt,which probably occurred during Akhenaten’s reign12. While it is not possible to reach a clear conclusion, the case of Amenemhat IV’s sphinx seems, in many aspects, a case of onomatologicaly confusion closely resembling other documents belonging to this king (A 16 and A 13) as well as what happens to the name of the last Dynasty ruler, Sobekneferu13.

From a stylistic point of view, these sculptures are based on previous tradition; they do not present any particular innovations apart from the ribs engraved on the sides. Unfortunately, they are both headless, making it impossible to discern the facial features. Nevertheless, the heads were certainly covered by the nemes as traces of these remain on the shoulders.

4.2. The Memphis Area As with the Delta, the Memphis area offers considerable problems in interpretation and evidence datingd to the Twelfth Dynasty is very scarce.

It is possible to draw some conclusions based on these sculptures, taking into account the context of their discovery and analysing the inscriptions. Firstly, their discovery was preceded, a few days before, by the discovery of three colossal statues of pink granite, the first of which represents a standing figure bearing the name of Ramesses II. The other two are headless and depict two figures seated on a throne deeply engraved with the names and titles of the same king. By analysing the style and technique of execution, Daninos-Pacha pointeds out that, on the one hand, the two seated figures were very probably carved in the Ramesside period “et l’on reconnait bien là ce style empreint de mollasse qui caractérise son époque”7; on the other hand, the standing figure neither shows Ramesses II’s typical features nor it is consistent with the style of his time, but rather with that of Twelfth Dynasty royal portraiture8, and in particular with Senwsret I’s. He therefore concluded that the assemblage was a sculptural group usurped by Ramesses II, which then also included Amenemhat IV’s sphinxes.

Some remarks may be made about a particular block decorated in relief (A 4), probably the base of a sculpture. This artifact was recorded in the inventory of the Cairo Museum in 1910 as coming from “Old Cairo” and was published by G. Brunton14. From a stylistic point of view, he indicated that the refined modelling of cobras and the mouth and eye shape treatment – rough, but accurate – are typical of Twelfth Dynasty royal portraiture. It has been noted by A. Rowe that it is possible to establish parallels between the inscription engraved on the top of the monument and other texts such as the Pyramid Texts and the Texts of Sarcophagi15. In particular, according to Rowe, some expressions like Horus’s eye and your eye are metaphorical references

Daninos-Pacha 1891, p. 209. Cf. Daressy 1904, p. 113. 11 Cf. Habachi 1977, p. 28, the scholar believes that also the sphinx discovered in Beirut originally came from this place (C 4). 12 Cf. Habachi 1977, p. 28. 13 Cf. Aufrère 1989, p. 13; Callender 1995, p. 233; Pignattari 2008, p. 76 and Chapter 1: Amenemhat IV and the Family of Amenemhat III. 14 Cf. Brunton 1939, p. 177. 15 Cf. Brunton 1939, p. 178. 9

10

5 6 7 8

Daninos-Pacha 1891, p. 213. Daressy, 1904, p. 116. Daninos-Pacha 1891, p. 212. See also Sourouzian 1988.

60

Activity in the Nile Valley The small base of a sphinx (A 9) from Heliopolis was the subject of a very short note by A. M. Moussa23: we only know that it was reused as a lintel for a more recent building and a part of the inscription was deleted because of this. Moussa comments that “this document […] gives us some idea of a temple or a chapel, which that king of the Middle Kingdom [Amenemhat IV] built or restored at Heliopolis”24.

to the offerings used during the so-called Opening Mouth Ceremony16. Based on this, Brunton interprets the monument as a base for a naos containing the king’s worship-statue intended to receive offerings during the ceremony. The grooves on the surface of the block would be needed to anchor the naos itself; considering the grooves’ narrowness and depth, this was likely to be made of metal rather than wood. Two cavities in the centre of the base were also made to secure the worship-statue; it is unclear whether the statue consisted of one or two figures. In this regard, Brunton17 recalls the existence of a similar double-naos attributed to Amenemhat III’s reign and discovered in Hawara18. It should be noted, however, that in the scenes depicting the Opening Mouth Ceremony painted on the tomb walls there is always a single statue. This is only a hypothesis, and further research will lead to better evaluation of this work that shows original elements, such as the use of stone for the base of a naos perhaps made of metal, the rows of human-headed uraei, a human head placed in subsequent registers, and the unusual arrangement of the cartouches.

It is interesting to note that, once again, this document presents a misregistration of the ruler’s name. In the remains of the inscriptions, in fact, mAa-xrw-ra is used in place of both the nsw bit and for sA ra; this anomaly is extremely difficult to explain, even more so if we consider that in this case it is not a lack of standardisation of Amenemhat IV’s onomatology, as in the case of Sobekneferue. We could then further conclude that the more or less conscious prevalence of the enthronement name could be due, in this topographic context, to the proximity of the Heliopolis temple25. This hypothesis is strengthened by the sphinxes from Abukir (A 1 and A 2) which show a similar mistake, which could indicate that these two sculptures may have been originally placed in the Heliopolis area.

The provenance of this monument is unknown; the Cairo Museum’s data archive, referring generically to “Old Cairo”, does not say anything about where it was originally located. However, Habachi19 reported in an article the presence of a similar artifact at the Cairo Coptic Museum: “[…] it proved to be made in the same material and to have the same dimensions. It has also on all the sides two registers of uraei […]”20.

4.3. Dahshur The site of Dahshur is located further south. It was a royal necropolis since the Old Kingdom and it became the seat of the Twelfth Dynasty kings’ funerary complexes from Amenemhat II to Amenemhat III, with the only exception being Senwsret III. There are no sure traces of Amenemhat IV, but the discovery of a fragmentary relief bearing the name of “Amenemhat” has led to various assumptions, ranging from the possibility that Amenemhat III’s successor chose this place for his burial to his intervention with the simple aim of restoring or beautifying this place26.

The characteristics of the inscription are clearly funerary, while the cartouche deletion suggests that it would have been in a public or, at least, a public-accessible area. Brunton assumed that worship for the deceased king was conducted in the great sanctuary of Heliopolis, which stood nearby. Thinking in the realm of pure hypothesis, it is interesting to note the various documents with Amenemhat IV’s name which come from Asia, where the king is called Itm nb Iwnw mry21 suggesting that that area was very importantant for the king.

4.4. El-Lisht The modern town of el-Lisht has been identified with the ancient Ity-tawy, the capital town of the Twelfth Dynasty; it is thus not surprising to find, among the scant evidence of the area, something bearing Amenemhat IV’s name, who would have commissioned these works in the seat of his power. This is the case of the fragmentary block (A 5) interpreted as a part of an architrave engraved with the king’s name and titles. The king is quoted with his nsw bit and mAa-xrw-ra, and the hieroglyphs, large and drawn with great care, suggest that the work was part of a public building. Unfortunately, it is not possible to precisely understand either the size or the context of the discovery. The only information we have is that it was discovered in a funerary context near Amenemhat I’s pyramid27. On the basis of these data, it is not possible to offer any

However, on the basis of the discovery of these similar objects, Habachi has suggested that they could be placed near Batn el-Bagara, at the foot of Old Cairo’s hill, where a number of ancient tombs and many Egyptian sculptures have been discovered. This place was known in antiquity as xr-aA or pr-pDt and it was considered the original source of the Nile; it had therefore a strong symbolic value, suitable for the site of devotional acts22.

Cf. Wb. I, p. 107. Cf. Brunton 1939, p. 179. 18 Petrie 1912, pp. 30-31, pl. XXIII. See Chapter 2: Succession and Coregency. 19 Cf. Habachi 1977. 20 Habachi 1977, p. 27. 21 See Chapter 6: Foreign Countries and Chapter 7: Amenemhat IV: Cult and Policy. 22 Cf. Habachi 1977, pp. 30-31 and n. 17. 16 17

Cf. Moussa 1991. Moussa 1991, p. 158, n. 1. 25 See Chapter 7: Amenemhat IV: Cult and Policy. 26 For a detailed discussion of this possible intervention by Amenemhat IV, See Chapter 8: The Tomb. 27 Cf. Hayes 1953 (a), p. 200. 23 24

61

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty expeditions sent to the granite quarries of the area36 and dated to a period between the reign of Amenemhat I and Amenemhat III’s. As concluded by A. Peden: “no doubt some of these graffiti may even mark the presence of a reigning king at the First Cataract”37. Although there is no similar evidence for Amenemhat IV’s reign, if we consider the king’s well-attested presence in Nubia, it seems possible to conclude that the conditions during the reign of Amenemhat III were the same as those during the reign of his successor38.

hypotheses on the building to which this lintel belonged: the possibilities vary, even in this case, from a completely new work begun by Amenemhat IV, to a restoration he ordered for a pre-existing construction. 4.5. Abydos In the city of Abydos28 Amenemhat IV’s name is clearly evident, albeit indirectly (A 10, A 11, A 12, A 13, A 14). Unfortunately, very little is known about the city, its places and its inhabitants, in spite of its religious importance during the Middle Kingdom thanks to Osiris’ worship and to the god’s temple, which is confirmed by the place’s many stelae29. It is plausible to suppose that the staff of the temple resided there, as well as groups of artisans responsible for the stelae and the construction of votive chapels. The importance of this place, however, went beyond being an important religious centre: the city of Abydos must also have been an important commercial centre, located as it was at the conjunction of trade routes from the Khargah Oasis30, and probably had storage facilities and bureaucratic and administrative staff appointed for this activity31. Unfortunately, except for documentation of private origin, nothing remains of Amenemhat IV’s possible activities in this place.

This conclusion is reinforced by the graffiti from Shatt elRigal (A 18), a town located about 30 km south of Edfu and 4 km north of Gebel Silsila. This place has captured the attention of scholars and travellers for a long time because of the presence of rock inscriptions and paintings dating to the Eleventh Dynasty, depicting the king Montuhotep II along with members of the royal family and court39. During the entirety of Middle Kingdom, many officials belonging to different hierarchical levels left evidence of their passage. Unfortunately, many of these inscriptions have not yet been published, so any interpretation is difficult. The only certainty seems to be that the wadi was located on one of the important caravan routes headed to Lower Nubia. The graffito containing Amenemhat’s prenomen seems to be so far the only one which can be dated back to the Twelfth Dynasty, and it is followed by two others dated to the beginning of the Thirteenth Dynasty40.

4.6. The Theban Area Documents A 6, A 7 and A 17 are representative of Amenemhat IV’s presence in the Theban area. Apart from the possibility of dating the pillar from Karnak (A 6) and the statue from Berlin (A 7) to the period of co-regency and, therefore, to an early phase of Amenemhat’s reign, these documents are really too scant to allow for any hypothesis on the nature and the extent of the king’s possible intervention. It is reasonable to assume, however, that like his predecessors this king wanted to pay homage to the god Amun. The importance of Thebes was yet more political than religious, if we consider its role as the capital of the Head of the South (tp wart-rs) and Lower Nubia (wart rst): it was the seat of the administrative offices and the residence of important officials32, and the control-point of the Nubian territories.

As noted by Peden, it may have been left by an official going to Nubia and could be interpreted as a sign of continuity of the use of the caravan route, as well as of the permanence of the contacts with the southern lands. Nevertheless, this document may also be read as nothing more than a passerby’s memento of his visit to those rocky artworks41. Some other considerations are possible once again from a comparison with previous sources. Leprohon writes: “another reason for the importance of Aswan to the Twelfth Dynasty was the shrine of Heqaib at Elephantine”42; this still little-known chapel seems to have

4.7. Aswan

Cf. Peden 2001, pp. 38-40; in particular, for those belonging to Amenemhat III dating back to the years 10, 14, 15, 24 cf. Petrie 1888, pl. 7 (n. 151); pl. 3 (n. 84); pl. 3 (n. 153); Leprohon 1980, pp. 29, 33, 36, 45 p. 208. 37 Peden 2001, p. 39. 38 Cf. Leprohon 1980, pp. 208-209. 39 Cf. PM V, pp.206-208. H. E. Winlock, Reprint from the American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures LVII, (1940), pp.137-161; H. E. Winlock, Excavations at Deir el-Bahri 1911-1913, New York 1942, p. 87 and ff., 117 and ff., pl. 22; Winlock 1947, pp. 58-75, pls. 9-12, 35-9; P. Cervicek, Felsbilder des Nord-Etbai, Oberägyptens und Unternubiens. Ergebnisse der Frobenius Expedition 16, Wiesbaden 1974, p. 25, fig. 6; R. A. Caminos, Surveying Gebel es-Silsilah, JEA 41 (1955), pp. 5155; R. A. Caminos, Editorial Foreword, JEA 69 (1983), pp. 3-4; R. A. Caminos, Epigraphy in the Field, in J. Assmann, G. Burkhard and V. Davies, Problems and Priorities in EA, London 1987, pp. 57-67. The results of the most recent studies by J. Osing about the site of Wadi Shatt el-Rigal have not been published yet. 40 Cf. Peden 2001, pp. 48-49. 41 Cf. Peden 2001, p. 49. 42 Leprohon 1980, p. 209. 36

Aswan has always been of considerable importance both as a frontier33 and as a link between Egypt and Nubia34. During the Twelfth Dynasty, this is primarily evidenced by the amount of graffiti35 left by participants of the

Cf. O’ Connor 2009. Cf. Simpson 1974; see Chapter 3: Administration. 30 Cf. Leprohon 1980, p. 206. 31 Cf. Simpson 1974, p. 3. 32 See Chapter 3: Administration. 33 Cf. Leprohon 1980, p. 280, n. 126. 34 For example in the Semna dispatches we can see a regular exchange of information between the fort of Semna and that of Elephantine (cf. Leprohon 1980, p. 208). 35 Cf. Leprohon 1980, p. 208. 28 29

62

Activity in the Nile Valley 4.9. Fayyum

collected the contributions of many rulers of the period43, perhaps because the royal family boasted origins from that region44. Following the tradition, Amenemhat III left an inscription dated to his 34th regnal year; however, the poor state of preservation makes it impossible to understand the full extent of the sovereign’s intervention in this place45.

If we compare the analysis of the distribution of Amenemhat IV’s documents to that of his predecessors, especially Sobekneferu, one particular feature stands out: the notable absence of Amenemhat IV in the Fayyum50. If, on the one hand, it is true that the king played a central role in Medinet Madi51, on the other hand, it is also true that there are no traces of him either at Medinet el-Fayyum, near the Temple of Sobek, the seat of the religious centre of the region, or in Hawara, the seat of the burials of Amenemhat III and Neferuptah and of the legendary Labyrinth. The case of the great mortuary temple seems especially puzzling, so it is unlikely that Amenemhat IV continued the work of enhancing the Fayyum. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the king wanted to pursue another sort of building policy52.

Inside the Heqaib chapel, the presence of the Superintendent of Fields Ankhu (imy-r Ahwt anxw), a figure who is often linked to Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV46, is noteworthy. In Aswan, Ankhu is mentioned both in two rock inscriptions where he is called herald/ reporter (wHmw), presumably in an early stage of his career, and in the temple of Heqaib, where he bears an important ranking title (iry pa.t, Hty-a, xtmty bity) and the function title of supervisor of the channel (imy ra mr). It is interesting to notice that in this document Ankhu’s mother, Merestekhi, already has the title of king’s sister (snt nsw Mr.s-tx). This document must date to a moment when, if Ryholt’s hypothesis is correct, Amenemhat IV would have already ascended the throne47. The hypothetical nature of the whole reconstruction and the weakness of this theory has already been noticed and commented upon48; it is significant, however, that Ankhu wished to emphasise his connection to this place at a time when he had personally reached a high social status.

One of the distinguishing elements between the Thirteenth and the Twelfth Dynasty regards building activity. The great works that characterise the latter, as manifestations of royal legitimacy and power, are followed by a period of recession, during which there is a gradual decrease in the number of this kind of documents; they become rarer, smaller, and less detailede53. Amenemhat IV has often been accused of having been the first to break with the tradition of the great builder kings who preceded him. With the exception of the temple of Medinet Madi, in fact, there seem to be no building initiatives in his name either in the Nile Valley or in a funerary context, since we do not know the location of his tomb54.

In order to properly evaluate a reign, we must also consider negative evidence: that is, from the areas where documents concerning a king would be expected to be found, but that are instead lacking. 4.8. Middle Egypt

At this point, it is useful to disambiguate what we mean by “construction activity”: whether it should mean a constructive activity in the Nile Valley or more broadly the opportunity to build, understood as the availability of facilities and resources. There is no doubt that evidence in relation to Amenemhat IV is very scarce, but before labelling this lack as a sign of crisis, we should evaluate the data in a broader context, taking several factors into account. In these terms, it is clear that, primarily, the brevity of the kingdom must have influenced the number of possible building projects attributable to it, and that a direct comparison with the evidence belonging to Amenemhat III would thus be misleading. Secondly, if we widen the perspective by leaving the Nile Valley, we see that the king’s building activity was far from negligible and that in other operational areas his presence seems to have been lively.

Middle Egypt49 is completely devoid of evidence concerning Amenemhat IV, as with his predecessor. For the latter, it was hypothesised that this absence is due to the sovereign’s choice not to link his name to an area where the local nomarchs traditionally had a strong presences. It is risky to advance any theory as far as Amenemhat IV is concerned, but it could be argued that he decided to continue on the path laid out by Amenemhat III. For the sake of completeness, we have to include document A 23. It is a cylinder seal showing the name of Amenemhat IV presented, according to a recent interpretation, as the beloved of Qes and Hathor of Cusae. On this basis, it can be assumed that this document, perhaps along with others, was produced to commemorate some intervention of Amenemhat IV in that area.

Cf. Habachi 1956; Habachi 1985. Cf. Posener 1956, 47 referring to The Prophecy of Neferti. 45 Cf. Leprohon 1980, p. 209. 46 See Chapter 1: Amenemhat IV and the family of Amenemhat III. 47 See Chapter 1: Amenemhat IV and the family of Amenemhat III and Ryholt 1997, pp. 210-212. 48 See Chapter 1: Amenemhat IV and the family of Amenemhat III. 49 Cf. Leprohon 1980, p. 205. 43

Cf. also Blom-Böer 2006, pp. 82, 132-136, nn. 26-27. See Chapter 2: Succession and Coregency. 52 On the possible explanations and ideological implications of such a choice see Conclusions. 53 Cf. Quirke 1991, p.129 and ff.; Landua-McCormack 2008, pp. 458459. 54 Cf. Chapter 9: Amenemhat IV and the End of the Dynasty.

44

50 51

63

5 The Borderlands The abundance of material from the borderlands during the Twelfth Dynasty, as already noted, is undoubtedly the result of the disciplined attention paid by the dynasty’s kings to their administration. At the same time, these tendencies also show a clear desire to enhance Egypt’s peripheral regions. In fact, these kings had a strategic interest in both the defense and the control of these territories, stemming from the availability of raw materials that the Nile Valley lacked. Raw materials were necessary for the building projects which reflected the monarchy’s prestige and for the implementation of the iconographic programme the kings devised. The demand of raw materials reached its peak in the second half of the Twelfth Dynasty, and in particular with Amenemhat III and his multiple expeditions to Sinai1.

note this peculiarity. According to Tallet3, the difference between the two dynasties lies in a change in the nature of the rulers’ interest towards the area. The Twelfth Dynasty saw the region as strategically important both for the trade routes and for the conquest and control of Nubia; during the Thirteenth, instead, the oasis system began to reveal the region’s agricultural and economic potential, thus becoming the subject of colonisation projects with the consequent establishment of small towns. The reasons for this change are not known; it could be argued that weakening control of the eastern border, perhaps due to worsening relations with the Near East, caused in the Thirteenth Dynasty sovereigns’ interest to shift to the west, but this is just a hypothesis.

Although they were different in terms of locations and features, the borderlands can be considered as parts of a single interconnected system. In other words, the situation in one peripheral region could affect the quality and quantity of interventions in another, so that examining and analysing the situation of a particular region allow us to formulate a hypothesis about all the others. From this premise, the interest and the concentration of energy during Amenemhat III’s reign in the northern part of the country can be interpreted as a consequence of the stability of the southern borders, which itself resulted from the full conquest of Nubia.

In terms of the organisation of administration over the Western desert, we find the same structure as in the rest as the country4: officials and stewards supervised the areas and were responsible for their management and security. However, some doubts about the presence of true Egyptian control of the area were raised after the discovery of several rock stelae showing local officials depicted with royal iconographic symbols, such as the uraeus on their headgear. It has been speculated that this appropriation could represent an attempt to overthow the central government. However, it can be argued that this phenomenon was perhaps due to the Twelfth Dynasty rulers’ relative interest towards this area, which, once safely established, was in a certain sense “set aside”. As a result, its officials, who were still coordinated by a HAty-a, would have achieved a higher degree of autonomy than in other marginal areas of the country.

At first glance, the Western Desert seems to occupy an important position in such a system. This region was the subject of a systematic study in the Seventies and received renewed interest in the Nineties, which returned a considerable amount of evidence dating to the end of the Middle Kingdom and suggesting that the entire area located west of the Nile, from the Delta to Abydos, Aswan and Nubia, was crossed by several trade-routes. The site called Wadi el-Hol is particularly significant for the end of the Twelfth Dynasty because it lay at the intersection of these trade routes. Several inscriptions dated to Amenemhat III’s reign come from this region and, according to the hypothesis formulated by its excavator, the origin of its ancient name, Aa-bau, lies in its busy popularity during this king’s reign2.

The case of the Eastern Desert, extending from the southern border of the country to the Sinai Peninsula, is different: since the earliest years of the Egyptian civilisation, this region had been one of the main sources of raw materials. The first review of the mining sites identified 105 distinct locations5. Even if it is not possible to carry out a thorough investigation for each of them, it is certain that the last kings of the Twelfth Dynasty sent several expeditions to them and that mining is one of the activities to which they devoted greater effort than their predecessors. After Senwsret III, the peaceful conditions and prosperity established during his reign allowed a constant mining industry to flourish, which continued during the reign of his successor and into Amenemhat IV’s accession6.

However, with the exception of the caravan and trade routes, the Western Desert is excluded from the typical activities of the Twelfth Dynasty which expressed interest in the exploitation of the peripheral lands. Once again, comparison with the Thirteenth Dynasty enables us to

3 4 1 2

Cf. Tallet 2005, pp. 109-110. Cf. J. C. Darnell, Theban Desert Road Survey I, OIP 119 (2002), p. 50.

5 6

65

Cf. Tallet 2005, p. 112. Cf. Tallet 2005, pp. 117-118. Cf. Tallet 2005, p. 123. Cf. Tallet 2005, p. 123.

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty first case, by the importance of worship in that site, and in the second case, in parallel with the general policy of the dynasty, by the importance of the southern borders.

The archaeological surveys of these areas have allowed us to identify different kinds of evidence that are crucial for the reconstruction of the history of this period: not only do the stelae, the graffiti and the architectural remains allow us to understand the methods of raw material extraction and the organisation of labour, but they also help to clarify the types of people that participated in the expeditions and how often they were sent. Thus, careful analysis of the mining programmes conducted during the reign of a king could become a useful way to understand the general situation of the country. The most interesting sites are the mines of amethyst in Wadi el-Hudi, those of alabaster of Hatnub, the mines of the Wadi Hammamat, those of galena in Gebel Seit and those of copper in Ayn Soukhna.

5.1. Nubia “Les nombreuses forteresses érigées par les Égyptiens en Basse-Nubie au Moyen Empire comptent certainement parmi les réalisations les plus spectaculaires de la civilisation pharaonique”9 The Twelfth Dynasty cannot be studied without taking into account the Nubia region, which captured all the kings’ interest and efforts. The relative brevity of Amenemhat IV’s reign has undoubtedly affected the amount of sources available from this region; however, analysis and assessment can be made through a comparison between Amenemhat’s and his direct predecessors’ reigns.

Given that negative evidence must also be evaluated, we can draw some further conclusions. The absence of Amenemhat IV’s name from sites such as Wadi el-Hol, in the Western Desert, or from Wadi Hammamat, in the Eastern Desert, could have different explanations. It could be due to archaeological chance, to a loss of control over these areas during his reign or to a selection made following the shifting interest in the different areas on the part of the central government. In the light of what has just been described, the latter interpretation seems to be the most plausible. However, it is important to point out that the absence of a sovereign’s name does not necessarily imply absence of his court: even if there are no documents showing Amenemhat IV’s name, some sources, dated with certainty to the Twelfth Dynasty, can be indirectly dated to his kingdom. This is the case of the graffiti referring to the HAty-a xnty-Xty-Htp from Dakhla oasis, which is distributed in three lines of hieratic text and dated to the eighth year of a king’s reign who, taking into account the dedicator’s name, could be Amenemhat IV7.

Nubia was completely conquered by Senwsret III and became a stable part of the Egyptian country: the region was occupied and inhabited by an Egyptian population living mainly in the proximity of the fortress complexes, near the Second Cataract. This was the situation inherited by Amenemhat III from his predecessor, and this was the same situation which Amenemhat IV found at the beginning of his reign. Once the southern border of the Egyptian state had been established near the Second Cataract, it was necessary to ensure the safe transit of caravans and the protection of the population in those areas that were permanently threatened by rebels’ raids and robbers’ attacks.,, A chain of forts strategically arranged from north to south was built along the ca. 600 km that separated Senwsret III’s new frontier from Elephantine: from Serra to Buhen, Mirgissa, Uronarti, Semna and Kumma (Semna East). They were impressive quadrangular fortified buildings made of mud bricks; unfortunately, very little remains of them, but it can be argued that they were part of a single coherent and unprecedented project. The forts were built according to a standardised plan, which provided a geometric division of spaces structured along right-angle pathways. Each building was equipped with a central leadership space entrusted to a “governor” (HA.tya), barracks designed to accommodate the garrison, and warehouses for the storage of reserves.

A few words should be said about the reasons that brought Amenemhat IV to work so actively in other parts of the Eastern Desert and in Sinai. For his predecessor, mining was part8 of a wider policy of internal development of the country. On the one hand, the goldsmith’s art required the retrieval of precious and semi-precious stones; on the other hand, the extracted material would primarily finance the numerous monumental building projects throughout this king’s long reign. However, this interpretation does not seem to hold true with Amenemhat IV: the shortage of building activity during his reign has already been the subject of analysis and commentary. However, such a failure does not correspond to a similar abandonment of the expeditions to the borderlands, so that the rich documentation found in some sites seems to conflict with this hypothesis of a weakening of the central power. Moreover, the expeditions to Sinai, especially to Serabit el-Khadim, or to Nubia could also be explained, in the

Senwsret III’s activity was concentrated mainly in the southern sector, where the forts were built at a short distance from each other and exploited the islands in the river. The most striking example of this was undoubtedly the Semna fort, set at the ultimate limit of the lands controlled by Egypt where the Nile River narrows its course and flows among the rocky mountains. Here, on the banks of the river, the West-Semnath great fortress and the smaller fortress of Kumma were built.

7 Cf. Tallet 2005, p. 117; M. Baud, Fr. Collin, P. Tallet, Les gouverneurs de l’oasis de Dakhla au Moyen Empire, BIFAO 99 (1999), pp. 1-19. For the importance of the god Khenty-Khety during Amenemhat IV’s reign see Chapter 5: The Borderlands, 5.4 Sinai. 8 Cf. Leprohon 1980, p. 227.

9

66

Tallet 2005, p. 53.

The Borderlands was part of the Egyptian domain, “nevertheless they did not feel they could take it for granted yet”13.

Over time, many of the Nubian fortresses became welldeveloped centers inhabited by settlers who transformed the original Egyptian military installations into thriving commercial centres and starting point for the expeditions to the Nubian gold mines. An unfortified village was often built next to the fortress,, where craft activities took place. The multifunctional nature that the Nubian forts assumed over time is one of the most concrete manifestations of the long-term security of the borders; they can help to shed light on the political control implemented by the Egyptians in Nubia, the administration and the exploitation of resources of the region and the local religious beliefs10.

Thus in Nubia, military forces served a dual function, military and administrative. In this area, especially for commercial activities, the army was assisted by the usual administrative offices: the Vizier’s Bureau and the Treasury14. The latter’s role in the management of the fortresses is easy to understand: they were near to the site wherze the material was extracted and the products of the area were stored, including semi-precious stones (jasper and amethyst) coming from the expeditions to the Eastern Desert, which demanded the presence of the Treasury officials, too.

In particular, the types of sources available to us reflect the consolidation and the stability achieved in Lower Nubia under Egyptian control. Instead of inscriptions dating to the first half of the dynasty and to Senwsret III’s reign that relate rebellions, battles and victories, from Amenemhat III’s reign we have mostly administrative documents, including the Dispatches of Semna, a papyrus dossier discovered in a Middle Kingdom Theban tomb. These documents include a series of reports on different Nubian fortresses11. In some passages, the document confirms that “all of the business assets of the king (pr-nsw), life, prosperity and health, are safe […]”12.

These findings allow us to assume the presence of a class of officials responsible for the organisation of these different activities; they were also constantly in contact with the central government. Taking into account the relative shortness characterising Amenemhat IV’s reign in comparison with his predecessor’s, the analysis of the sources seems to confirm the same situation during his reign as during Amenemhat III’s. The first document relating to Amenemhat IV’s reign is a seal impression from the fortress of Serra East (B 1), but analyses of the Nile-level graffiti from Semna and Kumma are particularly illuminating, because they are the most significant documents showing the permanent Egyptian presence in Nubia. They show the last Twelfth Dynasty rulers’ interest in controlling the Nile floods. The “graffiti level,” engraved on the rock with the responsible official’s name, consists of stereotyped texts including the expression “Nile’s level [r] of the year x … under the majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt y. May he live forever “. They occur nearly annually and cover a period of about 70 years15, between Amenemhat III and Amenemhat VII’s first regnal year.

Sources dating to Amenemhat III’s reign consist mainly of inspection reports made by military officers and of Nile-level graffiti: they represent varying types of which ensured constant contact between the various bureaus. We also have private inscriptions offering formulas and dedications to the gods. The number of documents of this kind, therefore, reflects the daily activities carried out by a busy and efficient administration manifestly not affected by unrest and instability. Registrations of a private nature, such as those commissioned by members of the administration and the Egyptian military, both visiting and permanent staff, are very useful when studying titling practices. The purpose of these texts was primarily to attest their dedicators’ presence and to pray to the gods for prosperity. The corpus of this category of registration is dated to the second half of the Twelfth Dynast,y and this is confirmed by analysing the titles. Five of these are relevant to Amenemhat III’s reign: two date to year 6, two to year 9 and one to year 43. The titles in the corpus are mostly military positions. However, this does not contradict earlier conclusions about the stability of the borders. First, military forces were the first to arrive in Nubia and establish the organisation of the territory, and second, it is important to remember the attitude that constantly characterised Egyptian behaviour towards Nubia: while the area had been conquered and

These records were then sent to the central administration, which used them to fill in estimates and predictions about the outcome of the harvest and to calculate taxes16. The historical value of these data cannot be overestimated, because they often provide the information necessary to reconstruct a relative chronology: this is the case for Sobekneferu, whose graffiti from Kumma17 is currently her only dated source. Most of the “Nile-level graffiti “ dates to Amenemhat III’s reign (years 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 22, 23, 24, 31, 32, 36, 37, 40, 41, 43)18 and comes from the fortress of Kumma, but the recording frequency remained significant even during his successor’s reign: we know of inscriptions Leprohon 1980, p. 212. Leprohon 1980, n. 151 and 152, p. 212. 15 Cf. Peden 2001, p. 40. 16 Cf. Yvanez 2010, p. 8; Tallet 2005, p. 71. 17 Cf. infra. 18 Cf. Dunham-Janssen 1960, RIK 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 19, 27, 29, 30, 33, 112, 115, 116, 118, 119a; RIS 1, 6. 13 14

Cf. Yvanez 2010. Cf. Tallet 2005, p. 67; Peden 2001, p. 43 and P. C. Smither, The Semna Dispatches, JEA 31 (1945), pp. 3-10. 12 Dispatches of Semna n. 1: 10-11; 2: 6; 3: 5. 10 11

67

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty King

Regnal year

Provenance

Amenemhat III

1

Kumma (RIK 2)

5

Kumma (RIK 9)

6

Semna/Kumma (RIS 19; RIK 112; 115))

7

Kumma (RIK 5)

8

Semna (RIS 1)

9

Kumma (RIK 116, 118, 119a)

13

Kumma (RIK 33)

14

Kumma (RIK 7)

22

Kumma

23

Kumma (RIK 29)

24

Kumma (RIK 1)

30

Kumma

31

Kumma (RIK 27)

32

Kumma (RIK 30)

36

Semna (RIS 6)

37

Kumma (RIK 6)

40

Kumma (RIK 8)

41

Kumma (RIK 10)

43

Kumma (RIK 4)

44 (46/48) - 1

Semna

Amenemhat III/IV Amenemhat IV

Undated

Semna

5

Semna

6

Semna

7

Semna

Sobekneferu

3

Kumma

Amenemhat V/Sekhemkara

4

Semna (Hintze-Reineke 1989, n. 506)

Amenemhat VII/Sedjefkara or Nerikare (?)

1

Semna (Hintze-Reineke 1989, n. 510)

Sobekhotep I or II (?)/Sekhemra-Khoutauy

2

Semna (Hintze-Reineke 1989, n. 382 A)

3

Semna (Hintze-Reineke 1989, n. 508)

4

Semna (Hintze-Reineke 1989, n. 509)

Scheme 3: List of Nile-level graffiti.

After the analysis of these documents, some conclusions can be drawn. Judging by Amenemhat III’s records, flood levels during his reign were exceptionally high: they were nearly 7.3 m higher than the average. This was explained by J. Vercoutter21 by theorising that the king had constructedn a dam to regulate Nile water and to ease navigation. This suggestion, however, has not found scholarly consensus; many believe that the Nile’s extraordinary floods in these years would have had natural causes and that such consequences would have forced the king to carry out great irrigation and canal-building works in the Fayyum22. However, this second hypothesis also cannot be verified. The only certainty is that the flood levels remained constant during Amenemhat IV’s reign, who seemed to manage a situation quite similar to that of the previous period. The only unusual aspect is that, unlike his predecessor, Amenemhat IV showed a preference for

dated to regnal years 5, 6, 7 and 8 (?) (B 2, B 3, B 4, B 6) which seem to confirm the continuation of Egyptian control of that area. One might question why there is such a large gap in graffiti between regnal year 43 of Amenemhat III and year 5 of Amenemhat IV, but, in my opinion, it is not a significant break: first, because of the perishable nature of graffiti, and second, because of the role played by archaeological chance. Moreover, if the attribution to these two kings’ reigns of the aforementioned double-dated graffiti19 (B 5) were proven correct, the difference between the two sets of records would be further reduced; indeed, it would testify to Amenemhat IV’s presence and control over the region since the very beginning of his reign. Finally, among the graffiti dating to the end of the Twelfth Dynasty, we know of one from Kumma dated to year 3 of Queen Sobekneferu20.

Cf. J. Vercoutter, Semna South Fort and the Records of Nile Levels at Semna, Kush 14 (1966), pp. 125-164. 22 Cf. Peden 2001, p. 41; Vanedersleyen 1995, pp. 104-107. 21

19 20

Cf. Chapter 1: Amenemhat IV and the family of Amenemhat III. Cf. Dunham-Janssen 1960, RIK 3.

68

The Borderlands less impressive royal name scarab seals and sealings”30. If nothing else, it is true that we cannot be sure whether the control exercised by Amenemhat IV on this fort lasted for his whole reign.

the Semna fortress: all graffiti related to him, including the double-dated one, come from there23. Nevertheless, something different occurred under Sobekneferu: during her reign, in Kumma, a flood of just 1.83 m was recorded24; a very low measure, especially if compared with the very high average reached during the previous period25. G. Callender thinks this could have caused economic problems for the country, perhaps leading to the queen’s loss of power26.

5.2. Wadi el-Hudi The mining sites that yield evidence dating to Amenemhat IV’s reign are concentrated in two areas: the Sinai Peninsula in the north and the Wadi el-Hudi in the south.

Ultimately, if we exclude the seal impression from Serra, Amenemhat IV’s presence in Nubia is only attested by graffiti from Semna; however, these do not allow an accurate assessment of the situation in this region during his reign. Evidently expeditions to Semna were regular, at least until his seventh regnal year, and this leads us to think that the southern borders of the country enjoyed a certain security. Yet if one could determine with certainty when and why Egypt lost control over Nubia, the role played by Amenemhat IV in this region could be defined in a more precise way. This topic is still a subject of debate among scholars. Some of them27 date the forts’ abandonment to the Thirteenth Dynasty, when the rise of the people of Kush ended Egyptian control of Nubia. Others28, including Ryholt, believe that such abandonment was the result of a slow process beginning at the end of Amenemhat III’s reign, due to economic reasons. This second hypothesis may be confirmed by the order of abandonment of the forts which did not follow a SouthNorth direction, which would correspond with the rise of the local populations. On the contrary, the abandonment pattern proceeding from south to north, suggests an attempt to keep the control of the southern border despite having to leave some of the fortresses, whose management had become too expensive due to economic imbalances caused, in turn, by the rising of the Canaanite Dynasty29. Semna South was abandoned first during Amenemhat III’s reign, and Serra followed suit during his successor’s. Both of these forts were part of the system near the Second Cataract. It is impossible to establish the validity of this hypothesis with certainty, but we have to bear in mind that placing this abandonment during Amenemhat III’s reign has been questioned: we also should remember that the seal-impression from Serra suggests that the fort was still active during Amenemhat IV’s reign. Although the seal impression can be considered too trivial a proof of the king’s presence or absence in a particular place, document B 1 should not be underestimated. As noted by Quirke: “whether from cylinders or from some type of rectangular stamp seal yet to be identified, the Horus name sealings are the most striking in the corpus and may therefore be identified as from authorising royal seals, in contrast to the 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

A review of the sites of the Eastern Desert can certainly help us better understand the context. The marble quarries of Hatnub, already exploited during the Old Kingdom and the First Intermediate Period, had been the object of renewed interest since Senwsret III’s reign31. From Wadi Hammamat, the Egyptians mined gold, basalt, granite and especially greywacke, a stone which was suitable for sculpture and architecture. In this case, there is already evidence of exploitation during the Old Kingdom, but probably Wadi Hammamat was already known and had been crossed in long before that, lying as it does along one of the oldest routes leading to the Red Sea32. Between the end of the Eleventh and the Twelfth Dynasty wadi exploration clearly peaked, in particular during Senwsret I’s reign33. After that, we know of at least five expeditions dating to points between Senwsret III’s reign and the end of the Dynasty34. The frequency of these expeditions mainly depended on the kings’ building programmes. It is significant that under Amenemhat III certain expeditions were launched in regnal years 2-3 and 19-20, which could refer to two separate construction projects, perhaps those of the two royal funerary complexes at Dahshur and Hawara. This hypothesis seems to be confirmed by the presence of an inscription from the wadi that mentions Amenemhat III as a person who resides in the home of Sobek of Shedet (m pr sbk Sdty)35. After Amenemhat III’s reign, expeditions to the wadi were rarer: some are attested during the Thirteenth Dynasty and the Second Intermediate Period. One possible explanation for this could be that the site was gradually abandoned, due to the increasing difficulty of extracting stone from a mountain so consistently exploited. Testimony dated to Amenemhat III’s 19th regnal year concerning the works to build a ramp to carry extracted

Quirke 2006, p. 266. Cf. Tallet 2005, p. 125 and R. Anthes, Die Felseninschriften von Hatnub, UGAÄ 9 (1928), pl. 8, n. 13. 32 Cf. J. Couyat, P. Montet, Les inscriptions hiéroglyphiques et hiératiques du ouadi Hammamat, MIFAO 34, Le Caire 1912; A.M.A.H. Sayed, On the non-existence of the Nile-Red Sea Canal (so called Canal of Sesostris) during the Pharaonic times, in “The Red Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity” a collection of papers Published in the Arabic and European periodicals, Alexandria 1993, p. 136. 33 Cf. Tallet 2005, pp. 130-131. 34 Cf. J. Couyat, P. Montet, op. cit., pp. 90-91, n. 68 e 69. 35 Cf. Tallet 2005, pp. 133-134 and cf. J. Couyat, P. Montet, op. cit., pp. 51-52, n. 48, pl. XIV; and Zecchi 2010, pp. 39; 54. 30 31

Cf. Conclusion. Cf. Reisner 1925, p. 22. Cf. Vandersleyen 1995, p. 104. Cf. Callender 1995, p. 232. Cf. for example Tallet 2005, p. 72. Cf. Ryholt 1997, p. 91 and ff. See Chapter 9: Amenemhat IV and the end of the Dynasty.

69

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty stone36 blocks recognises the “nécessité d’aller chercher des blocs de plus en plus inacessibles dans la montagne, en raison de la surexploitation d’un site aux époques précédentes”37.

due to their remarkable state of preservation shed great light on the processing techniques used by the Egyptians to extract the copper from malachite; “est vraisemblable que ce mineral était, à cette époque, importé de la péninsule du Sinaï”44. This is another indication of the link between this latter important quarrying site and Ayn Soukhna.

The massif of Gebel el-Zeit, located about 50 km south of Ras Gharib, near the Red Sea38, is an important site for its mineral resources, including galena. It was explored by IFAO between 1982 and 198639, revealing the presence of numerous tunnels, of two main mining installations some 5 km apart, as well as of a settlement characterised by a considerable amount of votive material. On the basis of archaeological evidence, the first occupation of the site dates back to the Twelfth Dynasty and continues until the New Kingdom. Among the most significant documents, there is a stele from Amenemhat III’s reign40.

The mines of the Wadi el-Hudi, about 35 km south-east of Aswan, were the main sources of amethyst for Egypt. Discovered during a geological mission, they were subsequently studied for the first time between 1944 and 1949 by the archaeologist Ahmed Fakhry45. The organisation of the site seems to be characterised by the provision of small units scattered across a few dozen of square kilometers. The archaeological investigation discovered one hundred and fifty inscriptions, all dating to the Middle Kingdom, from the end of the Eleventh Dynasty – which records the first two expeditions46 – to the beginning of the Thirteenth Dynasty, revealing a growing need for this semi-precious stone that before this period does not seem to have been among those most commonly used by Egyptian artists47.

Finally, Ayn Soukhna41, on the coast of the Suez Gulf, marked the beginning of a 120-km long route that led up to the Memphite region. Here a considerable amount of graffiti inscribed directly on the rock have been found which date to the Middle and New Kingdom, and from which we learn that the site provided mainly copper. However, “pour des gisements de cuivre relativement modestes, il semble en effet que ce site ait par la suite régulièrement été occupé par des expéditions se dirigeant vers des objectifs plus lointains, notamment vers la péninsule du Sinaï dont les Égyptiens exploitaient les ressources en cuivre et en turquoise”42 and this conclusion is confirmed by the presence of officers’ names both in this place and in the Sinai mines43.

Following the two first fruitful expeditions of the end of the Eleventh Dynasty, most kings of the Twelfth Dynasty continued this interest in organising and sending expeditions to the wadi: from Senwsret III’s reign to Amenemhat IV’s we can count thirteenth journeys48. One of the most significant innovations introduced by this second wave of expeditions was the construction of a fortress in order to protect and organise mining operations.

During the Middle Kingdom, Ayn Soukhna also became, for a very short period, the place of an exceptional installation: a series of ateliers for working metal was scattered across the entire site. There are more than fifty furnaces which

The particular interest in this site shown by the Twelfth Dynasty’s kings is also evidenced by a qualitative leap found in archaeological evidence: in contrast to the first expeditions, the graffiti inscriptions are replaced by commemorative stelae49, a type of monument undoubtedly more detailed and of a certain value, which adopts a custom well-attested in other contemporary sites50.

36 Cf. J. Couyat, P. Montet, op. cit., pp. 41-42, n. 19; H. Goedicke, Some Remarks on Stone Quarrying in the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, JARCE 3 (1964), pp. 43-50. 37 Tallet 2005, p. 135. 38 For a global view of the Red Sea in Pharaonic Times see Tallet 2012. 39 Cf. G. Castel, G. Soukissian, Gebel Zeit I. Les mines de galènes, Le Caire 1989. 40 Cf. G. Castel, G. Soukissian, Dépot de stèles dans le sanctuaire du Nouvel Empire au Gebel Zeit, BIFAO 85 (1985), pp. 285-293. 41 Cf. M. Abd el-Raziq, G. Castel, P. Tallet, V. Ghica, Les inscriptions de Ayn Soukhna, Le Caire 2002; M. Abd el-Raziq, G. Castel, P. Tallet, Dans le golfe de Suez, les mines de cuivre d’Ayn Soukhna, Archéologia 414 (2004), p. 10-21; M. Abd el-Raziq, G. Castel, P. Tallet, Ayn Soukhna et la mer Rouge, Égypte, Afrique et Orient 41 (2006), pp. 3-6; M. Abd el-Raziq, G. Castel, P. Tallet, L’exploration archéologique du site d’Ayn Soukhna (2001-2004), in J.-Cl. Goyon, Chr. Cardin, Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists, OLA 150, Louvain 2007, pp. 61-68; M. Abd el-Raziq, G. Castel, P. Tallet, G. Marouard, Ph. Fluzin, Le cuivre des pharaons, La Recherche 413, November 2007, pp. 46-50; P. Tallet, A New Pharaonic Harbour in Ayn Sokhna (Gulf of Suez) in Navigated Spaces, Connected Places. Proceedings of Red Sea Project V Held at the University of Exeter 16-19 September 2010, Oxford 2012, pp. 33-37; M. Abd el-Raziq, G. Castel, P. Tallet, G. Marouard The Pharaonic Site of Ayn Soukhna in the Gulf of Suez: 2001-2009. Progress Report, BIFAO 155 (2012), pp. 3-20. 42 Cf. http://www.ifao.egnet.net/archeologie/ayn-soukhna/. 43 Cf. Tallet 2005, p. 140 and cf. M. Abd el-Raziq, G. Castel, P. Tallet, V. Ghica, Les inscriptions de Ayn Soukhna, Le Caire 2002, p. 45, n. 6 and P. Tallet, Notes sur le ouadi Maghara et sa région au Moyen Empire, BIFAO 102 (2002), 371-387.

Among the stelae attesting expeditions to these mines, one has been dated to Amenemhat IV’s reign (B 32): it is a stela belonging to Sa-hathor, Mereyt’s son. The text of the stela has the same form as the Sinai inscriptions. For example, we can mention the epithets firm of step (mn-tbt) and quiet of step (hr-nmtt). Some comments can also be made about the characters’ titles: Sa-hathor bears the title of assistant of the superintendent of the Treasury (xtmw Xry-a n imy-r xtmt), confirming once again the constant presence and prominence of Treasury officials. This consideration can surely be applied to other mining areas, as shown by the http://www.ifao.egnet.net/archeologie/ayn-soukhna/. Cf. Fakhry 1952. 46 Cf. Peden 2001, pp. 25-26. 47 Cf. Tallet 2005, p. 123. 48 Those dating to Amenemhat III’s reign have regnal years 11, 20, 28 (cf. Leprohon 1980, pp. 42, 53 and Tallet 2005, p. 124). 49 Cf. Peden 2001, p. 44. 50 Cf., for example, Serabit el-Khadim and Mersa Gawasis. 44 45

70

The Borderlands Red Sea. This site, discovered in 1976 by M. Sayed57, has been the subject of several excavations. It has been identified with the ancient harbour of sAww from where commercial shipments departed for the land of Punt, legendary for its spices and incense. This site could be reached through a network of routes, along which the Wadi Hammamat was probably one of the main stops. Two documents, both dated to Senwsret I’s reign58, allow us to identify with sufficient certainty its function as a harbour. The restart of archaeological investigations by an Italian-American joint mission59, through the study of archaeological and epigraphic findings over the years, has allowed to determine a period of regular use from the reign of Senwsret I, and with increasing frequency throughout the whole of the Twelfth Dynasty. Amenemhat I and Sobekneferu are the only rulers of the dynasty for whom no attestation has yet been found.

Sinai inscriptions, where the same administrative positions were also in place51. It is interesting to note that, along with their titles, the names of those officials who were responsible for the supervision of works in different mining sites are also often repeated. This seems to suggest that mining was carried out by a small group of specialised officials. The policy of administrative reform introduced by Senwsret III, aimed at the reorganisation of the country, apparently also involved the mining sector. The latter was framed within the system desired by the new sovereign and operated by new civilian officials whose careers are well attested during Amenemhat IV’s reign52. Hathor Lady of the Amethyst (nbt Hsmn) and Khnum were the deities worshipped in Wadi el-Hudi: their names are mentioned most frequently. The presence of the goddess is explained by her role as the patron of mining lands and borderlands in general, while the second one’s is easily understood if we consider that he was the tutelary god of the nearby Elephantine.

The harbour was used more than once during Amenemhat III’s reign and at least once during Amenemhat IV’s, as testified by a wooden box60 bearing his name and dated to his eighth regnal year (B 29), one of many artefacts found outside the caves cut into the rocky wall of the Wadi Gawasis. Another box, anonymous and dated according to its excavation context, can probably be attributed to the same king61. These boxes are made of acacia or sycamore wood and finished with mangroves pins and joints. They would probably have arrived at Mersa Gawasis in pieces and then assembled in situ. They all bore a label with an inscription, almost always The wonders of Punt (biA.wt pwnt), a clear sign that they had actually been taken to Punt and had been brought back from there.

