The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt: A Local History, 4500 to 1550 BC 9781789254211, 9781789254228, 2019955821, 1789254213

Table of contents :
Cover
Book Title
Copyright
Dedication
Table of Contents
List of figures and tables
Chronological chart
Introduction
1. Setting and history of research in Wadjet Province
Archaeology
History of research
Economy
Towns in the Tenth Upper Egyptian province
Deities
2. The Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods
The Predynastic Period
The Badarian Period
The Naqada Period
The Early Dynastic Period
The Wadjet province in Early Dynastic Egypt
3. Old Kingdom I
The archaeological record from cemeteries
Pyramid building
Burials of the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties
Old Kingdom settlements
The Old Kingdom state: summary
4. Old Kingdom II, the First Intermediate Period, and the early Middle Kingdom
End of the Old Kingdom: the archaeology of the period
Part I: the archaeological record
Part II: the written records, history and social relations
Society and political history of the late Old Kingdom to thebeginning of the Middle Kingdom
5. The Middle Kingdom
Building a new state in the early Middle Kingdom
The late Middle Kingdom
Evidence from stelae
Middle Kingdom settlements
Society in the Middle Kingdom
6. The End of the Middle Kingdom andthe Second Intermediate Period
Examples of burials
Historical overview of the period
Settlements of the period
The society of the Second Intermediate Period
Concluding remarks
Appendix: List of people from the Wadjet province
Abbreviations and Bibliography
Index
Back Cover

Citation preview

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt A Local History, 4500 to 1500 BC

Wolfram Grajetzki

Oxford & Philadelphia

Published in the United Kingdom in 2020 by OXBOW BOOKS The Old Music Hall, 106–108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JE and in the United States by OXBOW BOOKS 1950 Lawrence Road, Havertown, PA 19083 © Oxbow Books and the author 2020 Hardback Edition: ISBN 978-1-78925-421-1 Digital Edition: ISBN 978-1-78925-422-8 (ePub) A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Control Number: 2019955821 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the publisher in writing. Printed in Malta by Gutenberg Press Typeset in India for Casemate Publishing Services. www.casematepublishingservices.com For a complete list of Oxbow titles, please contact: UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Oxbow Books Oxbow Books Telephone (01865) 241249 Telephone (610) 853-9131, Fax (610) 853-9146 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] www.oxbowbooks.com www.casemateacademic.com/oxbow Oxbow Books is part of the Casemate Group Front cover: top: Landscape near Qau; bottom: relief in tomb of Djefadjed; both: © Meretsegerbooks. Back cover: left: decorated Naqada sherd, found at Hemamieh (UC 10361). right: Crucible, tomb 4964 (UC 18146); both: author.

For my mother Gisela (1937–2016)

Contents List of figures and tables�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������vii Chronological chart����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������x Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 1. Setting and History of Research in Wadjet Province���������������������������������������������� 29 Archaeology�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 34 History of research�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 34 Economy�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 Towns in the Tenth Upper Egyptian province��������������������������������������������������������� 40 Deities������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 43 2.

The Predynastic and Early Dynastic Period�������������������������������������������������������������� 51 The Predynastic Period������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 51 The Badarian Period����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 52 The Naqada Period�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 59 The Early Dynastic Period�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 69 The Wadjet province in Early Dynastic Egypt���������������������������������������������������������� 73

3.

Old Kingdom I���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 85 The archaeological record from cemeteries������������������������������������������������������������� 85 Pyramid building����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 89 Burials of the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties��������������������������������������������������������������� 107 Old Kingdom settlements������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 113 The Old Kingdom state: summary���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 115

4. Old Kingdom II, the First Intermediate Period, and the Early Middle Kingdom���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 125 End of the Old Kingdom: the archaeology of the period�������������������������������������� 125 Part I: the archaeological record������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 125 Part II: the written records, history and social relations������������������������������������� 151 Society and political history of the late Old Kingdom to the beginning of the Middle Kingdom��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 155

vi

Contents

5. The Middle Kingdom�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 165 Building a new state in the early Middle Kingdom����������������������������������������������� 167 The late Middle Kingdom������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 180 Evidence from stelae��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 187 Middle Kingdom settlements������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 194 Society in the Middle Kingdom�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 198 6.