In the period of most active use, expeditions to the Wadi el-Hudi mines seem to have been conducted regularly, about every 10-15 years53, and this allows us to draw a chronological conclusion: in fact, we know the attested date for Amenemhat III: his regnal years 11, 20, and 28, which are then followed by Amenemhat IV’s second regnal year. Thus, this expedition is within the timing margins mentioned above and Amenemhat III was probably still alive; in particular, according to what was said above, this seems to have been the 45th year of his reign, at the time of the coregency with his successor54.

Most of the findings from Mersa Gawasis include documents related to commercial activities, such as wooden boxes for the transportation of materials, seals,

The last relevant attestation of dynastic Egypt coming from the amethyst mines records an expedition dated to the sixth year of the reign of Sobekhotep IV55 (1732-1720 BC), during the Thirteenth Dynasty. This mission was unusual because it was directed to find not only amethyst, but also other materials (“greenstone” (?), quartz, feldspar, etc.), and it also falls outside the chronological margin fixed above56. Ultimately, it is reasonable to assume that the systematic nature of the missions to Wadi el-Hudi concluded, along with the entire age of the great mining missions, with Amenemhat IV’s reign.

Cf. A. M. Sayed, Discovery of the Site of 12 Dynasty Port at Wadi Gawasis on the Red Sea Shore, RdE 29 (1977), pp. 138-177; A. M. Sayed, Observation on Recent Discoveries at Wadi Gawasis, JEA 66 (1980), pp. 154-157; A. M. Sayed, News on the Recently Discovered Port on the Red Sea Shore, CdE 58 (1983), pp. 23-37. About Mersa Gawasis and the expeditions from Punt see also Tallet 2013. 58 Cf. Tallet 2005, p 135-136. 59 For a summary of the results, cf. K. Bard, R. Fattovich, Harbor of the Pahaohs to the Land of Punt. Archaeological Expedition at Mersa/Wadi Gawasis, Egypt 2001-2005, Napoli 2007; for the following seasons, cf.: Bard et al. 2006-2007; K. Bard et al., Joint Archaeological Expedition at Mersa/Wadi Gawasis (Red Sea, Egypt) of the University of Naples “L’Orientale” (Naples, Italy) Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente (Rome, Italy), and Boston University (Boston, USA) 2007-2008 Field Season, http://www.archaeogate.org; K. Bard et al., Joint Archaeological Expedition at Mersa/Wadi Gawasis (Red Sea, Egypt) of the University of Naples “L’Orientale” (Naples, Italy) Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente (Rome, Italy), and Boston University (Boston, USA) 2007-2008 Field Season, http://www.archaeogate.org; R. Fattovich et al., Mersa/ Wadi Gawasis 2009 Report, by Rodolfo Fattovich, Andrea Manzo – University of Naples “l’Orientale,” Naples, Italy, and Chiara Zazzaro – University of Exeter, Exeter, UK, http://www.archaeogate.org; K. Bard et al., Mersa/Wadi Gawasis 2009-2010 Final Report – by Kathryn A. Bard (Boston University) and Rodolfo Fattovich (University of Naples “l’Orientale” / Italian Institute for Africa and Orient IsIAO) ed., http:// www.archaeogate.org; K. Bard and R. Fattovich, Mersa/Wadi Gawasis and Ancient Egyptian maritime trade in the Red sea, JSTOR 78 (2015), pp. 4-11. 60 See also B 31. 61 Cf. Pirelli 2008, p. 20. 57

5.3. Mersa Gawasis Amenemhat IV’s presence in the Eastern desert is not limited to mining sites; it is also attested in Mersa Gawasis, located about 80 km south of Hurghada on the 51 See below Sinai and, for example, Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 16, n. 109. 52 Cf. Tallet 2005, p. 124. 53 Cf. Tallet 2005, p. 123. 54 See Chapter 2: Succession and Coregency. 55 The chronology of this king’s reign is debated; cf. Landua-McCormack 2018, p. 480-484 and Ryholt 1998, p. 197. 56 Cf. Peden 2001, p. 45.

71

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty it is possible that the stratum of the bowls is the same as the wooden boxes dated to the eighth year of Amenemhat IV. The suspension of the expedition may thus have happened during this king’s reign or slightly later. However, if we consider that Amenemhat IV’s last shipment to Sinai is dated to his ninth regnal year and that there is no evidence of particular signs of crisis, perhaps the bowls could be interpreted as evidence of the last expedition commissioned by the sovereign subsequent to that of his eighth year, or even of another expedition organised by Sobekneferu, whose name is still absent from the site.

axes and ropes pertaining to the vessels. All these probably came from the dockyards of Coptos, the fifth nome’s capital town, located in the river bend where the Nile is closest to the Red Sea. The ships were then disassembled and transported by donkeys through Wadi Hammamat to the coast and what is now Mersa Gawasis, where they were reassembled after reaching the harbour. The large number of seals with names and titles affixed to containers of goods shows the detailed organisation of the harbour and strict control of importation of goods. The participation of a class of officials in the organisation of these activities is also confirmed by the discovery of numerous stelae, both curved and rectangular, commemorating expeditions.

One of the most controversial issues concerning this site is the topographic identification of the mythical land of Punt. This is still an open debate and this paper is not the place to develop it, but we can make some observations. According to the two main hypotheses, this region was located either on the western coast of the Arabian peninsula or in eastern Ethiopia. Punt was probably reached by travelling over the Red Sea, through a path used by almost any direct commercial expedition, but there was probably another access through the secondary streams of the southern Nile64.

The findings of these stelae concern both the so-called “terrace” overlooking the sea and the rocky wall delimiting Wadi Gawasis, where the main functional activities were concentrated. In particular, this latter area has been the subject of recent excavations, which led to the discovery of five contiguous caves and of some stelae set into niches carved into the rock. The stela attributed to Amenemhat IV’s reign (B 30) also comes from this area, and it presents stylistic parallels with the Middle Kingdom private stelae from the Abydos chapels and from Serabit el-Khadim. From a chronological point of view, it is interesting to note that the findings from the “terrace” date to the first half of the Twelfth Dynasty, while those from the wadi’s interior date between the reigns of Senwsret III and that of Amenemhat IV (B 30). These data suggest that there would have been two phases of activity at the site. During the first one, the areas for worship and the commemoration of shipments would have been organised in private chapels that were separated from the areas strictly used for production of goods. During Amenemhat IV’s reign, instead, the ceremonial space moved to a smaller, common area within the wadi. On this basis, R. Pirelli62 has assumed that the frequency of expeditions increased significantly during the late Twelfth Dynasty, and that their organisation involved shorter stopping periods between one shipment and another.The older monuments are too few in number to confirm this; it is certain, however, that the harbour was used for the duration of the dynasty, and the picture that emerges for Amenemhat IV’s reign is that of stable and prosperous attendance.

A relatively recent study65 supporting has noted similarities between expeditions to Sinai and to Punt. Similarly, the presence of the same officials in Mersa Gawasis and Serabit el-Khadim is attested66. If this interpretation is correct, Sinai would become not only a mining region, but also one of the possible gateways to the mythical land. It is a very interesting hypothesis that could also explain the presence in some documents from Sinai (B 13)67 of naval titles and workers related to the field of navigation68. R. Rossi, in her study concerning the ways Egyptians navigated in the Red Sea, has already drawn attention to the fact that many inscriptions found on the walls of the Wadi Hammamat report the presence of sailors among the list of participants. She hypothesises that, given the presence of sailors and other navigational titles in these inscriptions, then it is possible that these individuals were involved in an expedition to the Red Sea. Any explanation to establish those titles as merely bureaucratic or hierarchical appears, in fact, unconvincing: in Egypt, titles were not given randomly, considering the extreme importance they had for their owner69, and this is true especially during the Middle Kingdom. Of course, we cannot exclude the possibility that the Wadi Hammamat inscriptions contain references to naval titles because the extraction activity of the stone blocks was connected to their transport by boat to the destination place. However, this does not explain why sailors would stay in the desert when their presence was not necessary, and for this reason Rossi concludes that the

As for the chronology of the use of Mersa Gawasis’ harbour, an interesting discovery was made during the 2007-08 campaign63: it consists of sixty bowls, which corresponds to the number of men forming the crew of a ship. The bowls were neatly arranged and covered with linen cloths. They belong to the last stratum, dated to the Twelfth Dynasty, and they have been interpreted as evidence of the willingness of the expedition crew to leave their belongings ready for the expedition of the following year – which, in this case, never happened, probably because of a crisis, perhaps a prelude to the Second Intermediate Period. According to R. Fattovich,

Cf. Rossi 2009, p. 7. Cf. D. Meeks, Coptos et les chemins de Punt, Topoi suppl. 3 (2002), pp. 267-335. 66 Cf. Tallet 2005, p 137; cf. also Franke 1984, p. 208, n. 307. 67 See Chapter 5: The Borderlands, 5.4 Sinai. 68 See below, 5.4 Sinai. 69 Cf. Rossi 2009, p. 78. The scholar says: «I titoli, in Egitto, non erano conferiti a sproposito, data l’estrema importanza che per il possessore essi avevano”. 64 65

Cf. Pirelli 2008, p. 20, n. 27. Cf. Bard et al. 2006-2007, pp. 27-28; op. cit. K. Bard et al., 2007-2008 Field Season. 62 63

72

The Borderlands the Twelfth Dynasty. At this time, however, the site had lost much of its importance, in such a way that the only officials who went there were those responsible for field operations, while the superintendent of the entire expedition (xtmw nTr) had his headquarters in Serabit el-Khadim. This explains the omission in the inscriptions from the Wadi Maghara mines of the highest-ranking official’s name73. Even if some anonymous inscriptions may date to an earlier time, the first monuments safely dating back to the Twelfth Dynasty refer to Amenemhat III’s reign, while the last date to Amenemhat IV’s sixth regnal year (B 8, B 9, B 10). All the testimonies of operations at Wadi Magharah consist of graffiti inscriptions written on the rock surfaces of the mountains surrounding the mine tunnels, commemorating the expeditions sent by different rulers. Middle Kingdom inscriptions are often recorded in a space that imitate the form of a pillar on the rock: these begin with a king’s regnal year, followed by an exposition of the mission’s aims and a list of the titles and good qualities belonging to the official who directed it or to the dedicator himself. Other inscriptions have the structure of a Htp-di-nsw formula in favour of the dedicator and his companions.

truth lies somewhere in between. She posits that a similar system in the Wadi Hammamat as with the expeditions to the Red Sea that started from Mersa Gawasis: that is, the boats were reassembled and crossed the Nile with their shipment, playing a dual function at the same time – sea and river navigation70. A similar explanation may apply to the presence of similar naval titles for missions to Sinai: as already noted, they could be due to the “mixed” nature of the route which was followed to reach the mining sites. Ships, crews and other officials would have been part of the onward journey for the outward and return travels to the mines. If, however, the land of Punt was in the Arabian Peninsula, Sinai and Mersa Gawasis would have been two routes of access to it; this would support the idea of an area, namely the Eastern Desert, that was completely under Egyptian control. 5.4. Sinai Sinai is considered a borderland due to the indisputable control exercised over it by the Egyptian government, especially during the Twelfth Dynasty. However, it is significant that even during the reign of a powerful ruler such as Amenemhat III, this land was still referred to as the “foreigners’ land71“, which testifies to the particular status of the region. Although its mineral resources were known to the Egyptians since the Old Kingdom and perhaps even since the pre-dynastic period, no systematic exploitation seems to have been conducted until the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty. With the exception of Queen Sobekneferu, all the rulers of this dynasty and, in particular, Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV, are attested thanks to stelae, graffiti and statues. It was probably only in this period that the first temporary structures to house miners and other organisational staff were built. The region of Sinai, however, does not seem to have been the object of desire for conquest in this period: this conclusion is supported, among other things, by the almost total absence of titles linked to the military hierarchy.

The documents dated to Amenemhat IV’s reign are representative of each type described above: documents B 7 and B 8 give a list of the expedition’s participants and their roles, while document B 9 presents the structure of an offering formula for the ka of the assistant overseer to the Treasury Senaayeb (hrya n imy-r xmt snaa-ib). Two stelae from Serabit el-Khadim (B 12 and B 13), also dated to Amenemhat IV’s sixth regnal year 6, allow us to identify the name of the highest-ranking official overseeing the entire expedition to Sinai, who must have employed those participants mentioned in the inscriptions from Wadi Magharah: this is the aforementioned Djaf-Horemsaf. The inscriptions between Amenemhat III’s 30th year and his successor’s sixth form a separate group, and they are interesting from a paleographic point of view: in contrast with those belonging to a previous period or to the contemporary ones from Serabit el-Khadim, they are instead drawn directly and very roughly on the rock using archaic expressions74.

Such long-standing interest was due to the natural resources of the area: mining activity was concentrated mainly in two sites of the peninsula, Wadi Maghara and Serabit elKhadim, and it was aimed at the extraction of a mineral known in the sources with the name of mefkat (mfkAt) usually identified with “turquoise” or, in a few scholars’ opinion, with “malachite”. From the inscriptions, we know that the tutelary deity of the area was the goddess Hathor nbt mfkAt (“Lady of Turquoise”), but the time frame in which the worship of this deity was introduced to the peninsula is still a subject of debate72. The mines of Wadi Magharah were certainly the first to be exploited and were the only ones until the Sixth Dynasty. At the end of the Old Kingdom, the expeditions were interrupted by the crisis of the First Intermediate Period, followed by a recovery with

Although the chief god of the place was Thoth, the goddess Hathor grew in importance from the Twelfth Dynasty, probably as a consequence of her worship in Serabit el-Khadim. Hathor’s name is also found in some of the inscriptions of Amenemhat IV’s reign (B 7, B 9). In addition to these two, there are other gods that are sporadically attested: documents B 7 and B 9, for example, also mention Sopedu, Lord of the Eastern Desert (nb xst). Cf. P. Tallet, Notes sur le ouadi Maghara et sa région au Moyen Empire, BIFAO 102 (2002), 371-387 and Tallet 2005, p. 146. In particular, it seems that during the first half of the Twelfth Dynasty, the highest-ranking official at the Wadi Maghara was the iry-a.t, while from Amenemhat’s regnal year 41 and all long his successor’s reign, the apex of hierarchy was occupied by the xtmw Xry-a n imy-r xtmt. 74 Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 28. 73

Rossi 2009, p. 79. Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 80, n. 54, pl. XVIII. Gardiner means xAst kyw. Cf. also Redford 1992, p. 177. 72 Cf. Pignattari 2012, p. 160; Giveon 1978 pp. 60 and ff. 70 71

73

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty In the northern side of the complex and outside the main building of the chapel, the “Shrine of the Kings” was built. It is a small rectangular chapel (8x3 m) carved into the rock and equipped with a portico supported by four columns. The original core of the building may date back to Amenemhat II76, but there is no doubt that it reached its definitive structure only during the reign of the last two kings of the Twelfth Dynasty.

Finally, King Snefru’s elevation to the tutelary deity of the entire area (B 9) probably derives from the considerable evidence left by this king from his expeditions75. The site of Serabit el-Khadim is extremely complex: it can be described as a large plateau located on a mountainous promontory, surrounded by numerous valleys (wadi), sites of mining activity.

On the southern wall of the Shrine of the Kings, there is a long scene distributed across two registers (B 17) whose decorative programme aims at the exaltation of royal power legitimacy and continuity77.

Mining activity at Serabit el-Khadim was similar to that in the Wadi Maghara. The sites had been identified by the earliest dynasties, but expeditions to the wadi became systematic during Amenemhat III’s reign, continuing regularly and then ceasing with the end of his successor’s reign, so that Amenemhat IV is one of the best-attested sovereigns: at least 21 inscriptions can be dated to his reign.

The temple complex is not the only relevant evidence at the site. In addition to the inscriptions engraved on the rock similar to those from Wadi Magharah, Serabit el-Khadim is significant for the number of stelae it contains, which can be classified into two types: official stelae and private stelae. The former were usually located along the access roads to Hathor’s Chapel and present a typical textual structure and a consistant surface layout. Moreover, as the end of the Twelfth Dynasty approached, these seem to have gained more and more importance in relation to the temple buildings. The close relationship between the temple and the stelae is visible not only because stelae are used as structural elements, but also because over time they came to replace some structural elements such as pillars or columns78. This first category is undoubtedly the most important for the variety of information deriving from it: commemorative stelae bear the dedication from the ruling king, often a portrayal of him in the act of making offerings to the goddess Hathor, an indication of his regnal year, a description of the expedition and a list of the participants. As stated by C. Bonnet79, it is very likely that each expedition leader would make just one stele of this kind for each expedition, so that it would acquire a propitiatory value for the outcome of the mission and the return home. The staging of such an enterprise required great efforts, enormous costs and involved overcoming considerable difficulties, as we can see from the account by Hor-ur-ra80 who served during Amenemhat III’s reign, but whose story has surely a general validity.

In Serabit el-Khadim, the shrine dedicated to the goddess Hathor deserves special attention. Together with the temple of Medinet Madi, it is one of the few examples of surviving Middle Kingdom architecture. It was built on the northern side of the rocky plateau along an east-west axis. Its current structure is the result of different construction operations, the most important of which dates back to the Twelfth Dynasty. The sanctuary must have been founded during Senwsret I’s reign; however, his work there merely defined a rectangular sacred space. Several following rulers gave their contributions to the complex, which was organised along two parallel axes, each one leading to two separate places of worship. This structure, which was kept unchanged in its main aspects, was enlarged and completed by a series of decorations during the reigns of Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IVs. The monumentalisation of Hathor’s chapel in the eastern side of the sanctuary, which dates to the beginning of Amenemhat III’s reign, led to the construction of an outdoor area used to celebrate rituals. During the years, this area was developed into a “Court of Feasts” surrounded by many commemorative stelae from various expeditions. During Amenemhat IV’s reign, the court was then equipped with a roof supported by columns and was thus turned into a colonnaded courtyard. This sovereign’s works are recorded by some fragments of the wall decoration (B 19, B 21 (a) (b) (c), B 22, B 23) where the king is remembered by his Horus’ name, Kheper-Kheperu. Fragment B 21 (a) bears a date which, unfortunately, does not include a regnal year, so that it is not possible to give a precise chronology of the work, or to understand whether Amenemhat III was still alive at the time of these alterations.

In addition to these documents, which were in a certain sense an official record from the king, there is the other, private category of stelae. These are very heterogeneous in terms of size, quality, shape and type of texts; they have been found across the entire site and come from all types of participants in the expeditions, including the expedition leaders. On their surface, the dedicator is depicted in the act of making offerings to a deity, and the usual htp-dinsw formula follows. It is necessary to point out that the presence of these stelae does not imply that the dedicator

Immediately south of Hathor’s Chapel a second chapel with a structure similar to the previous one was built during the reign of Amenemhat III; it was dedicated to the god Ptah and was probably completed by Amenemhat IV.

76 77 78 79 75

Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 29.

80

74

Cf. Tallet 2005, p. 154. See Chapter 7: Between Religion and Policy. Cf. B 24. Cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 74. Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, n. 90, pl. XXV and Goedicke 1962.

The Borderlands South; finally the third one, by sea, via a canal linking the Red Sea and the Nile Valley88.

mentioned was dead at the time when they were made, even if they often bear the epithet mAa xrw; indeed, this epithet sometimes follows the chief’s expedition name on large commemorative stelae81. Amenemhat IV’s reign is well attested in both types of evidence.

The third route can be ruled out for several reasons89; the two other options are both plausible, but during the reigns of Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV more precise conclusions may be possible, based on source evidence. These include the absence of evidence referring to Amenemhat IV from Wadi Hammamat, as well as the presence of specific administrative titles related to Lower Egypt (imy-r tA-mHw, sS wart mHtt) together with reference to particular deities90. All this seems to support the first hypothesis: one or more places within the Delta could therefore have been the starting point of the expeditions. On the two official stelae B 13, B 15 and the wall inscription B 16 the god Khenty-Khety (xnty-Xty), lord of km-wr (Athribis), is depicted. He is represented as an anthropomorphic falcon-headed god, wearing the solar disk, uraeus and two feathers on his head (Swty). Attested from the Fifth Dynasty in the shape of a crowned (wrrt) crocodile god, he was the tutelary deity of Athribis, linked to agricultural life and flooding. The reason for his significant presence in Sinai during the late Twelfth Dynasty is not entirely clear: some scholars think it is due to Athribis’ geographical location, which was more practical than Memphis as a starting point for expeditions to Sinai91. This would have occurred during Amenemhat III’s final years, as it seems to be suggested by the other Middle Kingdom documents coming from Serabit elKhadim referring to this god92. Like other crocodile gods, Khenty-Khety eventually became identified with Horus, with a clear reference to the cult of the monarchy93.

On the basis of epigraphic documentation, it is possible to understand the internal organisation of the expeditions: in the second half of the Middle Kingdom, the teams sent to the mines of Sinai seem to have been directed almost exclusively by the Sealbearer of the God (xtmw nTr), who often held the title of chief interior-overseer to the Treasury (xtmw-nTr imy-ra Xnwty wr n pr HD)82 as well. This high official was aided by a large number of dependents, each of whom carried out specific tasks. The majority of the expedition staff consisted, however, of simple workers with their pack animals. Document B 13 calculates a total of 297 + x individuals in an expedition dated to Amenemhat IV’s sixth regnal year, including 200 stonemasons, 20 ferrymen (s n DAtw), 15 servants, 30 farmers (sxtyw), 30 donkeys (arw), etc. In the same document, the presence of 20 men from Retjenu (Rtnw) is recorded. The different teams of workers (sA) were distributed under the supervision of an imy-r sA assisted by a imy-r gs83 of specific groups of workers; for example, Senbu in document B 9 is responsible for the stonecutters (imy-r n hrtyw-ntr)84, whose work obviously represented the main part of the mission. Finally, there were the remaining specialist workers consisting of quarrymen (ms-aAt) (B 15), cutters (Xrtyw) (B 13), miners (ikyw), sculptors (wHAw), etc. We can see a clear trend beginning with the Middle Kingdom, and linked to what has been called the “spirit of delineation” of this dynasty, in which the inscriptions start to record all the different levels of skill and responsibility of the expedition members.

The gods attested in Serabit el-Khadim present an interesting variety, an analysis of which reveals unexpected features of the national deities who adopted particular traits closely related to the peculiarities of the place, well as testifyies to the worship of unusual deities whose presence can be explained in several ways. It is thus worthwhile to briefly digress to the pantheon of the Sinai during Amenemhat IV’s reign. Hathor and Ptah, the two main gods, have previously been discussed in this text, and further discussion will follow in a later chapter94. Let us turn to the other gods.95

Even though it is extremely difficult to come to any general conclusions based on such fragmentary data, thanks to epigraphic material we know that this type of an expedition was organised once a year and included several hundred participants85. Each expedition usually included two or three chiefs for each sector; it was usually dispatched in winter86, only rarely in summer. The routes used by the Egyptians to reach Sinai from the Nile Valley are still under study87. The consistent use of pack animals and the presence of naval titles and of ferrymen (B 13) suggests that they were routes crossing both land and water. In particular, there are three main possible pathways: the first one would have passed through Wadi Tumilat, in the North; the second one through Wadi Hammamat, in the

On stele B 13, a god stands facing the goddess Hathor; he is Kherty (Xrty), depicted in the shape of a ram-headed man with horns and wearing the uraeus and feathers. He wears a tunic and a short skirt with a bull tail; he is traditionally the god of Letopolis (xm), in the Delta. On this stela, he bears the epithet lord of Sab (nb sAb), an unknown place Cf. for example Leprohon 1980, p. 225. Cf. Leprohon 1980, p. 225, n. 234, 235 and 236. 90 See below. 91 Cf. Vernus 1978, p. 382. 92 Cf. IS 166 mentioning an imy-ra Xnwty wr n pr HD called Imny the same as IS 28 from Wadi Maghara, dating to the regnal year 42 of Amenemhat III. 93 See Chapter 7: Amenemhat IV: Between Religion and Policy. Cf. Bonnet, 1996, p. 42; Zecchi 2010 and Vernus 1978, p. 387 and ff. 94 See Chapter 7: Amenemhat IV: Between Religion and Policy 95 Cf. Pignattari 2012. 88

Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 41 and for Amenemhat IV’s reign, cf. for example, B 12. 82 See Chapter 3: The Administration. 83 Cf. Quirke 2004, p. 81. 84 For the expedition organisation cf. also Leprohon 1980, p. 220 and notes. 85 Cf. Bonnet 1996, pp. 32-33. 86 Cf. Leprohon 1980, p. 223; Bonnet 1996, p. 118 and ff. and IS 90 of Hor-ur-ra. 87 Cf. for example Leprohon 1980, p. 225. 81

89

75

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty represented both as falcon in connection with Horus, and as the sethian-headed connected with Seth.

with the determinative of the triple hill. Also of interest, on the eastern face of the same stela, is the goddess Hathor’s unusual epithet of the One who resides in Djadja (Hry.t ib DADA). The presence of this deity on an official stele could be due to the fact that Kherty probably had a place of worship dedicated to him located in Ptah’s Shrine.

It is possible that the dedicator of this stela, the aforementioned Djaf-Horemsaf, was originally from Upper Egypt and that he wanted to remember Nemty in a personal document, but the particular location of the stela and the form taken by the god may also point to a sort of homage to foreigners working in Sinai101. Nemty’s presence in Sinai could also be explained by the possible existence of a village in the Delta where the god was worshipped and from where some mining expeditions set off, as can be assumed by interpreting a long list of theophoric names (Nemty-iu, Nemty-em-hat, etc.) shown on a stela belonging to Amenemhat III’s reign102.

Finally, there are two gods who had appeared only twice in Sinai before this point in time, on two private stelae named to Djaf, during Amenemhat IV’s sixth and ninth regnal years (B 12 and B 14). These are, respectively, the god Nemty (nmty) and the goddess Neith (nt))96. The latter is known as the patron goddess of Sais, in the North; in this guise she wears the Red Crown and bears the epithet mistress of the green stone (nt nbt wADw). A hypothesis for the origin of this epithet can be that Neith adopted a title linked to local characteristics once her worship had arrived in Sinai. The problem is understanding why and how this goddess arrived in Sinai. A possible reason could be that Sais, her main cult centre in the Delta, was the place of origin of that expedition. Another reason could be her presence as an act of devotion made by one or both dedicators. However, Neith’s role as the protector of kingship97 and a possible identification between her and Hathor (in the role of Demiurge) have also been noted, together with their affinity for minerals and stones98. Hathor and Neith have also been identified in the city of Athribis, well attested in Sinai, where the goddesses bear the epithets of Hathor the One who resides in Km-wr and Neith, lady of the island of Km-wr (nt nbt iw n km-wr, HwtHr Hry.t ib km-wr)99.

On the basis of these considerations, Amenemhat IV’s actions seem to be perfectly in line with those of his predecessor103, but we still need to consider the reasons for commissioning these expeditions. Certainly the procurement of mfkAt was the main reason, but the idea that Egyptians also went to Sinai to extract copper is gaining scholarly ground. In the corpus of inscriptions from Sinai, explicit references to copper and its mining activity are very rare104 and the Middle Kingdom is only dealt with in a single document dated to Amenemhat III, while document B 21 (b) states that “he [the sovereign?] made out the sky from copper”. In addition to this circumstantial evidence, however, stela B 15 lists, among the expedition members of the ninth regnal year, 16 Hntyw. As noted by Bonnet105, the presence of this significant category of workers could suggest both an increase in the exploitation of copper mines and that the treatment of extracted metal was partially done in situ.

The private stela IS 119 (B 12) of Amenemhat IV’s sixth regnal year is interesting for several reasons: typology, position and the god it mentions. Document B 12 is a corniced stele. It is particularly noteworthy because this kind of shape was generally used in rock inscriptions to announce the opening of a new mine shaft; in this case, it was instead found in the Shrine of the Kings. It is decorated in the centre with a walking god, holding a wAs sceptre in his left hand and an anx sign in his right hand. According to Gardiner’s description, its counterpart, stela IS 414 of Ptahwer may have been very similar to this one100.

Like other rulers belonging to the end of the Twelfth Dynasty, Amenemhat IV seems to have been interested in the procurement of raw materials throughout his brief reign. Between Wadi el-Hudi and Sinai, the king’s activity is attested by 18 inscriptions dating to his second, fourth, sixth, eighth and ninth regnal years. Among high-ranking officials who served during his reign, we know of a xtmw ntr: Djaf-Horemsaf who worked at Serabit el-Khadim, under whose direction the works for the construction of the Shrine of the Kings and for the expansion of the Shrine of Hathor were completed. Ultimately, the number of building projects carried out by Amenemhat IV in this area does not indicate any sort of decay or decline of the monarchy; rather, it signals a conservation of marginal areas in line with the practice of his predecessors.

In B 12 Nemty is called Lord of the East (nb iAbtt) and he is represented in a Sethian form. The only other source which associates this god with Seth comes from a New Kingdom round-topped stela, on which the god is sitting in front of a rich offering table and is called Lord of Tjebu (nb Tbw) in the X nome of Upper Egypt. As for goddess Neith’s unusual epithet, the Sethian aspect of Nemty is quite easy to explain. The hieroglyphic for Nemty shows him as a falcon on a boat, and he can be considered a double god

Cf. R. El-Sayed (ed.), Documents relatifs à Sais et ses divinités, Il Cairo 1975. 97 Cf. Te Velde 1977, p. 113 and el-Sayed 1982, p. 92 and ff. 98 Cf. Aufrére 1991, p.136 and in particular n. 267. 99 Nt nbt iw n Km-wr, Hwt-Hr Hry.t ib Km-wr. 100 Cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 60.

See Chapter 6: The Foreigners Lands. Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1952, n. 85, pl. 23. 103 Cf. Tallet 2005, pp. 160-161. 104 Cf. Bonnet 1996, pp. 60-63; Gardiner and Leprohon 1980, pp. 226227. 105 Cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 62.

96

101 102

76

6 The Foreign Lands While it is an oversimplification to say that attested Egyptian relations with foreign people were confined to the Near East, it is also true this area provides the majority of documents, and that this region was central to Egypt’s national interests. This raises some very complex questions1. Since the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty, the Egyptian kings directed their attention towards the Near East: the existence of a relationship between these regions and Egypt’s good knowledge of the Near East are therefore attested by sources of different natures.

discovered in large quantities in the most urban sites, such as Ugarit, Qatna, and Byblos. The latter category of findings bears engraved the names of Egyptian kings and those of members of the royal family, such as the sphinx engraved with princess Iti’s name4; a king’s statue found mutilated in Qatna5 and dated to Amenemhat II’s reign; another statue showing the name of “the king’s daughter, Khnemet-NefertHedjet”6; finally, one can mention Amenemhat III’s sphinx from Aleppo7, Amenemhat IV’s sphinx from Beirut and Princess Sobekneferu’s statuette from Gezer. Other examples of this kind of contacts come from Egypt, such as the “Treasury of Tod”, a rich treasure composed of objects made of gold, silver, and lapis lazuli and bearing Amenemhat II’s cartouches. They perhaps were Syrian gifts, in a Mesopotamian or in an Aegean style8.

However, before analysing the relationship between Egypt and the Near East during Amenemhat IV’s reign, we must make some necessary clarifications. Firstly, it has been noted2 that the distribution of Egyptian documentation in Asia seems to follow a certain logic that, from the Twelfth Dynasty, distinguishes two areas of interest: Palestine and Syria. Therefore, to talk of the East or of a Syro-Palestinian land can be misleading; it is more accurate to distinguish between the lands of Canaan (Palestine) and Syria.

These two territories, Syrian and Palestinian, differ in both the quality and quantity of relevant sources they have provided: a considerable amount of Egyptian material culture comes from Syria, while from Canaan we have relatively few traces of contacts with Middle Kingdom Egypt. The reasons for this are not entirely clear: it has been hypothesised that they were due to Canaan’s less attractive status in Egypt, as well as Canaan’s different level of urbanisation. This last feature would have allowed the establishment of a kind of easier relationship than those held with the thriving Syrian city-states: “where exploitation and intimidation failed, Pharaoh practiced the cultivation of friend. This entailed the sort of mutual giftgiving […]. The gifts in question have in fact, turned up in excavation in the Levant, chiefly in the important cities of Syria: Ebla, Ugarit […]”9. Here another clarification is appropriate regarding the ongoing debate about the original destination of Egyptian sculptures discovered in

During the Twelfth Dynasty, Palestine seems to correspond with the place called the Land of Retjenu3 (RTnw) in the sources. Retjenu was still undergoing the transition from a nomadic to a sedentary nation and, as far as Egyptian expeditions were concerned, it was probably both a useful source of labour and a passage-land to the Syrian cities. On the other end, Syria was an already deeply urbanised region and home of the Amorites who instead kept relations of a completely different nature with the Egyptians, particularly with the purpose of finding precious materials. In addition to literary texts, such as the Tale of Sinuhe or the Execration texts, the evidence which, more than anything else, enables us to reconstruct the history and intensity of these contacts is the large amount of Egyptian or Egyptian-style objects found in various places, both in Syria and Palestine, often bearing the names of Egyptian kings and their subjects. The majority of these are glyptics, such as scarabs or cylinder seals, but also bigger objects

Cf. Du Mesil du Buisson, L’ancienne Qatna, Syria 9 (1928), pp. 1011, pl. 6,6, 12, 14,1; Pierrat-Bonnefois 2015, pp. 174, 183. 5 Ibidem. 6 Cf. Schaeffer 1962, p. 212; Pierrat-Bonnefois 2015, p. 176 7 Cf. G. Scandone-Matthiae, Un Sphinx d’Amenemhat III au musée d’Alep, RdE 40 (1989), pp. 125-129. 8 Cf. F. Bisson De La Roque, Tôd (1934-1937), FIFAO 17 (1937); F. Bisson De La Roque, Trésor de Tôd in Catalogue Générale des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire Nn. 70501-70754, Kairo 1950; F. Bisson De La Roque, G. Contenau, F. Chapouthier, Le Trésor de Tôd, DFIFAO 11 (1953); M. Menu, Analyse du trésor de Tôd, BSFE 130 (1994), pp. 28-45; G. Pierrat, A propos de la date et de l’origine du trésor de Tôd, BSFE 130 (1994), pp. 19-28. G. Pierrat-Bonnefois, La part du lapislazuli dans l’étude du trésor de Tôd, in Actes du colloque Cornaline et pierres précieuses, musée du Louvre, Paris 1999; Oppenheim 2015, (215 A-J) pp. 287-289, (217) 289-290; Pierrat-Bonnefois 2015, p. 177. 9 Cf. Redford 1992, p. 80. 4

1 It is very likely that the XII and XIII Egyptian Dynasties entertained international relations also with many other populations, in particular the Aegean one. On the basis of archaeological findings, especially ceramics, Petrie already formulated the hypothesis that a significant foreign component resided in Kahun. Unfortunately, the dynamics and the nature of these possible contacts are not entirely certain and the scholarly debate is still open (see Davies 1996, p. 175-194; Duhoux 2003, p. 157-161; Vernus 1980 pp. 117-134). For a summary of relations between Egypt and the Near East at the beginning of the second millennium B. C., see also Piacentini 1999, Kemp-Merrillees 1980; Phillips 2008; Schiestl 2009a. 2 Tallet 2005, p. 178. 3 Cf. Tallet 2005, p.166, fig. 48, p. 169; Ryholt 1998, p. 131; Redford 1992, pp. 82 and ff.

77

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty the Near East10. Some interpret them as testifying to the relations between Egypt and foreign lands11; others see these documents as the result of spoliation committed by the Hyksos kings during their retreat12.

In the late Twelfth Dynasty and more precisely during Amenemhat III’s and Amenemhat IV’s reigns, the difference between qualitative and quantitative sources from Canaan and Syria become accentuated: in spite of meagre evidence attesting contact between Egypt and Canaan, we see an increasing role of the relationship between the Nile Valley’s sovereigns and the flourishing cities of the Syrian and Lebanese coast, particularly Byblos17.

In this chapter, the analysis of the relations between Egypt and foreign lands, has therefore been structured taking into account these differences, considering Syria and Canaan as two separate entities and dedicating a third part to Asians in Egypt.

As Leprohon with regard to the reign of Amenemhat III’s18, even if numerous documents attest Amenemhat IV’s presence in Syria, most of these objects come from modern antiquities market or from disturbed archaeological contexts, thus making their interpretation and understanding of their historical significance difficult.

6.1. Syria The Egyptian findings13 in the Middle East, as already mentioned, are mainly concentrated in the areas occupied by modern Syria and Lebanon; the context of their discovery, even if it is uncertain, seems to be related to temples, places of worship (such as Baal’s temple in Ugarit, or Nin-Egal’s in Qatna), and burial sites. This fact, combined with the importance of the people mentioned and with the particular sculptural type of the sphinx, which is often found, on the one hand makes the presence of diplomatic ties indisputable with those Asian kingdoms that were considered valid interlocutors for Egypt; on the other hand, it seems to correspond with a specific intention. The creation of works where the rulers are portrayed as Egyptians, and the choice of sculptural types traditionally aimed at exalting their power, such as the sphinxes, which insist on the solar motif of the monarchy, cannot be coincidental.

In 1927, the British Museum acquired a black diorite sphinx bearing Amenemhat IV’s name (C 4) from Beirut; it is a very interesting document from different points of view. The origin of this sphinx is uncertain, but on the basis of the findings linked to the same king which surely come from Byblos, it is very likely that the sculpture also comes from that city. However, M. Dunand19 assumed that the original location of the sphinx was Beirut itself, where perhaps there was a harbour used as a freight yard by the sailors. Unfortunately, the remodelling undertaken on this sculpture makes it unlikely that its location in Beirut belongs to the Twelfth Dynasty20. It is more probable that it was a document originally located in Egypt that came to the East at a later date21.

Some scholars have also noted how the objects made in an Egyptian style reveal a deep knowledge of the issues related to monarchy14. The political message hidden in these images could be that of the sun-king unifying a collection of small states under his rule and transcending the power of local dynasties15. Although there is no evidence to confirm this interpretation, there is no doubt that the iconography of the sphinx was used to to draw attention to the theme of royalty; this intention is much more focused if we consider that the sculptural type of the sphinx was not so widespread in contemporary Egyptian monuments from the Nile Valley at this time16.

Another document bearing Amenemhat IV’s name that comes from a purchase in Byblos is the openwork gold plaque depicting the king in the presence of the god Atum’s (C 3). This interesting object is clearly Egyptian, but unfortunately the original context of its discovery is unknown, thus making any possible analysis difficult. According to one of the most interesting theories, in my opinion, individual decorative elements could be exported from Egypt and traded for larger objects – such as toilet boxes – which could be produced locally, instead. If this theory were correct, one could conclude that the presence of Egyptian objects in Byblos was not necessarily wholly dependent on that city’s rulers22, but it would mean that there was also an élite trade through which the upper classes could commission valuables or parts of valuables.

10 This debate involves the entire Syro-Palestinian area, mainly concerning sculptures dated to the second half of the Twelfth Dynasty, from the reign of Senwsret III. 11 Tallet 2005, p. 177 and ff.; G. Scandone-Matthiae, La statuaria regale egiziana del Medio Regno in Siria: motivi di una presenza, Ugarit Forschungen 16 (1984), pp. 181-188; Scandone-Matthiae 1997; G. Scandone-Matthiae, Les rapports entre Ebla et l’Égypte à l’Ancien et au Moyen Empire, in Z. Hawass, Egyptology at the dawn of the TwentyFirst Century, Le Caire 2000, pp. 487-493; Wastlhuber 2011. 12 Cf. Ryholt 1997, p. 139; J. M. Weinstein, Egyptian Relations with Palestine in the Middle Kingdom, BASOR 217 (1975), pp. 1-16; W. Helck, Ägyptische Statuen im Ausland- Ein Chronologisches Problem, Ugarit Forschungen 8 (1976), pp. 101-115. 13 Cf. Tallet 2005, p. 178-179. 14 Cf. for example, Scandone-Matthiae 1997, p. 421. 15 Tallet 2005, p. 179. 16 Cf. Scandone-Matthiae 1984, pp. 181-188.

Another interesting element of this object is the theme chosen for its decoration: when compared with contemporary Egyptian evidence, we can see parallels with a similar scene from the toilet box of Kemeni (A 16), Cf. K. A, Kitchen, Byblos, Egypt and Mari in the Early Second Millennium B. C., Orientalia 36 (1967), pp. 39-54; Ryholt 1997, p. 86, n. 273; Schiestl 2007; Kopetzky 2016. 18 Cf. Leprohon 1980, 229. 19 Cf. Dunand 1928, p. 302. 20 See, C 4. 21 Cf. Habachi’s hypothesis 1977, p. 28. 22 See below. 17

78

The Foreign Lands resident officials sent by an Egyptian king28; moreover, “funerary stelae made for individuals with administrative titles and autobiographical texts sometimes bear record of travel to other parts of the world, often recounting the deceased great’s deeds, for which he had been amply rewarded. The difficulty lies in the reconciliation and contextualisation of these different source types so that they can be interpreted to mutual benefit without too uncritical usage of written sources”.29

although on the latter the official is the one making an offering to the king and not the king to a god. The peculiarity of this box lies in the choice of this sort of scene for a private object: it is risky to draw conclusions on the basis of only two documents, and yet one could posit an iconographic custom present in Egypt at the time and perhaps exported abroad. Of known provenance, but far from having a simple interpretation, is the sculptural group of the imy-r niwt, TA.ty tAy.ty Sn-wsrt-anx23, a man who may have lived between the end of the Twelfth Dynasty and early Thirteenth Dynasty. There are two documents bearing his name: the first one (C 5), from Ugarit consists of a group of sculptures depicting him with his wife and daughter Hnwt.sn and sAt. Imn. This document was discovered together with other objects dating back to the Twelfth Dynasty during the excavation of a public building, maybe a sanctuary, and similarly to the other findings it probably was part of the votive offerings of the temple. Unfortunately, the building had already been plundered; therefore, it is impossible to situate and correctly interpret the documents.

The port city of Byblos, carefully excavated by French archaeologists during the first half of the twentieth century, had been the Egyptian commercial hub for its trade with Asia since the Old Kingdom; at present it remains, along with the recent discoveries from Ebla30, the only site providing evidence of contact between Egypt and the Levant dating to the fourth millennium BC. The Egyptian ships coming there aimed to purchase those raw materials which were not available at home: cedar from Lebanon, resins, precious stones, and lapis lazuli from far-away Afghanistan. The discovery of Byblos’ royal necropolis in 1922-2431 was crucial to understanding the importance of the relationship between Egypt and this city. In particular, Tombs I and II32 contained the funeral equipment belonging to the local dynasts Abishemu and his son Ypshemib, respectively, Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV’s contemporaries33. The discoveries included many items of Egyptian inspiration34 such as toilet boxes, pectorals and scarabs, along with other clearly Egyptian items with the reigning Egyptian king’s name: in Tomb II, for example, an obsidian box and a stone ritual vessel inscribed with Amenemhat IV’s name (C 1 and C 2) were found. In addition to their rare provenance from a sure and sealed archaeological context, these findings are greatly interesting due to the many questions they raise. It seems clear that the Egyptian objects should be interpreted as gifts sent by the Egyptian kings to the local princes, but how can the presence of Egyptian objects next to objects made in an Egyptian style inside Syrian royal tombs be explained? Were they diplomatic gifts in order to keep good business relations, or perhaps propitiatory gifts for the new king’s reign? This picture is further complicated by the fact that local leaders spontaneously attributed to themselves Egyptian titles in hieroglyphic writing, enclosing their name in the cartouche35. This pastiche of Egyptian kingship and Levantine culture36 has led some

There is a stela bearing the name of Senusret-ankh (A 15), today conserved in the Egyptian Museum of Florence24 but of unknown provenance. It bears a dedication to Osiris, Lord of Ankhtawy, so its original location must have been Abydos. This document also mentions the cupbearer Keki (imy-r pr Kki) as the commissioner of the stela. As for Senusret-ankh, it has been suggested that he was a high-level Egyptian dignitary residing in Ugarit as an ambassador or a diplomat25; this may be another clue testifying once again to the importance of the relations between Egypt and Syria. C. Wastlhuber’s interpretation26 of this case is very interesting: he defines artistic Egyptian objects found in the Levant as Geschenke-Türöffner, “door-opening gifts”, the presentation of which would have been followed by Egyptian officials permanently settling abroad. These measures would have been intended to create a diplomatic network to ensure the commercial co-operation of the Levantine cities, as well as access to major routes that came from the Near East to the Far East: “Das Vorgehen mutet dabei sehr modern an: Diplomatische Geschenke und die Platzierung von Handelsemissären sind erheblich kostengünstiger als die Aufrechterhaltung einer Kriegswirtschaft und generieren keine Feindschaften, sondern erschaffen vielmehr ein Netzwerk des gegenseitigen Vertrauens bei dem alle Beteiligten profitieren”27.

For a chronological recostruction based on archaelogial evidence, especially pottery, cf. Bader 2015. 29 Bader 2015, p. 2. 30 Cf. Scandone-Matthiae 1997. 31 Cf. Montet 1928. 32 For an objects list cf. Montet 1928, pp. 143-54; 202-204; 213-214 and PM VII, p. 386. 33 The thus established synchronism has been long considered a chronological anchor for Levantine archaeology of the first half of the second millennium; however, it has been recently questioned. See Lilyquist 1993, Schiestl 2007, p. 26, n. 5; Kopetzky 2016. 34 For Amenemhat IV, cf., for example, the pectoral published in Montet 1928, p. 164. 35 Cf. Grimal 1988, p. 216. 36 Cf. Kemp 2000, p. 187 and see Chapter 9: “Amenemhat IV and the end of the Twelfth Dynasty”. 28

Unfortunately, no Egyptian or cuneiform evidence yet found supports the idea of the presence of long-term

Cf. Franke 1984, p. 234, n. 502; Wastlhuber 2011, p. 57, doc. 58. Stelae Firenze n. 39 (2579); cf. Valloggia 1974, p. 132 with notes 1-4 and Bosticco 1959, n. 39, p. 44. 25 Cf. Schaffer 1934 and Wastlhuber 2011, p. 57, 183. 26 Cf. Wastlhuber 2011, p.185. 27 Wastlhuber 2011, p. 186. 23 24

79

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty into four phases44 that see a constant growth of the region and the development of urban structures. This progress corresponds to a simultaneous growing interest on the part of Egypt and to an intensification of contacts between the two countries: “by the end of the MBIIA, Canaan had developed into a truly urban society, organised around a series of city-states, which communicated and interacted with other urban polities and […] with the international world of the eastern Mediterranean as well”45.

to suggest that the rulers of Byblos tried to compare themselves to the Egyptian kings, thus defying their authority; however, it could alternately express the local governors’ intention to conform to the status Egyptians attributed to them. Their contemporary use of the title HAty.a n kpny (Governor of Byblos)37 is indeed significant. The HAty.a title, as already said, was both a ranking title and a function title; in the latter case, it “was used in the pharaoh’s service by the heads of the administrative districts”38. The same title also designated the overseer of the Nubian forts39 and of the borderlands in general. Thus, Syrian princes became, at the same time, rulers of their city and officials of Egypt.

Briefly, the MBIIA in Canaan, instead of coinciding with the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, seems to begin in a latter phase, when Egyptian kings had firmly regained power – namely during the Twelfth Dynasty and continuing into the Thirteenth Dynasty46. Beyond the standardisation and formularity of certain passages of texts such as The Prophecy of Nepherty, the sovereigns until Amenemhat I had only exercised actions to curb the Asian people’s threat, rather than a systematic policy aimed at the military subjugation of Canaan. On the contrary, according to The Tale of Sinuhe, it seems that the point of view adopted by the Egyptians under Senwsret I towards the Asians changed. They were now described as inhabitants of their own territory, in order to promote peaceful relations between Egypt and its neighbours. From a hierarchical point of view, there is no doubt that in its relationships with the country of Retjenu, the primary role was played by Egypt, in possession of indisputable leadership.

6.2. Canaan It is difficult to discuss the relationship between Middle Kingdom Egypt and Canaan, as the relationship itself is difficult to define and interpret. The main problem has a chronological nature: it consists in the impossibility to establish precise correspondences between the different stages of the Middle Kingdom and the Middle Bronze IIA. The MBIIA in Canaan has been the subject of many and conflicting interpretations. It has been classified variously as a urban or a non-urban phase, with a wide range of durations from a few dozen years to a couple of centuries. The culture that developed in this region was in turn considered either isolated from the rest of the Near Eastern world or part of a vast empire entirely controlled by Egypt.

From this point, the relationship between the two lands seems to have become more complex: The Annals of Amenemhat II are considerably informative on this point. They were discovered engraved on a block reused by Ramses II in the Mit Rahina temple, but which originally belonged to a public building. In this text, the quotes about the Levant refer to commercial shipments directed to Lebanon (xnti-S), military campaigns in Syro-Palestina in the lands of IwAi and IAsy, objects arrived in Egypt and tributes received from these places. A section of the text also reports of the return of an expedition from Sinai (xtiw mfkAt) and lists the materials brought home both from the peninsula itself and the trade routes transiting though it. It is a very important quote; indeed, the first one of a long list growing in quantity and quality and that testifies how the region became one of the main places of exchange and contact during subsequent reigns.

In order to come as close as possible to the truth, the most recent studies take advantage of the comparison and the constant interaction between different sources of evidence: material culture, the creation and the analysis of settlement patterns, as well as iconographic and textual evidence. Moreover, as the last two categories of sources come almost entirely from the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, it should be taken into account that they are useful only as long as they are considered a manifestation of the Egyptian point of view on the southern Levant lands and not as an objective representation of reality. They include The Tale of Sinuhe40, The Annals of Amenemhat II41, the tales of KhuySobek’s campaign42, the illustrations of Khnumhotep III’s tomb at Beni Hasan, and The Execration Texts43. The examination of the corpus of these contributions makes it possible to divide the development of Canaan

The general picture here shows that it is incorrect to define the relationship between Egypt and Canaan according to a unique image merely consisting of military subjection or business relationships; instead, the reality seems to be a mixture and an integration of various approaches, depending on Egyptian interest in that area at a given point in history.

37 Cf. Ryholt 1997, p. 87 and for Ypshemib: Montet 1928, n. 653, pp. 174-175. 38 Hayes 1965, p. 545. 39 Cf. Ryholt 1997, p. 87. 40 Cf. M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. I, p. 222 and ff., Berkeley 1973. 41 Cf. S. Farag, Une inscription memphitè de la XIII dynastie, RdE 32 (1980), pp. 75-82; Tallet 2005, pp. 170-172, with references in n. 302. 42 Cf. Tallet 2005, pp. 172-176 and T. E. Cerny, The stela of Sebek-khu: the earliest record of an Egyptian campaign in Asia, Manchester 1914. 43 Cf. Posener 1956.

Cf. Cohen-Lake 2002, p. 128 and ff. Cohen-Lake 2002, pp. 137-138. 46 Cf. Ben Tor 2007, p. 117 with references and Cohen-Lake 2002, pp. 128-136. 44 45

80

The Foreign Lands to lead to a similar conclusion: many seals52 dating to Amenemhat III’s reign are known, but not to Amenemhat IV’s. However, neither the presence nor the absence of such objects are useful to understand the extent of the contact between these two countries: these, in fact, are documents of a “transportable” nature and, because of their serial character, they are not meaningful for the Egyptian presence in the discovery context. Even more so, if we take into account the current debate about their interpretation, some scholars explain them as a sign of strong contacts and trade relations between TwelfthDynasty Egypt and Canaan53, while others interpret them as objects stolen from the Twelfth-Dynasty graves of the Nile Valley and then taken to the East by the Hyksos or by the Asian communities who settled in the Delta54: “it appears that scarabs were brought to Canaan through the Asiatics who settled in the Delta and adopted the Egyptian custom of using them as funerary amulets”55.

According to this interpretation, the material of MBIIA phase three, which reveals a good degree of urbanisation in Canaan, would correspond to the reigns of Senwsret III and Amenemhat IIIs, when there is strong evidence of Egyptian-Canaanite interaction. It is possible that, once again during Senwsret III’s reign, there was a change in the relationship with Canaan, which culminated in the organisation of a military campaign attested by KhuySobek’s biographical stele47. Khuy-Sobek was an Egyptian army general who participated in this expedition and was active during Senwsret III’s reign and his successor’s. It is the only real military campaign of which we have clear evidence. Among other events, the stela depicts the progress to the land of Skmm (Sekmem) on the Litani River. The fact that the Egyptian army penetrated up to central Palestine supports the hypothesis that this enterprise was conceived as a more wide-ranging expedition48 than other, more frequent punitive actions. However, one single event should not necessarily be considered reflective of an Egyptian attempt to impose hegemony. The Execration Texts of Berlin’s group49, even more than Khuy-Sobek’s inscription, reveal the Egyptians’ good awareness of both the geographical and the socio-political situation of their neighbours, and the need to keep them under control.

The recent discovery of several seal impressions concentrated in Askhelon, however, could testify to the fact that the city was for a while a trading port for market products passing through the Mediterranean Sea: “[…] the presence of such prosaic items as sealings […] indicates a more fundamental contact through the exchange of goods, although an unequal exchange with Egypt as the stronger partner”56. The discovery of ancient Egyptian pottery, firstly identified as local production, but now more and more frequently considered imported57, also seems to confirm this hypothesis. These findings have been dated to the beginning of the Thirteenth Dynasty; unfortunately the lack of other evidence for such contact between Egypt and Canaan makes any analysis uncertain.

As for Canaanite objects, we have the corpus of seals from Askhelon50, dated between the end of the Twelfth and early Thirteenth Dynasty and mainly consisting of beetleshaped seals. To conclude the description here outlined, The Execration Texts belonging to the so-called Brussels’ group that is more recent than the Berlin’s group51 of one or two generations (thus chronologically closer to the MBIIA fourth phase) confirm that the Canaanite urbanisation process was still an active one.

In order to better understand the kind of approach that Egypt had towards Palestine and the Levant, it is useful to compare it with Egypt’s approach to Nubia. The latter, even if counted among the borderlands, is undoubtedly characterised by a cultural autonomy not less significant than the Near East’s. Egyptians in Nubia, since the beginning of the Middle Kingdom, had a policy of military conquest and domination with the clear purpose to expand

According to this reconstruction, Amenemhat IV’s reign should coincide with the third and the fourth phases of the MBIIA in Canaan; for the fourth phase we do not have any evidence safely dated to this ruler, but some theorising is possible. While, on the one hand, the Execration Texts reveal a clearly hostile tone towards the Levant, on the other hand, they may not necessarily reflect a real situation of mutual hostility: as with many other Egyptian written records, these may belong among the propaganda texts aimed to present the reigning king as mighty and victorious.

Cf. for example Leprohon 1980, p. 228 and documents 129-134 and 140, 141; Giveon 1978, pp. 73-80. 53 Cf. R. Giveon, Royal Seals of the XII Dynasty from Western Asia, RdE 19 (1967), pp. 29-37; Giveon 1978, pp. 23-40; J. M. Weinstein, Egyptian Relations with Palestine in the Middle Kingdom, BASOR 217, (1975), pp. 1, n. 1-2, with bibliographical references), cf. also O. Tufnell, Studies on Scarab Seals, II, Scarab Seals and their Contribution to History in the Early Second Millennium B.C., 2 vol.,Warminster 1984. 54 D. Ben-Tor The historical implication of Middle Kingdom scarabs found in Palestine bearing private names and titles of officials, BASOR 294 (1994), pp. 7-22; for the historical interest of scarabs, cf. the studies by D. Ben-Tor The Scarab: a Reflection of Ancient Egypt, 1993 Jerusalem; The relations between Egypt and Palestine in the Middle Kingdom as reflected by contemporary scarabs, IEJ 47 (1997), pp. 162189. 55 D. Ben-Tor, The historical implication of Middle Kingdom scarabs found in Palestine bearing private names and titles of officials, BASOR 294 (1994), p. 11. 56 Cohen-Lake 2002, p. 134. 57 Cf. Wastlhuber 2011, p. 23, n. and p. 163. 52

The seals bearing the names of Egyptian officials and dating back to the end of the Twelfth Dynasty would seem

Cf. Grajetzki 2006, p. 54. Cf. Cimmino 1999, p. 208; Tallet 2005, p. 175. 49 Cf. K. Sethe, Die Achtung feindlicher Fürsten, Völker und Dinge auf altägyptischen Tongefässscherben des Mittleren Reiches, Berlino 1926; G. Posener, Princes et pays d’Asie et de Nubie, Bruxelles 1940. 50 Cf. Cohen-Lake 2002, p. 130, 131 e 133: «[…] forty-seven sealings from a sealed fill in a moat associated with the gate complex». The authors tell about the discovery of these seals as L. Bell’s private communication and now published in L. E. Stager, J. D. Schloen, D. M. Master, Ashkelon 1:Final Reports of The Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon, Harvard, 2008, p. 224. Cf. also D. Ben-Tor, Scarabs Chronology and Interconnections: Egypt and Palestine in the SIP, OBO 27 (2007), pp. 117-118. 51 Cf. Redford 1992, p. 89 and ff. 47 48

81

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty into and subjugate a new land58 so that: “the consistent organisation of the Nubian sections as compared to the haphazard presentation of the Asiatic ones might thus have its origins in the lack of a precise foreign policy toward Syria-Palestine”59.

interesting: papyri from el-Lahun66, provides evidence of weavers with Asian origin who were employed for cloth production, perhaps for a temple. A confirmation of this hypothesis comes from Brooklyn 35.144667, which refers to 20 Asian women working as weavers, out of a total of 29. The title of imy-r DAt.t68, overseer of the weavers, should therefore indicate the official in charge to supervise weavers mostly coming from the Levant.

6.3. Asians in Egypt “It has been recognized […] that […] the population of Egypt was liberally sprinkled with families of foreign origin. […] During the Middle Kingdom, for example, we know that weavers, dancers, and other professionals from abroad were living in Egypt […]”60.

Therefore, during this period, it seems that the preservation of relations between Egypt and the East went hand in hand with a growing presence of Asian people in the Nile Valley69 itself. The following documents dating to Amenemhat IV’s reign should be mentioned: A 12, A 33, A 40, B 13, B 14. For the case of the wdpw Ipw-aAm70 (A 12), for example, Jansen71 has already posited whether, at the end of the Twelfth Dynasty, individuals of Asian origin could be fully entered among the Egyptian administrative officials’ collaborators. Another explanation for the fact that an Asian appears together with the co-workers of two Treasury officials could be that Sobekhotep, the stele’s owner, participated in expeditions to Sinai. The case of the Asian of the Estate, Iker (aAm n Hwt, Ikr, A 33) is also interesting: this is a singular designation, using the man’s origin as a distinctive element, and perhaps suggests that integration was not synonymous with equality.

The presence of strong contacts between Egypt and the Near Eastern world is highlighted by the numerous representations of Asians who lived and worked in the Nile Valley. Both direct and indirect evidence are available. Among the former, there are official documents or literary texts61, which are useful, though they provide a biased view. The latter documents include: texts mentioning Asia and its inhabitants, Asiatic proper nouns, documents revealing the Asiatic origin of one or of both parents, examples of reproduction of the Egyptian language in the Semitic characters etc.62; a corpus of documents from inscriptions on stelae, papyri and so on. The terms used by the Egyptians to designate people from the East are numerous, but those more frequently attested are63: ywn.tyw, people of Asian descent; fnx.w, Syro-Mesopotamian people; Hryw Say, Bedouins (lit. Sand People); sTyw, Asian; MnT.w/Mn.tyw Asian Bedouin. During the Middle Kingdom, several words with the semantic field of Asia or relating to the “Levant’s inhabitants” were in use.

There are two other documents, an axe and a dagger, which are intriguing: they come from a disturbed funerary context at Tell el-Daba72, but can be dated with some confidence between the Late Twelfth Dynasty and the very early Thirteenth Dynasty, roughly contemporary with the reigns of Amenemhat IV and Sobekneferu73. The axe belongs to a well-attested type from the Levant, but which has never been found in Egypt outside the Nile Delta74. The dagger75 belongs to a well-known kind from Byblos. Once it was established that the occupants of these burials were Asians of high social status, it was firstly hypothesised that they could have been two ambassadors, in analogy with what was happening in the same period for Egyptians sent as representatives to the Levant. However, although we cannot exclude this hypothesis, there is a substantial difference when making this comparison: Asians, having travelled to Egypt, usually remained there, while Egyptians, at the end of their employment in Asia,

Beginning in the Twelfth Dynasty, the sources reveal a constant Asian population in Egypt, subjected to a gradual and continuous process of acculturation which reaches its conclusion between the second and the third generation, achieving full integration at all social levels64. In the documentation related to the Twelfth Dynasty aAmw is the most common word used, it is a generic term used in the Egyptian sources to describe people speaking a western Semitic language65: these would have been inhabitants of the Levant, including the Hyksos. At the end of the Twelfth Dynasty, aAmw are employed for cheap activities, for domestic work and masonry, as expedition members or as staff in places of worship. The latter category is particularly

Cf. Wastlhuber 2011, p. 159; Saretta 1997, 136; Griffith 1898, p. 75 and ff., pl. XXXII. 67 Cf. W.C. Hayes, A Papyrus of the Late Middle Kingdom In the Brooklyn Museum [Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446], New York 1955, p. 105 and Wastlhuber 2011, p. 159. 68 Ward n. 420. 69 In the aforementioned pBrooklyn 35.1446, from the end of the Twelfth Dynasty to the beginning of the Thirteenth Dynasty, nearly two-thirds of the employees in the domestic administration bear Asian names. 70 See Chapter 3: The Administration. 71 Cf. Jansen 1951, p. 58. 72 Cf. Wastlhuber 2011, pp. 62-63 (nn. 67-68). For the Asian communities of the Delta see also Chapter 9: Amenemhat IV and the End of the Dynasty. 73 See also Philips 2006, p. 33 (n. 2) and 138; 42 (n. 19). 74 Cf. Wastlhuber 2011, p. 72, n. 67 and pp. 152-153. 75 Cf. Wastlhuber 2011, p. 72-73, n. 68 and pp. 152-153. 66

See Chapter 5: Borderlands, 5.1 Nubia. Cohen-Lake 2002, p. 48. 60 Ward W.A., Foreigners Living in the Village, in: Lesko, L.H. (Hrsg.), Pharaoh’s Workers: The Villagers of Deir el Medina, Ithaca, London 1994, p. 61. 61 For example Nepherty’s Prophecy, The Tale of Sinhue, Amenemhat II’s Annals. 62 Cf. Wastlhuber 2011, p. 154. 63 Taken from Wastluber 2011, p. 118. 64 Cf. Wastlhuber 2011, p. 168. 65 Cf. Redford 1992, p. 100. 58 59

82

The Foreign Lands years of Amenemhat III’s reign. Such homage would thus indicate a vassal-state relationship for the land of Retjenu towards Egypt82. Another explanation could be that which links the mention of Khebded to the rise of a certain AmenySeshenen (Imny-sSn.n), Itinefru’s son (Itwnfrw), the Asian, who became sealbearer of the god in Amenemhat III’s 15th regnal year83. Such a career advancement for an Asian man would have caused a qualitative leap in the relations between Egypt and Ameny-Seshenen’s people.

returned to the Nile Valley. In this sense, it is conceivable that, unlike the Egyptians, Asians were much more likely to integrate into a cultural reality which was different from their own76. 6.4. Sinai Sinai represents, in a certain sense, a particular case. As already seen, it is presented as the destination of an expedition in Amenemhat II’s inscription from Mit Rahina. As Twelfth Dynasty Egyptian kings exercised undeniable and increasing control over this region, even if it was not exactly an Egyptian borderland, Sinai could be assigned with a certain confidence to the section “Asians in Egypt”. Many inscriptions and other types of evidence from Sinai, particularly from Serabit el-Khadim, directly or indirectly mention Asia or Asians. These documents differ widely in nature and quality, ranging from private documents, to official documents and dedicatory inscriptions. Overall, the picture resulting from this material shows peaceful relations and cooperation between Egypt and Asia. The type of Old Kingdom documents portraying the king as committed to punishing and quelling the turbulent foreigners77 are entirely absent in the Middle Kingdom, when instead of being represented as prisoners or slaves, Asians are portrayed as fully involved members in Egyptian expeditions. The amount of documents of this kind becomes significant78 during the reigns of Amenemhat III’s and Amenemhat IV; similarly significant is the absence of administrative titles related to military hierarchies, as the risk of an attack against Sinai was virtually non-existent.

The fact that there are several examples of this kind, all with the same representation of the dignitary proceeding by mule, on the one hand supports the hypothesis of an Asian contingent that regularly joined Egyptians in mining exploitation; on the other hand, it does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it should be a sort of homage or tribute to the Egyptians. Černý84 was the first to posit that Asian staff in these roles were not properly engaged in mining operations, but rather acted as expert guides in the area and as intermediaries with the local nomadic tribes. This very cultural exchange is perhaps the origin of a new system of writing, the so-called proto-sinaitic writing85. In addition to the hieroglyphic inscriptions found at Sinai, archaeologists found a small corpus of about fifty texts which used a selection of hieroglyphic signs as a phonetic alphabet to transcribe a Semitic language. Although the exact birthdate of this form of writing is still a matter of debate among scholars, “il nous semble quant à nous plus vraisemblable, selon la logique de la documentation, que l’apparition de cette écriture corresponde aux règnes d’Amenemhat III et Amenemhat IV”86. The existence of this writing has been interpreted as an acculturation phenomenon testifying to the subordination of the Asians to the Egyptians. However, we should keep in mind that Sinai was in all respects a territory under Egyptian control and the expedition sites were frequented mostly by Egyptians. Therefore, in my opinion, it would be more correct to speak of exchange rather than subordination.

This hypothesis of peaceful cooperation seems to be strengthened by two additional data sets: the numerous references to Khebeded, the prince of Retjenu’s brother, included among the participants to expeditions, and the presence of the so-called proto-Sinaitic inscriptions. The inscriptions relating to Khebeded are dated between the fourth and 25th years of Amenemhat III’s79 reign; in some of these, certain Asian individuals are depicted riding a mule, escorted by two aAmw and a dozen other individuals. Different explanations have been given by scholars for the presence of this character and his entourage. On the basis of the stereotypical and rather marginal iconography, for example, it has been assumed80 that “Asians” played secondary roles such as workers or servants. In Tallet’s opinion81, the presence of the prince of Retjenu’s brother could testify to the participation of a contingent of Asian workers in the expeditions; these contingents would have been regularly sent as a gift or as tribute to the Egyptian king by rulers of the Palestinian regions since the early

Ameny’s case would not represent an exception: in fact, other documents attest that people of Asian origin led the organisation of shipments. Both the interpreter from Asia Montuhotep (aw n stt mntw-Htp B 14), whose title suggests that he might have been a foreigner, probably from Asia, and of two aAmw – the judge, lector-priest, scribe and prophet Ur-kherep-hemu (B 16) and the sealbearer of the god, Ptahwer (B 16) – both represented in the Shrine of the Kings, suggest that Asiatics were also among the most important members of expeditions. In particular, Ptahwer87 the Asian was active in the last phase of Amenemhat III’s reign; he was one of the architects of the Shrine of the Kings and in the IS 541 is described as one who commands the multitudes in the land of foreigners (kyw).

Cf. Wastlhuber 2011, pp. 152-153. Cf. Cohen-Lake 2002, p. 42. 78 IS n. 85, 87, 92;103,112, 115, 405. 79 IS n. 85, 87, 92, 112 and without the name specification n. 103 and 115; cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 34. 80 Cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 34. 81 Cf. Tallet 2005, p. 162. 76 77

82 83 84 85 86 87

83

Cf. Chapter 4: Activity in the Nile Valley. Cf. IS n. 93-99 and Bonnet 1996, p. 34. Cf. Cohen-Lake 2002, p. 43. Cf. Tallet 2005, pp. 162-164 and Briquel-Chatonnet 1998. Tallet 2005, p. 164. Cf. for example IS 414.

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty of workers from Retjenu in the mines of Sinai, and the assumption of titles belonging to Egyptian bureaucracy by the princes of Byblos testify to the importance of the relationships between these lands.

Moreover, both Ur-kherep-hemu and Ptahwer, who are both mentioned in the corpus of Djaf-Horemsaf, show peculiarities in their names. The word wr-xrp-Hmw is actually the title of the high-priest of Memphis, used here as a first name88, while on stela IS 414 it is clearly said that ptH-wr is the sealbearer’s rn nfr: that is, not his “real” name, but the one acquired in adulthood by which he was known in society. The fact that the same idea also applies for the sealbearer of the God Ameny-Seshenen89 suggests that social advancement probably required changes in personal identity, in the direction of what we could call “egyptianisation”.

These relationships would have controlled two axes of movement: the first one from the eastern Delta to Syria via the interior lands, and the second one following the coast, which certainly reached at least as far as the important port of Byblos. On the other hand, the relationship between Egypt and Canaan seems like a web of reciprocal influences in which a change and development in the latter (in part the result of contacts with Egypt) corresponds to a change in the attitude of the former, as it became increasingly open to entertaining relationships with a stronger and more organised power94.

A contingent of aAmw is also present in stela IS 110 belonging to Amenemhat III’s 45th regnal year, while document B 13 from Amenemhat IV’s sixth regnal year mentions 20 aAmw from RTnw, as already discussed90. Even document B 12 may be interpreted as related to the Asian components of expeditions.

In the absence of more precise data, only the analysis of the objects found and the context of their discovery may help us to understand these aspects. Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine with certainty to what period during Amenemhat IV’s reign most of the findings bearing his name can be dated. However, they also confirm the sovereign’s presence in these lands. A situation like the one just described suggests a stable internal policy, at least for most of Amenemhat IV’s reign. These considerations seem to debunk the hypothesis of a weakening in the control of the Delta due to infiltrations of Canaanite peoples from the north, who would already have settled there during the reign of this king, thus making more difficult the passage of Egyptian expeditions to the Levant.

As noted by Te Velde91, for the Egyptians the world could be conceived so that Horus was the god of Egyptian territory, the homeland, while Seth ruled over the foreign lands and the desert. Seth was therefore the god of foreigners, of rxyt, a term which designated those who were not the original inhabitants of Egypt – called instead (pat)92 – and often used to refer to Asians. “A foreigner may sometimes be very hospitably received, but this position remains exceptional”93. Thus, if Nemty’s Sethian appearance on the stela is how he god is portrayed outside Egypt, this document may be considered as a sort of homage for foreigners who worked in Sinai, particularly considering the location of the stela itself inside the Shrine of the Kings. This hypothesis seems confirmed by the fact that this stela (B 12) was made in the same year as stela B 13, which contains an explicit reference to Retjenu. If this interpretation proved correct, it would make the participation of Asians as the result of a tribute for Egyptians even less likely.

It seems a paradox that it is precisely during Amenemhat III’s and Amenemhat IV’s reigns that the number of documents referring to a considerable Asian component increase in the Nile Valley. However, as demonstrated by the sources, this fact, rather than demonstrating a weakening of the central power, seems to be the result of an integration phenomenon. It is a sign both of a solid power in favour of an integration policy, and of a society in full development. If this explanation is valid and accepted for Amenemhat III’s reign, why should we not accept it also for Amenemhat IV’s?

The end of the Middle Bronze IIA can be dated to around the third quarter of the eighteenth century BC. The questions of the nature and purpose of the Egyptian presence in Asia still remain an open debate. On the one hand, there are still some scholars who support the view of a policy of conquest carried out by the Middle Kingdom Egyptian rulers, almost as precursors to what would happen during the New Kingdom. On the other hand, others limit Egyptian action to diplomatic contacts and short military raids aimed at border control, with cultural influence derived from commercial relations with those regions. Whilst it is hazardous to speak of vassalage of the eastern city-states towards the Egyptian people, there is no doubt that the statues of the Egyptian kings in Asia, the presence 88 89 90 91 92 93

Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černy 1955, p. 128, n. N and Ranke, p. 81, n. 18. Cf. IS 98. See Chapter 5: The Borderlands, 5.4 Sinai. Cf. Te Velde 1977, p. 109 and in general p.108 and ff. Cf. Te Velde 1977, p. 112. Te Velde 1977, p. 112.

94

84

Cf. Winona-Lake 2002, p. 139.

7 Amenemhat IV between Religion and Policy The kings of the Twelfth Dynasty were the first to use literature as a propaganda1 tool for the production of consent: examples of this include texts such as the Teaching of Amenemhat I to his Son Senwsret I, or the Prophecy of Nepherty. However, literature was still reserved for the elite and upper classes and thus not an effectual instrument2. To communicate with the masses other means were needed, such as architecture, the choice of particular iconographic themes, and specific guidelines of religious policy.

more evident when we consider Moussa’s hypotheses together with Brunton’s. Brunton has interpreted part of document A 4 as evidence that the king’s funerary temple was next to the great religious centre5. Heliopolis was a place closely linked to the cult of the monarchy: it was the home of the ished6 tree, whose leaves have the king’s name written on them, assuring him a long reign; it was the place where the rites of coronation took place, and where the king’s names and titles where established. For these reasons, it is small wonder that Amenemhat IV also wanted to associate his name with this place. The link with Atum characterises the whole Twelfth Dynasty, and this is evident from documents such as the Abgig obelisk of Senwsret I, where, in the scene described by Zecchi7 (south side), the god occupies a prominent position. Zecchi interprets the presence of this deity as a sign that the ruler needed to show dominance over the region through the introduction of the Egyptian deities. In fact, it should be noted that, at that time, the Fayyum did not have the theological autonomy which it would have later. In fact, under Amenemhat III’s reign, there was a reversal of the situation: Sobek, the local deity, would secure unchallenged dominance over the region, thus becoming a properly dynastic deity.

A discussion of Amenemhat IV’s activity must also, therefore, analyse his reign using an “ideological profile” which helps us to understand the reasons behind the king’s choices. As a disclaimer, the main problem of this kind of analysis undoubtedly lies in the scarcity of available documents, which inevitably exposes any hypothesis to the risk of misrepresentation. 7.1. Atum Several documents dated to Amenemhat IV’s reign, coming both from Egypt and abroad, allow us to assume the king’s willingness to emphasise his link with the god Atum of Heliopolis. In particular, documents A 4, A 9, C 1, C 3, C 4, and perhaps A 1 and A 2, seem to demonstrate this link. When compared to the relative paucity of the corpus belonging to Amenemhat IV, the importance of such a number of documents is certainly remarkable, but only an analysis of the discovery context and type of document can allow us to understand their real meaning.

The fact that the Karnak temple, from the time it was founded by Senwsret I, assumed the role of the “Heliopolis of the South” is also significant8: here in the Hwt-aAt nt imn, the Great Temple of Amun, it is Amun, assimilated with Ra, who becomes the southern counterpart of the Heliopolitan god Atum. A dogmatic parallel9 between the new sanctuary of Karnak and the ancient temple of Heliopolis has been hypothesised, particularly with regard to the function of the latter as a shrine of royalty. The close correspondence between the rituals officiated in favour of Amun and those at Heliopolis is evident in the Theban coronation scenes10. The role of Amun at Karnak is exactly the same as Atum’s in Heliopolis. Furthermore, in the hypostyle hall of the Shrine of Karnak, two perfectly symmetrical images bear the names of the kings on the leaves of the ished tree –

The architectural and sculptural documents found in Egypt could be more or less easily interpreted as an intervention by Amenemhat IV within the great sanctuary of Heliopolis. This is a remarkable but certainly not surprising fact, considering the historical tradition of the place. It is likely that both the block from Cairo (A 4), the base of the sphinx from Giza (A 33), and perhaps also the two sphinxes discovered at Abukir (A 1, A 2) come from this sanctuary3. The base of the sphinx published by Moussa4, as stated by the scholar himself, leads us to believe that Amenemhat IV ordered the construction or renovation of a temple or a chapel and the king’s interest in the Heliopolis is even

Cf. Brunton 1939, p. 180. Cf. also Gabolde 1988, p. 146. 7 Cf. Zecchi 2008, pp. 373-384. 8 Cf. Gabolde 1988, pp. 143-158. 9 Gabolde (in Gabolde 1988, p. 143) noted that it was H. Kees who demonstrated the use of the expression iwnw-Sma (Heliopolis of the South) indicating in part of the Karnak temple where the sun-worshipping rituals were celebrated. The same scholar then assumed the existence of dogmatic parallels with the ancient Heliopolis (cf. H. Kees, Ein Sonnenheiligtum im Amonstempel von Karnak, Orientalia 18 (1949), pp. 427-449). 10 Cf. Gabolde 1988, p. 146. 5 6

1 As noted by Beylage (in Beylage 2002, p. 10) in relation to Egyptian texts it is better to use the term implicit propaganda, indicating the intention to legitimise the leading party in a deliberate, exaggeratedly positive way. 2 It is right to point out that this new function of literature, which will echo through the centuries, will remain in the memory of Egyptians and will contribute to see the Twelfth Dynasty rulers as almost legendary figures, see Posener 1956, pp. 142-144 and Widmer 2002, pp. 392-393. 3 See Chapter 4: The Activity in the Nile Valley. 4 Cf. Moussa 1991.

85

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty these do not show the same presence of the god; moreover, Atum is not even mentioned among the objects bearing Amenemhat III’s name found in Ibi-shemu’s tomb14 in the royal cemetery of Byblos, where it would be plausible to assume an analogy with the objects from Tomb II bearing Amenemhat IV’s.

Amun on the right, Atum on the left – confirming the parallelism between the two deities. K. Mysliwiec11 argued that this parallelism between Amon and Atum was begun during the Eighteenth Dynasty, but we now know it was already present in the time of Senwsret I, when the representation of royal names on the ished tree12 was also already included. Although, according to the Prophecy of Nepherty, Amun became the new dynastic god, the role of the sanctuary of Heliopolis was not reduced. The recovery at Karnak of coronation rituals from Heliopolis indeed reflects the duality of function of the new sanctuary: it was both consecrated to Amun, and dedicated to the cult of kingship both in its initial moment, the coronation, and in its continuation, the heb-sed celebration.

If therefore, hypothetically speaking, we can say that Amenemhat IV linked his name with Atum’s, calling himself the beloved of the God, there remains the question of why he did so. For this purpose, the site of Serabit elKhadim may help us. In this place, Atum is mentioned in the Shrine of the Kings among the participants in the rituals, where he develops, through some poetic images, the relationship between the celebration of monarchical power and the Myth of Turquoise15. With the exception of the Shrine of the Kings, Atum appears in few other documents of the Middle Kingdom and it is worthwhile to review them briefly. The god is mentioned on the aforementioned stela IS 11016, on the official undated stela IS 137 and on the block IS 33417, without a chronological reference. In researching these documents, Gardiner has found some significant similarities with the texts of other stelae dated to the Middle Kingdom on which, while Atum is not shown, other components of the Heliopolitan Ennead are mentioned18. Moreover, Bonnet19 identifies other versions of the myth of turquoise. It is not possible to determine with certainty when the representation of the myth of turquoise appeared in Sinai, but on the basis of the available data it may have happened during Amenemhat III’s reign. The earliest reference to this occurs on stela IS 146-14820 which mentions the mountains and the god Geb: “[the mountains leading to what is] in them, they bring to light what is inside them […] in the eyes of their father Geb […] the gods fix their laws […]”21.

Amun-Ra is a creation of the Eleventh and Twelfth Dynasty, and he is the god par excellence who crowns kings at Thebes, thus assuming the role of Atum-Ra in Heliopolis. The temple of Amun-Ra at Karnak thus seems to be a replica, both theological and architectural, of the temple of Atum-Ra in Heliopolis; at the same time, AmunRa can be considered a manifestation of Atum-Ra, a solar god and the guarantor of royal legitimacy. After a point, any direct reference to Atum’s importance seems to return only with Amenemhat IV; this seems particularly important if we proceed to a comparison with the documents bearing Amenemhat III’s name. In fact, no documents coming from the area of the great sanctuary belong to this king13. However, Amenemhat IV’s interest in Atum could not have been limited just to the construction projects in the area of the god’s main home. Firstly, all documents belonging to the reign of Amenemhat IV from the Levant, with the exception of the stone vase (C 2), bear a dedication to the god Itm nb iwnw. Indeed, most of them were discovered in non-original contexts, and it remains difficult to establish when and how they arrived in the Levant. However, if we consider both the discovery context of the obsidian toilet box (C 1, Tomb II of Byblos) and the nature of the golden plaque (C 3), perhaps made for export, it seems likely that these came to the Levant during Amenemhat IV’s reign. They appear to be objects deliberately designed to be placed in those areas rather than Egyptian objects, perhaps from Heliopolis, which would have arrived in the Levant in later moments and were originally produced as ex-voto to the Egyptian god in his sanctuary. The hypothesis that Amenemhat IV wanted to present himself as beloved of Atum in foreign contexts seems to also be confirmed by an analysis of the documents bearing his precursor Amenemhat III’s name coming from the Levant. In fact,

Among the other documents, stelae IS 14022, IS 137 and IS 136 are very interesting, each one probably commemorating a different expedition. IS 137 also comes from the eastern wall of the Shrine of the Kings with a text very similar to the one engraved on B 17. The last one, dated to the eleventh regnal year of an unknown sovereign, could also be dated to Amenemhat III on the

Cf. Montet 1928, pp. 143-148, 155 and ff.; Leprohon 1980, p. 157, doc. n. 135-136; p. 228. 15 See Chapter 5: The Borderlands, 5.4 Sinai. 16 Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, n. 110, pp. 112-113, pl. XXXVa. 17 Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, n. 334, p. 201, pl. LXXXI. 18 Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, n. 136, pp. 135-137, pl. XLIX; n. 140, pp. 138-139, pl. LI; n. 145, p. 143, pl. LI. 19 Cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 123, IS 106, 114, 53. 20 Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, n. 334, p. 201, pl. LXXXI. 21 This document is undated, but Gardiner identifies the official called mrrw with the imy-r aXnwty mrrw of the stela IS 81, belonging to Senwsret III’s reign and of the stela IS 151 of Amenemhat III’s reign. Moreover, also Franke identifies mrrw with the same man mentioned in B 20. In this way the myth of turquoise could be dated back to the middle period of the Dynasty. 22 Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, nn. 146-148, p. 143, pl. XLI. 14

11 Cf. K Mysliwiec, Amon, Atum and Aton: The Evolution of Heliopolitan Influences in Thebes in K. Mysliwiec, L’Égyptologie en 1979, axes prioritaires de recherche, II, Paris 1982, pp. 285-289. 12 Cf. Gabolde 1988, p. 155 with n. 215. 13 Cf. Leprohon 1980.

86

Amenemhat IV between Religion and Policy basis of prosopographic considerations23. It is not easy to establish the exact chronology of the documents in our possession; however, in the light of the above, it seems clear that the inscription on the wall of the Shrine was not the model of the other versions, but rather the outcome of a process of increasing importance of the myth of turquoise. This process reached its peak during Amenemhat III’s and Amenemhat IV’s reigns and had complete fulfillment in the Shrine of the Kings.

intercession. On the whole, it is therefore an official acknowledgement of the divine character of royalty. On the basis of these points, it could be argued that Atum’s presence in so many documents bearing Amenemhat IV’s name could be a consequence of the role assumed by the god and by the Heliopolitan Ennead in Serabit el-Khadim, and responds to the king’s intention to emphasise the divine aspect of the kingship and his legitimacy to rule. A useful source to shed light on this theme can come from the comparative analysis of two sites, both related to Amenemhat IV.

The presence of Atum and the other gods of the Ennead in this place gives a cosmic dimension to the local rite, which seems plausible from the text engraved on the wall of the chapel (B 17). Here, near to the king, the gods Atum, Geb, Tatenen, and the sacred mountains appear as the protagonists of the ritual24. Atum transmits the royal heritage of which he is the first holder, according to Heliopolitan theology; Geb gives strength to the royal power as the legitimate heir to the throne of his father, Shu, and of his grandfather, Atum, acting as the guarantor of the extraction of turquoise. Tatenen plays a complementary role to Geb’s. Finally, the Mountains guide the Sealbearer of the God in the stone extraction. Thus, through the poetic-religious metaphor, the process of turquoise extraction takes on a completely different value from that of other minerals. It should be noted that in Bonnet’s opinion25 the myth of turquoise, considering its ideological implications, could have had a Heliopolitan origin, and this would explain the presence of the other deities belonging to the Ennead.

From the review of the decorative cycle and structure of the Medinet Madi temple (A 23), it is possible to draw some conclusions about this site in the Fayyum and the installations of Serabit el-Khadim. These may help us to understand the reasons for Amenemhat IV’s interest in and perseverance at the second of the two sites; this interest transcends the mere procurement of raw materials useful to finance royal construction projects29 – Medinet Madi and Serabit el-Khadim are two of the few examples of Middle Kingdom temple still extant. The two main gods of the Medinet Madi temple are Sobek and Renenutet. There are also other gods, but their participation is limited to the rites of the pronaos, in which they are depicted in offering scenes to the crocodile god and the cobra goddess. Sobek and Renenutet are the only active deities in the corridor area, in the shrine and in the niches, where they are shown performing rituals connected to the kingship celebration. In the central niche, the link with this theme reaches the peak of its importance. In particular, the scene represented on the back wall “formed the culminating episode in the drama of power renovation”30, which is essential or understanding the whole theology of the temple: it is one of the clearest expressions of the status achieved by the dynastic god Sobek during Amenemhat III’s reign. Here, as stated by the caption accompanying the carved image, the main theme is the transmission of royal power by Sobek of Shedet to the king. The latter is depicted in the centre of the scene in front of Sobek and followed by Renenutet, who takes part in the ceremony as officiating deity. The temple is dedicated to the cobra goddess, but the legitimacy of the royal power derives from the chief god of the region, while both gods play roles expressing themes related to the monarchy and contextualised on a local level. There is no doubt that Renenutet, goddess of agriculture, offers gifts to the king and that “good products from the Land of the Lake” come to the king through Sobek, patron-god of the region. E. Bresciani31, however, has pointed out that the Renenutet of Medinet Madi could be interpreted as the royal cobra, the uraeus, who nourishes and protects the king, or as the

Geb’s role is well emphasised in the decorative cycle, where his chapel appears twice. The first evidence of this representation is a title dated to the Middle Kingdom: Keeper of the white Chapel of Geb (iry HD n gb)26. J. Cerny27 notes that the title is connected to the royal throne and is held by the man who represents the king, while in the New Kingdom titles including the Chapel of Geb are associated with people who took part in the Jubilee celebrations and rituals connected to royal succession and legitimacy. A parallel of this dual aspect of royalty, captured in its initial stage and represented in its continuation by the Jubilee ceremony, can also be found, as already mentioned, in the sanctuary of Karnak28. The scene where the Chapel of Geb is inserted shows also Amenemhat III and the participation of other deities such as Hathor, Ptah, Soped, and the deified king Snefru. The inscription designating each figure suggests that the mines exploitation was guaranteed by Ptah – the king’s intermediary – together with Soped and Snefru, while the goddess Hathor authorised the activities through Geb’s 23 Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, n. 334, p. 201, pl. LXXXI. Dating also accepted by Bonnet, cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 122. 24 Cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 123. 25 Cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 124. 26 Cf. Bonnet 1996, pp. 130-131 and Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, pp. 214-215,Ward n. 851. 27 Cf. Bonnet 1996, pp. 130-131; Ward n. 851. 28 See above.

See Chapter 5: The Borderlands, Introduction and 5.4 Sinai. Zecchi 2010, p. 75. Cf. Donadoni 1947, pp. 517-519 (Y); Hirsch 2004, pp. 365-366 (doc. n. 321q); Bresciani 2006, p. 39 (A, 2). 31 Cf. E. Bresciani, La dea-cobra allatta il coccodrillo a Medinet-Madi, Aegyptus 55 (1975), p. 3-9. 29 30

87

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty among scholars and here a digression may be necessary36. According to R. Giveon37, the only link that can be acknowledged between the goddess and the kings of the Twelfth Dynasty is the one between the economic activity of these sovereigns in foreign lands and the recognised role of the goddess abroad. If documents from the Fayyum are taken into account, however, this connection seems to be more articulated during Amenemhat III’s reign. First among these documents, there are three fragmentary statues found by Petrie in the Labyrinth of Hawara, probably representing the goddess Hathor38. As noted by Zecchi39, it is likely that the goddess was worshipped together with Sobek of Shedet due to her funerary connections and her leading position in the royal cult. Secondly, a sculpture of a ruler, probably Amenemhat III, wearing a mnit necklace, was also found40. It has many parallels with another statue from Shedet (Medinet el-Fayyum) portraying Amenemhat III with a leopard skin on the shoulders and a mnit around the neck41, likely emphasising his priest role42.

goddess Wadjet. As with his female counterpart, Sobek shows a dual identity: the crocodile god connected to the idea of fertility who controls the canals and waterways, thus ensuring the prosperity of his region, and SobekHorus, syncretised with the god Horus who ensures and legitimates royal power. The ambivalence of the scenes of the temple seem clear: both deities provide the king with a happy kingdom, emphasising, on a local level, that the royal bloodline has Fayyummite origins. This interpretation may also hold true for the temple of Serabit el-Khadim, especially for the Shrine of the Kings, to which many parallels regarding structure, decorative cycle, role of divinities, and themes can be traced. 7.2. Gods and Goddesses As in the case of Medinet Madi, the main deities of the Sinai sanctuary are two, a god and a goddess, Hathor and Ptah of Memphis. It is likely that, originally, Hathor was the sole protagonist and that Ptah only joined her later; his role, however, acquired more and more importance until it equalled that of the goddess. Hathor and Ptah are the most attested gods in Sinai and their prominence grows, in a sort of crescendo, between the last years of Amenemhat III’s reign and his successor’s. They are the only deities with two cave-chapels dedicated to them; they are also repeatedly depicted inside the Shrine of the Kings. Ptah is represented four times inside his naos: three times in front of Hathor and once, on the western side of the shrine, in the act of receiving an offering from Amenemhat IV. The king also, symmetrically, makes the same action in favour of Hathor on the other side of the wall.

The mnit-necklace was a symbol of regeneration, Hathor’s symbol and emblem since the Old Kingdom, and it was often associated with child deities like Ihy. It is therefore plausible that Amenemhat III wanted to portray himself as a priest of the goddess. As noted by Zecchi, during Amenemhat III’s reign it seems that there was a special bond between the sovereign, Hathor and the mnit43. This construct does not appear to be attested by any other representations of previous rulers. Moreover, Zecchi44 notes that Amenemhat III is represented while wearing this necklace only in sculptures from Hawara and Shedet, Hathor’s worship-centres in the Fayyum, which would indicate that the goddess apparently played a role of some importance in local theology. In addition, in the Fayyum the figure iry mnit45, Keeper of the mnit-necklace, is also attested. He probably was the one tasked with guarding this necklace worn by the king during certain rites when he acted as a priest of the goddess.

As noted by Tallet, the presence of Ptah in Serabit elKhadim “est logique à plus d’un titre”, as he is both the patron of craftsmen and the most important deity of the Lower Egypt32, from where the expeditions to Sinai started. Ptah’s importance is also emphasised by the frequency with which he is depicted while wearing the Red Crown. In addition, continues Tallet, “il est probable que la personnalité même de la divinité [Ptah] étroitement liée aux rites monarchiques et à la destinée funéraire du roi ait favorisé son implantation sur le site aux cotés d’Hathor”33, especially when we consider that this god is presented as the sovereign of Egypt in some passages of the Texts of Sarcophagi34, thus becoming one of the main actors of the kingship rituals that took place in Serabit el-Khadim.

The discovery context and some iconographic features of representations of Hathor from Fayyum suggest her involvement in the royal funerary rites. Perhaps, it is not a coincidence if the aspect of Hathor connected to the mnitnecklace, to the regeneration, to the rebirth and then to the Jubilee celebration is the one that Amenemhat IV reconnected himself with at Serabit el-Khadim. From Serabit el-Khadim, there is also a royal stela dating to Amenemaht III’s reign, mentioning the mnit along with other offerings to the goddess. In addition, on the left side of B 18, the

More complex is the case of Hathor, who during the Middle Kingdom became specifically the specific of foreign countries, of expedition starting-points, and of mining sites35. The prominent role played by Hathor, especially during the Twelfth Dynasty, has been debated

32 33 34 35

Cf. Giveon 1978, p. 61 and ff. Cf. Giveon 1978, p. 65. 38 Cf. Petrie 1912, p. 31, pl. XXV.4; p. 31, pl. XXV.1 and p. 31, pl. XXIV.1 (Cairo 30/9/14/9): Cf. also Zecchi 2001, p. 139. 39 Cf. Zecchi 2001, p. 139. 40 Cf. Petrie 1912, p. 31, pl. XXV.3. 41 CG 395. 42 Cf. Zecchi 2001, p. 140. 43 Cf. Zecchi 2001, p. 140. 44 Cf. Zecchi 2001, p. 140. 45 Cf. Ward n. 518. 36 37

Cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 39. Cf. Tallet 2005, pp. 151-154. Chapter 647, (cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 40). Cf. for example Giveon 1978, p. 61 and ff.

88

Amenemhat IV between Religion and Policy mnit necklace is given by the goddess Hathor to Ptah and by her or by a celebrant to Amenemhat IV.

time-frames of the two kings’ reigns, thus becoming a celebration of a perennial ritual for the monarchy.

Considering the role played by Hathor at Serebit elKhadim as the intermediary for the transmission of royal power46, we can see another analogy with the temple of Medinet Madi: Hathor, Lady of Turquoise (nbt mfkt), is linked to the location as the patroness guarantor of the mining site and of the extraction of the mineral. At the same time, she is the one that legitimises and enables the transmission of royal power, by actively intervening in the rites celebrated in the Shrine of the Kings. Just as at Medinet Madi, the tutelary deities of the site establish a bond with the place and with what it represents, playing a specific role in the rituals of kingship celebration, and integrating local and general dimensions. The role played by Sobek and Renenutet in the Fayyum is here assumed by Hathor and Ptah.

The parallelism between Medinet Madi and Serabit elKhadim also emerges in the types of offerings made to the gods. On the East side of the door, on the South wall52, Amenemhat IV is depicted while performing the rite: presenting the divine offering, he acts like one who is given life forever (wdn Htpw-ntr ir=f di anx dt) in honour of the goddess Renenutet. Between the king and the goddess there is an offering table, above which is written rnn iwA, young cattle. The term Htpw nTr designates a varied number of goods such as bread, fruit, vegetables, and meat. The recipient of this offer, in return, grants intangible gifts to the king connected with the monarchy. In fact, Renenutet gives royal gifts consisting of many jubilees to Amenemhat IV: I have caused you to celebrate [jubilees like Ra], forever […], (ir.t sd Hb-sd mi Ra Dt […]). She also proclaims that the offerer is King of Upper and Lower Egypt as Ra, forever, (ir.t m nsw bit mi Ra Dt). This scene finds significant parallels in B 18 (a) of the Shrine of the Kings in Serabit el-Khadim, where Amenemhat IV performs a similar offering in favour of Hathor and Ptah, respectively at the right and at the left sides.

7.3. The Decorative Cycle47 The southern wall of the Shrine of the Kings is decorated in two registers: the lower one is engraved into the rock, while the upper one is made by separated engraved rock slabs that were subsequently applied. The iconographic theme emphasises the legitimacy and continuity of royal power: at the centre of the lower register the Chapel of Geb is represented48. The representation of this primordial theme, as already mentioned, was duplicated by Amenemhat IV’s expansion project in order to invoke the mythical place where the transmission of power over the Two Lands by its divine original holder to the reigning king occurred. To both the right and left of the chapel of Geb, the goddess Hathor is represented while coming out and going to Ptah’s naos; behind this Amenemhat III is portrayed, accompanied on the right by Snefru and on the left by the god Sopedu. Thus, the power is transmitted by Geb through the intercession of Hathor and Ptah, patrons of the site. According to some scholars49, the theology of the place establishes a relationship between the extraction of turquoise and royal legitimacy: “le fait qu’Hathor accepte de livrer la pierre au roi est de sa part la confirmation de l’autorité de celui-ci sur l’Égypte”50.

In that temple, on the right side, the king wears the Red Crown and holds in his hands a nmst vase, which is probably also connected to the ritual of monarchy celebration53. On the left side of the representation, within a naos, Ptah is shown receiving a vast array of goods very similar to those in the scene on the other side; in this case, however, the ruler is wearing the khat crown. Even though the incriptions accompanying the scenes are very damaged, the analogy with the representation of Medinet Madi is clear: above the scene, some hieroglyphics remain, r[…] PtH, interpreted by Gardiner54 as part of [presenting] […] [to] Ptah. It is plausible that the missing text was similar to that of the Fayyum temple, considering that among the gifts offered there is shown a similar ox portion. Considering the analogous theological context of the kingship celebration, it is plausible that in return the sovereign receives the same gifts of legitimacy and royal jubilees.

The importance of the goddess’s role is repeated in the upper register (B 18). This time, Amenemhat IV is the protagonist, represented while offering gifts and receiving the legitimacy of his function in return. It is interesting to note the presence, in both registers, of the ancestorking Snefru; as already explained, he became a model of kingship51 during the Twelfth Dynasty. In this way, the meaning of the representations transcends the particular

On the internal lintel of the door that leads into the naos of the Medinet Madi temple, there are two symmetrical, but different scenes. On the west side, Amenemhat III is performing the ritual called “giving the incense” (di snTr) for Renenutet; on the east side, instead, Amenemhat IV is performing the ritual called “giving white bread” (sqr t HDt) in favour of Sobek. As noted by Zecchi55, in this context, the sqr t HDt, together with the ritual of Giving

See above. Cf. Tallet 2005, p. 154. 48 Cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 130-131 and n. 255, 257. 49 Cf. for example Tallet 2005, p. 154. 50 Tallet 2005, p. 154. 51 R. Ventura, Snefru in Sinai and Amenophis I at Deir el-Medina, in Pharaonic Egypt, Jerusalem 1985, pp. 278-288.