The End of the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period������������� 215 Examples of burials����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 219 Historical overview of the period����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 222 Settlements of the period������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 224 The society of the Second Intermediate Period����������������������������������������������������225

Concluding remarks����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 231 Appendix: List of people from the Wadjet province����������������������������������������������������� 237 Abbreviations and bibliography��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 247 Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 274

List of figures and tables Figures from Brunton (1927; 1928; 1930) or Brunton and Thompson (1928) if not otherwise stated in caption Fig. 1 Map of Egypt Fig. 2 The Wadjet province Fig. 3 Map of Qau Fig. 4 The cemeteries at Badari Fig. 5 Meat preparation in the tomb of Kakhenet Fig. 6 Badarian sites Fig. 7 Examples of Badarian pottery Fig. 8 Badarian vessel, tomb 5388, c. 21.5 cm wide (UC 9404) Fig. 9 Badarian vessel, tomb 5112, c. 10 cm high (UC 9045) Fig. 10 a) Bone spoon as part of cosmetic set, tomb 550 (UC 17791); b) Ivory bracelet, Badarian Period, from tomb 5128 (UC 9148A) Fig. 11 Examples of Badarian spoons and cosmetic palettes Fig. 12 Badarian figures of naked women Fig. 13 Examples of vessels found in burials with just one pot Fig. 14 Pottery and burial Fig. 15 Tasian vessel from grave 569 at Qau (British Museum EA 59728) Fig. 16 Naqada Period: decorated ware Fig. 17 Early Naqada Period vessel with painted decoration, tomb 120 (UC 9524) Fig. 18 Naqada Period, decorated vessel, from a hole/deposit (UC 9544) Fig. 19 Cosmetic palettes of the Naqada Period Fig. 20 Naqada Cosmetic palette, tomb 1742 (UC 9510) Fig. 21 Ivory wand, early Naqada Period from tomb 1787 (UC 26517) Fig. 22 Comb, early Naqada Period, Tomb 1670 (UC 9581) Fig. 23 Beads from tomb 1742, late Naqada Period (UC 27372) Fig. 24 Pottery from burial 223 Fig. 25 Pottery from burial 212 Fig. 26 Vessel from burial 215 Fig. 27 Naqada period, Bird-headed bone (?) pin, from grave 1670 (UC 9580) (author) Fig. 28 Objects from tomb 429 Fig. 29 Pottery from burial 1699 Fig. 30 Fragment of stone vessel with Horus name of king Hetepsekhemui (tomb 3112) Fig. 31 Early Dynastic mastabas

viii Fig. 32 Fig. 33 Fig. 34 Fig. 35 Fig. 36 Fig. 37 Fig. 38 Fig. 39 Fig. 40 Fig. 41 Fig. 42 Fig. 43 Fig. 44 Fig. 45 Fig. 46 Fig. 47 Fig. 48 Fig. 49 Fig. 50 Fig. 51 Fig. 52 Fig. 53 Fig. 54 Fig. 55 Fig. 56 Fig. 57 Fig. 58 Fig. 59 Fig. 60 Fig. 61 Fig. 62 Fig. 63 Fig. 64 Fig. 65 Fig. 66 Fig. 67 Fig. 68

List of figures and tables Pot burial 406: the vessels used as container for the deceased body Vessels from 507 Workmen barracks at Giza Relief from mastaba of Nisutnefer at Giza. Over the head of Nisutnefer are shown his titles Plan of rock cut tomb A2. The tomb is cut as a mastaba into the rocks False door in tomb of Kakhenet Depictions of domains in tomb of Kakhenet Iufi, wife of Kakhenet in boat; tomb of Kakhenet Vessels from 1114 Vessel from tomb 5524 Burial 5531 Old Kingdom vessel made of marl clay, tomb 1163 (UC 17672) Old Kingdom vessel, just 7.5 cm high, Nile clay; tomb 1089 (UC 17666) Old Kingdom vessel from grave 7351 (UC 17692) Some objects found in burials of Old Kingdom II Objects from graves in cemetery 3200 Objects from burial 3217 Amulets and pot from 3195 Vessels of type 63 Cemetery 3100 to 3200 Crucible, tomb 4964, about 12.5 cm high (UC 18146) Bronze mirror from tomb 4903, First Intermediate Period (UC 18024) Leg amulets from tomb 3147 Three simple burials from main cemetery at Qau Burial 7551, the tomb card drawing Burial 7949 Burial 7504. A further example of a rather simple burial Burial 7785 An example of a rather simple burial with many personal adornments Beads and copper vulture, end of Old Kingdom, from tomb 685 (UC 20383) Seal with figure of frog, from tomb 3748 (UC18917) Shells and Carnelian leg amulets, most likely worn as anklets; tomb 2090 (UC 20410B+C) Carnelian hand amulet, tomb 1975 (UC20521D) Eye amulet, carnelian from tomb 7835 (UC 17778) Amulet in shape of face, from tomb 451 (UC 20384) Small alabaster vessel from tomb 401 (UC 17746) Small alabaster vessel from tomb 550, Late Old Kingdom (UC 17790) Burial 7695