Cf. Donadoni 1947, p. 508-510 (T); Hirsch 2004, pp. 380-381 (n. 342m), Bresciani 2006, p. 32 (D, 7); Zecchi, 2010, p. 71. 53 Cf. Nelson 1949, pp. 216-221. 54 Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 130. 55 Cf. Donadoni 1947, pp. 351-352 (R); Hirsch 2004, p. 342 (doc. n. 342l, Bresciani 2006, p. 31 (D, 8-9); Zecchi, 2010, p. 69; Zecchi 2001, p. 154.

46

52

47

89

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty two complexes. Surely, between the end of Amenemhat III’s reign and the beginning of his successor’s, the whole worshipping system of Serabit el-Khadim underwent considerable change. In this context, those changes made to the Shrine of the Kings are particularly interesting. Here, once one has crossed the porch, the opposite wall looks like the front of a monument whose back side is missing. On the basis of structural considerations and of a number of epigraphic documents64, Bonnet has argued that Hathor and Ptah’s porches were built later than the porch of the Shrine of the Kings and, indeed, may have been influenced by it.

the house to his Lord (di-pr-n-nb.f), are one of the first attestations of this type of ceremony in an Egyptian temple. Both the ceremony of “giving the incense” and “offering the white bread” seem to be connected with the right of the king to rule56. Among the different types of bread produced in Ancient Egypt, “white bread” was characterised by its conical shape and pointed top. The symbolic and ritual functions of this bread are already present in the Pyramids’ Texts57 and in those of Sarcophagi’s58, and apparently was used in Heliopolitan worship by the name “bnbn bread”59. It is mainly known to be used in the rite called Ritual of Amenhotep I60: “il s’agit probablement d’un rituel très ancien et consiste à rendre hommage aux ancêstres divins, dont le roi, successeur du trone, a obtenu l’héritage”61.

The decorative cycle has completely disappeared on Ptah’s porch but is still visible on Hathor’s, and it is consistent with that of the Shrine of the Kings and with the ideology there expressed65: the porches are therefore at the heart of the sanctuary of Serabit el-Khadim. As noted by Bonnet66, this peculiarity implies a special design that at this time is found, mutatis mutandis, also in Medinet Madi. According to Bonnet67: “le petit temple de Medinet Madi offre des proportions et un style mieux adaptés aux comparaisons”. The shrines of Serabit el-Khadim re-evoke it, firstly in the porch before a single door that leads axially to a shrine, and secondly, in the massive and solid lateral walls. In addition, the reliefs added to the Shrine of the Kings during Amenemhat IV’s reign, especially the replica of the Chapel of Geb (B 17), suggest that the decoration of the temple was a backdrop to cult statues of the king worshipped during celebrations of monarchy. It is again in analogy to the three rear niches at Medinet Madi, which, side by side on the bottom of the building, were designed to contain the cult statues of the kings.

At Serabit el-Khadim, the offering of white bread takes a special form attested in several documents62, including the scene on the lintel at the entrance of the Shrine of Hathor (B 28). Here, the king (Amenemhat III or IV) is offering “white-bread loaves of turquoise” (t-HD mfkAt) to goddess Hathor. The typical iconography of the scene usually shows the offerer giving one loaf held in the left hand and holding another in the right one in a sign of consecration. The caption that accompanies this scene often does not provide information about the specific meaning of the ritual, however: “on peut toutefois déceler l’idée de l’héreditage divin. Le roi reçoit sa pleine puissance sur l’Egypte […]. Il se voit également attribuée la fonction d’Atoum. […] Il est reçu comme créateur lui-même. Le renouvellement est exprimé par les voeux de nombreux jubilés. […] Même si aux origines l’offrande du pain blanc a fait partie d’un culte divin, elle prait, par la suite, s’insérer plus praticulièrement dans le culte royal”63. If we consider that this scene is represented in both temples and that until that time, it had been an unusual representation – first appearing in this period, in fact – the intention to establish a parallel between the two temples and places is, in my opinion, even more evident.

At the time of excavation of the Medinet Madi temple, the central niche still contained a fragmentary group of statues showing a pair of feet in the centre, flanked left and right by two other pairs of feet68. It is possible Renenutet was represented in the centre, flanked by two sovereigns. The eastern niche contained a similar block where Sobek was represented between Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV. The western niche, which did not preserve any archaeological finds, could only have held a single statue, that of Amenemhat III. On the walls of the three niches, the gods are repeatedly represented in the act of receiving offerings. As usual, in return, they granted life, strength, and stability to the sovereigns. As reported by Tallet69, Serabit el-Khadim has supplied many effigies of kings represented in human shape or as the falcon Horus; the Shrine of the Kings should have been the location of most of these. There, in Hathor’s presence (carried in procession from her chapel), the statues were revived during a specific ritual with the background of the decorative cycle of royal

7.4. Structural parallels As already mentioned, the temples of Medinet Madi and Serabit el-Khadim are two of the rare examples of survivingMiddle Kingdom temple architecture. Therefore, having no other buildings with which to make a comparison, it is impossible to determine what should be judged as standard components for this period and what should be evaluated as wanted parallels between the Cf. Stroot-Kirraly 1989. Cf. Stroot-Kirraly 1989, p. 157; S.A.B. Mercer, The Pyramid Texts in Translation and Commentary, New York 1952, p. 685. 58 Cf. Stroot-Kirraly 1989, p. 157; P. Braguet, Les Textes des Sarcophages égyptiens au Moyen Empire, Paris 1986, p. 407, discours n. 581. 59 Cf. Stroot-Kirraly 1989, p. 158. 60 Cf. Stroot-Kirraly 1989, p. 158; Bacchi, Il rituale di Amenhotep I, Torino 1942; Nelson 1949. 61 Cf. Stroot-Kirraly 1989, p. 158. 62 Cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 144 and IS n. 72; 112; cf. also Wilson 1997, p. 939 and Zecchi 2010, p. 69, n. 264. 63 Cf. Stroot-Kirraly 1989, p. 160. 56 57

64 65 66 67 68 69

90

Cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 95, about stela IS 110. Cf. B 28, about the offering of white turquoise-bread. Cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 108. Cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 162. Cf. Zecchi 2010, p. 77; (A 28, s1 s2). Cf. Tallet 2005, p. 156.

Amenemhat IV between Religion and Policy legitimacy that, in turn, was confirmed in its importance by the ceremony.

represent some family members whose identity remains unfortunately unknown.

7.5. The Position of Gods and Goddesses

An open question regarding both the temple of Medinet Madi and the Shrine of the Kings of Serabit el-Khadim is the exact date of their construction. Even with the data at our disposal, we cannot come to a sure conclusion and date the buildings to a specific time of the kings’ reign. However, we could draw some conclusions about their relative chronology by comparing the two buildings and their decorative cycles.

At Medinet Madi, both inside the sanctuary and in its three niches, Sobek and Renenutet are always represented standing: the formercrocodile-headed, the latter cobraheaded surmounted by the solar disk and two tall feathers, holding the was sceptre and the ankh sign. As receivers of offerings and objects offered directly by the king, they face the giver. Sobek is active only when he gives the jubilee sign, rnpt, to Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV.

Based on the structure and decoration, it has been proposed that the temple of Medinet Madi dates to the coregency of71, or at least to a phase of transition between, Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV. As for the Shrine of the Kings at Serabit el-Khadim, it should be concluded that it was finished when Amenemhat IV was already the sole ruler, and therefore chronologically later than the temple of Medinet Madi. This would be consistent with the fact that the control of the Sinai mines was Amenemhat III’s72 until the end of the reign, and that this site passed to Amenemhat IV only at the end of their co-regency – unlike others, such as the mines of the Western Desert73. When we consider the inconvenient location of the place, it is plausible to assume that Amenemhat IV decided to work in Serabit el-Khadim at a later time, perhaps during the third stage of the Medinet Madi temple: that is, after the five added scenes had been finished. To corroborate these considerations, some circumstantial evidence can also be mentioned; firstly the fact that the iconographic elements closest in subject to those at Medinet Madi are concentrated in the western part, which was the half reserved for Amenemhat IV: for example, the offering table with the Htpw ntr or the equal position taken by the two main deities, Ptah and Hathor.

Similarly, in the Shrine of the Kings, Hathor is portrayed in two ways. In the first, she is standing and addresses the offerers, among whom there is Ptah himself. He is also represented standing, mummy-shaped inside his naos while holding the was sceptre. In these cases, Hathor is motionless, holding the was sceptre and the ankh sign; she is human-headed, surmounted by the solar disk enclosed between bovine horns. In the second type of representation, she is depicted seated, holding the ankh sign while receiving Htpw-ntr offerings. Similarly, Ptah, in B 18 (left side and right side) is represented as a receiver of goods, on the left by Hathor, the second one on the right, by Amenemhat IV. The god, inside his naos, is standing, mummy-shaped and holding the was sceptre. The only scenes where a direct participation of gods with the kings is shown are at the left end of B 18. These are two scenes in succession where the sovereign, almost certainly Amenemhat IV, receives a mnit necklace and perhaps an ankh sign from a female figure holding a was sceptre in one hand: one of the two wears a headdress with bovine horns, while the other she wears (probably) no crown at all. In the latter depiction, the woman is accompanied by a child handing an ankh sign. Doubts about the identity of these characters are due partly to the poor state of preservation and partly to some stylistic issues.

Just as the theology of Medinet Madi created a perfect parallel between the economic and agriculture exploitation of the region, and the legitimacy of the royal power itself of the reigning dynasty embodied by Amenemhat III, just so did the theology expressed in the Shrine of the Kings create a perfect parallel between the exploitation of the turquoise mines of the region and the legitimisation and celebration of royal power by the Twelfth Dynasty, embodied by Amenemhat IV.

If it is almost certain that the offering and the was sceptre are held by Hathor, the small size of the second offerer and the possible absence of any headgear have led scholars to believe that she may be not a goddess, but a human celebrant accompanied by a child, who takes the place of the divine child Ihy during a real rite70. In this representation, there is perhaps a further analogy to be made with Medinet Madi, where in some scenes rites are carried out at the presence of human attendants – in this case, members of the royal family. Neferuptah, for example, fulfils this role in the scene on the west side of the door of the south wall of the transversal room (A 8, S); Hetepti in the scene on the west jamb of the short corridor leading to the transversal room (A 8, O) and the controversial scene on the east wall of the same room (A 8, V), with the possible prince. At Serabit elKhadim, Amenemhat IV might have chosen to include and

The references to the monarchical theme found at Serabit el-Khadim are not limited to the scenes within the sanctuary itself; they are also connected to other gods including Khenty-Khety who is represented on two stelae (B 13, B 15) dated to Amenemhat IV’s sixth and ninth regnal years respectively. The reason for the significant presence of this

70 For the name Ihy also used by a human celebrant cf. Gardiner-PeetČerný 1955, p. 131 “Ihy is a name often bestowed on Harsamtaui, the son of Hathor, and hence applied to the priestess of Hathor”.

71 72 73

91

See Chapter 2: Succession and co-regency. See Chapter 2: Succession and co-regency. See Chapter 2: Succession and co-regency.

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty god in Sinai74, as already discussed75, can be found in the geographical location of Athribis.

both to the different personalities of the two gods and to historical reasons: the importance of the Fayyum, on the one side, and the disappearance of crocodiles from Athribis, on the other.

What is relevant in this context for our purpose is the theological reinterpretation of Khenty-Khety over time. On the aforementioned stelae, the god is shown falcon-headed surmounted by the solar disk and two feathers (Swty) in clear connection with Horus’ cult. This transformation of a crocodile god into a falcon god was firstly interpreted76 as an attempt to channel the “savagery” of the crocodile in a positive sense. This explanation, however, is not enough: it is impossible not to see a parallel with the similar transformation undergone by Sobek, who received the epithet Hr Hry-ib Sdt (Horus who resides in Shedet). The highest manifestation of the union between Sobek and Horus in connection with the monarchy cult comes once again from the temple of Medinet Madi, whose decorative cycle is full of symbolic meanings alluding to royal power77.

From these considerations and on the basis of the analysis of the documents belonging to Amenemhat IV, it seems plausible to say that the kingship cult played a central role during this king’s reign. The king characterised his reign with the recovery of and the insistence on royalty. This theme is present throughout the dynasty, in particular during the early stages when the sovereigns still needed to legitimise their presence on the throne, but the fact that it came back into the spotlight between the end of the reign of Amenemhat III and the entire reign of Amenemhat IV seems significant. It cannot be accidental that the king chose to emphasise his link with the god Atum, in whose shrine in Heliopolis kings were crowned, and that at the same time he appeared in the temple of Medinet Madi, whose decorative cycle led to a royalist interpretation. Moreover, Amenemhat IV is the most active sovereign in the Sinai temple, a relatively new context, free from previous ideological “shackles”, where he built a monumental symbol of the monarchy. It is also interesting to note that it is possible to establish links between the various analysed contexts. Perhaps the intention behind them had been to build a network of relationships united by a single theme, so that it does not seem unwarranted to talk of an ideological project.

This was probably the result of an innovative theological current of the Middle Kingdom that tried to express in a mythological language the unity of all crocodile gods, however heterogeneous their origins. Thus, KhentyKhety, like Sobek-Horus, wears the Swty crown and is associated with the image of Horus on the srx, the symbol of royalty78. In addition, as certainly happened with SobekHorus, it is likely that the theology of the Middle Kingdom also presented Khenty-Khety wrrt-crowned: it has a very strong reference to the coronation ritual79. Beginning in the Middle Kingdom, Khenty-Khety gradually turned into a solar deity, a solar Horus, and perhaps also because of the proximity of Athribis with Heliopolis, it was developed a cosmogony representing the god as the demiurge, a representative of the morning sun or that of the evening (the moon). In addition, the phrase in the rite of Athribis “bind the crown mH or wAh around the Atf” can be interpreted as intended to perpetuate the institution of the monarchy; the king repeated the event that had made Horus the successor of Ra, while in return the god guaranteed the coronation in accordance with the archetypal model.

The reasons for such a project should be identified while considering the need to legitimise the new king’s presence on the throne; this would be an indirect indication of the lack of strong links between Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV. After the early period of the Twelfth Dynasty, when the new rulers had to consolidate their presence, the renewed emphasis on this issue seems to suggest a break in continuity and the need to restore it.

The parallel between Khenty-Khety and Sobek of Shedet, however, requires some clarifications: unlike KhentyKhety, Sobek always remains a crocodile, although his function is sometimes expressed in analogy with Horus80, while Khenty-Khety, once linked with Horus, takes his name (Hr-xnty-Xty) and his whole potential. His original aspect remains a matter of theological speculation only. Sobek-Horus is a parallel, while that of Khenty-KhetyHorus is an “intrusive metaphor”. This gap was due IS 166; 120; 122; 123. See Chapter 5: The Borderlands, 5.4 Sinai; cf. Vernus 1978, p. 382. 76 Cf. H. Kees Kulttopographische und mythologische Beiträge, ZÄS 64 (1929), pp. 99-112 and Vernus 1978, p. 387, with n. 2. 77 See above; cf. Zecchi 2001, p. 160 and ff.; Zecchi 2010, p. 60 and ff. 78 Cf. Amenemhat III’s columns from Kiman-Fares in Vernus 1978, p. 406. 79 Cf. Vernus 1978, p. 389 and, about the wrrt-crown in reference to Sobek of Shedet, cf. Zecchi 2010, documents 17, 30, 54. 80 See below. 74 75

92

Part 3 The End of the Kingdom

8 The Tomb Amenemhat IV’s burial place is not known and the lack of a burial worthy of his predecessors’ and also attributed to him has been considered another sign of decline. It is possible, however, that Amenemhat IV and Sobekneferu were the subjects of one of the many burials discovered and dated to the Late Middle Kingdom, but whose identity is not yet known. Several scholars have tried to develop criteria to define a chronological order of these burials without being able to come to a unanimously accepted reconstruction so far1.

to that of the pyramid at Hawara5. In fact, the structural analogy of the Mazghuna buildings with Amenemhat III’s pyramid at Hawara, although on a reduced scale, is remarkable: they also share the monolithic burial chamber, the closure system and the general organisation of the underground spaces6. It is important to notice that the general appearance of the North building is not finished and it was never really used as burial place. Mackay did not find any trace of offerings, nor of human remains, and closure systems were never placed in their final position; this led him to conclude that “either the owner decided to be buried elsewhere, or the political situation was such that a group of people or the successor to the throne did not allow him or her to be interred in the finished tomb”7.

One hypothesis that has obtained more credit among scholars posits that Amenemhat IV was buried in one of the two pyramids of Mazghuna, a town located between Dahshur and el-Lisht. During an excavation campaign conducted here by Eric Mackay2 between 1911 and 1912, the remains of two unfinished small pyramid complexes in a poor state of preservation were discovered; it is worthwhile for us to revisit the data from this site. Almost nothing remains of the superstructure and the external parts of the complex known as the “North Pyramid”3, and the cause of this is not known. Whether this was a consequence of looting and plundering that happened in antiquity or of an intentional destruction, or even the simple possibility that the works were unfinished due to the owner’s sudden death, Mackay’s excavation could only focus on the interior, which is very complex. The entrance to the complex, located east of the structure, leads to the actual entrance of the pyramid, located to the north. A short flight of stairs, consisting of 10 steps, leads to a sloping corridor which proceeds westward ending next to a gate, where the presence of pivots and jambs signals the original existence of a wooden door. Here one meets a series of rooms set in a north-south direction. The two rooms labelled in Figure 2 with the letters N and P probably corresponded to the space for the deceased, and it was divided between an antechamber and the actual burial chamber. The sarcophagus, carved in a single quartzite block, was found with the heavy lid, also made of quartzite, not fixed yet.

Mackay then proceeded with the excavation of the “South Pyramid” located 40 m south of the North one8. The complex is in a good state of conservation and, near the south-east corner, still features the thick temenos entrance leading to a vestibule. A mud-brick chapel occupied the centre of the eastern side of the temenos itself; the presence of this element supports the hypothesis that a cult of the deceased person was inaugurated here, although the superstructure was never finished. The entrance of the pyramid, at the centre of the south side – the first analogy with the Hawara pyramid – leads to the first of the two granite monoliths’ locking systems, followed by a second similar to the previous one. From here onwards, the way to the burial chamber leads along a series of corridors arranged so that they wind around the burial room three times, preceded by an antechamber in which two limestone lamps and some objects were found. Among them, an alabaster vase in the shape of a duck is very interesting: it was split into two halves and reassembled in antiquity9. As Amenemhat III’s Hawara pyramid, this one is also equipped with a monolithic vault burial chamber with a similar closure system. In fact, to close the Hawara pyramid burial chamber, the architects designed what M. Lehner calls “the first known sand lowering device”10: the

D. Landua-McCormack, in her study of Thirteenth Dynasty burials, says: “the presence of the door, as well as the ramps without steps, seems strange when compared to the monuments discussed before and after this section”4 and the wooden door open-close system (Figure 2, C) is similar

Cf. Landua-McCormack 2008, p. 219. Cf. Lehner 1997, p. 184; Verner 1997, pp. 432-43; Landua-McCormack 2008, pp. 218-225. 7 Landua-McCormack 2008, p. 225. For another interpretation of the ‘unfinished’, cf. Ryholt 1997, p. 81 in which the scholar assumed that in a period characterised by political instability and discontinuity in succession, several kings may have deliberately decided to use their own pyramid to bury his own predecessor. 8 Mackay 1912, p. 41. Cf. also Lehner 2004, p. 184. 9 Cf. Mackay 1912, pp. 45-46; Lehner 2004, p. 184; LanduaMcCormack 2008, p. 236. For the alabaster vase, it could be an example of the custom of mutilating the zoomorphic hieroglyphics. Cf. Miniaci 2010; Bourriau 1988, p. 141. 10 Lehner 1997, p. 183. 5 6

1 Cf. Landua-McCormack 2008, p. 367 and ff.; Dodson 1987, p. 39; Dodson 1994 (b) pp. 25-32, 38. 2 Cf. Mackay 1912. 3 Cf. Mackay 1912, p. 51; Landua-McCormack 2008, pp. 218-219. 4 Cf. Landua-McCormack 2008, pp. 219-220.

95

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty

Figure 2: The North-Pyramid interior (Mackay 1912, pl. 47).

pillars supporting the quartzite slab that would lock the room rested on shafts and were filled with sand, made on both sides of the vault. After removing the sand, the pillars would come down and the slab with them, so that they sealed the burial chamber definitively 11.

and those discovered south of Saqqara, in particular Khendjer’s pyramid. However, Landua-McCormack17, in the light of her study of the entire corpus of Thirteenth Dynasty pyramids, recently revealed that this similarity is actually less significant than it might seem, suggesting instead a dating of the two pyramids between the end of the Twelfth Dynasty and the beginning of Thirteenth.

Because of the close similarities with the pyramid at Hawara, Mackay12 attributed the so-called “South Pyramid” to Amenemhat IV, and the North Pyramid to Sobekneferu. It seems it was planned to be larger than the southern one, but it was never finished. These conclusions are also supported by the authors of some recent publications13. Nevertheless, the two kings’ names are not present in the two complexes and the identification of their burial places remains an open question. Moreover, we do not even have exploration reports of the excavation of the site that, according to local people, seems to have been conducted by J. De Morgan before Mackay’s dig14.

This being the case, it seems impossible to determine the importance of Mazghuna for Amenemhat IV’s reign; only further investigations will bring an answer. If we cannot question the attribution of the “South Pyramid” to Amenemhat IV, in light of the relationships18 among the last kings of the dynasty, the attribution of the North one to Sobekneferu remains controversial. Why should the queen have chosen to share Amenemhat IV’s burial place rather than be buried in Hawara, near her father and sister? It is important to remember that for the entire duration of her reign, she had endeavoured to show herself as the only legitimate successor of Amenemhat III’s reign, avoiding any kind of bond with her direct predecessor.

This attribution of the Mazghuna pyramids is therefore based only on circumstantial data. The structural similarity to the pyramid dating to the end of the Twelfth Dynasty, the architectural structure, and the presence of some specific elements such as high-quality findings like alabaster vases and fragments of other precious materials, would suggest a royal burial. As Landua-McCormack remarks: “when comparing the tombs of the kings to those of royal women or officials, it is clear that the main difference in these funerary provisions was the architecture […] [in particular] the form of the substructure. The kings were the only individuals with access to this tomb form”15. Other scholars prefer, however, a dating to the middle period of the Thirteenth Dynasty. G. Jéquier16, for example, emphasises the similarities between the “South Pyramid”

As a result of the Dahshur excavations19, the site was revealed as the burial place of the Fourth and Twelfth Dynasty’s kings, from Amenemhat II, to Senwsret III and Amenemhat III. Other pyramids of Thirteenth Dynasty kings were discovered in the southern sector of the site, while other tombs were discovered inside the temenos of Amenemhat III’s one. Since this site is the starting point of our knowledge of Late Middle Kingdom burials, it is logical to expect even more tombs not yet discovered will be found there20. D. Arnold21 unearthed next to Amenemhat III’s Black Pyramid some blocks from the temple valley bearing Amenemhat IV’s name. On the basis of his discovery, he

Cf. Lehner 1997, p. 183; Landua-McCormack 2008, p. 266. Mackay 1912, p. 37. 13 Cf. for example Edwards 1961, p. 336; Bell 1975, p. 260; Grimal 1988, p. 171; Callender 1995, p. 229; Verner 2002, p. 433. 14 Mackay 1912, p. 50. 15 Landua-McCormack 2008, p. 409. 16 Jéquier 1986, p. 67. Cf. also Hayes 1953 (a), p. 341; Dodson (b)1994, 29, n. 61; Arnold 2001, p. 141; Grajetzki 2002. 11

12

17 18 19 20 21

96

Cf. Landua-McCormack 2008, p. 240. See Conclusions. Cf. Dodson 1987 and Dodson 1994 (b). Cf. Landua-McCormack 2008, p. 276. Cf. Arnold 1987, p. 94.

The Tomb Taking these facts into account, where could Amenemhat IV’s tomb be?

suggested that the ruler was buried within this funerary complex; this hypothesis is corroborated by the fact that, upon the abandonment of the site after Amenemhat III, the pyramid’s regal burial chamber was still empty. However, we must consider that the building had shown strong signs of static instability and that during the first twenty years of Amenemhat III’s reign it was sealed by back-filling corridors and underground rooms with sand, an action that would have prevented looting and that also consolidated the structure. After these precautions were taken, it is very unlikely that there would be any possibility or intention to reopen the pyramid after such a long time. The presence of Amenemhat IV’s name may therefore be only a small indication of the work carried out by the sovereign to complete or renovate some building elements: nothing excludes the possibility that, even though the pyramid was abandoned, a form of worship dedicated to Amenemhat III or to any bride who had been buried there remained active in the valley temple22.

Dodson27 noted that the topographic distribution of the Middle Kingdom pyramids seems to follow a northsouth direction over time. On this basis, he formulated some hypotheses on the ownership of two other pyramids excavated in the necropolis of Dahshur, the so-called A and B pyramids. The first, in particular, would be the pyramid of Amenemhat IV or of Sobekneferu since “its position relative to the pyramid of Amenemhat III is very similar to that of the latter to that of Amenemhat II, and Amenemhat II to Senwsret III”28. He concluded that “in any case, the South Dahshur group should probably be placed within the twenty-five years following the death of Amenemhat III”29. Finally, Grajetzki has suggested that Amenemhat IV’s tomb may lie near Amenemhat III’s pyramid in Hawara30. Considering the building material of the Middle Kingdom pyramids, most of them made of mud-bricks covered with limestone, it is possible that some of those located in the area between Saqqara and Dahshur collapsed and that their remains have not been identified31 yet; among these, there may be those belonging to the two kings of the dynasty. One only has to think of the pitiful remains of Amenemhat III’s “Labyrinth” to realise the level of degradation to which these buildings can be reduced. On the basis of this analysis, the conclusions drawn about Mazghuna could be expanded more generally by saying that if it is very likely that Amenemhat IV chose a burial place near Dahshur, it is equally plausible that Sobekneferu’s tomb, given the numerous ties with the region and its god, rests somewhere in Hawara.

The evidence for the possible presence of Amenemhat IV at this site, however, do not end here. Approximately 125 m south of Amenemhat II’s pyramid, some debris was identified by R. Lepsius as the remains of the ramp and of the temenos of a pyramid23 dating to the late Middle Kingdom. Interestingly fact, near this structure, an Egyptian antiquity inspector called Moussa discovered a limestone fragment bearing an Amenemhat cartouche24. The possible occupants of this burial could therefore be an Amenemhat of the Thirteenth Dynasty, or Amenemhat IV himself. The lack of accurate excavations in this badly damaged area, however, makes any conclusion purely hypothetical. Lastly, in the light of more recent discoveries, the possibility that Amenemhat IV’s tomb was located near Abydos remains to be considered. In fact, in January 2014, the tomb of Sobekhotep I was identified in this area thanks to a fragment of a stela inscribed with cartouches25. The tomb substructures were lined with fine limestone and contained a 60-ton red quartzite sarcophagus. The tomb was once topped by a pyramid, now completely lost. Parts of canopic jars, funerary objects, and the king’s gold ornaments were also unearthed. The possible links between Amenemhat IV and Sobekhotep will be discussed later26, but the proximity of the tombs of these rulers would be plausible.

Cf. Lehner 1997, pp. 180-181; Pignattari 2008, pp. 45 and ff. Cf. Landua-McCormack 2008, p. 277; Lehner 2004, p. 184; Lepsius 1897, p. 207 (Lepsius LIV). 24 Cf. Landua-McCormack 2008, p. 277. 25 The identification was announced by the Egyptian Minister of State for Antiquities Mohamed Ibrahim on 6 January 2014. See also “King Sobekhotep I tomb discovered in Sohag”: ; “Pennsylvania Researches Discover Tomb of Egypt’s First King of 13th Dynasty”: . About the link between Twelfth Dynasty rulers and Abydos see Landua-McCormack 2008, p. 295 and ff. 26 See Chapter 9: Amenemhat IV and the end of the Dynasty. 22 23

27 28 29 30 31

97

Cf. Dodson 1987. Dodson 1987, p. 43. Dodson 1987, p. 43. Cf. Grajetzki 2002, pp. 23-27. Cf. Tallet 2005, p. 260.

9 Amenemhat IV and the End of the Dynasty Dynasty and left behind a markedly different Egypt, one that was, to a certain extent, already entering into the Second Intermediate Period. Even if the grouping of the Egyptian kings into dynasties is the result of relatively recent academic research, it is undeniable that the ancient sources, starting with the Turin Canon itself, recognise a break at the end of Sobekneferu’s reign.

“La fin de la dinastie sombre brusquement dans l’obscurité” Vandersleyen 1995, p. 115 The amount of available material allows us to draw several conclusions about Amenemhat IV’s reign. Firstly, we can surmise its duration: it has been repeatedly pointed out that the Turin Canon assigns the ruler a kingdom of “9 years, 3 months and 27 days”, and this is consistent with the evidence known so far. The earliest date that is certainly attributable to Amenemhat IV is given by an inscription engraved on a stela (B 14) from Serabit el-Khadim and dedicated by the xtmw-nTr Djaf-Horemsaf. In the lunette, we read: “Year 8 under the majesty of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Makherura, who lives eternally […]”. Due to its connection with Djaf-Horemsaf, another document has also been dated to Amenemhat IV’s reign: it is an inscription dated to the ninth regnal year of a king whose name is lost. It also comes from Serabit el-Khadim and is engraved on a stela bearing Djaf-Horemsaf’s name (B 15). In addition to this evidence, we also have a series of papyri from Kahun dating to the 10th regnal year of a ruler identified by Griffith1 as one of Amenemhat III’s successors, probably Amenemhat IV; their attribution, however, remains uncertain (A 38, A 39). For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that a re-examination2 of the Semna graffiti had previously led scholars to attribute to Amenemhat IV’s reign a badly preserved inscription made in an unknown ruler’s 13th regnal year. In her 1975 article, however, B. Bell3 concluded that this graffiti actually pertains to another king’s reign, probably a king of the Thirteenth Dynasty, or Amenemhat III himself4.

As noted by A. Gardiner, we will never know why Sobekneferu has traditionally been considered the last ruler of the Twelfth Dynasty, but the Turin Canon, the king list of Saqqara, and Manetho’s list all agreed on this point, while the List of Abydos directly skips her and goes on to the first king of the Eighteenth Dynasty6. The known king lists do not follow the same version of history. According to the Turin Canon, Sobekneferu reigned 3 years, 10 months and 24 days; Manetho rounds up to four years; in the Karnak list, because of an error in her name, she is registered as Sobek-neferu-Ra7, while in the table of Saqqara she is called Sobek-ka-Ra; finally, the list of Abydos ignores her. In my opinion, the omission of her name from this list is not particularly significant for the historicity of her reign and, as S. Pernigotti writes, the tendentious nature of such a list is clear, including as it does only the sovereigns from whom Sethy I and Ramesses II believed to be descended, with an implicit damnatio memoriae of the others, who were thus excluded and therefore deleted from history8. The only certain datum is that the last monument bearing Sobekneferu’s name comes from Kumma, from the Second Cataract, and contains a record of the Nile level registered during the third regnal year9. It is a graffito10 left by the queen’s official showing the water level. It is evident that some major event took place which ended the dynasty; it was perceived as the beginning of something else, but it remains to be determined whether this had violent causes or not.

From the examined evidence, therefore, there is no reason to question the Turin Canon’s information5: in his first ten years since ascending the throne of Egypt, Amenemhat IV accomplished well-attested activities, and there is much to suggest that the king was firmly in power and able to continue his predecessor’s activity. However, this assessment of his reign is still debated; this is especially due to the fact that, after the king’s death, a woman took power. She was Sobekneferu, who concluded the Twelfth

It is interesting to skim through some of the interpretations given by the most reliable Egyptological tradition in pursuit of further information on this event. For example,

Cf. Griffith 1897, p. 86. Cf. Murnane 1979, p. 26. 3 Cf. Bell 1975, p. 229, n. 11. 4 The graffiti discovery, made by F. Hintze Semna, once again called into question the chronology of the dynasty and the duration of coregency between the king and his predecessor (see Bell 1975, p. 229, n. 11; Murnane 1977, p. 26; Leprohon 1980, pp. 195-197). However, it is now generally accepted that the graffiti in question pertains to another sovereign, probably referring to the Thirteenth Dynasty (cf. EatonKrauss 1982; Franke 1988, p. 12 and Matzker 1988, p. 106). 5 See Eaton-Krauss 1982.

Gardiner 1971, p. 137. Cf. Pignattari 2008, Appendix and Newberry 1943, p. 44, where the author attributes the error to a wrong way of writing the name found on some blocks in Hawara. The epithet sA ra was inserted directly into the cartouche. 8 Original text: “E’ evidente il carattere tendenzioso di un tale elenco, che comprendeva unicamente i sovrani di cui Sethy I e Ramesse II si consideravano i successori con un’implicita damnatio memoriae degli altri, esclusi e perciò cancellati dalla storia”, cf. Pernigotti 2004, p. 57. 9 Cf. Callender 1995, p. 229. 10 Cf. Callender 1995, p. 232 and Reisner, BMFA 22, 21.

1

6

2

7

99

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty dynasty was due to a shift in power and that something in the mechanism of succession did not work properly.

Gardiner says that it is risky to draw firm conclusions, but the hypothesis of a family rift from which Sobekneferu came out victorious seems very likely. For the second time in the history of Egypt, a woman would therefore have become the sovereign of Upper and Lower Egypt, but such an uncommon situation contained the seeds of catastrophe11; e the end of the dynasty, the beginning of the Thirteenth, and in time the Second Intermediate Period.

Once again, the first aid to modern studies is an analysis of the king lists. As already said, the Abydos list skips Sobekneferu, going from Amenemhat IV directly to Ahmosis, with clear propagandistic purposes19. Only the Karnak list and the Turin Canon bear the names of the rulers of the Thirteenth Dynasty and of the Second Intermediate Period, but unfortunately both present difficult problems of interpretation. Some clarifications are needed for the Turin Canon, which usually shows the kings’ names (and sometimes the praenomina) in chronological order, accompanied by the length of their reigns. The text is full of lacunae, with transcription errors and omissions especially in the records of reign lengths. Many of these inaccuracies increased in the Thirteenth Dynasty, which is by itself a very complex period. What is certain is a clear distinction between the Twelfth and the Thirteenth Dynasty via the formula: “the kings that followed after […] of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Sehotep-ib-ra, life, prosperity and health” (nswyt […]-sA […nswt-]bity […s.Ht]p-ib-ra anx, wDA, snb)20.

Some scholars12 do not believe in a real rift between the Twelfth and the Thirteenth dynasties, but that the latter was the result of a dispute over the succession among Amenemhat IV’s sons, Sobekhotep and Sonbef13, and Sobekneferu. Some supporters of the “struggle-forsuccession” opinion, including Ryholt or Dodson14, believe that Sobekneferu place in the royal family is not enough to explain her accession to the throne, as Amenemhat IV had his own children who would have succeeded him. The queen would have thus foiled their expectations of inheritance, but Amenemhat IV’s descendants would have returned after her death, inaugurating the Thirteenth Dynasty in continuity with the previous one. Similarly, N. Grimal suggests a crisis after Amenemhat III’s reign, resulting in a woman’s accession to the throne and a violent end to her period of government. However, the author continues, all this is not verifiable because the Thirteenth Dynasty, which begins the Second Intermediate Period, seems to legitimately derive from the Twelfth one either by direct descent or by marriage15. F. Cimmino shares almost the same opinion, adding, however, that there are no signs of an upheaval and no evidence of traumatic events16.

The transition from the Twelfth to the Thirteenth Dynasty seems to have been marked by continuity, as it is plausible that the two dynasties were somehow related. Furthermore, the fact that the caption preceding the group of the Thirteenth Dynasty reads “[…] who followed after […] [XII]” could imply a link, albeit indirect, with Amenemhat III or Amenemhat IV. The Turin Canon lists Wegaf as the first king of the Thirteenth Dynasty, but many scholars today agree that this was a transcription error and that the first ruler was actually Sekhemrekhutawy Amenemhat Sobekhotep, whose name itself would reveal an attempt to establish a link with the previous dynasty21: “there is good reason to accept [… the] suggestion that Wegaf and Sobekhotep Sekhemrekhutawy were interchanged in the Turin King-list”22.

The possible relationships linking the last three sovereigns of the dynasty, the question of their possible co-regency, the relative scarcity of material, and finally the fact that the last ruler was a woman have produced a large number of interpretations, often contradicting each other. To make things clear, let us proceed through them with order. From the beginning of the Thirteenth Dynasty, without actually contradicting the theory of legitimacy17, there is no doubt that the family ties between the rulers grew weaker and sometimes completely disappeared. At the same time, other mechanisms were activated to reinforce the regal power18, some of which have already been discussed earlier: the use of propaganda, the use of specific titles or epithets, the celebration of specific feasts, and so on. The nature of the relationship between Amenemhat III, Amenemhat IV, Sobekneferu, and the Thirteenth Dynasty remains obscure. It is likely, however, that the rise of a new

There are other clues suggesting a narrower chronological link between Sobekhotep and the previous kings than between them and Wegaf. Sobekhotep’s praenomen appears among the Khaun23 papyri which does not span the entire Thirteenth Dynasty. In addition, a man called Sobek-wr24, identified as the same individual through his family ties and titles, is mentioned both in a papyri bearing the name of the king Sekhemrekhutawy and in the Semna Dispatches (surely dated to Amenemhat III’s reign). Finally, several Nile-level recordings discovered at Semna and directly following the Twelfth Dynasty have been

Gardiner 1961, p. 130. Cf. for example Gardiner 1961, p. 137; Grimal 1988, p. 241; Ryholt 1996, p. 209; Dodson 2004, p. 102. 13 Cf. Dodson 2004, p. 102. See below. 14 Cf. Ryholt 1997, p. 196 and Dodson 2004, p. 102. 15 Cf. Grimal 1988, p. 223. 16 Cf. Cimmino 1996, p. 243. 17 See Chapter 2: Succession and Co-regency. 18 See Chapter 2: Succession and Co-regency and Landua-McCormack 2008, p. 99 and ff.

See above. Cf. Ryholt 2004, p. 142; Ryholt 2006, p. 29. 21 Cf. Ryholt 1996, p. 315 (Appendix 1). Cf. also, Dodson 2004, p. 102. 22 Ryholt 1996, p. 319. 23 Cf. Landua-McCormack 2008, p. 65, n. 234; Griffith 1898, pp. 25-29, pls. X-XI; Collier-Quirke 2004, pp. 116-117 (pKahun UC 32166). 24 Cf. Franke 1984, 336, n. 558; Griffith 1898, pl. X, l. 3; Smither 1945, pp. 7-8; Ryholt 1997, p. 315. Ryholt also notes that this document probably refers to a late year of the reign of Amenemhat III, presumably year 40.

11

19

12

20

100

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Dynasty dated to this king’s reign25. However, it is important to note that all sources here illustrated never bear the nomen, so that the identification between Sekhemrekhutawy and Sobekhotep remains hypothetical. In addition, Quirke has recently suggested that the Turin Canon presents the sovereigns, and that the distance in time between Sobekhotep and Wegaf is actually very small (from five to 10 years) due to the extreme brevity of the reigns of the kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty26.

allowed the birth of the Fourteenth Dynasty33 causing the collapse of the Twelfth. At the same time, besides these problems in the succession system, the internal situation of the country would have been worsened by a deep economic crisis and the secession of the Canaanite peoplen, who had already been settled in the Delta for some time, into a new, separate northern dynasty (the Fourteenth) parallel to the legitimate house of Ity-Tawy. According to Ryholt, the civil war which ravaged the country during the last part of the Twelfth Dynasty was one of the reasons that allowed these people of Canaanite origins to obtain power34.

Sobekhotep would be followed by Sekhemkare (Amenemhat-Sonbef), who occupied the throne for three years. We have only few documents about him, including a record of the Nile level, an inscription from Askut, and a papyrus from el-Lahun27.

The Fourteenth Dynasty, consisting of a group of rulers of short and unremarkable reigns, would have settled at Avaris (Tell el-Daba) and would have been the result of the social ascent of immigrants during the last great kingdoms of the Twelfth Dynasty. Asian people would have fulfilled important administrative roles at a time when Avaris was a major economic and commercial centre.

Onomastic studies, together with studies conducted by Ryholt28 on the ways to indicate lineage and paternity in the names of the kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty, would support his thesis of the struggle for succession and the beginning of the Thirteenth Dynasty by Amenemhat IV’s sons. In his interpretation of the double (or triple) royal names, the name order of each king and of his father reflects the grammatical form typical of the Middle Kingdom F (sA) N29: Ryholt calls them filiative nomina. Finally, a typical feature of the first kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty is the very long and unusual composition that grows out of the association of at least two names in the form Ameny-Inyotef-Amenemhat. Such a structure has been interpreted as including the king’s name preceded by his father’s and in some cases by his grandfather’s. Using the filiative nomina criteria, the first two kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty, Sekhemrekhutawy-AmenemhatSobekhotep and Sekhemkara-Amenemhat-Sonbef,

If this hypothesis were proved correct, the official proclamation of the new dynasty would be placed at the end of Sobekneferu’s reign35, although it would probably have already become independent under Amenemhat IV36. This interpretation would be supported by the worsening of the economic situation with the end of the expeditions to Byblos and Sinai, by the lack of burial sites and projects attributable to the last kings of the Twelfth Dynasty, and by the use of filiative nomina by the first kings of the Thirteenth: the filiative nomina “proclaim the royal paternity of the ruling king, and the sudden need to emphasize that the ruling king was of royal origin strongly suggests that there were rival contenders to the throne”37. According to Ryholt, only the birth of the new power could have caused the break between the Twelfth and Thirteenth dynasties, rather than a change within the royal family. As “genetic grouping” seems to have been alien to Egyptian mentality, later historians would have made this change on the basis of the events experienced at that time by Egypt.

have been identified as Amenemhat IV’s sons. Conversely, the kings whose names are not written in this way are considered usurpers by Ryholt. The purpose of such names would have been to express the lineage of the royal kings of the new dynasty, thus claiming their right to reign as opposed to a rival dynasty settled in the Delta30.

The monuments belonging to the northern dynasty come from the northeast of the Delta (e.g. from Tell el-Daba and Tell Farasha). Because of the Canaanite cultural traits encountered in these locations, they have been included with some confidence among the possessions of the Fourteenth Dynasty. According to Ryholt, 42 sites around the Wadi Tumilat came into being between the end of the Twelfth Dynasty and the beginning of the Thirteenth. As for the western Delta, even if we cannot affirm with certainty that it was controlled by the Fourteenth Dynasty

Moreover, based on these onomastic considerations, Ryholt31 believes that the sources testify to anything but the unity of the Egyptian territory until the middle of the Thirteenth Dynasty32. This would lead to the conclusion that a power with Canaanite origins had already been in place in the Delta at the end of the Twelfth Dynasty. Ryholt goes on to propose a migration of people from the land of Canaan, called aAmw by the Egyptians, which would have Landua-McCormack 2008, p. 65; Grimal 1988, p. 184. Cf. Quirke 2006, p. 264-265. About the identity of the founder of the thirteenth Dynasty see also J. Siesse, L’identité du fondateur de la 13e dynastie: Amenemhat-Sobekhotep ou Ougaf, CRIPEL 31 (2016-2017). 27 Cf. Landua-McCormack 2008, p. 68 and n. 246. 28 Cf. Ryholt 1997, pp. 207-209, 284; Ryholt 1990, pp. 101 and ff. 29 Ryholt 1990, p. 105. 30 See below. 31 Cf. Ryholt 1997, p. 99 and ff. 32 Cf. Ryholt 1997, p. 75, n. 221. 25

This migration could be connected to the arrival of the Amorites in Mesopotamia and Syria during the Nineteenth century BC. Amorite migrations already began during the Third millennium BC, causing the collapse of the Third Dynasty of Ur and the settlement of the Amorite dynasty in Babylon and Syria (cf. Ryholt 1997, pp. 293-294). 34 Cf. Ryholt 1997, p. 295. 35 Cf. Ryholt 1997, p.75 and p. 104. 36 Cf. Ryholt 1997, p. 294. 37 Ryholt 1997, p.75.

26

33

101

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Amenemhat IV’s name in the Delta and by the presence of many warriors’ tombs at Tell el-Daba. Moreover, even if, owing to this peaceful relationship or “trade agreement”47, the Thirteenth Dynasty’s commercial expeditions would be allowed to cross Fourteenth Dynasty territory, this would not apply to military expeditions.

this fact can be inferred from the lack of relevant material belonging to the Thirteenth Dynasty – that is, from negative evidence38. Ryholt39, in defining the territory relevant for the Fourteenth Dynasty, considers the cities of Bubastis and Athribis as the possible western limits of the Canaanite Dynasty. In particular, Athribis, a village between two conflicting domains, would have marked the southern border40.

This situation would have paved the way for the ambiguous status of Byblos, whose rulers, who were strongly Egyptianised48 on a cultural level and officially were governors of the Egyptian king, began to recreate the titles, rituals, and regal phraseology of the Egyptian court for themselves. They were at the same time kings and officials. This situation would have arisen due to the inability of the Egyptian king to exert strong control over these territories.

To complete the picture, the Palace of Tell el-Daba41 would have been first the court residence of the Fourteenth Dynasty and then that of the Fifteenth. The colossal statue discovered in the palace courtyard would finally find an explanation42. It is a sculpture twice life-size with a red mushroom-shaped hat and holding a boomerang. Ryholt believes this sculpture, would have been a representation of a Canaanite ruler or one of his dignitaries (perhaps a Treasurer43), and was deliberately dismantled and placed in the pit where it was discovered.

It is time we came to some conclusions, firstly about the problems in the succession system. We have already seen that, in Ryholt’s and Dodson’s opinions, the first kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty, Sobekneferu’s successors, were Amenemhat IV’s sons49. This hypothesis has not been accepted by the majority of scholars, who believe that Amenemhat IV’s supposed sons did not survive after his death to become kings50. If, on the one hand, we cannot deny that the apogee of the Twelfth Dynasty had already been achieved and that Egypt had already entered a path of decline, on the other hand the hypothesis of a “struggle for succession” does not account for all known evidence. For this reason, this suggestion has been criticised, especially concerning the use of the filiative nomina. Vernus51 had already studied the private use of doublenames and concluded that this phenomenon, rather than indicating lines of descent, could represent nicknames, “surnames”, or honorary names mainly used to distinguish homonymous characters. Moreover, during the Twelfth Dynasty, the use of the good-name (rn nfr)52 spreads. This is a common name obtained by a person during their life which refers to some particular personal features (e.g. foreign origins). Vernus’s study seems to reveal an extremely complicated and difficult situation with more than one possible interpretation. In addition, Quirke has suggested that the increasing use of double-names at the end of the Middle Kingdom could be interpreted as another manifestation of the wish for accuracy so evident also in the use of titles53. Finally, Grajetzki54 reiterated that the use of double-names could be the result of the need for clarity in cases of homonymy, in order to identify the real owners of a monument.

The Fourteenth Dynasty seems to have had close international relations both with the land of Canaan and with the remaining Egyptian territories, as the large number of seals discovered in graves in the Nile Valley in Nubia lead us to infer44. This allowed Ryholt to assume the existence of Fourteenth Dynasty officials permanently located in Egyptian territory in order to maintain good trading and diplomatic relationships with the border territories45. On the other hand, the evidence of contacts between the Thirteenth Dynasty and the Levant46 caused Ryholt to conclude that the two contemporaneous dynasties would have had a mutual interest to maintain a certain balance. As a matter of fact, the Thirteenth Dynasty could reach the Levant only through the domains of the Fourteenth which, in return, could reach Nubia only by crossing the Thirteenth Dynasty’s lands. However, Ryholt argues that, although we must recognise the existence of a certain accord between the two dynasties, it is still necessary to make some distinctions and clarifications. In any case, the form of commercial agreement between the two dynasties, in Ryholt’s opinion, would have followed a first short phase of conflict, which would account for the absence of documents bearing Cf. Ryholt 1997, p. 103. Cf. Ryholt 1997, p. 77. 40 Cf. Ryholt 1997, pp. 76-77; 103. 41 Cf. M. Bietak, Egypt and Canaan during the Middle Bronze, BASOR 281 (1991), pp. 34-35; M. Bietak, Der Friedhof in einem Palastgarten aus der Zeit des späten Mittleren Reiches und andere Forschungsergebnisse aus dem östilichen Nildelta, Ä&L 2 (1991), 47-75; D. Eigner, Der ägyptische Palast eines asiatischen Königs, in Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 56 (1985), pp. 19-25. 42 Cairo TD-7216; cf. Bietak, ibidem, BASOR 281, pp. 49-50; Bietak ibidem Ä&L 2, pp. 58-72. 43 Cf. Ryholt 1997, p. 104; Schiestl 2006. For different interpretations see Booth 2005, pp. 14-15. On the contrary, this scholar believes that the Tell-Daba statue belongs to the Hyksos population. 44 Cf. Ryholt 1997, p. 111, n. 371. 45 Cf. Ryholt 1997, p. 85. 46 These sources, both in the Levant and in Nubia, consist mainly of seals bearing officials’ names and titles. 38 39

Cf. Ryholt 1997, p. 111-112. See Chapter 6: The Foreign Lands. 49 See above. 50 Cf. for example, Cimmino 1996, Grimal 1998, Gardiner 1971. 51 Cf. Vernus 1971 and 1986. 52 Cf. Vernus 1986, pp. 78-81 and about an attested use during Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV’s reigns see the Ptahwer’s example. 53 Cf. Quirke 1990, pp. 109-110. 54 Cf. Grajetzki 2001, pp. 5-6. 47 48

102

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Dynasty rulers’ willingness to recall the previous dynasty in order to legitimise their presence on the throne in absolute terms, rather than in relation to a parallel dynasty.

Therefore, it is important to consider the royal names in the light of these studies of double-name use in the private sector, keeping in mind the variety of possible explanations. In addition to being “offspring indicators”, these names could also be an alternative to a main name, a way to distinguish kings with the same name, an indication of a royal or non-royal relationship, or a way to refer an old ancestor or, finally, to a former sovereign with whom a new king wished to be associated55. For this reason, Quirke believes that “for the most part, royal double names do not indicate that Ryholt’s theory is valid”56, arguing that the only reliable criterion to determine lineage among the members of the royal family is the use of certain titles and epithets, for example referring to women as “King’s mother” (mwt nsw) or “King’s wife” (Hmt nsw).

We must also recognise the possibility that a parallel dynasty became independent during Amenemhat IV’s reign rather than afterwards. Once again, an analysis of contacts between both Egypt and the borderlands and Egypt and the Levant could be very useful. If we look at the chronology of the sources from Sinai and if we accept Vernus’s hypothesis that most of the expeditions to Sinai left from Athribis61, which had thus become a very important city, it seems unlikely that there was already a parallel dynasty in the Delta during the reign of Amenemhat IV. Two facts support Vernus’s idea: firstly, the stelae dating to Amenemhat IV’s reign and dedicated to the god Khenty-Khety are official stelae, and secondly, one of these was erected in the “Shrine of the Kings”. This suggests that the presence of Khenty-Khety was not random or linked solelyto the origins of the dedicator.

It is, however, to be noted that the only king registered in the Turin Canon with a double name is Sonbef57, while Sobekhotep is the only one mentioned in this way on monuments bearing his name. Recently, again from onomastic analysis of the kings’ nomina and praenomina, other methods have been formulated to define the relationships between royal family members. Ay certain degree of regularity allows the Thirteenth Dynasty to be classified into three macrogroups whose members share the same nomen, that is, Amenemhat, Neferhotep, and Sobekhotep58. The first group belongs to the first part of the Thirteenth Dynasty, as suggested by both onomastic structure and other archaeological considerations: “it should be noted that the majority of the recognised pyramids of the Thirteenth Dynasty likely belong to this group of kings”59, as they are very similar to those of the Twelfth Dynasty especially in their structure. It is possible that the first group, which includes six kings, from Sobekhotep I60 to Sehotepibra, may have had some kind of relationship with the previous dynasty’s rulers. Without necessarily assuming descent of the first kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty from Amenemhat IV, it could be argued that after Sobekneferu’s brief reign, the throne was made accessible to a larger group of people, both relatives and strangers, who could have reigned for a short time. In these cases, it may be more reasonable to conclude that the use of double-names reveals the new

Ryholt does not ignore these stelae from Athribis, but he considers them evidence supporting the theory that the city was under the Twelfth Dynasty’s control rather than the Fourteenth’s. However, as a border town in a period which (in my opinion) was one of conflict between the two dynasties, we must ask ourselves whether it is plausible to assume that these expeditions were organised in such an unsafe area. When discussing Egyptian relations with the Levant area, we should first clarify the meaning of the appropriation of titling, phraseology, and other Egyptian cultural elements by the rulers of Byblos. This phenomenon should be considered the result of a gradual process of strengthening of local power, not as a sudden event; moreover, it is probably62 already attested during Amenemhat III’s reign63. Thus, if this process is the result of the rise of the Fourteenth Dynasty, we would have to conclude that the latter already existed during Amenemhat III’s reign, but this is quite implausible. There must be other reasons to explain Byblos’ peculiarities, especially since, even if the ambiguity in titling is typical of the Middle Kingdom, an Old Kingdom seal showing similar cultural implications was discovered in Byblos64. B. Kemp has pointed out that the pharaonic claims of the rulers of Byblos were limited to a local context: on personal scarabs used as seals by

55 For some examples of these possibilities cf. von Beckerath 1964, p. 46; for a critique of the filiative nomina hypothesis cf. Quirke 1991, pp. 129-130. 56 Landua-McCormack 2008, p. 434 and cf. Quirke 2006, p. 264. 57 Cf. Ryholt 1997, p. 209, n. 714. 58 Cf. Landua-McCormack 2008, p. 439 and ff.; tables 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7. More than Amenemhat IV’s son, other scholars assumed Sobekhotep might be Sobekhotep’s husband who had ascended to the throne after the queen’s death; however, there is no real clue corroborating this interpretation (cf. Drioton-Vandier 1975, p. 283). 59 Landua-McCormack 2008, p. 439. 60 Recently, Sobekhotep I’s tomb was discovered. During a 2013 excavation in Abydos, a team of archaeologists led by Josef W. Wegner of the University of Pennsylvania discovered the tomb of a king with the name Sobekhotep. While Sobekhotep I was named as owner of the tomb on several press reports since January 2014, further investigations made it more likely that the tomb belongs to king Sobekhotep IV instead. J. W. Wegner, A Royal Necropolis at Abydos, Near Eastern Archaeology 78,2 (2015), p. 70.

See Chapter 5: The Borderlands, 5.4 Sinai and doc. B 13; B 15; B 16. Recently, the chronology and the identity of the Byblian rulers has been questioned (cf. Koptezky 2016) together with the synchronism between the owners of Tomb I and II and Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV, respectively. However, in my opinion, the presence of Egyptian objects in the royal tombs, bearing the names of the two Amenemhats cannot be underestimated and considered just as material coming from “un- or only scarcely protected cemeteries”. If not a proof of synchronism of the Byblian and the Egyptian kings, they could testify to the intention of recalling a period that they considered important, namely the Egypt of Amenemhat IV. 63 Cf. Ryholt 1997, p. 89 and the documents from the Tomb I and II of Byblos belonging to Ibishemu and Ypshemib, cf. Wastlhuber 2011, pp. 26-28, n. 8-20; pp. 40-42, nn. 31-36. 64 Cf. Kemp 2000, p. 187 and Leprohon 1980, p. 229 with n. 260. 61 62

103

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty is an Egyptian artefact and therefore it seems there may be a certain intention to minimise the foreign presence, Bonnet’s interpretation71 is much more plausible; he sees the iconography of the noble Retjenu as very humble and indicating a relationship of inferiority, given that he is in fact depicted riding on a donkey on the lower edge of an official stela72.

these officials and found on objects sent to Egypt, they simply called themselves “rulers of Byblos”. In this way, the pastiche of Egyptian royalty of these rulers could be interpreted as a clue to the control of those areas and the areas of the Delta by the last kings of the Twelfth Dynasty. Moreover, this phenomenon is accentuated in a phase of Egyptian history, beginning with Senwsret III, characterised by administrative reforms and the creation of highly organised and centralised administration.

All this information leads us to the conclusion that, even if Canaanite people had already settled in the Delta, they had neither organised themselves nor had yet become a source of disturbance.

After the end of the Twelfth Dynasty, from the documents in our possession, we can recognise a continuation of the established relationships between Egypt and the cities of the coast, in particular with Byblos: the local rulers continue to bear the title of HAty-a n kpny, considering themselves as representatives of the Egyptian king. It is interesting that Byblos’ rulers still recognised the Thirteenth Dynasty, rather than the Fourteenth, as the rightful kings of Egypt. This fact confirms a certain balance consisting of diplomatic contacts and reciprocal agreements between the two rival dynasties’ sovereigns: the Egyptian expeditions to Byblos had to pass through the lands controlled by the northern dynasty65. As already noted, however, this situation probably followed a stage when it was still in the legitimate sovereigns’ interest to hinder the formation of a rival dynasty, and at this stage it would have been reasonable to expect a decrease in contacts with the Levant, as well as a decrease in mining expedition66 companies, and a general decrease in the Egyptian kings’ activity in borderlands such as Nubia or the port of Mersa Gawasis. But all this happens neither during Amenemhat III’s reign, nor under Amenemhat IV.

At this point, it is worthwhile to mention other chronological interpretations concerning this period. According to Kemp73, the rise of the Fourteenth Dynasty would have been later rather than contemporary with the Twelfth: the presence of an important Asian social component is clear, but during Amenemhat’s dynasty, its importance would have not achieved the levels proposed by Ryholt. In addition, Kemp posits that a parallel dynasty is not attested during the Thirteenth Dynasty either, although it is likely that some rulers of the latter had Asian origins. According to Kemp, during the Fifteenth Dynasty, the influence of Palestinian culture was very strong, but it is not obvious that this happened before the Hyksos’ arrival. Moreover, he believes this people would not belong to the same race of the Asians who had already settled in the Delta74. During this period (late BMIIA), Palestine was characterised by the presence of extensive military camps and a series of large interconnected city-states that were able to control transports, trade, and communication routes. At the same time in Egypt, the great Middle Kingdom was coming to an end, opening the way to a decline made of succession crises, decentralisation, foreign incursions, and internal instability: fertile ground for a Hyksos invasion75. Kemp also suggests a reversal in roles between Egypt and Palestine, which would manifest itself in the Hyksos’ invasion in the form of different ethnic groups organised in permanent settlements and in several mobile combat units.

An analysis of the data from Sinai may also help to shed light on this period: it is not easy to define the situation in this area at the beginning of the Second Intermediate Period. Some scholars67 believe that mining activity was continued by the Fourteenth Dynasty. The last documented expedition organised by an Egyptian king dates back to Amenemhat IV’s ninth regnal year; as already discussed68, document B 13 mentions a number of Asian workers among the members of the team, while several stelae dated to Amenemhat III’s reign69 also cite the brother of the king of Retjenu. Such participation is interpreted by Ryholt, in agreement with Kemp70, as the sign of a symbiotic relationship between Egypt and Palestine. This would signal the need of the Egyptian state to negotiate with a growing power in the Levant, which would even lead to shared exploitation of the mines. Actually, without excluding the possibility that a strong power had grown in the East, this interpretation is doubtful. Although the stela

On the other hand, C. Booth76 suggests that, at the end of the Twelfth Dynasty, a famine opened the doors to a Canaanite population which prepared the ground for the arrival of the Hyksos who, however, did not have the same ethnic origins. Recently, especially owing to C. Bennet’s studies77, the perspective on the relationship between the Thirteenth Dynasty and the Second Intermediate Period is significantly changing, moving in the direction of coexistence between the Thirteenth and the Sixteenth Cf. Bonnet 2006, pp. 34-35. See Chapter 5: The Borderlands, 5.4 Sinai and Chapter 6: The Foreign Lands. 73 Cf. Trigger 2000, p. 194 and ff. 74 For the Hyksos’ origin see M. Bietak, From where came the Hyksos and where did they go, in: M. Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth – Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects, OLA 192 (2010), pp. 139-181. 75 Cf. Cohen-Lake 2002, p. 139. 76 Cf. Booth 2005, p. 15. 77 Cf. Bennet 2002 and Landua-McCormack 2008, pp. 40-60. 71 72

Cf. Ryholt 1997, p. 86. About the connection between the cessation of mining expedition and the invasion of the Delta cf. also Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 24. 67 Cf. Ryholt 1998, p. 115. 68 See Chapter 5: The Borderlands, 5.4 Sinai and Chapter 6: The Foreign Lands. 69 See Chapter 5: The Borderlands, 5.4 Sinai and Chapter 6: The Foreign Lands. 70 Cf. Trigger 2000, p. 181 and ff. 65 66

104

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Dynasty reign thatwe observe the cessation of all activities that had occupied her predecessors. We do not know anything about mining expeditions bearing her name to Sinai or Wadi el-Hudi and, with the exception of Amenemhat I, she is the only sovereign of the dynasty not attested at the harbour of Mersa Gawasis. As for attestations in the Near East, the only known document to mention her – and it has uncertain attribution – is the statuette found at Gezer82.

dynasties. This would postpone the rise and the final takeover of the Fourteenth Dynasty in the Delta beyond the first half of the Thirteenth, after the end of MenefrraAy’s reign78. In order to give a correct evaluation of Amenemhat IV’s reign, a comparison with the Thirteenth Dynasty should be made. We have seen the survival of an administrative system perfectly in line with that of the previous dynasty’s rulers, with the same complex articulation. On the other hand, Quirke79 notes that, also during the Thirteenth Dynasty, no significant changes either in court life, or in the relationship between the king and his collaborators took place. However, in terms of the quantity and quality of attestations, we can record a change in the attitude towards the monarchy in the country. Private monuments seem to refer less and less to the king, “implying that the relative power of the king over his court may have not suffered, but his prestige in helping individuals to attain a good afterlife had declined”80. The king is cited less and less in the Appeal to the living of the offering formula and the cartouche of the king is rarely recorded in the lunette of the stelae, while architectural documents become increasingly rare. The total disappearance of mining materials and mining sites as well as of signs of expeditions to Sinai and Wadi el-Hudi is equally significant.

The signs of a possible crisis are tangible only from Sobekneferu’s reign, and this seems to be confirmed by internal sources such as the evolution that characterised private stelae. As already mentioned, the double consequence of Senwsret III’s reform was the loss of influence of the nobility and the rise of the middle class. The groups of numerous votive statues and stelae from the temple of Osiris at Abydos or those left to commemorate the various expeditions testify to the growing importance of the new civil servants of intermediate grades. The use of the king’s name on private stelae was a way to both enhance the position of the dedicator and the royal power permitting that position. Such a custom becomes less attested when the central power weakens, namely with the Thirteenth Dynasty. Amenemhat IV is the last king under whom this custom is still well attested, both in documents mentioning him together with his predecessor, and in those where the king is remembered as an independent sovereign83. From a stylistic point of view, a change in a personalistic sense has been noted: as the Twelfth Dynasty elapses, the sovereign’s representation or the official tone of the inscription becomes less and less important, leaving space for the dedicator’s image and to the Appeal to the living formula84. It is on the basis of these considerations that the stela of Mersa Gawasis (B 30) was dated.

If a struggle for succession had broken out upon Amenemhat III’s death, thus absorbing most of the resources of the country, his successor would not have had time to re-consolidate the national finances during their brief reign. This situation would have stymied the frequent mining expeditions aimed at finding semi-precious stones such as turquoise and amethyst, used in the manufacture of magnificent jewels typical of the Twelfth Dynasty. It is significant that such expeditions were not limited to the years of the hypothetical coregency, but they continued acquiring an unprecedented relevance during year 6 of the reign of Amenemhat IV81. In addition, the fact that officials titled imy-r pr n strw (A 10) are also attested during Amenemhat IV’s reign shows that the goldsmith’s art was not only practiced, but was also considered so important that it needed to be managed by state officials. On the other hand, the fact that expeditions to Sinai and Wadi el-Hudi were headed by the Treasury reveals that the semi-precious materials were still a state monopoly, and that administration still existed. Thus, Amenemhat IV’s reign does not seem to show those signs of weakening that we would expect.

If, on the one hand, this suggests a decline in the prestige of the royal family, on the other hand it does not discredit the idea that during Amenemhat IV’s reign, power was firmly in the king’s hands. With Sobekneferu, the use of the ruler’s name disappears from private stelae and reappears sporadically only during the following dynasties. This could mean that there were problems immediately after Amenemhat IV’s death, and that from this moment the reigning king had to devote most of the country’s resources to coping with these difficulties. These problems probably had a series of concomitant causes with different natures: from the increasingly looming presence of the population settled in the Delta, to the economic crisis perhaps indicated by the low level of the Nile flood recorded in the Kumma graffiti85.

In order to delineate the end of the Twelfth Dynasty, special focus should be placed on Sobekneferu’s reign, rather than on Amenemhat IV’s. In fact, it was during the queen’s

Secondly, we should consider the brevity of the queen’s reign, which could be explained by her sudden death without a designated successor. These elements may have

78 According to Ryholt’s chronology, this king ruled from 1701 to 1677 BC. 79 Cf. Quirke 1991, pp. 129 and ff. 80 Quirke 1991, pp. 136. 81 Cf. See Chapter 1: Amenemhat IV and the family of Amenemhat III.

82

Cf. Appendix 2: Sculpture 15; cf. Weinstein 1974. Cf. Grajetzki 2005, p. 61. 84 Cf. Pirelli 2008, p. 26; Pirelli 2007a, pp. 104-105. 85 J. Vandier however does not record any famine at the end of the Twelfth Dynasty, (Cf. Vandier 1936, p. 17). 83

105

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty provided the decisive opportunity for the people of the North to seize power, thus becoming autonomous. If this interpretation proved correct, the end of the dynasty would be the result of parallel external and internal causes, such as the worsening situation of the country and the lack of a leader able to cope with it. Elements of collapse and of extinction of the dynasty seem therefore to have coexisted. Finally, what was the role of the Thirteenth Dynasty in these events? It is widely believed86 that the shift from the Twelfth to the Thirteenth Dynasty took place without trauma and with continuity; indeed, there are no elements that would lead us think differently. However, we have already shown our doubts about the hypothesis that Amenemhat IV’s sons became the first two kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty. A possible solution could therefore identify the Thirteenth Dynasty as the result of an attempt made by some members of the ruling class close to the royal family to fill the void created by Sobekneferu’s disappearance from the political scene and not the result of a rebellion or of a coup. In this sense, to speak of continuity between the two dynasties is not wrong. “Nothing more is known about the end of the dynasty, but there are no signs that it ended in trouble or violence”.87

86 Cf. for example Gardiner 1961, p. 137; Grimal 1988, p. 241; Ryholt 1996, p. 209; Dodson 2004, p. 102. 87 Grajetzki 2006, p. 63.

106

Conclusion Fayyum: “la grande affaire de la monarchie”1 At the end of this analysis, it is appropriate to try to provide a general interpretation of Amenemhat IV’s reign in relation to those of his predecessor and of his successor. Some remarks should also be made in support of a full understanding of this king’s reign and of the entire period. There are good reasons to view Amenemhat IV’s reign as a continuation of Amenemhat III’s. In foreign policy, both sovereigns devoted their activity to the administration of the long peace achieved by Senwsret III: they kept contacts with the Near East without undertaking military campaigns. In domestic policy, they devoted their efforts to the protection of the borders and to the search for raw materials with the help of the centralised administrative system developed by their predecessor. Amenemhat III is known for his considerable building activity, which seems to be interrupted during his successor’s reign; however, this cannot be considered evidence of weakening due to the arrival of people from the North, or a struggle for succession. This interpretation is not undermined by the fact that it is not possible to determine with certainty what the nature of the relationship between Amenemhat III’s family and Amenemhat IV was, nor by the fact that Sobekneferu constantly recalls her father’s memory, rather than her immediate predecessor’s. In fact, it is understandable that the queen derived legitimacy for herself from being the daughter of a great king, rather than from her predecessor’s brief reign. Therefore, the negative interpretation given to Amenemhat IV’s reign should be scaled down and put into perspective in that it “apparaitrait encore davantage comme une simple prolongation de celui de son père”2.

he became a sort of local god in the Ptolemaic Period3. Whether the growing importance of the local god, Sobek of Shedet, and that of the entire region are linked by a relationship of reciprocity, or whether the first should be read as a mere consequence of the second is a matter of debate. Again, the only certainty is that at the end of the dynasty, with Amenemhat III, the crocodile god became one of the most important and interesting gods in the Egyptian pantheon4. “With Amenemhat III, Sobek of Shedet became the example of the success of the crocodilegod in the Twelfth Dynasty. In a wide range of objects, this king adopted the brand new epithet ‘beloved of’ Sobek of Shedet”5. At Shedet, the capital town of the region, this king transformed and monumentalised the god’s temple, changing it from a simple place of worship to the seat of the identification between Sobek and Horus. This change played a central role in the royal ideology and monarchy doctrines: “the temple of Sobek became a centre for the recognition of the royal power”6. The syncretism between Horus and Sobek and the group of new epithets deriving from it (nwH abwy7, nb wrrt Hnwty8, aA Sfyt qmA m Sdt9, Hry-ib aH wr nb st wrt10) “served the king, who could receive the divine essence of kingship only from a god who was able to be strongly royal”11. In analogy with what has already been said about the temple of Shedet, Sobek’s presence is constant and pervasive in Hawara, the seat of Amenemhat III’s second funerary temple – the “Labyrinth”. The crocodile-god is the most represented deity in Hawara, in spite of its strong funerary context in which other gods would be far more appropriate and specific. The same importance of and the same ideological implications for the monarchical cult have already been widely discussed for the temple of Medinet Madi.

However, continuity between Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV’s reigns does not mean total homogeneity. As a starting point for this discussion one should consider Amenemhat III’s high regard for the Fayyum and for Sobek of Shedet and comparative disinterest of Amenemhat IV.

With the rise of Amenemhat IV, however, with the only exception of Medinet Madi temple, no reference to Sobek is attested. The sovereign does not seem to have been active in any other locations in the Fayyum, and his absence from places as Shedet or Hawara is particularly surprising. These data cannot be neglected and, in relation to what happened in the following years, may be seen as evidence of a specific choice.

The Fayyum was of interest to almost all of the kings of the Twelfth Dynasty: during this period, it was subjected to massive land reclamation. Unfortunately, the lack of data prevents us from ascertaining the identity of the first ruler to recognise the agricultural and economic potentialities of this region. However, Amenemhat III’s overwhelming presence is certain: his interest in the region is evidenced by numerous findings across the area, which lead us to inextricably associate Amenemhat III’s name with the entire Fayyum. There, he was worshipped so that

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2

Tallet 2005, p. 77. Tallet 2005, p. 261.

10 11

107

Cf. Leprohon 1980, pp. 203-204; Widmer 2002; Radwan 2013. Cf. Zecchi 2010, p. 24. Zecchi 2010, p. 41. Zecchi 2010, p. 47. Zecchi 2010, pp. 44-45; Leitz 2002, III, p. 555. Zecchi 2010, pp. 44-45; Leitz 2002, III, p. 614. Zecchi 2010, pp. 44-45. Zecchi 2010, pp. 44-45; Leitz 2002, III, p. 723. Zecchi 2010, p. 47.

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty but probably belonging to the “Labyrinth”, now in the Cairo Museum.

Sobekneferu’s appearance on the historical scene, while still under investigation, was certainly marked both by the desire to connect herself to Amenemhat III’s reign (almost certainly her father), skipping her immediate predecessor; and by a renewed interest in the Fayyum region, in particular in its tutelary god, Sobek of Shedet.

The first one shows the names of the deity Dehedet (or Dehedeh)20, of the queen, and of Amenemhat III enclosed in a rectangle, while outside the rectangle, the king’s name is repeated. The second document bears the Horus’ names of the two sovereigns enclosed in a serekh and surmounted by two falcons. Amenemhat III’s falcon holds ankh and djed signs facing the mouth of Sobekneferu’s.

This is demonstrated at the “Labyrinth” of Hawara, where, as noted by Petrie12, Amenemhat IV is never mentioned in spite of a large number of occurrences of the queen’s name, that are almost as many as her father’s. A considerable number of hypotheses has been suggested in order to explain this: for example, that the complex of Hawara was completed by Sobekneferu, who deliberately omitted any mention of her predecessor. However, the remains of the complex are so minimal that it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions.

While interesting, these findings cannot be considered evidence of coregency. Similarly, the repetition of the king’s name and the position of the goddess and of the queen on the block from Hawara indicate that the latter is under the protection of the other two. The association of names is in fact intended to strengthen the legitimacy of her kingdom21. Similarly, the column fragment is intended to emphasise the links between Sobekneferu and her father. She receives life and stability from the king, virtues which are normally bestowed by the gods. This detail suggests that here Sobekneferu wants to emphasise a form of devotion towards her father, rather than coregency22.

Sobekneferu incorporates the identity of the crocodile god within her cartouche together with her name: hers is the first case of a theophoric name using the element Sobek. Sometimes, inside the cartouche, the name Shedet is enclosed in the formula as well: Sobek-shedety-neferu. Through this ingenious device, the queen makes an unprecedented tribute to the crocodile god and, at the same time, clarifies unequivocally that this tribute is bestowed only to the crocodile god of the Fayyum, and not to other deities associated with this animal13.

If it is very likely that the queen linked her name to her father’s in order to consolidate her presence on the throne, her rationale in insisting on recalling the Fayyum crocodile god is less obvious. The block of Berlin23 is emblematic of this theme and seems to play a dual role: it associates the queen’s name to her illustrious predecessor’s, and it associates both sovereigns with Sobek who loves the king and bears an epithet declaring his supremacy over the entire Egypt. “And in both these capacities the god, through the triple offering of life, stability and power […] sanctions the rightful inheritance of his heir”24.

To clarify his point, it can be useful once again to compare the documents attesting the rise of Sobekneferu. According to some scholars, the queen was co-regent with her father for a period. The author of this theory is P. E. Newberry14, who proposed that Amenemhat III had initially appointed both Amenemhat IV and Sobekneferu as coregents with himself. Sobekneferu would then have ascended the throne after her the deaths of her father and brother. From what follows, Newberry continues, it is very likely that Amenemhat IV never reigned as sole ruler, but only as Amenemhat III’s coregent15. This conclusion, as amply demonstrated, can be excluded; however, other scholars, like Gardiner, although not sharing Newberry’s conclusion, are favourable to the hypothesis of coregency between Amenemhat III and Sobekneferu. Gardiner believes that there is sure evidence to assert that, at some time, Sobekneferu was associated with Amenemhat III’s throne16. Gardiner does not give any evidence, but he probably refers essentially to two findings generally considered evidence for this theory: the inscribed block of Hawara17 and a fragment of column18 of uncertain origin19

The reasons for Sobekneferu’s choices may be related to the fact that her rise may have been supported by Sobek’s clergy, who probably had an interest in the queen’s appointment. In turn, she would have allowed Sobekand his clergy to return25. This brings us to two points: firstly, if this is what happened, Sobekneferu’s accession was not a foregone conclusion. Even if the situation was not quite a “struggle” for succession, it is evident that the queen had to put pressure on influential individuals to obtain the throne. Secondly, the fact that this did not happen to Amenemhat IV leads us to suppose that his rise was based on more secure and stable ground: he did not require the external support of the priests, who indeed seem to have Cf. Zecchi 2001, pp. 143-144; Blom-Böer 2006, pp. 188-189. Cf. Habachi 1954, p. 465. 22 The hypothesis of coregency is disproved by several scholars, among them Matzker, Valloggia and Habachi (Cf. Matzker 1986, pp. 94-96; Valloggia 1969, Habachi 1954). Also Desroches-Noblecort’ s theory (cf. Desroches-Noblecourt 1986, p. 108.), according to which Sobekneferu’s reign would be placed between her father and Amenemhat IV ‘s, is completed rejected by Callender (cf. Callender 1995, p. 229). 23 Cf. Appendix 2: Sculpture 10. 24 Zecchi 2010, p. 85. 25 Cf. Callender 1998, pp. 48; 54; Zecchi 2001, p. 134; Zecchi 2010, p. 88. 20 21

Cf. Petrie 1920, p. 208. Cf. Callender 1998, p. 48; Zecchi 2010, pp. 84-85. 14 Cr. Newberry 1943, pp. 74-75. 15 Cf. Newberry 1943, p. 75. 16 Gardiner 1961 p. 130 17 Cf. Appendix 2: Sculpture 5. 18 Cf. Appendix 2: Sculpture 4. 19 In Callender’s opinion, it was found at Hawara (cf. Callender 1998, p. 50), while Grajetzki believes that its provenance remains unknown, even if it could also belong to the ‘Labyrinth’, too (cf. Grajetzki 2006, p. 62). 12 13

108

Conclusion: Fayyum: “la grande affaire de la monarchie” been turned away. This is supported by the relinquishment of the Fayyum and of Sobek of Shedet, and their almost wholesale replacement with Serabit el-Khadim, along with Hathor, Ptah and, to some extent, Khenty-Khety. Perhaps the latter god is not a coincidence if we consider that the only crocodile god that appears tied to Amenemhat IV’s reign is Khenty-Khety, whose consistent presence in Sinai appears to go beyond the single reason, though valid26, that he was the main god of Athribis, the expeditions’ staring point27. We cannot ignore the implications for the legitimacy of the royal power connected to the cult of Khenty-Khety; we could thus venture the hypothesis that this god served as Sobek’s substitute. There are clear clues suggesting Amenemhat IV’s intention to distance himself from his predecessor’s reign. In the comparisons drawn between Medinet Madi and Serabit el-Khadim, interesting convergences have been highlighted in multiple elements in each places. However, it is important to point out that, in addition to the ideological function and the intention to continue the celebration of the monarchy cult, the decision to establish such a parallel could go in the direction of changing, above all, the previous symbolic sites. It is possible that it was not so important which deities would have replaced those of the Fayyum: the crucial thing was to turn away from the region itself and its cults. In this way, it seems that the new king Amenemhat IV with his works in Sinai wanted to create a representative and a celebratory place for his own kingdom, as his predecessor had done with the Fayyum region; at the same time, he wanted to break away from the latter, both in its material and in its theological aspects. In conclusion, an institutional continuity between Amenemhat III’s and Amenemhat IV’s reigns does not seem to correspond to a similar continuity in cults and traditions: that is, in short, a cultural continuity. In contrast to what would happen with Sobekneferu – with the exception of the temple of Medinet Madi, which still belongs to a transitional phase preceding the final acquisition of power by the new king – there appears to be a strong desire shown by Amenemhat IV to cut ties with Amenemhat III’s family, with all the natural consequences.

26 Khenty-khety’s presence is in fact already attested during Amenemhat III’s reign, cf. for example Tallet 2005, p. 150. 27 Cf. Chapter 5: The Borderlands, 5.4: Sinai, and Chapter 7: Amenemhat IV between cult and policy.

109

Part 4 Documentary Evidence of Amenemhat IV’s Reign

Group A Documents from Egypt Sculpture Document 1: Sphinx, National Museum, Alexandria Provenance: Abukir Material: granite Measures: width 50 cm; height 67 cm; length 132 cm Bibliography: Daninos-Pacha 1891, p. 213; Daressy 1904, p. 116; Vandier 1958, p. 214; Habachi 1977, p. 28. Headless sphinx with traces of inscriptions on the surface. Inscriptions On the chest:

“Son of Ra, Makherura”, the name, within the cartouche, shows clear attempts of deletion. Between the legs:

“Makherura, given life”. On the base: only a few hieroglyphs belonging to Ramesses II’s reign remain.

113

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Document 2: Sphinx, National Museum, Alexandria Material: Granite Measures: width 50 cm; height 67 cm; length 132 cm State of preservation: fragmentary Provenance: Abukir Bibliography: Daninos-Pacha 1891, p. 213; Daressy 1904, p. 116; Habachi 1977, p. 28. Fragmentary sphinx with part of the front legs crumbled. The material and technical execution is similar to the previous one (A 1); no inscriptions link it directly to Amenemhat IV, but the discovery context and the presence of deletion attempts in the previous specimen supports 2 A’s dating to this king’s reign. Inscriptions Vertically, on the chest:

“King of the Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands Wsermaatra-Setepnra”. This inscription was clearly engraved over a previous inscription. On the right side, around the base:

“[…] King of the Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands Wsermaatra-Setepnra”. On the left side:

“[…] Gods, King of the Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Ritual, Wsermaatra-Setepnra, son of Ra, Lord of the hills Ramesses, beloved of Amon, beloved of Hapy”. On the base, along the left edge, we clearly read:

“King of the Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands, Lord of the Ritual Wsermaatra-Setepnra, beloved of Sekhmet”. Finally, along the right edge:

“Son of Ra, Lord of the Two Lands Ramesses, beloved of Ptah”. 114

Documents from Egypt Document 3: Sphinx JE 25775, Egyptian Museum, Cairo Provenance: unknown Material: limestone Measures: width 62 cm Bibliography: Borchardt 1911, p. 7, n. 388 Forepart of a sphinx of which only the legs and part of the base remain. The workmanship is careful and detailed. Muscles are marked by a double line engraved on the inner part of the legs. There are two lines of hieroglyphics. The first one is located vertically, below the chin, on the chest and between the legs; the second one, instead, is horizontal and engraved on the base of the sculpture. The latter presents only some hieroglyphics. Inscriptions Between the legs:

“Amenemhat, King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Makherura, given life. On the base:

Document 4: Block JE 42906, Egyptian Museum, Cairo Provenance: “Old Cairo” Material: yellow quartzite Measures: width 35 cm, length 49.5 cm Bibliography: Brunton 1939; Habachi 1977; Gomaà 1987, II, pp. 200-202, 213; Hirsch 2004, pp. 140-141. The bottom of the two corners of the block are missing, while the upper surface shows deep grooves and cavities intended to anchor an object no longer extant which cannot be clearly identified. From each side, a row of nine uraei protrudes. They are human-headed and made in high relief, showing a cartouche engraved on each chest; below, there is another row of similar uraei, but very little remains. The centre of the front side was occupied by a projecting element entirely lost, probably flanked by two vertical bands followed in turn by two cobras. As for the nature of the jutting element, we can only speculate: a “palace facade” decoration, a “false door”, a ramp, or a part of a stair-ramp.

115

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty On the upper surface:

“You received eye, you received your eye | that Ra [gave you], you rejoiced with him”. Document 5: Block (MMA 22.1.12a, b), Metropolitan Museum of Arts, New York Provenance: el-Lisht Material: limestone Measures: height 25 cm, length 65 cm Bibliography: Hayes 1953 (a), p. 200. It is a part of a limestone lintel bearing Amenemhat IV’s name and titles. At the centre, the block is decorated with the vulture goddess “Nekhbet the White of Hierakonpolis, Lady of heaven”, whose wings are unfolded, heraldically framing the hieroglyphic inscription below.

Document 6: Pillar Material: red granite Measures: height 83.4 cm. Upper surface: width 155 cm; width 8.3 cm; length 89.7 cm; State of preservation: integral Provenance: Karnak, Amenhotep III’s Southern pilon Bibliography: PM II, p. 27; Pillet 1924; Barguet 1962, p. 84; Valloggia 1969, pp. 116-118; Björkmann 1971, p. 132; Gomaà 1987, p. 101; Matzker 1988, p. 47; Grallert 2001, pp. 244 and ff.; Hirsch 2004, pp. 138-139, 375-376. Pillar consisting of two elements: a base and plate designed to hold a naos or the sacred boat of the god Amon1. The socket shows traces of the original painting. On the left and right sides and on the front, two similarly shaped inscriptions are symmetrically distributed. The right side bears Amenemhat III’s name, while the left one shows Amenemhat IV’s. Frontal side: the two rulers’ names are shown in four columns, facing with a separating anx.

1

Cf. Pillet 1924, p. 66.

116

Documents from Egypt

Text 1: →↓ 1)|Name of Horus Kheperkheperu 2)| King of the Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands Makherura 3)|beloved son of Ra, Amenemhat 4)|living eternally like Ra, forever 5)| beloved of Amon-Ra, Lord of the thrones of the Two Lands. Text 2: ←↓ 1) Name of Horus Aabau 2)| King of Upper and Lower Egypt Nimaatra 3)| beloved Son of Ra, Amenemhat 4)| living eternally like Ra, forever 5) | beloved of Amon-Ra lord of the thrones of the Two Lands. Right side: on the edge of the upper surface, the dedication to Amenemhat III is shown:

→ 1)|The living Horus, Aabau, the Two Ladies Itjiwat-tawy, the Golden Horus, Wakh-ankh; King of Upper and Lower Egypt Nimaatra 2)| Son of Ra, of his body, Amenemhat, he made this monument for his father Amon-Re, Lord of the thrones of the Two Lands, Lord of Karnak; 3)|he made for him a stone pillar of red granite on which he can have his seat, so that the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Nimaatara, receives life from Amon, lasting 4)| […] of the livings, like Ra, forever. Left side: on the edge of the upper surface, a dedication to Amenemhat IV identical to the previous one is shown:

117

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty

→ 1)|The living Horus, Kheperkheperu; the Two Ladies Shabtawy, the golden Horus, Sekhemnejteru; King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Maakherura 2)|son of Ra, of his body, Amenemhat, 3)|he made this monument for his father Amon-Re, Lord of the thrones of the Two Lands, Lord of Karnak, and he made for him a stone pedestal of red granite on which he can have his seat, so that the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Maakherura, receives from Amon, life, duration, 4)|happiness, health, so that he could rejoice with his Ka on the throne of Horus of the living, like Ra, forever. Document 7: Statue (1117), Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, Berlin Provenance: Thebes Material: black granite Bibliography: LD II, p. 120, fig. f and g; Valloggia 1969, p. 118 Small sculpture of a female figure wearing the solar disk between two cow horns on her head. Lepsius identifies the character with the goddess Hathor. On the left and right margins of the throne, there is an inscription arranged on two columns presenting Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV as dispensers of nourishment to Hathor of Dendera. The inscriptions are perfectly symmetrical, in a single line of hieroglyphics; on the right:

“An offering which the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Nimaatra gives Hathor, Lady of Dendera, a vocal offering […] [for the Ka of the hereditary Princess]2 […]”; while on the left:

“An offering which the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Makherura gives Hathor, Lady of Dendera, a vocal offering […]”

2 According to Valloggia, the gap in the final part of the first column should be filled with “for the ka of the hereditary princess”. If so, we would be in the presence of a statue of Neferuptah. (Cf. Valloggia 1969, p. 118.)

118

Documents from Egypt Document 8: Medinet Madi Temple, Fayyum Measures: width 9.70; length 10.50 m. Consisting of two rooms: a pronaos with two papyrus columns and a shrine on the bottom where there are three cells, side by side. Bibliography: Vogliano 1937; Donadoni 1947; Valloggia 1969; Murnane 1977, p. 15; Seidel 1996 pp. 107-111, doc. 46; Zecchi 2001, p. 150 and ff.; Grallert 2001, p. 510 and ff.; Hirsch 2004, pp. 139-140, 376-383, doc. 342a-344; Bresciani 2006; Zecchi 2010, pp. 60-84; Bresciani 2012.

Figure 3: Scheme of the decorative cycle.

Figure 4: Distribution between Amenemhat III and IV.

Of the thirty-six scenes engraved on the walls of this temple, fourteen depict Amenemhat IV. In this description, I considered the latter according to the allocation and partitioning scheme developed by Donadoni3 and showing, when present, the parallels with the scenes referring to Amenemhat III. Scene B (342a; G, 2): Wall: length: 1 m Bibliography: Vogliano 1937, p. 23; Donadoni 1947, p. 336; Hirsch 2004, p. 376; Bresciani 2006, p. 22; Zecchi 2010, p. 62. This scene, engraved on the east jamb, flanking the entrance of the temple, is quite similar and symmetric to that of the western side (A4) depicting Amenemhat III. The two sovereigns, facing each other, advance towards the interior, both wearing a short kilt, a belt with a tail, the wsekh necklace and a nemes on their head surmounted by a uraeus; they hold a was sceptre and an ankh sign. In scene B, the inscription above the figure has completely disappeared; however, it should have been quite similar to that still legible in A, but with Amenemhat IV’s cartouches and probably, as in the whole eastern side, with the god Horus Behdety instead of the goddess Nekhbet5.

3 4 5

Cf. Donadoni 1947, p. 334. Further numerations refer to those of Hirsch 2004 and Bresciani 2006. 231a G,1. Donadoni 1947, p. 336.

119

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty

“The entrance of the king in the temple of Renenutet, the living of Dja. Nekhbet, the White of Hierakonpolis, who ties the bows, Lady of the sky, Mistress of the Two Lands. The perfect god, Lord of the happiness of the heart, king of the Upper and Lower Egypt [Makherura], son of Ra Amenemhat given life and stability on the throne of Horus together with his ka, like Ra, forever. Given life and whose heart is glad, like Ra6“. Scene D (342b, F, 7)7: Column Bibliography: Vogliano 1937, p. 25; Donadoni 1947, p. 336; Hirsch 2004, p. 376; Bresciani 2006, p. 24; Zecchi 2010, p. 62. The same symmetrical division between East and West for Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV respectively can be found in the inscriptions adorning the two columns of the hypostyle hall. The papyrus columns, whose capitals have almost entirely disappeared, consist of eight stems tied together. The three stems that look towards the entrance bear a brief inscription distributed over four vertical lines.

“The perfect god Makherura, son of Ra Amenemhat, given life forever, beloved of Renenutet, the living of Dja”.

6 7

For the translation of texts, reference was made to S. Donadoni (in Donadoni 1947), E. Bresciani (in Bresciani 2006), M. Zecchi (in Zecchi 2010). For the corresponding (C): 321b; F, 8.

120

Documents from Egypt Scene K (342c, F, 4): Wall Bibliography: Vogliano 1937, p. 23; Donadoni 1947, pp. 345-346; Hirsch 2004, pp. 376-377; Bresciani 2006, p. 26; Zecchi 2010, p. 62. The east wall of the hypostyle hall is divided into two panels. In the first one (K), the founding ceremony is shown; this scene is opposite to the E8 on the western side depicting Amenemhat III during the purification. Amenemhat IV and the goddess Sfxt-abwi plant the stakes in the ground to draw the plan of the future building. The surviving inscriptions are in poor condition; a first line of hieroglyphics was probably engraved behind the king, but now only the signs and are readable. The king’s names have disappeared so it is uncertain whether he is Amenemhat IV – however, E. Bresciani concludes that it must be he, as the sovereign who is regularly represented on the eastern side of the temple9. In front of the sovereign, part of a vertical inscription, integrated as follows, remains: “[Nekhbet the White of Hierakonpolis], may she give life and strength!”. As for the goddess sitting in front of the king, only a part of the name remains: . Among the stakes supported by the two characters there is an inscription describing the scene:

“Stretching the rope in the temple of Renenutet. Offering fowl ir.f di anx”. Scene L (342 d, F, 4): Wall Bibliography: Vogliano 1937, pp. 23-24; Donadoni 1947, p. 346347; Hirsch 2004, p. 377; Bresciani 2006, p. 26; Zecchi 2010, p. 62. To the right of scene K, traces of two other figures arranged on separate registers are shown. As for the upper register, only a little part remains, while just the top of the lower one is still legible. The first one shows two legs walking towards the temple and the lower part of a was sceptre. First there is Amenemhat III’s praenomen Ni-mAat-ra, while in the second register, under the sign of the heaven, a sovereign is represented accompanied by the following inscription:

“Horus Kheperkheperura beloved of Renenutet, the living of Dja”.

8 9

321c; F, 3. Bresciani 2006, p. 26.

121

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Scene H (342 f): Wall, length 0.62 m Bibliography: Vogliano 1937, p. 26; Donadoni 1947, pp. 342-343; Hirsch 2004, pp. 377-378; Bresciani 2006, p. 28; Zecchi 2010, p. 67. On the jambs of the entrance door to the sanctuary, two similar scenes are represented according to the usual partition along an East/West axis for the two sovereigns. On the western jamb, Amenemhat III is represented embracing the cobra-headed goddess Renenutet, while on the eastern one, the embrace between Amenemhat IV and the god Sobek is portrayed. The two scenes are respectively dominated by the figure of Nekhbeth and Horus Behdety, wings spread. It is an illustration of the gods’ greetings to the two kings when they enter the temple. The captions of H, similar in all respects to those of G, read:

“Behdety, great god, sAb Swty, he gives life”; the close parallelism between the two representations is interrupted only by the presence of the expression di.f anx following the god’s name, but not the goddess’s name; under the hawk:

“the king of the Upper and Lower Egypt, the lord who performs the rite, Makherura, son of Ra, Amenemhat, given life forever, beloved of Sobek of Shedet, Horus who resides in Shedet”. Scene I (342 g): Lintel, length 2.55 m Bibliography: Vogliano 1937, p. 26; Donadoni 1947, p. 344; Hirsch 2004, p. 378; Bresciani 2006, p. 29; Zecchi 2010, p. 67. The lintel, on the side of the vestibule, has two symmetrical and specular scenes starting from the centre. Goddess Renenutet holds an anx sign towards the king in one hand, while in the other hand, she holds a rnpt sign. Sobek follows in the same position, giving the heb-sed sign and a bunch of three anx to the king. Behind the god, a standard with arms shows a ka sign holding a cartouche with the king’s name surmounted by two feathers. Over the representation of the ka of the king, to the East, a part of a caption is still visible:

“the living ka of the king that is in front of the palace”. Above the sovereign, traces of two cartouches remain; considering the perfect symmetry of the two scenes, they probably were Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV’s cartouches in the western and eastern halves respectively10. Above Sobek, to the East, the signs and are still visible. It can be restored as “Sobek of Shedet, Horus who resides in Shedet”. Just few of Renenutet’s words remain 10

“I have given you all life and strength”.

Cf. Donadoni 1947, p. 344.

122

Documents from Egypt Scene J (342 e): Wall, length 2.5 m Bibliography: Vogliano 1937, p. 23; Donadoni 1947, p. 345-346; Hirsch 2004, p. 377; Zecchi 2010, p. 65. This scene, located on the north-east side of the vestibule, is entirely lost, but it was probably parallel to scene F11 on the western side, with the usual replacement of Amenemhat III with Amenemhat IV. The king is shown going to the shrine, preceded by Sobek and followed by Anubis. On the upper left, Anubis’ names and epithets are shown; in the centre the king’s and to the right Sobek’s. Above Anubis, called “Lord of Ta-wryt”, two formulas are engraved:

“He pronounces the following words: I have given you all the strength all the stability and all the happiness, forever. I have given you all the lands and all the mountains, forever. Anubis, Lord of Ta-wryt, he gives all the life and strength, forever”. Similarly, in relation to Sobek:

“He pronounces the following words: I give you all the life and strength, all the happiness of heart, forever. I give you all the provisions and all the offerings, forever. Sobek of Shedet Horus who resides in Shedet. He gives all the life and strength, forever”. Above the king Amenemhat III, his full name was written, including all five elements under the protection of the vulture-goddess “Nekhbet, the white of Hierakonpolis, Mistress of the heaven, she gives […]”.

11

321d; F, 2.

123

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty The last inscription, in a vertical line on the right end of the scene, between Sobek’s was sceptre and the frame, describes what is happening:

“The entrance of the king in the temple of the goddess, the living of Dja”. Scene M=N (342h, 342i): West and east jambs Bibliography: Vogliano 1937, p. 26; Donadoni 1947, pp. 347-348; Hirsch 2004, pp. 378-379; Bresciani 2006, p. 30; Zecchi 2010, p. 68. On the short jambs of the door, in the closest area to the outside, protruding slightly into the hallway, two inscriptions on a single vertical line remain: these both belong to Amenemhat I, with Sobek as the sole divinity. The inscription on the west jambs, where the king is portrayed with a nemes entering the temple followed by his family, is:

“The king of the Upper and Lower Makherura, beloved of Sobek of Shedet, Horus who resides in Shedet, lord of the wrrt-crown, Hnwty, who resides in the palace, lord of the great crown, given life”. On the east jamb:

“The king of the Upper and Lower Makherura, beloved of Sobek of Shedet, Horus who resides in Shedet, lord of the magnificence, great of awe and image with the diadem and the double feathers, given life”. Donadoni notes that the name Sobek shows some variations with respect to the graphical standard12. Scene O (342 j; E,1): Jamb Bibliography: Vogliano 1937, p. 26; Donadoni 1947, p. 348-350; Hirsch 2004, p. 378-379; Bresciani 2006, p. 30; Zecchi 2010, p. 68. On the west jamb of the portal, between the hypostyle room and the shrine, Amenemhat IV is depicted in the act of entering the temple with his family at the dedication. Among the characters behind the sovereign, only the mwt nsw Hetepti remains, identified by two lines of hieroglyphics, one horizontal and the other one vertical.

12

Cf. Donadoni 1947, p. 349.

124

Documents from Egypt

“the noblewoman, lady of the Two Lands, the king’s mother and the associate of the white crown bearer Hetepti”. 7KHZKROHVFHQHVXUPRXQWHGE\DZLQJHGVXQGLVNHTXLSSHGZLWKXUDHLEHDUVWKHWLWOH

“The king himself rests in the temple of Renenutet. Giving the house to his lord, ir=f di anx”. $ERYHWKHNLQJKLVQDPHIROORZHGE\DGHGLFDWLRQIRUPXODLVJLYHQ $EERRY YHWKHNL NNLLQJ J KL KLV VQD QDPH QD PH IRO PH ROOR OR RZ ZHHG G E\ \ D GHGLF HHG GL DW DWLR L Q Q IRRUUP PXO XOD D LV JLY LYHQ HQ HQ

“The Horus Kheperkheperu, King of the Upper and Lower Egypt, the lord who performs the rite Makherura, son of Ra, of his body, Amenemhat, given life and stability, like Ra, forever. He made as his monument for Renenutet, the living of Dja”. 7KHQWKHNLQJVSHDNV

“His words: giving the house to his lord as beautiful and excellent temple for his father, the king of the Upper and Lower Egypt Nimaatra, justi¿ed”. Scene R (342l; D, 8-9): /LQWHO %LEOLRJUDSK\9RJOLDQRS'RQDGRQLSS+LUVFKS%UHVFLDQLS =HFFKLS 7KHLQWHUQDOOLQWHORIDJDWHZD\WRWKHpronaosLVGHFRUDWHGLQWKHVDPHZD\DVWKHH[WHUQDORQHZLWKWZR V\PPHWULFDOVFHQHVUHFDOOLQJWKHXVXDOGLYLVLRQ7RWKHZHVW$PHQHPKDW,,,LVUHSUHVHQWHGLQWKHDFWRIR൵HULQJ LQFHQVHWRWKHJRGGHVV5HQHQXWHWZKLOHWRWKHHDVW$PHQHPKDW,9VSOLWVWKHEUHDGIRU6REHN7KHWZRGHLWLHV DUHLQWKHFHQWUHEDFNWREDFNVHSDUDWHGE\WZRFROXPQVRIKLHURJO\SKVEHDULQJWKHLUQDPHV



Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty

“Renenutet, the living of Dja. Giving life,

forever” and of Shedet, Horus who resides in Shedet. Giving life, forever”.

“Sobek

The images of the two kings are on the edge, facing the deities. Above Amenemhat IV’s head, names and titles are engraved: the Lord who performs the rite Maakherura, given life, forever”.

“The king of the Upper and Lower Egypt,

Between the kings and deities there are two offering tables with four shelves; these scenes are respectively entitled:

“Giving the incense” and

“Offering the white bread”.

Behind Amenemhat IV, the description of the scene reads:

“He is foremost of the ka of all the livings, all the happiness of heart”. Scene Q (342k): Jamb Bibliography: Vogliano 1937, pp. 26-27; Donadoni 1947, pp. 350-351; Hirsch 2004, p. 380; Bresciani 2006, p. 33; Zecchi 2010, p. 69. The inscriptions on the jambs of the internal door of the transversal room are well-preserved. Inscription Q, parallel to P13 on the west side, consists of two vertical lines of text. The names of the kings and deities are the only differences between P and Q:

“The king of the Upper and Lower Egypt, the Lord who performs the rite, Maakherura, son of Ea, of his flesh Amenemhat, given life, stability, strength, like Ra, forever. Beloved of Sobek of Shedet, Horus who resides in Shedet, he gives all the life, all the strength and stability, all the health and happiness of heart, forever”. Scene T (342m; D, 7): Wall, length: 2.23 m Bibliography: Vogliano 1937, pp. 28-29; Donadoni 1947, p. 508-510; Hirsch 2004, p. 380-381; Bresciani 2006, p. 32; Zecchi 2010, p. 71. 13

321f, Bresciani 2006, p. 33.

126

Documents from Egypt The east wall of the door of the southern wall of the room bears an offering scene, as S14 on the western side, dedicated to Renenutet. Amenemhat IV, under the falcon Behdety, is facing the goddess, separated from her by an offering table above which rnn iw is written.

She is called: “Renenutet, the living of Dja. She gives life, forever”. “Behedety, the great god,

While Horus Behedety is: dappled of feathers, who is above the horizon”. Finally, the king is:

“Horus Kheperkheperu, king of the Upper and Lower Egypt, the lord who performs the rite Makhereura, living forever”. The goddess grants the king many gifts connected to kingship:

“Words to be recited: I have caused you to celebrate jubilees like Ra, forever. I have made you king of Upper and Lower Egypt, like Ra, forever. I have given you all the protection and all the stability like Ra, forever. I have given you […]”. The whole scene is titled: anx, forever”.

“Presenting the divine offering, ir=f di

Scene [V] (342n; D, 6): Wall, length: 2.17 m Bibliography: Vogliano 1937, p. 29; Donadoni 1947, p. 511; Hirsch 2004, p. 381; Bresciani 2006, p. 32; Zecchi 2010, p.72.

14

321g; D, 10. It is the scene with Neferuptah, cf. Appendix 1.

127

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty The relief on the eastern wall of the transversal room is very badly damaged; however, it could be assumed that, in analogy with scene U15, it contained an offering scene with Amenemhat IV and Renenutet. Inscriptions: Z3 (342o; D, 2) and Z4 (342p; D, 5) Walls Bibliography: Vogliano 1937, p. 29; Donadoni 1947, pp. 522-523; Hirsch 2004, pp. 381-382; Bresciani 2006, p. 34; Zecchi 2010, p. 72. The areas between the central and the lateral niches contain two texts with the name of Amenemhat III (Z1 and Z2)16 in one column of hieroglyphs, while the areas between the lateral niches and the wall of the transversal room have two texts in two columns with the complete titulary of Amenemhat IV (Z3 and Z4). Z3:

“Horus Kheperkheperu, king of the Upper and Lower Egypt, lord of the Two Lands, the lord who performs the rite Makhereura, son of Ra Amenemhat, [beloved of] […]. The Two Ladies Seheb-tawy, Horus of Gold Sekhem-netjerw, the beautiful God, the Lord who performs the rite Makhereura, the king of the Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands, the lord who performs the rite Makhereura, beloved of Sobek of Shedet, Horus who resides in Shedet […]. “Horus Kheperkheperu, king of the Upper and Lower Egypt, lord of the Two Lands, the lord who performs the rite Makhereura, son of Ra Amenemhat, given life. The Two Ladies Seheb-tawy, Horus of Gold Sekhemnetjerw, the beautiful god the lord who performs the rite, the king of the Upper and Lower Egypt Makhereura, son of Ra Amenemhat, given life”. Z4:

15 16

321h; D, 1. 321r; D, 3 and 321s; D, 4.

128

Documents from Egypt “Horus Kheperkheperu, king of the Upper and Lower Egypt, lord of the Two Lands, the lord who performs the rite Makhereura, son of Ra Amenemhat, [beloved of] [Renenutet] […]. The Two Ladies Seheb-tawy, Horus of Gold Sekhem-netjerw, the beautiful god the lord who performs the rite Makhereura, the king of the Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands, the lord who performs the rite Makhereura, beloved of Sobek of Shedet, Horus who resides in Shedet […]”. Statue s1 (343): Height: 92 cm; length: 1.85 m Bibliography: Vogliano 1937, pp. 545-546; Donadoni 1947, p. 524; Seidel 1996, p. 107-111 (doc. 46); Grallert 2001, p. 510 and ff. (Am4/Wf003); Hirsch 2004, p. 382; Zecchi 2010, p. 77. The central niche contains a sculpture (s1) preserving only the base. It consists of a block, showing three pairs of feet. Donadoni assumed that this was a group depicting the goddess Renenutet in the centre flanked by two sovereigns. On the base:

“The king of the Upper and Lower Egypt Makherura, given life, he has made as his excellent monument the creation for his father the king of the Upper and Lower Egypt Nimaatra, ir.f di anx”. Statue s2 (344): Height: 86 cm; width: 1.08 m Bibliography: Vogliano 1938, pp. 545-546; Donadoni 1947, p. 524; Seidel 1996, p. 107-111 (doc. 47); Hirsch 2004, p. 383; Zecchi 2010, p. 77. In the eastern niche, there is a block flanked by two pairs of feet. Donadoni17 assumed that it depicted Sobek as a crocodile, flanked by the two sovereigns. Document 9: Base of Sphinx n. 17, Store-room of the Pyramids, Giza Provenance: Heliopolis Material: limestone Measures: width 44 cm; height 15 cm; length 147 cm Bibliography: Moussa 1991; Fay 1996, p. 68, appendix, p. 58, pl. 95b; Hirsch 2004, p. 383. This is a rectangular block which formed the base of a sphinx completely lost with the exception of the feet, approximately 8 cm high. Between the front legs of the sphinx there is a cartouche engraved with Amenemhat IV’s name, Makherura, followed by this column of text: 17

Cf. Donadoni 1947, p. 524.

129

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty

“[…]xrw, son of Ra, of his body, his beloved Makherura”. On his chest, a part of the cartouche [mA]a-xrw-[ra] remains, while on the right side of the base there is the top of the sign nTr, probably the beginning of a line of hieroglyphics deleted when the base was reused as a lintel of a door. Private Sculpture Document 10: Stela 645[2435], National Museum, Rio de Janeiro Provenance: Abydos (?) Material: limestone Measures: width 31.8 cm; height 44 cm; thickness 7 cm

Figure 5: Stela 645[2435] (A 10).

130

Documents from Egypt Bibliography: Kitchen 1990, n. 2, pl. 3-4. In the lunette, under the winged sun disk, a cartouche with the name Makherura is engraved flanked by two crouching jackals: Anubis and Wepwawet, to the right and left respectively, are identified by their typical epithets: nb tA dsr “Lord of the Sacred Territory” and tp(y) Dw.f, “He who is upon his mountain”. Below, the image is followed by two horizontal lines with an offering formula: An offering which the king gives to Osiris, Lord who opens the ways, that he may give invocation offerings of bread and beer, oxen and fowl; a thousand alabasters. And a thousand of everything good and pure, which heaven gives, earth creates and the Nile-flood brings, for the ka of the Overseer of Necklace-makers, WerhapRenefseneb, the venerable. Three registers of scenes follow, occupying the rest of the stela. Upper register: to the left, Werhap-Renefseneb is represented seated at a table full of offerings. Two children are sitting under the man’s chair. On the right, two men present offerings. The images are followed by brief descriptions. Beside the dedicator: “the Overseer of Necklace-makers, Werhap-Renefseneb, son of Hedjenet”; near the two children: Renseneb and Werhap, “the younger”; beside the first presenter: “Being what has been done for him18 by the son of his brother of his mother, the Hall-keeper of the necklace-makers AmenemhatSonbhenaef, son of Sitamun”; finally, near the second one: “Overseer of the Tribunal, Werhap”, the action of the men is described as: “adoring the god, four”. In the middle register, there are three men to the left, a boy in the centre, and three sitting women to the right. Near the first group: “Kemitef; the Hall-keeper, Irerhabef; the Hall-keeper, Ireri”; near the boy: Hor; finally, near the three women: “his mother Sitamun; Seshshet; Resunefer”. Finally, on the third register, there are three sitting men, to the left (Khentykhetyhotep; Pathhotep; Amenemhatankh) facing five women, to the right (Senenti; Resw; Horiemhab; Werni-Ptah; Hedjet). Document 11: Stela BM 258 (stele n. 219), British Museum, London Provenance: Abydos (?) Material: limestone Measures: width 20.32 cm; height 33.54 cm Bibliography: Valloggia 1969, p. 118-119; Hall 1911, pl. 50; Budge 1909, n. 219. Funerary stela with lunette, on behalf of the Hall-keeper of the Palace-approach Setemsaf where the two sovereigns’ names are engraved in equal position. The lunette, as well as the representations of Osiris and Wepwawet under a kiosk, contains the following inscription on three columns: Nimaatra given life, as Ra, forever Hall-keeper of the Palace-approach Setemsaf, justified Makherura given life, as Ra, forever The rest of the surface is divided into three horizontal and parallel registers; in each one, the characters are represented sitting opposite one another or next to an offering table. Each figure is accompanied by a badlypreserved line of hieroglyphics.

18

m irt.n n.f, cf. Kitchen 1990, n. 3

131

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty

Figure 6: Stela BM 258 (stele n. 219) (A 11).

Document 12: Stela C7, Musée du Louvre, Paris Provenance: Abydos (?) Material: limestone Measures: width 35 cm; height 47 cm Bibliography: Valloggia 1969, p. 124 and ff.; Gayet 1886, pl. 6; Janssen 1951, p. 58; PM VIII, p. 81 (803-026591) False-door funerary stela belonging to two Treasury officials called Senwsret and Sobekhotep. The stela, rectangular and topped with a grooved frame, is divided into five registers. In the first one, in the left and right margins, the gods Osiris and Wepwawet are depicted inside a kiosk, while in the middle, two wAdt eyes and the Snw ring stand out. In the other registers, there are scenes of the typical repertoire of funerary stelae representing characters sharing the stela with the two major dedicators. However, the second register should be noted, occupied by the depiction of Sobekhotep sitting and identified as such by the description with his name and titles. Behind him, his mother is represented sitting next to an offering table. This scene is accompanied by an inscription, which see below.

132

Documents from Egypt

Figure 7: Stela C7 (A 12).

Inscriptions I Register To the left, in six columns of text: “Nimaatra, given life |beloved of Osiris, Lord of Abedw. |An offering which the king gives to Ptah, Lord of anx tAwy, beer and bread for the Assistant to the Treasurer Senwsret”. To the right, in six columns of text: “Makherura given with life |beloved Wepwawet, Lord of Abedw. |An offering which the king gives to Wepwawet, beer and bread |for the Assistant to the Treasurer Sobekhotep son of| [Shashet] justified”. II Register To the extreme left: “An offering which the king gives to the lady of the house Shashet, justified”. Near the other figure seated on the left: “The Assistant to the Treasurer Sobekhotep”. On the offering table: “Thousands of fowl and cattle, thousands of bread and beer”. Near the other figure seated on the right: “The hall-keeper and cupbearer Wnemi (or Keky)19 born of Ity”. To the extreme right: “An offering which the king gives to Ptah to the ka of Imeny, justified”. For this name cf. PN I, p. 79, n. 16. The reading of the name is still uncertain, a hypothesis given in PM VIII, p. 81 (803-026-591) reads “Akeki (Akki) born of It”, while Leprohon (in Leprohon1980, p. 352, n. 350) reads “Pepy, born of It”.

19

133

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty III Register An offering which the king gives to Osiris, Lord of Abydos to Four people on the left: 1 Reri born of Meret, lady (of the house), the venerable 2 Inemwa born of Henenet, justified 3 Kay son of Kekity, justified 4 Hotepw son of Henet, justified Four people on the right: 1 Nefer born of Mery, justified, the venerable 2 Medja born of Pepi-Hemet 3 Kay, justified, born of Shashet, justified 4 Hetepw son of Shashet, justified IV Register Three people on the left: 1 Lady of the house Meret, born of Shashet, justified 2 Lady of the house Pepy, born of Henenet 3 Lady of the house Ii, born of Mery Three people on the right: 1 Lady of the house Itty, born of Ipi 2 Lady of the house Mes born of It 3 Lady of the house It, born of Henenet Three people on the left: 1 Lady of the house Miret, daughter of Pepy 2 Rs-seneb, son of Meret 3 Captain (s n imy HAt) Iy Four people on the left: 1 Cupbearer Res-ti, son of […] 2 Cupbearer I.y n(i) 3 Ferryman (s n aHaw) Khenemes 4 Cupbearer Ipw, the Asiatic

134

Documents from Egypt Document 13: Stela Stuttgart 11, Ägyptische Sammlung der Universität, Tübingen Provenance: Abydos (?) Material: limestone Measures: width 36 cm; height 56 cm; thickness 9.5 cm Bibliography: Brunner-Traut 1981, pp. 86-87, pl. 56; Valloggia 1969, p. 119; Murnane 1977, p. 16; Spiegelberg 1902, p. 8, pl. 7.

Figure 8: Stele Stuttgart 11 (A 13).

False-door rectangular stela showing a thick frame in its upper part. The surface is divided into five registers. The first two registers are in turn divided into equal parts by a column of hieroglyphs in which a ḥtp di nsw offering formula is inscribed: “King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Ni-Ma-kheru-Ra20 given life forever, for the ka of the Hall-keeper and cupbearer Khuy”. The first register consists of two lines of hieroglyphics stating, to the left: “An offering which the king gives to Osiris, Lord of Abydos, who may give him a vocal offering, bread and beer and everything good and pure for the Ka of his father Ib, born of Henw”. To the right: “An offering which the king gives to Ptah-Sokar, justified, who may give bread and beer, fowl, linen and ointments and everything good and pure”.

20

Remarkable, in the cartouche, the presence of the sign

instead of

135

.

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Below these texts, there are two representations portraying, to the right, Khuy sitting in front of an offering table, holding a flagellum in his hand; and to the left, Khuy’s parents represented embracing and sitting in front of another offering table. Near the woman we read: “His mother, Hedjet, justified”. In the two remaining registers, there are scenes accompanied by explanatory inscriptions. The third register shows four standing men, two of whom are turned to the right facing the other two. From the right, before the first man: “the Overseer of the Storehouse Ib, son of Ankhef, born of […] justified”; before the second man: “Iref-ankh-Seker, born of Ib, justified”. Before the third man: “Ib-ankh, born of Henw”; finally, before the last man: “Ib, born of Hedjet, possessing honour”. In the last register, five women are represented: four of them are turned to the right towards the last turned to the left. They, too, are preceded by a column of explanatory hieroglyphs. The genealogy of the characters is shown in great detail. From the right: “Iw, born of Irites”; in front of her: “Irites, born of It”. Before the central woman: “Hepw, born of Semwt”, then: “Di-Mwt born of Semwt” and finally “Nen, born of Di-Mwt, possessing honour”. Document 14: Block BMFA 1971.403, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston Provenance: Fayyum Material: Limestone Measures: height 66.5 cm, width 66 cm Date: End of XII Dynasty, reigns of Senwsret III, Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV Bibliography: Simpson 1972; Franke 1984, p. 139, n. 177; Zecchi 2001, p. 145; Dodson 2004, p. 108. Autobiographical tombstone inscription found in an unspecified location of the Fayyum, consisting of a heavy block cut into two halves. The lower part depicts a procession of four offering bearers, the first and the second of them accompanied by their name Hm-kA Wsr-MnTw ir n M-anx e Xry-HAbt anxw ir n baA. The upper part is formed of a retrograde inscription distributed in a dozen of columns of hieroglyphs.

136

Documents from Egypt

Inscription ↓→ 1)|[…] of […] 2)|the great shrine, the god within the heaven, the member of elite and god’s father Ankhu 3)| born of the king’s sister Merestekhi, one who knows the position of his foot in the king’s house 4)| one who is in the confidence of Horus-Lord-of-the-Palace the Overseer of fields Ankhu, Overseer of the mysteries of the Overseer of mysteries 5)| who grew up as a child at the feet of his lord, confidant of the king, foremost of the two lands 6)| pupil of the lord of ceremonies, Overseer of the Mysteries, custodian of the menit-necklace 7)| one who causes the rekhyet people to know its share as something profitable, the Overseer of the 8)|fields, Ankhu. “I acted as scribe of the temple of the King of the Upper and Lower Egypt Kha-Kau-Ra, justi- 9)|-fied; he praised [me]. I acted as follower of the king’s son for the Majesty of 10)| the King of the Upper and Lower Egypt Ni-Maat-Ra, justified, when he was a youth; he praised 11)| […] Document 15: Stela 2579, Egyptian Museum, Florence Provenance: Abydos (?) Material: White Limestone Measures: width 2.40 m; height 3.35 m; Bibliography: Bosticco 1959, n. 39 p. 44; Franke 1984, p. 234, n. 502. Stele whose decorated surface is delimited by a cut line interrupted on the right side in correspondence of a standing figure. Five horizontal columns of hieroglyphics, the last of which is a description of the representation above, overlapping the offering scene. To the left, a man is sitting on a seat with lion legs, facing to the right in the act of smelling an ointment. In front of him, there is an offering table richly laid. Facing this, to the left end, a woman is sitting in the act of smelling a lotus flower. Behind her, a young girl is depicted standing and wearing a tight dress held up by two straps.

137

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty

Figure 9: Stela 2579 (A 15), courtesy of Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali e del Turismo – Polo Museale della Toscana – Firenze.

Inscription An offering which the king gives to Osiris, Lord of Ankhtawy, great 2)|god, lord of Abydos and to the gods who reside in the necropolis, may they grant an offering consisting of bread, beer, oxen, fowl 3)|incense, ointments, offerings, food and everything good and pure of which a god lives, 4)for the ka of the mayor and vizier Senwsret-ankh, justified, born of the Lady of the house Teti, justified. Legend (from right to left): He made for him this stele his cupbearer, Keki, justified. His wife, the lady of the house, Henwtsen, justified, born of Ty, justified. His daughter, Sitamon justified.

138

Documents from Egypt Mobilia Document 16: Toilet Box MMA 26.7.1438, Metropolitan Museum of Arts, New York Provenance: Thebes, tomb of the wr mdw Smaw Rn.snb (n. 25) Material: cedar wood inlaid with ebony and ivory Measures: width 18 cm; height 20 cm; length 28.5 cm; Bibliography: Carter-Carnavon 1912; PM I, p. 619 Toilet box: the front, the sides, the base and the lid are bordered by wide bands of ivory and ebony strips. The interior is divided into two compartments designed to house cosmetic tools including several ointments and a bronze mirror. The front and lid, equipped with two silver knobs, show an inscriptions and an image. In the former, the scene engraved on the ivory depicts a man making offerings to Amenemhat IV; the latter is identified by the inscription: nsw bit nb tAwy mAa-xrw-ra di anx, “The king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands, Makherura, who lives eternally”. The unusual spelling of the sovereign’s name should be noted: above the sign in fact, the sign was written21.

The caption also provides the name and titles of the owner Kemeni (Kmn), including, “King’s true acquaintance, The One who has the access to the secret of the meals of the king as the one who prepares the tables of the Lord of the Two Lands, Storekeeper of the Hsty vases”. Between the king and Kemeni some signs illustrating the scene are still legible ir.t […], a gap that probably could be filled with the names of the vessels kept by the offerer. Around the outer edges of the lid, there is another long inscription, filled with ivory powder. It is an offering formula to the ka of the deceased, showing the name of the god Sbk nb Bwt22 “Sobek Lord of But”, the modern el-Qatta, in the Delta.

Cf. Chapter 2: Succession and Coregency and Murnane 1977, p. 16. Sbk nb Bwt is attested in three other documents, two certainly dated to the Middle Kingdom (see Stele of Sobekhotep and cylinder seal BM 16972), and the other one dated to the New Kingdom (see BM 26367); See Leitz 2002 vol. 3 p. 620-621. However, according to some scholars, the epithet of Sobek is also intended as nb bbt, Lord of the marshes /medical herbs (see Wb. I, 455). 21 22

139

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty

Figure 10: Particular of the scene engraved on the front of the toilet box. Carter-Carnavon 1912; tomb 25-1.

Document 17: Plaque BM 22879, British Museum, London Provenance: Thebes Material: faience Measures: length 5.6 cm Bibliogrphy: PM I, p. 846; Budge 1902, p. 72; Valloggia 1969, pp. 120 and ff.; Murnane 1977, p. 16, Matzker 1988, p. 49; Habachi 1977, p. 29.

Figure 11: Plaque BM 22879 (A 17), © The Trustees of the British Museum.

140

Documents from Egypt

Small tablet, pylon- or naos-shaped, perhaps a decorative panel for a box. There is an inscription distributed across three columns. From the left, we read: “King of the Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the ritual, Makherura; Perfect God, Lord of the Two Lands, Amenemhat; Son of Ra Ameny, of his body”. Graffiti Document 18: Graffiti Provenance: Wadi Shatt el-Rigala Place of conservation: in situ Date: Regnal year 3 Bibliography: Petrie 1888, pl. XV, n. 144; Winlock 1947, p. 72; Peden 2001, p. 32

Rock inscription containing Amenemhat IV’s nsw bit name: MAa-xrw-Ra, it is the only wadi graffiti dating back to the Twelfth Dynasty23. “Year 3 under the majesty of the King of the Upper and Lower Egypt Makherura, who lives eternally”. Glyptics Document 19: Scarab Bibliography: Petrie 1889, n. 273; Valloggia 1969, p. 120; Murnane 1977, p. 16; Matzker 1988, p. 49 Scarab engraved with following inscription distributed in three columns on his back: “Perfect God, Lord of the Two Lands Nimaatra, Horus’ name Kheperkheperu, son of Ra of his body, Amenemhat, who lives eternally”. Amenemhat IV’s Horus name is written in the central column between Amenemhat III’s praenomen and nomen. The writing of Horus’ name, usually made of four scarabs, has to be noted24.

23 24

Cf. Peden 2001, p. 32. Cf. Valloggia 1969, p. 119.

141

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty

Figure 12: Scarab A 19.

Document 20: Scarab UC 11332, Petrie Museum, London Bibliography: Petrie 1917, n. 12,7, pl. XIV; Valloggia 1969, p. 120; Murnane 1977, p. 16; Matzker 1988, p. 49 Scarab engraved with the following inscription distributed in three columns on its back side: “Perfect God, Lord of the Two Lands Nimaatra, Horus’ name Kheperkheperu, son of Ra of his body, Amenemhat, who lives eternally”. The inscription is completely analogous to A 15; the only difference is the lack of the sign III’s name.

Figure 13: Scarab UC 11332 (A 20).

Document 21: Scarab, Musée du Louvre, Paris

Figure 14: Scarab A 21.

142

in Amenemhat

Documents from Egypt %LEOLRJUDSK\3HWULHQ1HZEHUU\SSO,;Q 6FDUDEHQJUDYHGRQLWVEDFNZLWK$PHQHPKDW,9¶Vnsw-bitMakhereura, who lives eternally” Document 22: Scarab %LEOLRJUDSK\3HWULHQ

6FDUDEHQJUDYHGRQLWVEDFNZLWKWKHNLQJ¶Vnsw-bit QDPHXVLQJDQH[WUHPHO\VKRUWHQHGIRUPRIKDQGZULWLQJ Document 23: Cylinder Seal 44. 12362, Brooklyn Museum %LEOLRJUDSK\1HZEHUU\SO9,Q0F*UHJRU&ROOHFWLRQQ %LLEO E LR RJU JUDS SK\ K\ 1 1HHZE ZEHU HUU\ HU U\    SO O 9, Q Q0F*UHJRU&ROOHFWLRQQ

&\OLQGHUVHDOFRQWDLQLQJWKHIROORZLQJLQVFULSWLRQLQWZRFROXPQV “King of Upper and Lower Egypt Makherura, who lives eternally; Loved of Qes, Lord of Everything (?) and Hathor, Lady of Ra-iawt (?)” 7KH WRSRQ\P DIWHU WKH JRGGHVV +DWKRU¶V QDPH WR EH UHDG ra-iawt, GRHV QRW VHHP DWWHVWHG HOVHZKHUH 7KH JRG¶V QDPH PHQWLRQHG EHIRUH +DWKRU QRUPDOO\ LGHQWL¿HG ZLWK$WXP FRXOG DOVR EH UHDG DV qs nb tm PHDQLQJLord of everything the completeness7KLVPLJKWVXJJHVW&XVDHQRUWKRI$VVLXWWKHFDSLWDOWRZQ RIWKHIRXUWHHQWKQRPHRI8SSHU(J\SWWKHWRZQZDVNQRZQIRU+DWKRU¶VFXOWDOUHDG\DWWHVWHGLQWKH0LGGOH .LQJGRP7KHJRGGHVVZDVWKHPDLQGHLW\EHDULQJWKHHSLWKHWLady of Cusae. 7KH/bVKRZVDQHSRQ\PRXV JRGRI&XVDH4VLQDODWHP\WKLQWHUSUHWHGDVRQHRI+RUXV¶VRQVZKLOH/HLW]9,, TXRWHVqisyThe One from CusaeEHWWHUNQRZQLQWKHZULWLQJVDVWKHJRGSXVKLQJWZRVQDNHVDVLGH7KHVHGRFXPHQWVGDWHWRWKH 2OG.LQJGRPVXJJHVWLQJWKDWWKHJRGZDVZRUVKLSSHGLQDYHU\HDUO\SHULRGDQGWKDWKHZDVRYHUVKDGRZHGE\ +DWKRU¶VDSSHDUDQFH7KHH[SODQDWLRQRIWKHZRUGAwt PD\OLHLQWKHH[SUHVVLRQDWWKHHQGiAwwt-qjsZULWWHQ DOSKDEHWLFDOO\DQGZLWKWKHGHWHUPLQDWLYHRIDQROGPDQDQGDZRPDQ DQGWUDQVODWHGDVWKHOld Ladies of CusaePHPEHUVRI+DWKRU¶VIROORZHUVDQGOLQNHGWRWKHFXOWRIWKHGHDG,WLVSRVVLEOHWKDWLQWKDWSHULRGLQWKH VHDOiAwwt,³ROG´FRXOGEHZULWWHQZLWKWKHiAwt EDQQHU

 

&I/HLW]9,,,S &I/HLW]9,,,SDQG,S



Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Document 24: Cylinder Seal Bibliography: Newberry 1905, pl.VI, n.19; Valloggia 1969, p. 120-121; Murnane 1977, p. 16 Cylinder seal with three columns of text: Left Colum: King of Upper and Lower Egypt Nimaatra Central column: Son of Ra, Ameny Right column: Perfect God, Lord of the Two Lands, Amenemhat

Private Glyptics Document 25: Seal BM 32568, British Museum, London Bibliography: Martin 1971, n. 1543, pl. 24 (31); Matzker 1986, p. 66.

It is a seal bearing the name of the “Overseer to the Warehouse, Senebtyfy”. Document 26: Seal Impression Provenance: el-Lahun Bibliography: Martin 1971, n. 1188, pl. 46 (11); Matzker 1986, p. 66.

Seal impression bearing the name of the [wHm]w n arryt xw-nfry, “Official of the Tribunal Khunefery”.

144

Documents from Egypt Document 27: Seal N. Inv.: JE 75162 Place of conservation: Egyptian Museum, Cairo Bibliography: Martin 1971, n. 832, pl. 4 (7); Matzker 1986, p. 67.

Seal bearing the name of wr mdw Smaw Rn-snb, “Chief of tens of Upper Egypt Renseneb” (identified with the wr mdw Smaw Rn-snb, see A 8). Document 28: Seal N. Inv.: MFA 723615 Place of conservation: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Bibliography: Martin 1971, n. 833, pl. 39 (2); Matzker 1986, p. 67.

Seal bearing the name of wr mdw Smaw Rn-snb, “Chief of tens of Upper Egypt Renseneb” (identified with the wr mdw Smaw Rn-snb, see A 8). Document 29: Seal Bibliography: Martin 1979, p. 217 e sgg. n. 17; Franke 1984, p. 240, n. 370; Matzker 1986, p. 67. Seal bearing the name of wr mdw Smaw Rn-snb,”Chief of tens of Upper Egypt Renseneb” (identified with the wr mdw Smaw Rn-snb, see A 8). Glyptics of uncertain attribution Document 30: SCARAB Bibliography: Dubois 1817, pl. IV n. 9; Brunton 1939, p. 181 Document 31: CYLINDER SEAL Bibliography: McGregor Collection, n. 517 Document 32: CYLINDER SEAL Bibliography: McGregor Collection, n. 520

145

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Papyri from el-Lahun (Kahun) The Lahun papyri require some explanations. First of all, we are still not sure whether the entire block of the Lahun papyri belong to the reign of Amenemhat IV. These papyri were traced back to the reign of Amenemhat IV only due to the hypothesis of F. Ll. Griffith27. However, not all of them contains a precise reference to the name of the king (we are referring here to documents A 33, A 36, A 38, A 39, A 40). This lack of evidence is to be traced back to the the time of their recovery. The Lahun papyri were first published by Griffith in 1898 and at the time the context of the discovery was often overlooked. In this day and age, papyri are not merely a written document, but also an archaeological discovery. As such, it is now pivotal to consider where and how these papyri were originally recovered. The archaeological context is therefore crucial in this matter, sometimes even more crucial than the actual content of the documents themselves. This was not the case in the 19th century. The archaeologists that recovered the Lahun papyri did not fully share this perspective when they catalogued the documents: a fascinating example of this is the will of Wah28 (A 40). In this imt-pr, Wah left a considerable inheritance to his wife Teti. In the original description made by Griffith in his The Petrie Papyri (1898), the precise location in which the will of Wah was found is not mentioned. Griffith simply reports the “Block” of houses (“Rank”, as Petrie called them) to which the papyri belongs to. This unfortunately leaves several unanswered questions, such as whether the will of Wah was found inside or outside the building; whether it belonged to a pile of waste or a piled and preserved set of documents. Due to this lack of data, it is impossible to identify the original building and its function, which could be either a private house or an administrative office. On the other hand, through the will of Wah we still have a great deal of information concerning Wah’s family and the people who lived in the city. For instance, we come to discover that women could have ownership and leave on inheritance, we know of the presence of Asian servants and we are informed about the career of the members of the family. Even though the time of the recovery does not give us much information concerning the archaeological context, the content of the Lahun papyri is exceedingly interesting because it allows us to know more about the society at the time of Amenemhat IV. The papyri here below have been grouped according to the content in letters, accounts and legal documents. Letters Document 33: p.Kahun VI. 4 (l. 28), verso (UC 32201) Inv.: UC 32201 Place of conservation: Petrie Museum, London Measures: width 26,3 cm; height 31,8 cm State of preservation: fragmentary Date: Regnal year 2, month 4 of Smw, day 13 Provenance: Kahun, central area “Rank N” Bibliography: Griffith 1898, pp. 73 and ff. pls. XXX-XXXI; Collier-Quirke 2002, pp. 105-109; Matzker 1986, p. 65

27 28

Cf. Griffith 1898, p. 86. Cf. Quirke 2005, pp. 78-80.

146

Documents from Egypt In the recto: text of a letter of the bAk n pr-dt Iri-sw (the servant of the personal estate Irysu) to the imy-r aXnwty sA-kA-inw (overseer of the interior Sikainu).The address with the date is shown in the verso: HA.t-sp 2 Abd 4 Smw sw 13 (?) Document 34: p.Kahun III. 4 (l. 32), verso (UC 32205) Inv.: UC 32205 Place of conservation: Petrie Museum, London Measures: width 20 cm; height 30 cm State of preservation: fragmentary Date: Regnal year 6, month 1 of prt, day 2 Provenance: Kahun, west of “Rank B” Bibliography: Griffith 1898, pp. 77 and ff. pl. XXXIII; Collier-Quirke 2002, pp. 121-123 Fragment of a letter sent by bAk n pr-Dt Hmm (the servant of the personal estate Khemem) to imy-r aXnwti […] (overseer of the chamber […])showing the address with the date on the verso. Interesting is the presence of the formula placed under the heading: […] m ḥst n[t] sbk nb r-sḥwy nsw-bity MA-xrw-ra anx dt r nḥḥ ntrw [nbw] mi mrr bAk-im (“[…] with the favour of Sobek, Lord of Reshewy, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Makherura who lives eternally forever and all gods as the servant desires”). Document 35: MODEL LETTER, p.Kahun III. 2, recto (letter 1) (UC 32196) Inv.: UC 32196 Place of conservation: Petrie Museum, London Measures: height 20, 5 cm; width: 84 cm State of preservation: fragmentary at each end. Provenance: Kahun, west of “Rank B” Bibliography: Griffith 1898, pp. 67-68 and ff. pl. XXVII; Collier-Quirke 2004, pp. 48-49 On the recto only: it gives a sequence of nine model letters. The first letter shows a series of formular expressions also used in real letters. nswt bity MAa-xrw-Ra ntrw nbw mi mrr bAk-im swdA ib pw n nb a.ws| Hr rdit in.tw n.i r 10 n bAk im nfr sdm nb a.ws “The king of Upper and Lower Egypt Makherura and all the gods as the servant desires. This is a communication to the lord […] to have brought to me10 ducks to the servant there. May the hearing of the lord […] be good”. As noted by Griffith, it is interesting that the king’s name is not followed by any epithet.

147

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Accounts Document 36: p.Kahun, VI. 12 (l. 8), verso (UC 32158; fr. UC 32148B and UC 32150A) Inv.: UC 32158; fr. UC 32148B and UC 32150A Place of preservation: Petrie Museum, London Measures: height: 14,4 cm; width: 39,7 cm State of preservation: fragmentary Date: Regnal year 1, month II of Axt, day 26. Provenance: Kahun, central area of “Rank N” Bibliography: Griffith 1898, pp. 4, 64 and ff. pl. XXVIa; Collier-Quirke 2004, p. 21; Collier-Quirke 2006, p. 37; Matzker 1986, p. 65 Recto: re-used as literary writing material. Text relating in narrative form contendings of Horus and Seth. Verso: parts of accountancy entries concerning food-production quarters arranged in three columns of texts. The second column, including the date, is complete, while the first and third are extremely fragmentary. In the second column we read: imy-rn.f dAdAt nt šn anty Hr pA anh n wnnm-t hrw pn “Namelist of food-production sector board which is in charge of victuals for the banquet of this day: imy-r st snb.ti.fy (overseer of the Storehouse Senebtyfy) imy r st snbf (overseer of the Storehouse Sonbef) sS aḳw kwmn.f (store-overseer Kumenef) tAw n sS aqw Rs (bearer for the secretary to the provisions Res’) xtmw hrya [n imy-r Xtmt] sbkḥtp (sealer and assistant Sobekhotep’) imy-sA tti (bodyguard Teti)” Document 37: p.Kahun, LV. 8 (r. 34), recto (UC 32194) Inv.: UC 32194 Place of preservation: Petrie Museum, London Measuresi: height: 26,5 cm; width: 19,8 cm State of preservation: fragmentary Date: Regnal year 2, month 4 of prt, day 10 Provenance: Kahun, north-eastern area 148

Documents from Egypt Bibliography: Griffith 1898, pp. 63 and ff. pl. XXVI; Collier-Quirke 2006, p. 101; Matzker 1986, p. 65 Only the upper and lower margins remain. Recto: under the date there is a long list, in black and red ink, of produce brought on certain days by officials of the town or the temple. Verso: remains of a grain account. Document 38: p.Kahun VI. 21 (ll. 39; 40; 41; 44), verso (UC 32269) Inv.: UC 32269 Place of preservation: Petrie Museum, London Measures: height: 15 cm; width: 25 cm State of preservation: fragmentary, only the upper half remains Date: Regnal year 9, […] month […], day 29 (l. 39); Regnal year 9, month 3 (?) of prt, day 29 (l. 44); Regnal year 10, month 1 of Axt, day 29 (l. 40); Regnal year 10[…] (l. 41) Provenanance: Kahun, central area of “Rank N” Bibliography: Collier-Quirke 2006, p. 58 and ff.; Griffith 1898, pp. 43 and ff. pl. XV; Matzker 1986, p. 65 Recto: nine fragments with a name-list of stone-haulers. Verso: fragments with starts lines of accountancy table concerning livestock dated to regnal year ten (UC 32269). It is probably the continuation of UC 32268 bearing the regnal year nine in the verso and in the first line of the recto showing the date: “Regnal year 45, month 3 of Axt, day […]”, probably belonging to Amenemhat III’s reign29. Document 39: p.Kahun XLIV. 1 lr. 32), recto (UC 32175) Inv.: UC 32175 Place of preservation: Petrie Museum, London Measures: height: 5 cm; width: 11,5 cm State of preservation: fragmentary Date: Regnal year 10 (?), month 4 Smw, day 3 Provenance: Kahun

29

Cf. Chapter 2: Co-regency.

149

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Bibliography: Griffith 1898, pp. 43 and ff. pl. XV; Collier-Quirke 2006, p. 97; Matzker 1986, p. 65 Recto: note of revenue (inw) of high officials. Verso faint traces of three narrow lines in black ink. Under the date, HA.t-sp 10 (?) Abd 4 Smw sw 3, some people are mentioned: xtmty bity, smr waty, imy-r xtmt snwsrt (“king’s sealer sole friend, treasurer Senwsret”) wHmw n arryt xw-nfri (“reporter of the palace-approach, Khuneferi”) tsw hty-a anx […]w sA sp sn (“commander Khety-ankh[…] son of[…]”). Legal Papyri Document 40: WILL (?) OF WAH, p.Kahun, I. 1 (l. 6), recto (UC 32058) Inv.: UC 32058 Place of preservation: Petrie Museum, London Measures: height: 56,5 cm; width: 32 cm State of preservation: good Date: Regnal year 2, month 2 of Axt, day18 Provenance: Kahun, western end of “Rank C” Bibliography: Griffith 1898, pp. 31 and ff. Pl. XII; Collier-Quirke 2004, pp. 104-105; Matzker 1986, p. 65. Found sealed with a scarab-shaped seal impression. Recto: text divided into three parts: two are wills of two brothers, the first one is a copy of the original act. The third part shows the names of the witnesses. In particular, the second part shows the date (HA.t-sp 2 Abd 2 axt sw 18), and the name of wab Hry sA n spdw nb iAbtt, wAH (“pure priestin charge of the protection (?) of Sopdw, lord of the East, Wah” 30). The attribution of this papyri to the reign of Amenemhat IV is corroborated by the fact that the first will bears the date: “Regnal Year 44, month 2 of Smw, day 13”(HA.t-sp 44 Abd 2 Šmw sw 13), most likely belonging to Amenemhat III and relative to p.Kahun XII: 1-5). Another interesting detail related to this document is the fact that the same 4 Asian slaves, part of Wah’s inheritance to his wife, are mentioned in another papyri (P.Kahun I.2; UC 32167)31 dated to the regnal year 29 of Amenemhat III (HA.t-sp 29 Abd 3 Axt sw 7) and concerning slaves’ trade (swnt) made by the hry-a n imy-r xtmt and xtmw kfA-ib n xrp kAwt Ihy-snb dD n.f anx-rn32 (Assistant to the Treasurer and Trustworthy sealer of the director of works Ihyseneb, son of Shepset, called Ankhren).

30 31 32

Cf. Zecchi 2001, p. 113. Cf. Collier-Quirke 2004, pp. 118-119. For the titles and documents about this man cf. Quirke 2004, p. 52 e Ward n. 1498; Franke 1984, p. 145, n. 145.

150

Group B Documents from the Borderlands Nubia Document 1: Seal Impression Provenance: Serra East, fortress Bibliography: Kundstat 1966, p. 174 and ff. Seal impression, maybe from a cylinder seal, discovered among the ruins of the fortress, in particular, in the south-east corner of the Middle Kingdom building. It shows Amenemhat IV’s xpr-xpw, enclosed in a serekh dominated by falcon Horus.

Document 2: Nile level graffiti Provenance: Semna, discovered in the south-east corner of the fortress Measures: width 43 cm; height 18 cm Date: regnal year 5 Bibliography: LD II 152 and ff.; Dunham-Janesse 1960, RIS 16; Hintze-Reineke 1989, p. 150, n. 502, pl. 208 fig. N 77 Well-preserved inscription, distributed over three horizontal lines of hieroglyphs drawn with a deep and regular groove. Inscription

“Nile level, year 5 |under the majesty of the King of the Upper and Lower Egypt Makherura |living forever”.

151

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Document 3: Nile level graffiti Provenance: Semna Measures: width 46 cm; height 7 cm Date: regnal year 6 Bibliography: Dunahm-Janessen 1960, RIS 19; Hintze-Reineke 1989, p. 150, n. 503, pl. 208 fig. N 78 Badly-preserved inscription, distributed over three horizontal lines; the hieroglyphs are drawn roughly. At the beginning of the second line there is a gap. Inscription

“Nile Level, year 6 under the majesty |of the king of the Upper and Lower Egypt, Makherura, son of Ra |Amenemhat living forever”. Document 4: Nile level graffiti Provenance: Semna Measures: width 61 cm; height 18 cm Date: regnal year 7 Bibliography: Dunham-Janessen 1960, RIS 18; Hintze-Reineke 1989, p. 150, n. 504, pl. 209 fig. N 78 The inscription is in good conditions, distributed over three horizontal lines. The reading of the regnal year and the interpretation of the first half of the third row are uncertain. Inscription

“Nile Level, year 7 under the majesty of the King of the Upper and Lower Egypt Makherura| living forever. The Sealbearer, chief superintendent of the garrison, commander of the fortress of Sekhem-Khay-kau Makherura (xtm-bity (?), imy-ra mSa wr Rs-snb Hr Ts m mnnw Sxm-xaj-kAw mAa-xrw-Ra)”.

152

Documents from the Borderlands Document 5: Nile level graffiti Provenance: Semna Measures: width 57 cm; height 16 cm Date: regnal year 44 (?) / 1 Bibliography: Dunham-Janessen 1960, RIS 7; Hintze-Reineke 1989, p. 150, n. 511, pl. 221. The inscription is distributed across two horizontal lines, the second one is unreadable. This graffiti connects the 44th regnal year (46th or 48th of one sovereign to the first year of another. The reading of the first year is uncertain, and the attribution to Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV’s reigns is hypothetical. Inscription

Document 6: Nile level graffiti Provenance: Semna Date: regnal year 8 Bibliography: Dunham-Janessen 1960, RIS; Hintze-Reineke 1989, p. 151 n. 507, pl. 210 fig. N 78, Chevereau 1991, n. 145, p. 63. The inscription is distributed over three horizontal lines, the third of which, in poor condition, may begin with the word pHr.t. The attribution to Amenemhat IV’s reign, still uncertain, is based on n analogy of the cartouche, which is very short, with that from graffiti B 21. The name of the Tsw, nb(i) pw is also not certain.

“Nile level, year 8 (?) under the majesty of the king of the Upper and Lower Egypt [Makherua], living forever. [The commander Nebipw]”

1

Cf. Dunham-Janessen 1960, RIS 10, p. 133, pl. 93 E.

153

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Sinai Document 7: Stela of Sa-Sopedu Provenance: Serabit el-Khadim, “hill west of temple”2 Material: limestone Date: regnal year 4 Bibliografia: Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 122, n. 118, pl. XXXVI; Matzker 1986, p. 39; PM VII, p. 347 Round-topped integral private stela, with some lacunae in the inscriptions. Its current location is unknown. It was probably a private ex-voto. From the generic title of the dedicator, HAty-a, it is not possible to identify with certainty what his role within the team of the expedition was3. In the lower half of the stela, to the left of the appeal to the living, there is the figure of the dedicator; at the bottom there are nine people identified by their names, now lost with the exception of a part of the first two: mHn-anx-Hpt4

Figure 15: Stela of Sa-Sopedu (B 7).

2 3 4

Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 122, n. 118. Cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 30. We report Gardiner’s interpretation, but the hieroglyphs could also be interpreted as imy-r anx-t-Htp (Cf. PN, I, p. 68, n. 14).

154

Documents from the Borderlands Inscription 1)|”Year 4 under the majesty of 2)|the king of the Upper and Lower Egypt Makherura, living forever. An offering which the king gives (to) 3)| Hathor, Lady of turquoise, for the ka of the HAty.a Sa-Sopedu (sA-spdw) 3)\ justified, possessing honour, truly beloved of his lord, (of) his affection5, firm of sandal 4)|quiet of step, doing that his lord approves, treading the foreign countries for the Lord of the Two Lands6. 6)| Sealer of the retinue of the Palace-approach Kemaw (xtmty n šmsw arryt Ḳm3w) justified, possessing honour. 7)| O you who live and are upon the earth, who shall pass 8)| by this stela, if you wish that your gods 9)| may praise you, and that you may reach Egypt (sAH tA) in peace, may you say 10)|”Thousands of bread, beer, ox-flesh and fowl, cloth and alabaster” for the ka of the Sealer 12)| (of) the retinue of the Palace-approach Kemaw 13)| son (of) (?) Iret (?), justified”. Document 8: Rock Inscription of Khuy Provenance: Wadi Maghara, north area Measures: width 22 cm; length 39 cm Date: regnal year 6 Bibliography: Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 71, n. 33, pl. XII; Matzker 1986, p. 39; PM VII, p. 343. Fragmentary inscription adjoining another one (B 9) discovered in the same area. These two documents together with a third one (B 10) form probably a related group cut by the same sculptor7.

Figure 16: Rock inscription of Khuy (B 8).

5 6 7

st-ib.f, with the omission of -t. Respectively: mn-tbt hr-nmtt, [irr] Hsst nb.f) hbhb xAswt n nb tAwy, see Chapter 3: The Administration 3.2 Prosopographical analysis. Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 71.

155

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Inscription 1)|”Year 6 [under the majesty] of the king of the Upper and Lower Egypt Makherura, given life forever 2)\ beloved of Sopedu, [Lord of the East] and of Hathor, Lady of Turquoise. 3)| [The truly beloved one of his lord’s] affection, 4)\ firm of sandal, 5)| quite of step, who treads the paths of his benefactor, 6)|with whose guidance the expedition is content8,|benevolent of 7)\heart and free from passion9, Hall-keeper of the Palace-approach 8)|Khuy (iry-a.t n pr aA xwy); [or Treasury chamber-keeper, iry.a-t n pr-HD] xwy10, son of Henw, [possessing honour]. 9)|The stone-cutter Swtima (sw.ty.ma?) The necropolis-worker Nakhti. Document 9: Rock inscription of Senebu Provenance: Wadi Maghara, north area Measures: width 22 cm; length 39 cm Date: regnal year 6 Bibliography: Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 71, n. 34, pl. XII; PM VII, p. 343 Fragment of inscription:

Figure 17: Rock inscription of Senebu (B 9).

hrrw mSa m sxrw.f. To be intended as Sw prt ib. 10 About the first of the two interpretations given to this title cf. Gardiner, Peet, Černy 1955, p. 71, n. 33, pl. XII, for the reasons of the second one, proposed by me, see Chapter 3: The Administration. 8 9

156

Documents from the Borderlands Inscription 1)|”Year 6 [under the majesty] 2)|of the king of the Upper and Lower Egypt, Makherura, living forever. 3)|An offering which the king gives, a thousand of bread, a thousand of beer to the [ka of] 4)| the responsible (reis) of the stone cutters (imy-r n hrtyw-ntr) Senebu, 5)\ conceived by the lady of the house Mat, possessing honour”. Document 10: Rock inscription of Senaa-ib Provenance: Wadi Maghara Measures: width 48 cm; length 50 cm Date: regnal year 6 Bibliography: Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 71, n. 35, pl. XI; PM VII, p. 343 Fragmentary inscription divided into two horizontal lines of hieroglyphs, followed by nine columns of text.

Figure 18: Rock inscription of Senaa-ib (B 10).

Inscription “1)|Year 6, under the majesty of the king of the Upper and Lower Egypt, Makherura living forever, beloved of 2)|Sopedu, Lord of the East, beloved of Hathor, Lady of Turquoise, beloved of Snefrw. 3)The truly beloved one of his lord’s affection, firm of sandal, quiet [of step, who treads the paths] 4)|of his benefactor, benevolent of heart and free [from passion], 5)|creating what was not expected to come about, [with 157

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty whose guidance the expedition] is content, 6)|a man of festive mood, who joins the celebration11, Sealbearer and Assistant 7)|to the treasurer Senaayeb (xtmw hry-a n imy-r xtmt Snaa-ib)12, possessing [honour. 8)|He says: “O you, who live and are upon the] earth who shall come to this foreign land- he who shall say: “[An offering which the king gives to the ka] 9)|of the Sealbearer and Assistant to the treasurer […],10)| son of Memyt […]”. 10)|”An offering which the king gives to the servant and reis Merrw, son of […]”. Document 11: Stela of Sobekhotep (?) Provenance: Serabit el-Khadim Place of conservation: in situ Material: limestone

Figure 19: Stela of Sobekhotep (B 11). 11 12

smAy m (hrw nfr). The whole title of this man is given at line 9.

158

Documents from the Borderlands Measures: width 27cm, length 52 cm Date: regnal year 6 Bibliography: Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, pag. 81, n. 57, pl. XVIII; PM VII, p. 345 Small round-topped private stela, where the inscription is cut roughly and now partly defaced. Inscription 1) “Year 6, under the majesty (of) 2)|the king of the Upper and Lower Egypt Makherura, living forever. An offering which the king gives […] 5)|[son of] Sat-Hathor, justified, Sobkehotep13, his beloved father Sobekhotep, justified”. Document 12: Stela of Djaf-Horemsaf Provenance: Serabit el-Khadim, Shrine of the Kings Place of conservation: in situ Material: limestone Measures: width 50 cm, length 87 cm Date: regnal year 6 Bibliography: Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 122, n. 119, pl. XLII; PM VII, p. 349, Pignattari 2012. Rectangular private stela. At the centre of one of the sides, the god Nemty is represented14. He was the protector god of the X nome of the Upper Egypt, and here is called “Lord of the East”. The god is standing and holds an anx sign in one hand and a WAs sceptre in the other. Inscription The first line of hieroglyphs reads: “Year 6 under the majesty of the king of the Upper and Lower Egypt Makherura, son of Ra, Amenemhat”. The vertical column, on the right, contains Amenemhat IV’s full titling, which was not known until the discovery of this stela: “Horus xpr-xpw, Horus of Gold sxm-ntrw, the two Goddesses (s)HAb-tAwy, living forever, beloved of Nemty”. Finally, the left column provides the dedicator’s name and titles: “Made under the direction of the Sealbearer of the God, Chief interior-overseer to the Treasury Djaf-Horemsaf (xtmw ntr imy-ra xnwty wr n pr.Hd DAf-Ḥr-m-sAf), justified, son of Renssoneb, justified, possessing honour”.

13 14

Gardiner (in Gardiner, Peet, Černy 1955, p. 81) translates it.f mry as “his beloved father”. Cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 43.

159

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty

Figure 20: Stela of Djaf-Horemsaf (B 12).

Document 13: Stela of Djaf-Horemsaf Provenance: Serabit el-Khadim, near the portico of Ptah’s shrine Place of conservation: in situ Material: limestone Measures: East side width: 66 cm; North side width: 40 cm; South side width: 40 cm Date: regnal year 6 Bibliography: Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 122, n. 120, pl. XLIII; PM VII, p. 356, Pignattari 2012. Fragmentary round-topped official stela bearing “year 6” engraved of the frontal side (East).

160

Documents from the Borderlands

Figure 21: Stela of Djaf-Horemsaf (B 13).

161

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Inscription East side: the inscription with the date is placed above a winged sun disk with uraei. Below, a scene depicts the king standing in front of two gods: Ptah to the left and Hathor to the right. Few traces remain of the scene description. To the left an inscription is preserved: “[…] beloved of Ptah, south of his wall, who gives kAw (nourishment?)15” probably referring to the sovereign. To the right: “[…] [beloved of] Hathor, [Lady of] the Turquoise, the one who resides in DADA” Above the figure of Ptah: “[…] Sokar, […] Lord of anx-tAwyi”. Finally, to the right, in front of the right-hand figure of the sovereign, a cartouche is engraved; in the copy of it given by The Egypt Exploration Fund, it was identified with Tuthmose III’s: Mn-xprw-ra16. Below this scene, almost nine other lines of hieroglyphs were engraved. Only the following is extant: at the beginning, “Royal acquaintance”, and in the final line “Sealbearer of the God, Chief interior-overseer to the Treasury Djaf-Horemsaf (xtmw-nTr imy-r aXnwty wr n pr.Hd DA[f]-Hr[-m-sAf])”. At the bottom, there is a scene representing a seated figure next to an offering table. The caption says: “the priest of Hathor, Treasury chamber-keeper Sopedu […] son of Hedjet”. Western side: The back of the stela is blank, as it was probably leaned against a wall or another stela. Northern side: Representations remain only at the top and at the bottom. To the right, the top shows Hathor, while at the left is the falcon-headed and bull-tailed Khenty-Khety; he also wears the solar disk with uraei. In his right hand, he has the anx sign, while in his left, the wAs sceptre. Above the god, the following words are written: “[beloved of] Khenty-khety, Lord of Km-wr, and of Hathor, Lady of the Turquoise”. Nothing remains of a horizontal inscription below the scene, with the exception of a cartouche of Makherura, and parts of two lines towards the bottom: “[…] the stone-cutter Rensseneb […] stone cutters 200”. At the bottom, a figure is represented seated next to a rich offering table; two lines of text follow. The first one says: “Treasurer, pure of heart”. In the second one: Ibneith, justified, possessing honour”. In Gardiner’s opinion, the person depicted is the Ibneith cited above; however, nothing in the depiction suggests that the figure represented is a woman. It might be more plausible that Ibneith is the name of the treasurer’s mother: the text is in fact almost destroyed and it was already damaged at the time of Gardiner’s edition. Maybe, then, the real treasurer’s name was completely lost. Finally, outside the frame of the inscription and the scene, there is one more line: “Ferrymen 20, serving-men 15, peasants 30, Retjenu (Rtnw) 20, donkeys […]”. Southern side: at the top, there is a scene with Hathor and Kherty. The goddess wears her usual tight-fitting gown reaching almost to her ankles. She is standing in front of the god, bearing in her right hand the wAs sceptre with the anx sign at its end. Kherty, ram-headed and bull-tailed, with the uraeus and two feathers on his head, wears a tunic and a short skirt. In his right hand he bears the anx sign; while it is not possible to know what the god held in his left one, it is stretched out towards Hathor, perhaps holding a sceptre similar to hers17. Below the scene, traces of seven lines of text remain: “1)|Hereditary prince and Foremost of action, Sealbearer of the god,(iry-pat, Haty-a18, xtmty bity) 15 Gardiner translates in this way (in Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 123), however the visible sign kA precedes dd and it is likely that they should be intended as part of epithets. 16 Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 123. 17 Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 123. 18 Cf. Ward n. 1009.

162

Documents from the Borderlands King’s 2)|sole friend, in charge of the secrets of the twin goddesses (Nekhbet and Butos) (smr wa.ty, Hry sStA n wAD.ty) 3)|foster child (?) of the King of the Upper and Lower Egypt, when a child, his praised one, 4)|when in charge of the secrets 5)| appointed by him to be […] promoted […] 7)|he who is in charge of the secret of the sanctuary […]” The following lines are almost completely lost; at the beginning of the last line, only a part of an offering formula remains: “for the ka of […]”. At the bottom of the stela, a man is represented sitting next to an offering table. It is probable that all these titles and epithets, even if the dedicator’s name is not given, refer to Djaf-Horemsaf. The main inscription and the scene at the bottom of the front side, as well as the inscriptions on the edges of the stela, considering the style, may be assigned quite certainly to Amenemhat IV’s reign. This is confirmed by the occurrence of the Sealbearer of the God’s name, Djaf-Horemsaf, dedicator of seven other monuments dated to this king’s reign (12, 14, 15, 16, 24, 25, 26). The content of the lunette also dates to the same period. Even if the objection that the winged disk is rare in the Middle Kingdom monuments from Sinai could be raised, it is, though, true that it became frequent with Amenemhat IV’s reign19. As for the scene below the lunette, there are some dating problems as Tuthmosis III’s cartouche has been recognised. However, considering the style of the scene, nothing prevents its being dating to the Middle Kingdom. Thus, two alternatives remain: the cartouche belongs to Amenemhat IV and MAa-xrw-ra, was wrongly copied, or Tuthmose III left it unaltered, other than replacing Amenemhat IV’s name with his own. Unfortunately, an examination of the stela is not possible since the inscription disappeared in 193520. Document 14: Stela of Djaf-Horemsaf (JE 38547), Egyptian Museum, Cairo Provenance: Serabit el-Khadim Material: limestone Measures: width 37 cm; height 72 cm Date: regnal year 8 Bibliography: Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 124, n. 121, pl. XLVIII; Pignattari 2012. Fragmentary round-topped private stela, partially damaged on the right side. At the bottom, two male figures are represented seated on the two sides of an offering table. Inscription “1)|Year 8, under the majesty of the king of the Upper and Lower Egypt Makherura living forever […] 2)| An offering which the king gives to Ptah-Sokar and Hathor, Lady of the Turquoise, that they may give offerings […] 3)|for the ka of the Chief interior-overseer to the Treasury Djaf […] (imy-r ahnwty wr n pr.Hd dAf-[Hr-msAf]) 4)|beloved of his Lord, of his affection, filling the heart of the king 5)| […]216)|[…] filling their hearts […] 7)| of Asia, the interpreter/dragoman (aw n sTt) Montuhotep, beloved of […] 8)|he who will say “an offering which the king gives, bread and beer, ox-flesh and fowl and every good thing” for the ka of the physician (swnw) and magician (HkAy) […] 9)|An offering which the king gives to Hathor, Lady of the Turquoise, to Sopedu, Lord of the Foreign Lands, for the ka of the magician […] 10)|(to) the Eye of Ra, Lady of the malachite (Ssmt)22, and Neith, Lady of the Green-stone (wADw), that they may give offerings [and all good] things [on] 11)| their altars out of what is offered to them […] 12)|He who will offer to Ra, will offer to me, as to a god, as to a living one, who does not perish”. 19 20 21 22

Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 123. Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 124. About line 5, of which Gardiner does not propose any interpretation, only a few signs remain intelligible: sHw, councils. For this interpretation cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černy 1955, p. 125, n. a.

163

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty

Figure 22: Stela of Djaf-Horemsaf (JE 38547) (B 14).

Document 15: Stela with Offering Table Provenance: Serabit el-Khadim, it formed the East wall of Hathor’s Shrine Material: limestone Measures: width 57 cm; offering table: width 48 cm; length 71 cm Date: regnal year 9 Bibliography: Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 125, n. 122, pl. XLV; PM VII, p. 356; Pignattari 2012. Series of fragments attributable to an official stela forming the eastern wall of the “Court of the Feasts”. The presence of the Sealbearer of the God’s name, Djaf, the type of representation, and the style indicate23 an attribution to Amenemhat IV’s reign.

23

Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 124 and Grajetzki 2005, p. 61.

164

Documents from the Borderlands

Figure 23 (a): Fragment west face (B 15).

Figure 23 (b): Fragment south face, edge (B 15).

Figure 23 (c): Fragment western face (B 15).

165

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty

Figure 23 (d): Stela, eastern side (B 15).

166

Documents from the Borderlands Eastern side: Three fragments remain from the front side, two of which are part of the top and the bottom; the position of the third fragment cannot be surely identified. In the lunette, only a badly-preserved date remains: “Year 9, III month of winter, day 26”, under which the winged disk with uraei remains, framing the scene below. In the right half, a figure is represented offering two nw vases to the god Sopedu, who wears the doublefeather head-dress and carries the anx sign in his left hand and the wAs sceptre is in the right one. The figure is identified by the inscription above: “The good god, Lord of the Two Lands, Lord of the rite, King of the Upper and Lower Egypt Snefru, given life”, while to the front and above, we read: “Said by Sopedu, Lord of the East: ‘I am giving you life, stability and power like Ra’”. In the left half, another figure offers a large nemst vase to Khenty-Khety, the falcon-headed god wearing the solar disk and the double-feather head-dress. In front of the god, in retrograde lines, we read: “Said by KhentyKhety, Lord of di Km-wr; very many sed-festivals […]”. As for the inscription above the offerer, only the signs dSrt and nsw remain, and thus he is either Amenemhat IV or Snefru. Below the scenes, some traces of a long horizontal inscription remain, which probably contained a Htp-di-nsw offering formula for different people: “1)|An offering which the king gives 2)|[…] Osiris […]3)| gods and goddesses […] 4)|Dja[f] […]5)| Sek, repeating life […].6)|An offering which the king gives […] 7)|the scribe Iusenb, justified, possessing honour. […] 8)|justified, repeating life (wHm anx24).[…] 9)|his majesty […]. 10) An offering which the king gives to Geb and Ptah-Sokar-Osiris, Lord of Ankhtaui, 11)| and to Khenty-Khety, Lord of Km-wr, and to Hathor, Lady of the Turquoise, that they may give thousands of bread and 12)| beer, oxflesh and fowl, upon their altars for the ka of the Sealbearer of the God, Chief interior-overseer to the Treasury Djaf-Horemsaf (xtmw ntr imy-r ahnwty wr n pr.Hd DAf) son of Renesseb, justified”. As for the western side, only seven fragmentary lines of text remains, where the names of the staff of the expedition are listed: “[…] soneb, […]nwfer, […] the chief-physician Ibu, (wr sinw) […] Senwsret, Reneseneb, Assistant to the treasurer Nefermaat, […] Treasury chamber-keeper Ib […], Embalmer of Anubis, son of Ptahnwfer Geb-wer, […]seneb, […]pen, Djaf-seneb, Reneseneb, stone-[carver], […]b, […] Fen”. Below, outside the frame of the inscription: “21 (men), 16 coppersmiths, 5 […], 30 […]”. Only a little fragment of one of the sides remains, with some signs belonging to a ḥtp-di-nsw formula for Ptah and Hathor. Under it, there are also some traces of an offering scene,. Near the stela, an offering table was found; however it is not certain that it belongs to the stela25. On the table, there was this inscription: “An offering which the king gives to Geb, offerings of bread and beer, ox-flesh and fowl, […] at the opening of the year, at the feast of Thot, on the first day of the year, at the feast of Wag, of the placing of the furnace, at the feast of Sokar, at the great feast, at the feast of the heat, offering […], son of Renesseb, justified.

It is interesting to note that this epithet is attested for the first time among the inscriptions of Sinai, from the end of Amenemhat III’s reign (IS 142; 53), then it becomes rarer and is not found in contemporary stelae coming from other mining sites. It is present, however, also on the toilet box belonging to Amenemhat IV’s reign (16 A) (cf. Rosati 1980 (a), p. 277). 25 Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 126. 24

167

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty An offering which the king gives to Khenty-Khety, Lord of Km-wr, that he may give offerings of bread and beer, ox-flesh and fowl, [cloth and alabaster], incense and ointment and all good things [for the ka of] the Sealbearer of the God, Chief interior-overseer to the Treasury, Djafy son of Renesseb, justified”.

Figure 23 (e): Offering table found near the stela (B 15).

Document 16 (a) and (b): Wall inscription Provenance: Serabit el-Khadim, Shrine of the Kings

Figure 24: Distributions of the inscriptions and scenes on the walls of the Shrine of the Kings, Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 127.

Bibliography: Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 127, n. 123, pl. XLVI; PM VII, p. 349 Wall inscription with some lacunae, partially retrograde (16 (a)). Together with 17 and 18, it forms the remains of the sculptural adornment of the Shrine of the Kings. 16 (a) is located on the western end of the southern wall, while document 16 (b) occupies the whole western wall.

168

Documents from the Borderlands Inscription 16 (a)

Figure 25 (a): Wall inscription, Shrine of the Kings, lines 1-25.

Figure 25 (b): Wall inscription, Shrine of the Kings, lines 26-42.

“↓→ 1)|[Words said by] Hathor, Lady of Turquoise: “I am giving you all good [things] 2)|[…], I […] you this hill country (xAst tn) and its beauties in order to 3)|[…] King of the [Upper] and Lower Egypt Makherura, son of Ra of his body, Amenemhat. [He] caused […] 4)| […] as his monument to Hathor, Lady of the Turquoise. He made a hall […] 5)|built in (xws m) […] in a beautiful hard stone […] 6)| […] just ones who know […]7)| Sealbearer of the God, Chief interior-overseer to the Treasury Djaf-Horem[sa]f […] 8)|in peace, to come in peace to give a good start 9)| in […] 10)| their hearts in joy […] 11)| […] of the Treasury […] 11)|He says: 12)| […] 13)|[…] 14)|[…] 15)|[…] 16)|[…] 17)|[…] 18)|[…] 19)|[…] 20)|[…] Snefru, living […] 21)| […] as Amenemhat lives for me […] 22)| […] 23)|[…] 24)|king of the Upper and Lower Egypt Ma[kheru]ra […] 169

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty 25)|[…] 26)|of the place where this official was […] 27)| […] which was in it. There was not in it […] 28)|[…] 29)|[…] 30)|time made and its […] drank in them […] 31)|in its entirety to the extent of the sky. The beautiful presents given to her […] 32)| Sealbearer of the God, Chief interior-overseer to the Treasury 33)| […] more beautiful to look at than nothing. I have done by establishing her monuments[…] in order to make […] 34)|true [king’s acquaintance], his beloved of his affection […] who […] what is true, acting according to the counsels, king’s favourite in the house of gold, [who counts 35)| gold and silver of the two treasures, excellent in counsels 36)|[…] 37)|Chief interior-overseer to the Treasury. He says: “I have come from my town, I have descended from 38)|my nome. I did what men loved and gods approved of. Never have I done an evil thing to anyone 39)|there. I gave bread to the hungry, [beer to the thirsty], clothes to the naked, I [transported] those in need of a boat, 40)|who had no ship. [An offering which the king gives to] Ptah-Sokar and Hathor, Lady of the Turquoise, […] 41)|Chief interior-overseer to the Treasury [Djaf], born of [Rene]sse[eb], justified, possessing honour 42)|[…] officials […][ 43)|[…] 44)|[…] after […] 45)|[…] truth […]. He says: “[…]”. Inscription 16 (b)

Figure 25 (c): Wall inscription, Shrine of the Kings, lines (43-50 illegible) 51-72.

↓←1)|”The Chief interior-overseer to the Treasury Djaf, son of Renesseb, justified. 2)| […] King of the Upper and Lower Egypt [Makher]ura, living forever, by the Judge, Chief lector-priest, priest and scribe, the AsiaticWr-kherep-hemut 3)| […], of these rations of the temple of Hathor, Lady of the Turquoise, on behalf of the welfare of the Good God, Lord of the Two Lands 4)|[…] two pots of honey, two miny-jugs and two Xaw-pots of wine, two aprt-pots namely two oipe of incense for offerings two pots of qqt […] 5)|giving a good start in entering Medamud (?): four pots of […] 6)| […] twelve pots [of beer], twlve cakes hfa, twelve cakes sšt, twelve cakes hAd, twelve loaves of white breads, twelve aD of fruit, twelve loaves of, […], [twelve] loaves of sweets, twelve loaves of incense, […] 7)|[…] ten loaves of incense, [10] cakes hfa, ten balls of incense, [ten] aprt-pots of incense for the offering table. Brought as offering [for] […] 8)|[…] ten loaves of Sayt, ten loaves of sweets, [10] Sayt, 10 […], […] wine […] 9)| […] Brought as offering for “Coming down […]: 20 […], and 10 jugs of beer, 10 cakes xfa, […], ten […], ten loaves of white bread, […] 10|[…]. Brought as offering for the monthly festival of unveiling: ten […] of beer, ten cakes xfa, ten loaves of white bread, ten cakes Hnw, ten cakes, sSt, ten loaves of incense, ten balls of incense, […] 11)|[…] two aprt 12)|a half oipe of wine, ten cakes xfa, ten loaves of white bread, ten cakes xAD, ten cakes sSt, five loaves of white bread, […], ten loaves Sayt, ten loaves of incense, ten balls of incense […], 13)|[…] twenty cakes sSt, twenty cakes xA[D], twenty loaves of white bread, twenty balls of incense, made into […] 14)|[…]. Brought as an offering […] of every decade of the […] 15)| […] beer 170

Documents from the Borderlands […], four loaves of white breads, four cakes xAd, […] of beer, […] of honey, […] 16)|[…] 17)|[…] of going down in order to see Sopedu […] 18)|[…] 19)|[…] 20)|[…] by an official […] offerings […] twenty loaves of […], […] of incense […] 21)|[…] turquoise […] the temple of Hathor, Lady of the Turquoise, in […] 22)|[…] Chief [interior-overseer] of[…]”.

Figure 25 (d): Part of the wall between 16 (a) and (b).

Between document 16 (a) and 16 (b) there are traces of a very badly-damaged scene distributed over three registers. In the first one, the inscription is completely illegible; the second register shows a man standing next to an offering table, who probably is Djaf-Horemsaf. The last register shows a line of three figures represented in smaller dimensions. The identification of the main character with Djaf-Horemsaf is supported by the fact that the only legible words of the text in the first register are two deities’ names, Khenty-Khety and Ptah-Sokar, who are already present in other documents referring to the same official.

171

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Document 17 (a) and (b): Scene and wall inscription Provenance: Serabit el-Khadim Measures: width 44 cm; length 67 cm Bibliography: Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 129, n. 124, pl. XLVII; PM VII, p. 349; Pignattari 2012. A long scene in the eastern half of the Shrine of the Kings (17 a). On its left, there is an inscription26 (17 b) bearing Amenemhat III’s name. The attribution of the representation to Amenemhat IV’s reign is only hypothetical and is based on the declaration in 16 (a), where the sovereign affirms that he has built the Shrine. Inscription

Figure 26 (a): Wall inscription, Shrine of the Kings (B 17).

“1)|[…] of their bringing treasures with the help of very many leaders 2)|coming after 3)|Snefru, the justified. There is not one among (them) who did what I have done. 4)|Excellent was the strength of my arms, the hills leading to what was in them for 5)|the King of the Upper and Lower Egypt Nimaatra, living forever. They have given it to him into his charge, 6)|as that which his father Atum gives to him. They have given him all 7)|the hidden turquoise of the earth, the garment of Geb, 8)|that which has not been seen since antiquity, 9)|together with […] Ptahwer.

26

Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, 124 (b).

172

Documents from the Borderlands The god Sopdw stands just to the right of the long inscription, with the words: “Said by Sopdw, Lord of the East: ‘I have given you every foreign land.’” Then three figures follow: the king Nimaatra (Amenemhat III), the god Ptah, and the goddess Hathor, followed by a very damaged inscription: “The Good God, Lord of the Two Lands, Nimaatra, [living forever], beloved of [Ptah], south of his wall, Lord of Ankhtawy” and “beloved of Hathor, Lady of the Turquoise and of Ptah, south of his wall”. To the right, the “Chapel of Geb” is represented by a panel containing the wAdt sacred eyes, the Smw ring, three nfr signs and Hathor’s name. Then, four other figures come: the first three of them are symmetrical to the just described ones, with an analogous description: “Son of Ra Amenemhat, living forever, beloved of Ptah, he under his [moringa tree]” and “Beloved of Hathor, Lady of the Good Colour, The one who resides […]”. The fourth figure, the counterpart of Sopdw, represents a sovereign: “King of the Upper and Lower Egypt, Snefru, justified”. The inscription continues: “may he give life, stability and power to the king of the Upper and Lower Egypt Nimaatra”. Behind this scene, to the right, there is another panel with a kheker ornament, under which the wAdt eyes, the Smw ring, and the three nfr signs are repeated. This inscription follows: “Hathor, who resides in […]” and “Beloved of Hathor, Lady of the Turquoise, Lady of […]”. This panel is another representation of the “Chapel of Geb” which is symmetrical to the previous one. According to the most recent reconstructive hypothesis, it would be the only one belonging to Amenemhat IV, who duplicated it after the enlargement of the shrine to the west27.

Figure 26 (b): Representation, Shrine of the Kings (B 17).

Document 18: Scene and wall inscription Provenance: Serabit el-Khadim Bibliography: Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 130, n. 125 (a)-(c), pl. XLVII; PM VII, p. 349; Hirsch 2004, pp. 384-385, doc. 348a-348b; Pignattari 2012. This is a representation in two parts belonging to the right upper part of the southern wall of the Shrine of the Kings.

27

Cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 92 and ff.; Tallet 2005, p. 154.

173

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Part 1

Figure 27 (a): Representation, Shrine of the Kings (B 18).

Part 2

Figure 27 (b): Representation, Shrine of the Kings (B 18).

174

Documents from the Borderlands In the first part, to the east, a scene represents, to the right, goddess Hathor seated in front of a large pile of offerings including the head and various joints of an ox. Opposite to the goddess, king Makherura wears the Red crown of Lower Egypt and holding out in both hands a nmst vase to asperse the offerings, this is said to be “presenting with a nmst-vase”28. Proceeding to the left, we meet the king’s figure called “beloved of Ptah, south of his wall”; beside the king are Sopdw and Snefru, while opposite to him, on the other side of an offering table, Ptah stands inside a shrine. Behind this, to the western end, Amenemhat IV is represented embraced by god Thot, to his left we see Ptah and Hathor holding in her left hand the menit necklace, while with her right hand she is passing some objects to Ptah. The description says: “Ptah south of his wall; Hathor, Lady of the Turquoise”. To the left of this, again the goddess is holding out the wAs sceptre towards the king. The inscription belonging to this scene is completely lost. To the extreme left, a female figure is represented giving a menit necklace with her left hand and holding another object now lost in her right. Between the two figures, there is a child holding an anx in his left hand, holding out his right hand towards the king; as the hieroglyphs behind show, perhaps he is Ihy, the divine child, Hathor’s son29. Document 19: Fragment of decoration Provenance: Serabit el-Khadim, Hathor’s shrine Material: limestone Bibliography: Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 130, n. 125 (d), pl. XLVII; PM VII, p. 349 Fragment of wall decoration belonging to the lower register of the eastern wall of the portico, to the north of the entrance to Hathor’s shrine.

Figure 28: Fragment of decoration (B 19).

This badly-damaged representation shows a group of four officials identified by their names, now vanished with the exception of one: Snbw.

28 29

ND-Hr m nmst. Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 131.

175

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Document 20: Stela of Hekhaty-Seneby Provenance: Serabit el-Khadim, southern shrine Material: limestone Measures: width 72 cm Place of conservation: in situ Bibliography: Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 130, n. 126, pl. XLI; PM VII, p. 356. Large round-topped private stela. The lunette shows the winged solar disk; below it, the king is represented with two feathers on his head while adoring Hathor and Ptah. The king’s title are: “King of the Upper and Lower Egypt Makherura, son of Ra Amenemhat, given life, forever, beloved of Hathor, Lady of the Turquoise, Lady of the good colour”.

Figure 29 (a): Stela of Hekhaty-SenebyStela (B 20).

176

Documents from the Borderlands Western face and northern edge

Figure 29 (b): Stela B 20, western face and northern edge.

The central portion of the stela, where originally the main vertical inscription was situated, is very badly damaged; however, it is possible to recognise a few signs at the end of each line of hieroglyphs. Below the inscription, there is a figure sitting next to an offering table: “Interior-overseer of the chamber of gifts/linen (?) Hekhety-senby (imy-r ahnwty nat Hnkt Hty-snby), possessing honour”. On the opposite side of the table, two other figures are represented: “His beloved brother Renesoneb” and “His brother Intef”. On the western side, some traces of an inscription remain; it was distributed across seven columns. In the last one, it is possible to read: imy-r aXnwty, followed by the name mrrw and by the epithet nb imAx. Finally, on the northern edge, only some hieroglyphs remain, probably belonging to a text distributed in four columns.

Document 21: Wall inscription Provenance: Serabit el-Khadim, Portico Bibliography: Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 131, n. 127, pl. XLVIII; PM VII, p, 356. Inscription decorating the walls of the Portico.

177

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Inscription fragment A

Figure 30 (a): wall inscription (B 30).

Inscription fragment B

Figure 30 (b): wall inscription (B 30).

Inscription fragment C

Figure 30 (c): wall inscription (B 30).

178

Documents from the Borderlands Fragment A: the fragment occupied the southern portion of the eastern wall30: “Horus xpr-xprw […] in renewing […]. Speech: [I have given] you every good thing that is in […]. Speech: […] I have given you all life, dominion, all health and joy”. “Horus xpr-xprw […] year […] month of the Inundation season, day 4 […] [Mereru]”.After the line beginning with

, there were four other lines of text, now lost.

Fragment B: the fragment, very badly damaged, probably occupied the eastern portion of the northern wall: “[…] these courtiers, his face […] this god. They said: “O Sovereign, […]. The Good God, peer of […] your majesty. He made the heaven of copper, […] of […] mankind, excellent of plans […] for the [Treasurer] of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, friend, Overseer of the royal […], courtiers who are in […]”. This inscription seems to describe a council between the king and his courtiers, and then recounts the virtues and titles of some officials whose name is lost. Fragment C: it is not possible to establish the exact position of this fragment. It shows a text distributed across six vertical lines from right to left. On the third column we read: “it is the Lord of the necropolis, excellent […]”; on the fourth: “free from bad smell31“; on the fifth: “in accordance with all that had been commanded […]” (mi wdt.n nbt i[n]). Finally, the sixth line merely features the title imy-r ahnwty nat Hnkt, Interioroverseer of the chamber of gifts/linen (?). Document 22: Column inscription, Egyptian Museum, Cairo Provenance: Serabit el-Khadim, Portico Measures: width of inscribed portion 9 cm; height 56 cm Bibliography: Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 132, n. 128, pl. XLIV A; Hirsch 2004, p. 383-384, doc. 347.

Figure 31: Fragment of column (B 22) (rotated 90°).

Inscription on a column. It was probably one of the columns supporting the portico roof. The inscription says: “[…] king of the Upper and Lower Egypt, Makherura, son of Ra, of his body Amenemhat. He made [it as his] monument […]”.

30 31

Cf. Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 132. iAb, cf. Wb. I, 29, 19.

179

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Document 23: Fragment of an inscribed architrave Provenance: Serabit el-Khadim, Portico Measures: length 78 cm; height 29 cm; thickness 29.21 cm Place of conservation: in situ Bibliography: Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 132, n. 129 and 129 A, pl. XLIV A; Hirsch 2004, p. 383, 346.

Figure 32: Fragment of an inscribed architrave (B 23).

Inscription on two sides of the same block, belonging to the portico. On the first side we read: “[…]Makherura, [beloved] of Hathor, Lady of the Turquoise”. On the second side, we can only read: “[…] Amenemhat, [beloved of] Hathor, Lady of the [Good] Col[our]”. Document 24: Edge of a stela Provenance: Serabit el-Khadim, Shrine of the Kings Material: limestone Measures: width 46 cm, length 79 cm, thickness 32 cm Place of preservation: in situ Bibliography: Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 133, n. 130, pl. XL Pillar imitating the shape of a private stela. Only the edge remains; in its upper part, in the lunette, we see the sky supported by two wAs sceptres. The three signs form a square space containing the winged solar disk with Amenemhat IV’s titles. To the right, there is the Horus-name: “Horus xpr-xpw, given life forever, perpetuity and dominion, like Ra, forever”. At the centre, the sovereign is represented: “King of the Upper and Lower Egypt Makherura […]”. The inscription in horizontal lines following the king’s titles is completely lost, with the exception of the incipit “[…] Royal” and of the name Djaf-Hor[emsaf], known officially from other monuments dating to Amenemhat IV’s reign. On the basis of this dedicator’s name, two other monuments from Serabit el-Kahdim have been dated to Amenemhat IV’s name.

180

Documents from the Borderlands

Figure 33: Edge of a stela (B 24).

Document 25: Fragment of stela Provenance: Serabit el-Khadim, near Ptah’s shrine Material: limestone Measures: width 9.5 cm, height 17 cm Bibliography: Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 207, n. 407, pl. LXXXIV; Pignattari 2012. It is a fragment of a round-topped official stela with five partial lines of text. “1)|[Year x, under the majesty] of 2)|[…][living]forever and ever 3)|[…] Chief [interior-overseer] [of the Treasury] Djaf 4)|[…] with this official [his] son who makes [his name] live […]”. (m sr tn sA.(f) s.anx (rn.f)). The presence of [imy-r ahnwty] wr [n pr.ḥd] DAf’s name allows us to date this document to Amenemhat IV’s reign.

181

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty

Figure 34: Fragment of stela (B 25).

Document 26: Fragmentary offering table JE 65465, Egyptian Museum, Cairo Provenance: Serabit el-Khadim, near Ptah’s shrine Material: limestone Measures: width 63 cm, length 48 cm, thickness 19 cm Bibliography: Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 207, n. 408, pl. LXXXIVI; PM VII, p. 347; Pignattari 2012. A heavy offering table bearing the name of the Sealbearer of the God Djaf-Horemsaf, identified with the Djaf-Horemsaf of the other monuments. The table, which probably accompanied an official32 stela, shows a decoration representing the offered products: a loaf of bread, two round cakes and two Hs vases. In the mat, there are also two circular hollows for actual loaves of bread. A band of two inscriptions starts from the top in the middle and proceeds round the edge of the table to the left and right so as to meet again below in the middle. To the left we read: “An offering which the king gives to Geb so that an offering may be forthcoming for him consisting of bread, beer, ox-flesh and fowl on the opening of the year feast, on the festival of Thot, on the festival of the first day of the year, on the Wag festival, on the placing of the furnace, on the festival of Sokar, on the great festival of bread and beer, on the festival of heat and on the appearance of Min, for the Ka of the Sealbearer of the God, Horemsaf, repeating life”. To the right: “An offering which the king gives to Ptah-Sokar, to Anubis on his mountain and Hathor, Lady of the Turquoise, that they may give an offering of bread, beer, ox-flesh, fowl, clothes, alabaster and incense (prt Xrw t Hnqt kA Apd t Ss, mnnxt), for the ka of Chief interior-overseer to the Treasury […], [justified], possessing honour”.

32

Maybe the B 26 itself.

182

Documents from the Borderlands

Figure 35: Fragmentary offering table JE 65465 (B 26).

Document 27: Fragment of stele Provenance: Serabit el-Khadim, Portico Material: limestone Bibliography: PM VII, 359 It is probably a fragment belonging to a stela, bearing engraved Amenemhat IV’s cartouche. Document 28: Fragment of architrave Provenance: Serabit el-Khadim, Hathor’s shrine Material: limestone Measures: width 82 cm, height 40 cm Place of conservation: in situ

Figure 36: Fragment of architrave (B 28).

183

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Bibliography: PM VII, 356; Gardiner-Peet-Černý 1955, p. 134, n. 132, pl. XL; Bonnet 1996, p. 144. It is a fragment of an architrave situated at the entrance of Hathor’s shrine, bearing an engraved scene of which only a half is preserved and that probably followed a symmetrical scheme. At the centre, in the upper part, is the winged solar disk. Below this, there is a symbolical representation of the union of the Two Lands. As for this, only the right half remains, where the vulture goddess Nekhbet, in animal form, is perched on the nb sign above the plant of the Upper Egypt holding an object in her claw, probably a wAs sceptre. Again in the right half, a scene follows. It represents the sovereign, “son of Amenemhat”, wearing the Red Crown and offering to Hathor, “Lady of the Turquoise”, a conical loaf of bread33. The sovereign’s identity is uncertain; some scholars believe he is Amenemhat IV, and the part of the lost scene would probably have represented the same king wearing the White Crown with the nsw-bit name. Mersa Gawasis Document 29: Wooden box WG 21, trench WG 32, U. S. 25. Material: acacia wood, pins and joints in mangrove Date: regnal year 8 Place of conservation: Warehouse of Qift Bibliography: Bard et all. 2007, p. 24; Pirelli 2008, p. 16 Rectangular box, badly preserved. Each side is covered by a layer of red ochre and a layer of white chalk. The box shows an inscription in four horizontal lines, placed at the centre of one of the short sides. The text records an expedition to the land of Punt:

From right to left: “1)|Year 8 under the majesty 2)|of the king of the Upper and Lower Egypt Makherura, living forever 3)|the wonders of Punt 4)|which brought the [Director of troops], the royal scribe Djedi”. It is important to remember that during the 2005/6 excavation season, an analogous wooden box was discovered, bearing an inscription very similar to the one just described, but where it was impossible to determine the king’s name. It is probable, however, that it dates to Amenemhat IV’s reign34. Document 30: Stela (n. 2), WG 146, trench WG 32, niche 2 Material: limestone Measures: width 23.5 cm, height 40.1 cm; thickness 9.5 cm

33 34

For an interpretation of this offer, cf. Bonnet 1996, p. 144. Cf. Bard et al. 2006-2007, p. 8; Bard et al. 2005-2006, p. 11.

184

Documents from the Borderlands Place of conservation: Warehouse of Qift Bibliography: Pirelli 2008, p. 17 and ff.; Pirelli 2007, pp. 217-221; Pirelli 2007a Round-topped funerary private stela with some lacunae in the inscription. It shows in its lower part two male figures sitting by the sides of an offering table. In the upper part there is a long inscription containing an “Appeal to the living” followed by an offering formula whose final part is divided into two specular sections dedicated to each of the represented figures. On the basis of the onomastic chronology, the titles, the analysis of the “Appeal to the living” and the offering formula, together with some stylistic considerations35, this stela has been dated between the end of the Twelfth Dynasty and the beginning of the Thirteenth, in line with the chronology of Amenemhat IV’s last expedition.

Figure 37: Stela from Mersa Gawasis (B 30).

Inscription 1-2) […] 3) who happened to be passing […] 4-6) […] 7) […] 8) you will enter […] [in peace], while your [body] is pure 35

Cf. Pirelli 2008, p. 26.

185

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty 9) without any affliction, while [you] say: “An offering which the king gives to [Osiris, Lord of Abydos (?)], 10) may he give a vocal offering of bread and beer, ox-flesh an fowl, incense and ointment and everything good and pure of which a god lives 11) (right half) for the ka of the [Scribe of the called-up labourers of the Head of the South (?)] 12) (right half) […] son of […] ankh, possessing Honour 11) (left half) for the ka of […] 12) (left half) […]emhat son of [Nakht?] justified and possessing honour”. Document 31: Ostracon WG OIII Date: regnal year 8 Material: limestone Measures: width 11 cm, height 7 cm; thickness 1 cm Place of conservation: Warehouse of Qift Bibliography: Sayed 2010, p. 169; Bard and Fattovich 2011, p. 111.

Inscription “1)|Year 8 second month of the Shemu season 2)| [Ma]kheru[ra] 3)| rem fishes 200”. Wadi el-Hudi Document 32: Stela of Sa-Hathor 1483, Egyptian Museum, Aswan Provenance: Wadi el-Hudi Material: black granite Measures: width 22 cm, height 38 cm; thickness 15 cm Date: regnal year 2 Bibliography: Fakhry 1952, n. 21; Sadek 1980, pp. 445-45, n. 21, pl. X (WH 19, WH 21) Round-topped stela with eleven lines of text.

186

Documents from the Borderlands Inscription

Figure 38: Stela of Sa.Hathor (B 32).

Inscription “1)|Year 2, under the majesty 2)|of the king of the Upper and Lower Egypt Makherura, living forever. 3)|Real acquaintance of the king (rx nsw maAt) whom he loves, his favourite 4)|who does all that he praises throughout the course of every day, 5)|firm of tread (mn-Tbt), easy of step (hr-nmtt)36, one who sticks to the way of 6)|him who has advanced him, the Sealbearer and 7)|Assistant to the treasurer, Sa-Hat[hor], son of Mereryt. 8)|He went out to survey the amethyst desert, 9)|according to his majesty’s command. He went out to the desert land of Shau /Bia37, the mining region 9)|the Sealbearer and captain, Men-tjebet |[being with him]”.

For this title see Chapter 3: Administration. The hieroglyph is of doubtful interpretation. In fact, it could be SA (Gardiner M, 8) or biA (see Sadek 1980, p. 45): in the first case, it would be one of the possible names for the mining district of Wadi el-Hudi. In the case of biA, instead, we would be dealing with a generic term here specifically used for the Wadi el-Hudi.

36 37

187

Group C Documents from Abroad Document 1: Box, National Museum, Beirut Provenance: Royal Cemetery, Tomb 2, Byblos Material: obsidian with gold inserts Measures: length 45 cm Bibliography: Montet 1928, pp. 157-159, pl. 88 and 90, fig. 68-69; PM VII, p. 386; Chehab 1969, p. 25 Rectangular box with a base showing four feet linked together by a strip of gold. The lid is rounded and decorated with gold leaves. Several holes are present on the box and on its lid; they were used to secure a closing system. In the middle of the lid, running lengthwise, a long cartouche containing Amenemhat IV’s name of enthronement is engraved, accompanied by some epithets. The hieroglyphs, drawn with extreme precision, are perfectly legible. Inscription

“Long life to the Good God, the Lord of the Two Lands, King of the Upper and Lower Egypt Makherura, beloved of Atum of Heliopolis, given life, like Ra forever”. Document 2: Ritual Vessel, National Museum, Beirut Material: grey stone Provenance: Royal Cemetery, Tomb 2, Byblos Measures:

Figure 39: Measures of the ritual vessel (C 2).

189

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Bibliography: Montet 1928, pp. 159-161, pl. 91, fig. 70; PM VII, p. 386 Ritual vessel with a wide belly and a flat bottom. A slightly rounded lid bears a hieroglyphic inscription made with extreme precision. Although no certain elements allow the assignment of this object to Amenemhat IV’s reign, the context of discovery makes it very likely. Inscription

A long cartouche encloses the following text: “Long live the Good God, the son of Ra Amenemhat, who lives eternally” Beneath the cartouche, there are three signs ḥm (read perhaps Hmw, servants). Document 3: Golden Plaque BM 59194, British Museum, London Provenance: Byblos (?) Place of conservation: British Museum, London Material: gold, open-worked Measures: side 2.75 cm Bibliography: PM VII, p. 391; Chehab1969, p. 25; Dunand 1928; Hall 1930; Moret 1928.

Figure 40: Golden Plaque BM 59194 (C 3), © The Trustees of the British Museum.

190

Documents from Abroad

This small golden open-worked plaque depicts king Amenemhat IV facing the god Atum. The latter, who receives an offering from the king consisting of a vessel for ointments, mdt, holds in his right hand the ankh sign and in his left hand the was sceptre. The function of this object is not certain: as there is no trace of through-holes, it is unlikely that it was intended for a pectoral as was assumed at first. Perhaps it was a decorative element for a larger object, such as a box set. It is a high-quality product, as can be noted from the detailed rendering of the musculature. The style is purely Egyptian, finding parallels in jewellery from Dahshur dating back to the Middle Kingdom1. Also in this case, it is not possible to determine when and how this object arrived in Syria since it came from the antiques market. Inscription The scene is accompanied by a series of explanatory captions placed beside each figure: “The perfect god Makherura (above the king) offers a vase of ointment (below the vase) to Atum, Lord of Heliopolis (above the god)”. Document 4: Sphinx BM 58892, British Museum, London Provenance: Beirut, originally from Heliopolis (?) Material: black diorite Measures: width 20.2; cm height: 38.1 cm; length 58.5 cm. Bibliography: Hall 1928; Vandier 1973, p. 214-215; PM VII, 384, Montet 1928; Moret 1928; Dunand 1928. This document was found in Beirut, in the basement of a building in Bab-Serail and then was sold to the British Museum in 1927. It is likely that it originally came from Heliopolis, but we do not know how it arrived in Beirut. Perhaps it reached the Near East from Alexandria during the Greek-Roman period, like many other monuments. The sphinx presents the typical iconographic characteristics of the period except for the headgear, which is a lion’s mane arranged to form a nemes. The style can be considered intermediate between the classical sphinx with human head, typical of the Old Kingdom, and the so-called “Hyksos-sphinx” of Amenemhat III, discovered at Tanis2. The attenuation of the feral elements3, if compared to those typical of the previous period, probably facilitated its reworking. A careful look at the proportions of the head and the style, in fact, reveal interventions to the face, the head and the nemes with the creation of a space on the mane for the ears. It is likely that the reworking took place during the Ptolemaic Period. In the middle of the sphinx, on the back, there is a hole piercing the entire sculpture down to the base: it was most likely intended to accommodate the base of another statue, above the first one, with a protective function4,

1 2 3 4

Cf. Moret 1928, p. 34. Vandier 1973, p. 215; Moret 1928, p. 36. Cf. Vandier 1973, pp. 214-215; Moret 1928, p. 36. Cf. Moret 1928, p. 37.

191

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty perhaps in analogy with some sculptures produced in the Near East5. The iconographic motif of a royal or divine statue placed above a lion or a panther is indeed typical of Syro-Hittite or Assyrian art, not of Egyptian6. Inscriptions

On the chest, a cartouche is engraved with Amenemhat IV’s enthronement name, Makherura, followed by a vertically arranged inscription: “The one who lives eternally, beloved of Atum, Lord of Heliopolis”. Document 5: Sculptural group AO 17223, Musée du Louvre, Paris Provenance: Ugarit Material: Granite (?) Bibliography: Schaeffer 1934, p. 113-114; Schaffer 1962, p. 217, fig. 22-23; Montet 1934, pp. 131-133; Valloggia 1974; PM VII, p. 394. Lower part of a sculptural group belonging to Snwsrt-anx imy-r niwt, TA.ty tAy.ty sitting between his wife Hnwtsn, on the right, and his daughter sAt-imn, on the left. The hieroglyphic inscriptions are engraved on the base, near the feet, and beside the characters. Inscriptions “Overseer of the city, he of the cape / The Shrouded One7”, which is part of the Vizier’s normal titling. A: The text is distributed in five columns of hieroglyphs. The first four proceed from left to right, while the last one proceeds from right to left:

1)|“An offering which the king gives to Ptah-Sokar so that he may make an offering of bread, beer, beef, poultry, linen and garments. 2)|For the ka of the mayor, vizier, judge Senwsretankh 3)|son of Thetis justified, who filled

5 6 7

Cf. Moret 1928, p. 37. Cf. Moret 1928, p. 37. Cf. Chapter 3: The Administration. Quirke notes that this title can also indicate a position of responsibility at a local level.

192

Documents from Abroad the heart of the king with his favour, 4)|who makes his voice heard in the great hall of Horus, renovated in life, the venerable. 5)|That made praise to the King”. B: The text is distributed over two columns of hieroglyphs from the right to the left:

“The mayor, the vizier Senwsretankh, son of Thetis justified, the venerable”. C1: In a column, behind the woman on the right of Senwsretankh:

“[Satamon, daughter of] Henwtsen, the venerable”. C2: In the lines at the feet of the same woman:

“Satamon, daughter of Henwtsen”. D1: In a column, behind the woman on the left of Senwsretankh:

“Henwtsen, daughter of Peret, justified, the venerable”. D2: In the lines at the feet of the same woman:

“Henwtsen, daughter of Peret”.

193

Bibliography Allen 1998: S. J. Allen, “Queens’ Ware: Royal Funerary Pottery in the Middle Kingdom, in Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge 3-9 September 1995”, OLA 82 (1998), ed. C. J. Eyre, pp. 39-48.

Ben Tor 1997: D. Ben Tor, “The Relations between Egypt and Palestine in the Middle Kingdom as Reflected by Contemporary Canaanite Scarabs”, IES (1997), pp. 162-189. Berlev 1978: Oleg Berlev, Obščestvennye otnošenjia v Egypte epochi srednego carstva, Mosca 1978.

Arnold 1987: D. Arnold, Der Pyramidenbezirk des Königs Amenemhat III. in Dahshur I, Mainz 1987.

Betrò 2007: M. Betrò, “Una nota manoscritta inedita di Ippolito Rosellini e la regina ahmoside AhmesMeritamon”, EVO 30 (2007), pp. 55-68.

Arnold 2001: D. Arnold, “Tombs: Royal Tombs” in D. B. Redford, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, vol. III, New York 2001, pp. 425- 433.

Beylage 2002: p. Beylage, “Propaganda in Ancient Egyptian Texts: an attempt at definition”, JAC 17 (2002), pp. 11-17.

Aufrère 1989: S. Aufrère, “Remarques sur la transmission des Noms Royaux par les traditions orales et écrites”, BIFAO 89 (1989), pp. 1-14.

Björkmann 1971: G. Björkmann, Kings at Karnak, Kings at Karnak, Uppsala 1971.

Aufrère 1991: S. Aufrère, L’Univers minéral dans la pensée égyptienne, Le Caire 1991.

Blumenthal 1977: E. Blumenthal, “Die Textgattung Expeditionsbericht in Ägypten”, in J. Assmann et al., Fragen an die altägyptische Literatur, Wiesbaden 1977, pp. 85–118.

Bader 2015: B. Bader, Egypt and the Mediterranean in the Bronze Age: The Archaeological Evidence, Oxford Handbooks Online, 2015. Baker 2008: D. D. Baker, Encyclopedia of the Pharaohs (vol. I, Predynastic to the Twentieth Dynasty 33001069 BC), Cairo 2008.

Bonnet 1994: C. Bonnet, F. Le Saout and D. Valbelle, “Le temple de la déesse Hathor, maîtresse de la turquoise, à Sérabit el-Khadim. Reprise de l’étude archéologique et épigraphique”, CRIPEL 16 (1994), pp. 15-29.

Bard and Fattovich 2011: K. Bard and R. Fattovich, “The Middle Kingdom Red Sea Harbor at Mersa/Wadi Gawasis”, JARCE 47 (2011), pp. 105-129.

Bonnet 1996: C. Bonnet and D. Valbelle, Le sanctuaire d’Hathor maîtresse de la turquoise, Paris 1996.

Bard et al. 2006-2007: K. Bard et al., Joint Archaeological Expedition at Mersa/Wadi Gawasis (Red Sea, Egypt) of the University of Naples “L’Orientale” (Naples, Italy) Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente (Rome, Italy), and Boston University (Boston, USA) 2006-2007 Field Season, http://www.archaeogate.org.

Booth 2005: C. Booth, The Hyksos period in Egypt, Malta 2005. Bosticco 1959: S. Bosticco (a cura di), Le stele egiziane dall’antico al nuovo regno / Museo Archeologico di Firenze, vol. II, Roma 1959. Bourriau 1988: J. D. Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals, Cambridge 1988.

Barguet 1962: p. Barguet, Le temple d’Amon-Rê à Karnak: essai d’exégèse, Cairo 1962.

Bourriau 2003: J. Bourriau, “The contribution of the excavation of Lisht North Cemetery to The Middle Kingdom Studies”, in S. Quirke ed., Discovering Egypt from the Neva: the Egyptological legacy of Oleg D. Berlev, Berlin 2003.

Barta 1979: W. Barta, “Die Chronologie der 12. Dynastie nach den Angaben des Turiner Königspayrus”, SAK 7 (1979), pp. 1-9. Bell 1975: B. Bell, “Climate and the History of Egypt: The Middle Kingdom”, AJA 79 (1975), pp. 223-269.

Bresciani 1968: E. Bresciani, Missione di scavo a Medinet madi (Fayyum- Egitto). Rapporto preliminare delle campagne di scavo 1966-196, Milano 1968.

Bennet 2002: C. Bennet, “A Genealogical Chronology of the Seventeenth Dynasty”, JARCE 39 (2002), pp. 123155.

Bresciani 1971: E. Bresciani, “Missione archeologica dell’Università di Milano a Medinet Madi (FayyumEgitto)”, OA 10 (1971), pp. 201ff.

Ben Tor 1994: D. Ben Tor, “The Historical Implications of Middle Kingdom Scarabs Found In Palestine Bearing Private Names and Titles of Officials”, BASOR (1994), pp. 7-22.

Bresciani 1984: E. Bresciani, “L’attività archeologica dell’università di Pisa in Egitto (1984):Medinet Madi nel Fayyum. Le Chiese”, EVO 7 (1984), pp. 1-15. 195

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Cohen-Lake 2002: S. Cohen and W. Lake, Canaanites, chronologies and connections: the relationship of Middle Bronze IIA Canaan to Middle Kingdom Egypt, Eisenbrauns, 2002.

Bresciani 1986: E. Bresciani, “L’attività archeologica dell’università di Pisa in Egitto (1985):Medinet Madi nel Fayyum”, EVO 9 (1986), pp. 7-14. Bresciani 1990: E. Bresciani, Letteratura e poesia dell’antico Egitto, Torino 1990.

Collier-Quirke 2002: M.Collier and S.Quirke, The UCL el-Lahun Papyri I, Oxford 2002.

Bresciani 2006: E. Bresciani, “La decorazione delle pareti del tempio di Medio Regno”, in Medinet Madi, venti anni di esplorazione archeologica, 1984-2005, a cura di E. Bresciani, A. Giammarusti, R. Pintaudi, F. Silvano, Pisa 2006.

Collier-Quirke 2004: M. Collier and S.Quirke, The UCL el-Lahun Papyri II, Oxford 2004. Collier-Quirke 2006: M. Collier and S.Quirke, The UCL el-Lahun Papyri III, Oxford 2006.

Bresciani 2012: E. Bresciani and A. Giammarusti, I templi di Medinet Madi nel Fayyum, Pisa 2012.

Daninos-Pacha 1891: A. Daninos-Pacha, “Note sur les fouilles d’Aboukir”, RT 12 (1891), pp. 209-214.

Briquel-Chatonnet 1998: F. Briquel-Chatonnet, “Les inscriptions proto-sinaïtiques”, in D. Valòbelle and C. Bonnet, Le Sinaï durant l’Antiquité et le Moyen Age. 4000 ans d’Histoire pour un désert, Paris 1998, pp. 5660.

Daressy 1888: M. G. Daressy, Remarques et notes, RT (1888). Daressy 1903: M. G. Daressy, Textes et dessins magiques. Catalogue Général des Antiquités Egyptiennes du Musée du Caire, Paris 1903.

Brunner-Traut 1981: E. Brunner-Traut and H. Brunner, Die Agyptische Sammlung der Universität Tübingen, 2 voll., Mainz 1981.

Daressy 1904: G. Daressy, “Inscriptions Hiéroglyphiques du Musée d’Alexandrie”, ASAE 5 (1904), pp. 113-128.

Brunton 1939: G. Brunton, “A Monument of Amenemhet IV”, ASAE 39 (1939), pp. 177-181, pl. XXIII, XXIV.

Davies 1996: R. Davies, The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt, London 1996.

Brunton 1949: G. Brunton, “The Title ‘Khnemet-NeferHedjet’”, ASAE 49 (1949), pp. 99-110.

Delia 1979: R. D. Delia, “A New Look at Some Old Dates: A Reexamination of Twelfth Dynasty Double Dated Inscriptions”, BES 1 (1979), pp. 15-28.

Budge 1902: E. A. W. Budge, A History of Egypt from the End of the Neolithic Period to the Death of Cleopatra 7. B.C., III: Egypt under the Amenemhats and Hyksos, London 1902.

Delia 1982: R. D. Delia, “Doubts about Double Dated and Coregencies”, BES 4 (1982), pp. 55-69. DeMorgan 1895: J. De Morgan, Fouilles à Dahchour II, Vienna, 1895.

Budge 1909: E. A. W. Budge, Egyptian Sculptures in the British Museum, London 1909.

Desroches-Noblecourt 1986: C. Desroches-Noblecourt, “La Sepolture de la Princesse Neferou-Ptah”, BSFE 23 (1957), pp. 19-22.

Callender 1995: V. G. Callender, “Materials for the Reign of Sobekneferu”, in C. J. Eyre (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists (Cambridge, 3-9 September 1995), OLA 82, Leuven 1998, pp. 227- 236.

Desroches-Noblecourt 1986: C. Desroches-Noblecourt, La femme au temps des Pharaons, Paris, 1986. Dodson 1987: A. Dodson, “Tombs of the Kings”, ZÄS 114 (1987), p.40.

Callender 1998: V. G. Callender, “What Sex was King Sobekneferu?”, KMT 9,1 (1998), pp. 45-46.

Dodson 1988: A. Dodson, “The Tombs of the Kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty in the Memphite Necropolis”, ZÄS 115 (1988), pp. 195-199.

Carter-Carnavon 1912: H. Carter, Fifth Earl of Carnarvon, Five Years’ Explorations at Thebes: a Record of Work Done 1907–1911, Oxford 1912.

Dodson 1994 (a): A. Dodson, The Canopic Equipment of the Kings of Egypt, New York 1994.

Chehab 1969: M. Chehab, “Noms des personnalités égyptiennes découvertes au Liban”, BMB 22 (1969), pp. 1-47.

Dodson 1994 (b): A. Dodson, “From Dahshur to Dra Abu el-Naga: The Decline & Fall of the Pyramid”, KMT 5 (1994), pp. 25-39.

Chevereau 1991: p. M. Chevereau, “Contribution à la prosopographie des cadres militaires du Moyen Empire”, RdE 42 (1991), pp. 43-88.

Dodson 2004: A. Dodson, The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt, Cairo 2004.

Chevereau 1992: p. M. Chevereau, “Contribution à la prosopographie des cadres militaires du Moyen Empire”, RdE 43 (1992), pp. 11-33.

Donadoni 1947: S. Donadoni, “Testi geroglifici di Medinet Madi”, Orientalia 16 (1947), pp. 333-352, 506-524.

Cimmino 1996: F. Cimmino, Sesostris: storia delle’Egitto del Medio Regno, Milano 1996.

196

Bibliography Franke 1994: D. Franke, Das Heiligtum des Heqaib auf Elephantine: Geschichte eines Provinzheiligtums im Mittleren Reich (Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens), Heidelberg 1994.

Doxey 1998: D. M. Doxey, Egyptian non-royal epithets in the Middle Kingdom: a social and historical analysis, Leiden 1998. Drioton-Vandier 1975: E. Drioton-J. Vandier, L’Égypte, Paris 1975.

Gabolde 1988: L. Gabolde, Le grand château d’Amon de Sésostris 1er à Karnak: la décoration du temple d’Amon—Rê au Moyen empire, Paris 1988.

Dubois 1817: M. J. B. Dubois, Choix de pierres gravées antiques, égyptiennes et persanes, Paris 1817.

Gardiner 1959: A. Gardiner, The Royal Canon of Turin, Oxford 1959.

Duhoux 2003: Y. Duhoux, Des Minoens en Egypte?, Louvain-La-Neuve 2003.

Gardiner 1961: A. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs: an Introduction, Oxford 1961.

Dunand 1928: M. Dunand, Les Egyptiens à Beyrouth, Syria IX (1928), pp. 301-302.

Gardiner–Peet–Černý 1955: A. Gardiner, T. E. Peet and J. Černý, The Inscriptions of Sinai, I-II, London 1955.

Dunham-Janessen 1960: D. Dunham, J. M. A. Janssen, Second Cataract Forts: excavated by George Andrew Reinser, vol. I, Semna-Kumma. Boston 1960.

Gardiner 1959: A. Gardiner, “Regnal Years and Civil Calendar in Pharaonic Egypt”, JEA 3 (1959), pp. 1-16.

Eaton-Krauss 1982: M. Eaton-Krauss, “Middle Kingdom Coregencies and the Turin Canon”, JSSEA 12 (1982), pp. 17-20.

Gauthier and Jéquier 1902: J. E. Gauthier and G. Jéquier, Mémoires sur les Fouilles de Licht, Cairo 1902. Gautschy 2011: R. Gautschy, “Lunar and Sothic data from the archive of el-Lahun revisited: chronology of the Middle Kingdom”, in CRE XI. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Symposium Leiden University 2010, Totton 2010, pp. 53-61.

Edgerton 1942: W. Edgerton, “Chronology of the Twelfth Dynasty”, JNES 1 (1942), pp. 307-314. Edwards 1961: I. E. S. Edwards, The Pyramids of Egypt, Harmondsworth 1961. Engelbach 1928: R. Engelbach, “The so-called Hyksos Monuments”, ASAE 28 (1928), pp. 13-28.

Gayet 1886: A. J. Gayet, Musée du Louvre: stèles de la XIIe dynastie, Paris 1889.

Fakhry 1952: A. Fakhry, The Inscriptions of the Amethyst Quarries at Wadi el-Hudi, Cairo 1952.

Giveon 1978: R. Giveon, The impact of Egypt on Canaan: iconographical and related studies, Gottingen 1978.

Farag–Iskander 1971: N. Farag and Z. Iskander, The discovery of Neferuptah, Cairo 1971.

Goedicke 1962: H. Goedicke, “The Inscription of Hr-wrRa”, MDAIK 18 (1962), pp. 14-25.

Fay–Freed–Schelper–Seyfried 2017: B. Fay, R. E. Freed, T. Schelper and F. Seyfried, “Neferusobek Project: Part I”, in G. Miniaci and W. Grajetzki (eds.), Middle Kingdom Studies 2, London 2015, pp. 89-91.

Gomaà 1984: F. Gomaà, “Der Krokodilgott Sobek und seine Kultorte im Mittleren Reich”, in Studien zu Sprache und Religion Ägyptens. Band 2: Religion. Zu Ehren von Wolfhart Westendorf überreicht von seinen Freunden und Schülern, Göttingen 1984, pp. 787-803.

Fischer 1957: H. G. Fischer, “A God and a General of the Oasis on a Stela of the late Middle Kingdom”, JNES 16 (1957), pp. 223-235.

Gomaà 1987: F. Gomaà, Die Besiedlung Agyptens während des Mittleren Reiches, I. Oberagypten und das Fayyum; II. Unterägypten und die angrenzenden Gebiete, TAVO 66. 1-2, Wiesbaden 1987.

Fischer 1996: H. G. Fischer, Egyptian Studies III: Varia Nova, New York 1996.

Grajetzki 2001: W. Grajetzki, Two Treasures of the Late Middle Kingdom, London 2001.

Fischer 1997: H. G. Fischer, Egyptian Titles of the Middle Kingdom: A Supplement to Wm. Ward’s Index, New York 1997.

Grajetzki 2002: W. Grajetzki, “Zwei Pyramiden der 13. Dynastie bei Mazghuna und die ungeklärte Frage des Bestattungsortes von Amenemhet IV. und Sobeknofru”, Sokar 5 (2002), pp. 23-27.

Franke 1984: D. Franke, “Personendaten aus dem Mittleren Reich (20.-16. Jahrhundert V. Chr.), Dossiers 1-796”, ÄA 41, Wiesbaden 1984.

Grajetzki 2005: W. Grajetzki, “The Coffin of the ‘King’s Daughter’ Neferuptah and the Sarcophagus of the ‘Great King’s Wife’ Hatshepsut”, GöttMisz 205 (2005), pp. 55-61.

Franke 1988: D. Franke, “Zur Chronologie des Mittleren Reiches (12.-18. Dynastie) Teil 1: Die 12 Dynastie”, Orientalia 57 (1988), pp. 113-138. Franke 1991: D. Franke, “The career of Khnumhotep III of Beni Hasan and the so-called ‘Decline of the Nomarchs’” in S. Quirke, Middle Kingdom Studies, New Malden 1991.

Grajetzki 2009: W. Grajetzki, Court Officials of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, London 2009. Grajetzki 2006: W. Grajetzki, The Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt, London 2006. 197

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Jannsen 1951: J. M. A. Jannsen, “Fonctionnaires Sémites au service de l’Égypte”, CdE 26 (1951), p. 58.

Grajetzki 2014: W. Grajetzki, Tomb Treasures of the Late Middle Kingdom. The Archaeology of Female Burials, Philadelphia 2014. Grallert 2001: S. Grallert, Bauen, Stiften, Weihen: Agyptische Bau- und Restaurierungsinschrften von den Anfangen bis zur 30. Dynastie, Berlino 2001.

Jéquier 1986: G. Jéquier, Fouilles à Saqqara: Deux Pyramides du Moyen Empire. Édition Photographique de l’Édition Originale-Imprimerie de l’IFAOC 193, 1933, Cairo 1986.

Griffith 1898: F. Ll. Griffith, The Petrie Papyri: Hieratic Papyri from Kahun and Gurob, London 1898.

Kemp 2000: B. G. Trigger, B. Kemp and B. Graham, Storia sociale dell’Antico Egitto, Bari 2000.

Grimal 1988: N. Grimal, Storia dell’Antico Egitto (1988), trad. it. di G. S. Matthiae, Bari 2003.

Kemp–Merrillees 1980: B. Kemp, R. Merrillees, Minoan Pottery in second Millennium Egypt, Mainz am Rhein 1980.

Habachi 1954: L. Habachi, “Khatâna-Qantîr: Importance”, ASAE 52 (1954), pp. 443-562, tavv. I-XXXVIII.

Kitchen 1990: K. K. Kitchen, Catalogue of the Egyptian Collection in the National Museum, Rio de Janeiro, Warminster 1990.

Habachi 1956: L. Habachi, “Hekaib the Deified Governor of Elephantine”, Archaeology 9 (1956), pp. 8-15.

Kitchen 1997: K. K. Kitchen, Il Faraone trionfante: Ramses II e il suo tempo, Roma 1997.

Habachi 1985: L. Habachi, The sanctuary of Heqaib, Mainz am Rein 1985.

Knudstad 1966: J. Knudstad, “Serra East and Dorginarti. A Preliminary Report on the 1963-1964 Excavation of the University of Chicago Oriental Institute Sudan Expedition”, Kush 14 (1966), pp. 165-186.

Habachi 1977: L. Habachi, “New Light on Objects of Unknown Provenance. A strange Monument of Amenemhat IV and a Similar Uninscribed one”, GöttMiszz 26 (1977), pp. 27-36.

Kopetzky 2016: K. Kopetzky, “Some Remarks on the Relations between Egypt and Levan during the late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period”, in G. Miniaci and W. Grajetzki (eds.), Middle Kingdom Studies 2, London 2016, pp. 143-159.

Hall 1911: H. R. Hall, Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian stelae, etc., in the British Museum, vol. 2, London 1911. Hall 1928: H. R. Hall, “A Sphinx of Amenemhat IV”, BMQ II (1928), n°4, pp.87-88, pl. 58°.

Landua-McCormack 2008: D. Landua-McCormack, Dynasty XIII Kingship in Ancient Egypt: a Study of political Power and Administration through an investigation of the royal tombs of the Late Middle Kingdom, 2008.

Hall 1930: H. R. Hall, “An open-work gold plaque of Amenemhat IV”, BMQ IV, n°1, p. 1. Hayes 1953 (a): W. C. Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt. A Backround for the Study of the Egyptian Antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum of Arts. Part I: From the Earliest Times to the End of the Middle Kingdom, New York 1953.

Legrain 1903: G. Legrain, “Achats à Luxor”, ASAE 4 (1903), pp. 133-135. Lehner 1997: M. Lehner, The Complete Pyramids, London 1997.

Hayes 1953 (b): W. C. Hayes, “Notes on the Government of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom”, JNES 12 (1953), pp. 31-39.

Lehner 2004: M. Lehner, The Complete Pyramids, Cairo 2004.

Hayes 1965: W. C. Hayes, Egypt: from the Death of Ammenemes III to Seqenenre II, in The Cambridge Ancient History, II cap. 2, 2° ed., Cambridge 1965.

Leitz 2002: C. Leitz, Lexikon der Ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, 8 vols., Leuven 2002.

Hintze-Reineke 1989: F. Hintze and W. F. Reineke, Felsinschriften aus dem sudanesischen Nubien, Berlin 1989.

Leprohon 1980: R. J. Leprohon, The Reign of Amenemhat III, Toronto 1980.

Hirsch 2004: E. Hirsch, Kultpolitik und der 12. Dynastie: Tempelbauprogramme Gottertempelen im Alten Agypte, Berlin 2004.

Leprohon 1996: R. J. Leprohon, “A Late Middle Kingdom Stela in a Private Collection”, in p. der Manuelian, Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson, Boston 1996.

Hornug 2006: E. Hornung, R. Krauss and D. A. Warburton, Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Leiden 2006.

Lepsius 1897: C. R. Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien, vol. I, Leipzig,1897.

Hornug–Staehelin 1974: E. Hornug and E. Staehelin, “Studien zum Sedfest”, AH 1, Geneve 1974.

Lilyquist 1979: C. Lilyquist, Ancient Egyptian Mirrors from the Earliest Times through the Middle Kingdom, 1979 Monaco.

Iskander 1965: Z. Iskander, “The Pottery found in the Tomb of Neferwptah and Its Significance”, in Matson (ed.), Ceramics and Man, Viking Found Publications in Anthropology 41, New York 1965, pp. 151-153.

Lilyquist 1993: C. Lilyquist, “Granulation and Glass: Chronolgical and Stylistic Investigations at Selected 198

Bibliography Sites, ca. 2500–1400 B.C.E.”, BASOR 290 (1993), pp. 29–94.

Obsomer 1993: C. Obsomer, “La date de Nésou-Montou (Louvre C 1)”, RdE 44 (1993), pp. 103-140.

Mackay 1912: W. M. F. Petrie, G. A. Wainwright and E. Mackay, The Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Mazghuna, London 1912.

O’Connor 2009: D. O’Connor, Abydos: Egypt’s First Pharaohs and Cult of Osiris, Cairo 2009. Oppenheim 2015: A. Oppenheim, D. Arnold, and K. Yamamoto, Ancient Egypt Transformed: The Middle Kingdom, Catalogue of Exhibition, New York 2015.

Maragioglio–Rinaldi 1973: V. Maragigoglio and C. A. Rinaldi, Note complementari sulla tomba di Neferuptah, Orientalia 42 (1973), pp. 357-369.

Parker 1950: R. Parker, The Calendars of Ancient Egypt, SAOC 26 (1950).

Martin 1971: G. T. Martin, Egyptian Administrative and Private-Name Seals, principally of Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period, Oxford 1971.

Parker 1976: R. Parker, “The Sotic Dating of the Twelfth and Eighteenth Dynasties”, SAOC 39 (1976), pp. 177189.

Martin 1979: G. T. Martin, “Private Name-Seals in the Alnwick Castle”, MDAIK 35 (1979), pp. 215-226.

Peden 2001: A. Peden, The Graffiti of Pharaonic Egypt: Scope and Roles of Informal Writings, Leiden 2001.

Matzker 1986: I. Matzker, Die Lezten König der XII Dinastie, Frankfurt am Main 1986.

Perdu 1977: O. Perdu, “Khnemet-nefer-hedjet: une princesse et deux reines du Moyen Empire”, RdE 29 (1977), pp. 68-85.

Miniaci 2010: G. Miniaci, “The Incomplete Hieroglyphs System at the End of the Middle Kingdom”, RdE 61 (2010), pp. 113-134.

Petrie 1888: W. M. F. Petrie, A Season in Egypt, 1887, London 1888.

Miniaci–Quirke 2009: G. Miniaci and S. Quirke, “Reconceiving the Tomb in the Late Middle Kingdom. The Burial of the Accountant of the Main Enclosure Neferhotep at Dra Abu al-Naga”, BIFAO (2009)

Petrie 1889: W. M. F. Petrie, Historical Scarabs, London 1889. Petrie 1890 (a): W. M. F. Petrie, Hawara, Biahmu and Arsinoe, London 1890.

Montet 1928: p. Montet, Byblos et l’Egypte: quatre campagnes de fouilles à Gebeil, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, Paris 1928.

Petrie 1890 (b): W. M. F. Petrie, Kahun, Gurob and Hawara, London 1890.

Montet 1934: p. Montet, “Note sur les inscriptions de Sanousret-ankh”, in C. F. A. Schaeffer, Les fouilles de Ras-Shamra, Syria XV (1934), pp. 113-114.

Petrie 1906: W. M. F. Petrie, Researches in Sinai, London 1906. Petrie 1912: W. M. F. Petrie, G. A. Wainwright and E. Mackay, The Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Mazghuna, London 1912.

Moret 1928: A. Moret, “Note sur deux monuments égyptiens”, CRAIBL (1928), pp. 34-37. Moussa 1975: A. Moussa and H. Altenmüller, “Ein Denkmal zum Kult des Königs Unas Ende der 12. Dynastie”, MDAIK 31 (1975), pp. 93-97, pl. 32.

Petrie 1917: W. M. F. Petrie, Scarabs and Cylinders, London 1917. Petrie 1920: W. M. F. Petrie, A History of Egypt, London 1920.

Moussa 1991: A. M. Moussa, “A Sandstone Base of a Sphinx with a Cartouche of MAa-xrw-Ra”, Orientalia 60 (1991), p. 158, pl. 105.

Philip 2006: G. Philip, Tell el-Dab’a XV: Metalwork and Metalworking Evidence of the Late Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period, UÖAI 26, 2006 Wien.

Murnane 1977: W. J. Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Coregencies, SAOC 40 (1977). Murnane 1981: W. J. Murnane, In Defense of the Middle Kingdom Double Dates, BES 3 (1981), pp. 73-82.

Phillips 2008: J. Phillips, Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in Their Chronological Context: A Critical Review, 2 vols., 2008 Vienna.

Mysliwiec 1982: K. Mysliwiec, “Amon, Atum and Aton: the Evolution of Helipolitan Influences in Thebes”, in L’Égyptologie en 1979, axes prioritaires de recherches, Paris 1982.

Piacentini 1999: p. Piacentini, “L’Egitto e il Vicino Oriente agli inizi del II millennio a.C.”, ACME LII (1999), pp. 171-180.

Nelson 1949: H. H. Nelson, Certain Reliefs at Karnak and Medinet habu and the Ritual of Amenophis I, JNES 8 (1949), pp. 201-232; 310-345.

Pignattari 2008: S. Pignattari, Due donne per il trono d’Egitto: Neferuptah e Sobekneferu, Imola 2008.

Newberry 1943: p. E. Newberry, “Co-regencies of Amenemhat III, IV and Sobekneferu”, JEA 29 (1943), pp. 74-75.

Pignattari 2012: S. Pignattari, “More Ways of Analysis: The different faces of a stela”, in Current Research in Egyptology 2011, Oxford 2012, pp. 152-166.

199

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Pillet 1924: M. Pillet, “Rapport sur les travaux de Karnak (1923-1924)”, ASAE 24 (1924), pp. 53-88.

kleine Götter - grosse Götter: Festschrift für Dieter Kessler zum 65. Geburtstag, Vaterstetten 2013.

Pirelli 2007: E. Mahafouz, A. Manzo and R. Pirelli, “Textual Evidence” in K. A. Bard and R. Fattovich (eds.) Harbor of the Pharaohs to the Land of Punt. Archaeological Investigations at Mersa/Wadi Gawasis. Egypt, 2001-2005, Napoli 2007.

Redford 1986: D. B. Redford, Pharaonic King-List, Annals and Day-Books, SSEA 4, Mississauga 1986. Redford 1992: D. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton 1992. Reisner 1925: G. A. Reisner, “Excavations in Egypt and Ethiopia 1922-1925”, BMFA 23 (1925), pp. 17-29.

Pirelli 2007 a: R. Pirelli, “Two New Stelae from Mersa Gawasis”, RdE 58 (2007), pp. 87-110.

Richards 2005: J. Richards, Society and Death in Ancient Egypt: Mortuary Landscape of the Middle Kingdom, Cambridge 2005.

Pirelli 2008: R. Pirelli, “Attività commerciali e momenti del culto a Mersa Gawasis” in Sacerdozio e Società Civile nell’Antico Egitto. Atti del Terzo Colloquio (Bologna - 30/31 maggio 2007), Imola 2008, pp. 13-29.

Rosati 1980: G. Rosati Castellucci, “L’onomastica del Medio Regno come mezzo di datazione”, Aegyptus 60 (1980), pp. 3-72.

Posener 1925: G. Posener, “Syria and Palestine (c. 21601780 B.C.)” in The Cambridge Ancient History, I, 2, cap. 20, Early History of the Middle East, Cambridge 1925, pp. 532-550.

Rosati 1980 (a): G. Rosati, “Note e proposte per la datazione delle stele del Medio Regno”, OrAnt 19 (1980), pp. 269-278.

Posener 1956: G. Posener, Princes et pays d’Asie et de Nubie, Bruxelles 1940.

Rosati 2009: G. Rosati, “Appunti sugli epiteti funerari nelle stele del Medio Regno”, Comunicazioni dell’Istituto Papirologico ‘G.Vitelli’- Firenze 8 (2009), pp. 167-175.

Posener-Krieger 1976: p. Posener-Krieger, Les archives du temple funéraire de Neferikare-Kakai (les papyrus d’Abuosir), voll. I-II, Cairo 1976.

Rossi 2009: R. Rossi, Tempi, modi e luoghi per mezzo dei quali si è svolta la navigazione egiziana nel Mar Rosso, alla luce di un confronto con le conoscenze nautiche delle marinerie di epoca post-faraonica, Pisa 2009.

Quirke 1986: S. Quirke, “The regular Titles of the Late Middle Kingdom”, RdE 37 (1986), pp. 107-130. Quirke 1990: S. Quirke, The Administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom: the Hieratic Documents, Whitstable 1990.

Ryholt 1990: K. S. B Ryholt, “A Reconstruction of Some Royal Names of the Thirteenth Dynasty”, GM 119 (1990), pp. 101-113.

Quirke 1991: S. Quirke, “Royal Power in the XIII Dynasty”, in S. Quirke, Middle Kingdom Studies, New Malden 1991.

Ryholt 1997: K. S. B. Ryholt, The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period c. 18001550 B.C., Copenhagen 1997.

Quirke 1997: S. Quirke, “Gods in the Temple of the King: Anubis at Lahun”, in S. Quirke (ed.), The temple in ancient Egypt: new discoveries and recent research, London 1997 pp. 24-48.

Ryholt 2004: K. S. B. Ryholt, “The Turin Kinglist”, Ä&L 14 (2004), pp. 135-155. Ryholt 2006: K. S. B. Ryholt, “The Turin King-list or Socalled Turin Canon (TC) as Source for Chronology”, in E. Hornug, R. Krauss and D. Warburton, eds., Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Boston, 2006, pp. 26-32.

Quirke 1999: S. Quirke, “Women in Ancient Egypt: Temple Titles and Funerary Papyri”, in W. J. Tait and Leahy, Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honour of H. S. Smith, London 1999, pp. 227-235.

Sadek 1980: A. I. Sadek, The Amethyst Mining Inscriptions of Wadi el-Hudi I, Text, Warminster 1980.

Quirke 2004: S. Quirke, Titles and Bureaux of Egypt 1850-1700 BC, London 2004.

Saretta 1997: P. Saretta, Egyptian Perceptions of West Semites in Art and Literature during the Middle Kingdom (An Archaeological, Art Historical and Textual Survey), Ann Arbor 1997.

Quirke 2005: S. Quirke, Lahun. A Town in Egypt 1800 BC, and the History of its Landscape, London 2005. Quirke 2006: S. Quirke, “In the Name of the King: on Late Middle Kingdom Cylinders”, in Czerny, E. et al. (ed.) Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, OLA 149, Vol. I, Leuven 2006, pp. 263-274.

Sauneron 1952: S. Sauneron, “Le «Chancelier du Dieu» [. . .] dans son double rôle d’embaumeur et de prêtre d’Abydos”, BIFAO 51 (1952), pp. 137-171.

Quirke 2010: S. Quirke, Who were the Pharaohs? A guide to their names, reigns and dynasties, London 2010.

el-Sayed 1982: R. el-Sayed, La déesse Neith de Sais, Le Caire, 1982

Radwan 2013: A. Radwan, “Amenemhat III als Gott”, in M. C. Flossmann-Schütze, M. Goecke-Bauer, F. Friedhelm, D. Kessler et al., Tuna el-Gebel. Band.4,

el-Sayed 2010: M. el-Sayed, “Amenemhat IV au ouadi Gaouasis”, BIFAO 110 (2010), pp. 163-173.

200

Bibliography Tallet 2013: p. Tallet, “Deux notes sur les expéditions au pays de Pount à la lumière de nouvelles données archéologiques”, RdE 64 (2013), pp. 189-210.

Scandone-Matthiae 1997: G. Scandone-Matthiae, “The Relations between Ebla and Egypt”, in E. D. Oren, The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, Philadelphia 1997, pp. 415-427. Schaeffer 1934: C. F. A. Schaeffer, “Les fouilles de RasShamra”, Syria XV (1934), pp. 113-114.

Te Velde 1977: H. Te Velde, Seth god of confusion : a Study of his role in Egyptian Mythology and Religion, Leiden, 1977.

Schaeffer 1962: C. F. A. Schaeffer, Ugaritica IV, BAH 74 (1962).

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

Schiestl 2006: R. Schiestl, “The Statue of an Asiatic Man from Tell el-Dab’a, Egypt”, Ä&L 16 (2006), pp. 173185.

Uphill 2000: E. p. Uphill, Pharaoh’s Gateway to Eternity. The Hawara Labyrinth of King Amenemhat III, London 2000.

Schiestl 2007: R. Schiestl, “The coffin from Tomb 1 at Byblos”, Ä&L 17 (2007), pp. 265-271.

Valloggia 1964: M. Valloggia, “Remarques sur les noms de la reine Sébek-Ka-Rê Neferou-Sebék”, RdE 16 (1964), pp. 45-53.

Schiestl 2009: R. Schiestl, Tell el-Dab’a XVIII: Die Palastnekropole von Tell el Daba’a, die Gräber des Areals F/I der Straten d/2 und d/1, Vienne 2009.

Valloggia 1969: M. Valloggia, “Amenemhat IV et sa corégence avec Amenemhat III”, RdE 21 (1969), 107133.

Schiestl 2009a: R. Schiestl, “Three Pendants: Tell elDab’a, Aigina and a New Silver Pendant from the Petrie Museum”, in J. Lesley Fitton (ed.), The Aigina treasure: Aegean Bronze Age jewellery and a mystery revisited, London 2009, pp. 51-58.

Valloggia 1974: M. Valloggia, “Les vizirs des XIe et XIIe dynasties”, BIFAO 74 (1974), pp. 123-134. Valloggia 1998: M. Valloggia, “Chanceliers du dieu et messagers du roi à l’est de l’Égypte”, in D. Valbelle, Le Sinai durant l’Antiquité et le Moyen Age: 4000 ans d’histoire pour un désert, Paris 1998, p. 39-43.

Seidl 1996: M. Seidl, Die königlichen Statuengruppen, I. Die Denkmäler vom Alten Reich bi zum Ende der 18. Dinastie, Hildesheim 1996.

Vandersleyen 1995: C. Vandersleyen, L’Égypte et la vallée du Nil. Tome 2. De la fin de l’Ancien Empire à la fin du Nouvel Empire, Paris 1995.

Simpson 1956: W. K. Simpson, “The Single-dated Monuments of Sesostris I: An Aspect of the Institutions of Coregency in the Twelfth Dynasty”, JNES 15 (1956), pp. 214-219.

Vandier 1936: J. Vandier, La famine dans l’Égypte ancienne, Cairo 1936.

Simpson 1972: W. K. Simpson, “A Tomb Chapel Relief of the Reign of Amenemhat III and Some Observations on the Length of the Reign of Sesostri III”, CdE 47 (1972), pp. 45-54.

Vandier 1958: J. Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne, III, Paris 1958. Vercoutter 1975: J. Vercoutter, “Le Roi Ougaf e la XIII sur la Iime Cataracte”, RdE 27 (1975), pp. 222-234.

Simpson 1974: W. K. Simpson, The Terrace of the Great Godat Abydos: the Offering Chapels of Dynasties 12 and 13, New Haven/Philadelphia 1974.

Verner 2002: M. Verner, The Pyramids. The Mistery, Culture and Science of Egypt’s Great Monuments, Cairo 2002.

Smither 1945: p. C. Smither, “The Semna Dispatches”, JEA 31 (1945), pp. 3-10.

Vernus 1970: p. Vernus, “Sur une particularité de l’onomastique du Moyen Empire”, RdE 22 (1970), pp. 155-169.

Sourouzian 1988: H. Sourouzian, “Standing Royal Colossi of the Middle Kingdom reused by Ramesses II”, MDAIK 44 (1988), pp. 229-254.

Vernus 1973: p. Vernus, “La stèle C 3 du Louvre”, RdE 25 (1973), pp. 218-234.

Stefanovic 2003: D. Stefanovic, The Title mr tA-mḥw in the Middle Kingdom Documents, Belgrade 2003.

Vernus 1978: p. Vernus, Athribis. Textes et documents relatifs à la géographie, aux cultes et à l’histoire d’une ville du Delta égyptien à l’époque pharaonique, Cairo 1978.

Stroot-Kirraly 1989: E. Stroot-Kirraly, “L’offrande du pain blanc”, BSEG 13 (1989), pp. 157-160. Tallet 2005: p. Tallet, Sesostris 3. et la fin de la 12.e dynastie, Paris 2005.

Vernus 1980: p. Vernus, “Études de philologie et de linguistique”, RdE 32 (1980), pp. 117-134.

Tallet 2012: p. Tallet, “The Red Sea in Pharaonic Times. Assessment and Prospects”, BIFAO 155 (2012), pp. 171-174.

Vernus 1996: p. Vernus, “Réflexions et adaptations de l’idéologie monarchique à la Deuxième Période Intermédiaire: La stèle d’Antef-le victorieux”, in Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson, pp. 829842. 201

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty Vogliano 1937: A. Vogliano, Secondo Rapporto degli scavi condotti dalla Missione Archeologica d’Egitto della Regia Università di Milano nella zona di Medinet Madi (Campagna inverno e primavera 1936-XIV), Milano 1937. Vogliano 1938: A. Vogliano, “Rapporto preliminare della IV campagna di scavo a Medinet Madi (Regia Università di Milano)”, ASAE 38, pp. 533-549. von Beckerath 1964: J. von Beckerath, Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte der zweiten Zwischenzeit in Ägypten, ÄF 23, New York 1964. Ward 1982: W. A. Ward, Index of Egyptian administrative and religious Titles of the Middle Kingdom: with a glossary of words and phrases used, Beirut 1982. Wastlhuber 2011: C. Wastlhuber, Die Beziehungen zwischen Ägypten und der Levante während der 12. Dynastie - Ökonomie und Prestige in Außenpolitik und Handel, München 2011. Weigall 1908: A. E. p. Weigall, “A Report on some Objects recently found in Sebakh and Other Diggings”, ASAE (1908), pp. 39-50. Weinstein 1974: J. M. Weinstein, “A Statuette of the Princess Sobeknefru at Tell Gezer”, BASOR 213 (1974), pp. 49–57. Widmer 2002: G. Widmer, “Pharaoh Maâ-Rê, Pharaoh Amenemhat and Sesostris: Three Figures from Egypt’s Past as Seen in Sources of the Graeco-Roman Period”, in K. S. B. Ryholt, Acts of the seventh International conference of demotic studies: Copenhagen 23-27 August 1999, Copenhagen 2002, pp. 378- 393. Wilson 1997: p. Wilson, A Ptolemaic Lexicon: A Lexicographical Study of the Texts in the Temple of Edfu, Leuven 1997. Winlock 1947: H. Winlock, The Rise and Fall of the Middle Kingdom in Thebes, New York 1947. Yvanez 2010: E. Yvanez, Rock Inscriptions from Semna and Kumma, Kharthoum 2010. Zecchi 2001: M. Zecchi, Geografia Religiosa del Fayyum, Imola 2001. Zecchi 2006: M. Zecchi, Hieroglyphic Inscriptions from the Fayyum, Vol. II, Imola 2006. Zecchi 2008: M. Zecchi, “The Monument of Abgig”, SAK 37 (2008), pp. 373-384. Zecchi 2010: M. Zecchi, Sobek of Shedet. The Crocodile God in the Fayyum in the Dynastic Period, Todi 2011.

202

Appendix 1 Document List: Neferuptah Regalia 1 Ivory Votive Stick (Cairo Egyptian Museum, JE 31046) Gauthier and Jéquier 1902, p. 57-59, fig. 68; Daressy 1903, p. 47, pl. XII; Grdseloff 1951.

Sculptures 1. Headless sphinx in black granite (Cairo Egyptian Museum, JE 9438) Legrain 1903, p. 133-135; Newberry 1943, pp. 44-45

2. Block in black granite (Cairo Egyptian Museum) Daressy 1888, p. 148

3. Statue from Elephantine Weigall 1908, p. 133 Left side

On the right side, the inscription is repeated identically, except for the omission of the title hsyt wrt. 4. Granite Statue from Thebes (Berlin Museum n. 1117; cf. doc. 7 A) LD II, p. 120, fig. f and g; Valloggia 1969, p. 118.

203

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty

Figure 41: Relief of Neferuptah from temple of Medinet Madi.

Reliefs 1. Temple of Medinet Madi (scene S) Vogliano 1937, p. 28; Donadoni 1947 (S), p. 506; Zecchi 2001, p. 154; Hirsch 2004, pp. 358-359 (321g); Bresciani 2006, p. 31 (D, 10); Zecchi 2010, pp. 69-70. Detail of the text:

Papyri 1. Papyrus Kahun V. 1 (Petrie Museum, London, UC 32212) Griffith 1888, p. 80, pl. XXXV and Collier Quirke 2002, p. 139-141.

2. Papyri Fragment from Dendera Grdseloff 1951, p. 150; Farag-Iskander 1971, p. 104

204

Document List: Neferuptah Funerary Equipment Pyramid of Amenemhat III 1. Offering Table (Egyptian Museum, Cairo, JE 28792) Petrie 1890, p. 15, pl. V; Uphill 2000, p. 25; Farag-Iskander 1971, pl. VIII; PM IV, p. 100; Zecchi 2006, p. 11, 12. The inscription runs along the edges, from the center of the top edge, ending at the centre of the lower one. To the right:

To the left:

On the surface of the table, many offering goods are represented, each one followed by its description:

205

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty 2. Fragments of engraved vessels Petrie 1890, p. 15, pl. V; Uphill 2000, p. 25; Zecchi 2006, p. 12-14. In a column of hieroglyphs, from the right to the left:

A horizontal line of hieroglyphs, from the right to the left:

Another horizontal line of hieroglyphs, from the right to the left:

Pyramid of Neferuptah in Hawara 1. Offering table Farag-Iskander 1971, pp. 7-10, pls. VI-VII, Zecchi 2006, p. 28. The inscription runs along the edges, from the centre of the top edge, ending at the centre of the lower one. To the right:

To the left:

206

Document List: Neferuptah 2. Silver ritual vessel Farag-Iskander 1971, pp. 12, pls. XIV (a), XV (a), fig. 8; Zecchi 2006, p. 28. Vertical inscription on the lid, from right to left:

Vertical inscription in five columns of hieroglyphs, from the right to the left, on the body:

Only the upper part of the sign

is written.

3. Silver ritual vessel Farag-Iskander 1971, pp. 13, pls. XIV (b), XV (b), fig. 9; Zecchi 2006, p. 29. Vertical inscription on the lid, from the right to the left:

Vertical inscription in five columns of hieroglyphs, from the right to the left, on the body:

Only the upper part of the

sign is written.

207

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty 4. Silver ritual vessel Farag-Iskander 1971, pp. 13, pls. XIV (c), XV (c), fig. 10; Zecchi 2006, p. 30-31. Vertical inscription on the lid, from the right to the left:

Vertical inscription in five columns of hieroglyphs, from the right to the left, on the body:

Only the upper part of all the signs depicting birds is written. 5. Red-granite sarcophagus Farag-Iskander 1971, pp. 17-26, pls. XVI (a), XVI (b), fig. 20; Zecchi 2006, pp. 30-31. The inscription is placed in the upper part of the eastern side of the sarcophagus.

6. Fragments of gold leaf belonging to the wooden sarcophagus Farag-Iskander 1971, pp. 48, fig. 30-32; Grajetzki 2005, pp. 55-61, pls. 1-4; Zecchi 2006, p. 32. First portion reconstructed:

First portion reconstructed:

208

$SSHQGL[ 'RFXPHQW/LVW6REHNQHIHUX *O\SWLFV 1 Faïence bead &DOOHQGHUS+DEDFKLS &DDOO & DOOOHHQQGGHHU U   S  S S   + +DDE EDDFKLS

2 Steatite scarab (British Museum, London, C 66 159) &DOOHQGHUS

3 Cylinder seal (Egyptian Museum, Cairo, JE 72663) &DOOHQGHUS$XIUqUHS

4 Cylinder seal (British Museum, London, BM 16581) &DOOHQGHUS&DOOHQGHUS ,QIRXUFROXPQVRIWH[W ,Q IRRX ,Q XU U FR FROX O PQ PQV V RI RI WH[W

5 Cylinder seal 1HZEHUU\S9DOORJJLD=HFFKLSQDQGSQ 

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty

Graffiti 1 Nile level (Sudan National Museum, SNM 34390) Callender 1995, p. 232; Yvanez 2010, p. 8.

Figure 42: Nile level graffito of Sobekneferu.

Sculpture 1. Fragment of lintel from Hawara Zecchi 2006, p. 36; Uphill 2000, p. 29 (H. 25); LD II, 140f. From the right to the left:

2. Limestone block (Ägyptisches Museum, Berlin 1164) Blom-Boer 2006, p. 281, no. SG.1, Zecchi 2006, p. 35, n. 43; Zecchi 2010, p. 160, n. 58, Uphill 2000, p. 36 (H. 67); LD. II, 140k.

3. Fragment of lintel from Hawara Zecchi 2006, p. 35; Uphill 2000, p. 29 (H.24); LD II, 140e.

210

Document List: Sobekneferu 4. Column from Hawara Callender 1995, p. 233; Habachi 1954, pl. XV (a).

Figure 43: Column from Hawara.

5. Block from Hawara with deity Dehdehet (University College, London UC 14337) Callender 1995, p. 230; Petrie 1890, pl. 1, n. 1; Zecchi 2006, p. 34.

Figure 44: Block from Hawara with deity Dehdehet.

6. Column fragment from Hawara Callender 1995, p. 231; Petrie 1989, pl. XXVII, n. 12; Habachi 1954, pl. XII (b); Zecchi 2006, p. 36; Zecchi 2010, p. 85; PM IV, p. 100.

211

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty 7. Block from Kom al-Akarib Callender 1995, pp. 230-231, Valloggia 1964, p. 45.

8. Quartzite Statue (Musée du Louvre, Paris E 27135) Callender 1995, p. 233; Callender 1997, pp. 51-52. On the belt:

9. Green schist chest (Metropolitan Museum of Arts, New York, 65.59.) Fischer 1996, pp. 111-119; Callender 1997, p. 52.

Figure 45: Green Schist chest probably of Sobekneferu (MMA 65.59).

212

Document List: Sobekneferu 10. Limestone statue base (Ägyptisches Museum, Berlin, N. 38/66) Blöm-Boer 2006, p. 286, n. SG. 27; Murnane 1977, p. 21, n. 84, Zecchi 2010, p. 160, n. 62. In the left rectangle, Amenemhat III is called:

In the right rectangle, Sobekneferu is described as:

11. Statue from Tell el-Dab’a Callender 1995, p. 230; Habachi 1954, p. 458-470. Sobekneferu is kneeling; the inscription runs along the pedestal.

12. Statue from Tell el-Dab’a Callender 1995, p. 230; Habachi 1954, p. 458-470. Sobekneferu is sitting on a throne, and two inscriptions are engraved at its base. One inscription continues on the left side:

The other one continues on the right side:

213

Amenemhat IV and the End of the Twelfth Dynasty 13. Statue from Tell el-Dab’a &DOOHQGHUS+DEDFKLS 6REHNQHIHUXVLWWLQJRQDWKURQH 6 6R REH REH EHNQ NQHI NQ HIHUUX X VL VLWW WWWLQ LQJ JR RQ Q D WKU KUR KU RQ QH

14. Sphynx from Khata’na &DOOHQGHUS(1DYLOOHThe festival hall of Osorkon II in the Great Temple of Bubastis (887-88) /RQGRQSSOF

)LJXUH,QVFULSWLRQRQVSK\Q[RI6REHNQHIHUXIURP.KDWD¶QD

15. Statuette from Gezer :HLQVWHLQ&RKHQ/DNHS:DVWOKXEHUSQ ,QDYHUWLFDOFROXPQ ,QQ D YHHUUWL UWWLLFD FDO FFR ROX XP PQ Q

16. Statue of royal woman 'XQKDP-DQHVVHQSQSODEF)D\)UHHG6FKHOSHU6H\IULHG %XVWRIDZRPDQORVWGXULQJWKH6HFRQG:RUOG:DU%HUOLQ FRXOGEHWKHXSSHUPLVVLQJSDUWRIWKH VHDWHGVWDWXHGHSLFWLQJDUR\DOZRPDQIRXQGE\*$5HLVQHUDW6HPQD)RUWDQGQRZLQWKH0XVHXPRI)LQH $UWV%RVWRQ0)$