List of figures and tables

ix

Fig. 69 Objects from burial 301 Fig. 70 Plan of the temple found at Badari Fig. 71 Small selection of objects found in late First Intermediate Period and early Middle Kingdom burials at Qau and Badari Fig. 72 Examples of Middle Kingdom pottery Fig. 73 Examples of scarabs found in Middle Kingdom burials Fig. 74 Reconstruction of burial 315. The only burial goods are a vessel and the remains of a painted coffin Fig. 75 Tomb of Wahka I Fig. 76 Painting from tomb of Wahka II Fig. 77 Painting from tomb of Wahka II Fig. 78 Two examples of smaller rock cut tombs, perhaps belonging to officials working for the local governors Fig. 79 Stela in Leipzig inv. no 5128 Fig. 80 Stela with people from Qau, found at Abydos Fig. 81 The family of Wahkaemweskhet Fig. 82 Pan grave pottery, a silver ring and clay figurine Fig. 83 Middle Kingdom settlement at Ezbet Rushdi Fig. 84 House on Elephantine Fig. 85 Burial 7430 Fig. 86 Hair pin from tomb 7430, Second Intermediate Period (UC 26040) Fig. 87 Pottery from two Second Intermediate Period burials: Burial 3918 and 7123 Fig. 88 Scarab, Second Intermediate Period, from tomb 7157 (UC 26031) Fig. 89 Tomb 7578 Fig. 90 Pottery from tomb 7578 Fig. 91 Scarab designs Fig. 92 Second Intermediate Period vessel with incised decoration, tomb 7578 (UC 18789) Fig. 93 Two scarabs from tomb 7578, Second Intermediate Period (UC 26052) Fig. 94 Late Middle Kingdom kohl pot found in Second Intermediate Period grave (3921) (UC 26021) Fig. 95 Two bone flies, Second Intermediate Period, tomb 7196 (UC 26032) Fig. 96 Pan grave vessel from tomb 1989 (UC 17889), Old Kingdom

Tables Table 1. Undisturbed Middle Kingdom tombs Table 2. List of the undisturbed burials of the Second Intermediate Period at Qau and Badari

Chronological chart Date BC 4400–4000 4000–3000 3000–2800

Period/phase Badarian Naqada I–Naqada II State formation

2800–2400

Old Kingdom I

2400–2200

Old Kingdom II

2200–1900

First Intermediate Period and early Middle Kingdom Middle Kingdom

1900–1700 1700–1550

Second Intermediate Period

Cemeteries Mainly at Badari All over the region Few burials all over the region

remarks

Well-preserved rock cut tombs at Hemamieh; burials often poorly equipped

All over province, concentration around Qau All over province, Burials often very well equipped concentration around Qau (jewellery, pottery) Few burials throughout province, but mainly at Qau Few burials throughout province but mainly around Qau

Monumental tombs of local governors at Qau Appearance of pan grave burials Pan graves still appear

Introduction This book offers an attempt at a ‘history from below’ for one Ancient Egyptian province. For this type of history writing, the province named Wadjet (‘Cobra’), just south of Asyut in Upper Egypt, is certainly one of the best sources in Egypt. The region was never of central importance in Egyptian history.1 However, between 1922 and 1925 about 5000 burials were excavated in the province, and a high proportion of these most likely belong to the farmers of the region. It is therefore one of the best documented areas in the archaeology of Egypt. These graves provide an excellent starting point on the ground, with their rich information on the material culture of the people and on their burial customs. A high percentage of the graves found are simple surface burials, most likely belonging to the wider population, underlining the impression that these burials belong to rather poor people and not to the local ruling classes. The Wadjet province has not yielded much inscribed material from the Old and Middle Kingdoms, the first two ‘classical’ periods of Egyptian history, but the few inscriptions include enough evidence to show that most of the institutions known from other sources at other places were also part of the administration and social structure in this province. I will therefore often refer to written sources found outside the province to explain the situation in the Wadjet province, as we can expect that certain patterns were true for many parts of the country. The same approach will be applied to the rest of the archaeological evidence. The province is rich in archaeological sites but not everything is attested here. For example, not one single house of the Old or Middle Kingdom has been excavated in the province. To provide a picture of how houses might have looked, other places need to be consulted. This survey of the Wadjet province will cover the periods from the Badarian (after 4500 BC) up to the end of the Second Intermediate Period (1500 BC). In writing a ‘history from below’ I will try to take the view of the working population and not that of the ruling class. Evidently this is not easy as most written monuments belong to the ruling class and the common people have left no written ‘voice’. They thus have to ‘speak’ through their artefacts and sometimes even through an absence of artefacts, when that might indicate greater poverty. Another problem is how to refer to these people. Often I will call them the ‘wider population’ (as opposed to the ruling class) or the ‘working population’, though this is a very broad term; local governers also ‘worked’. I will avoid the term ‘lower class’ as ‘low’ has judgmental (negative) overtones, placing these people beneath the ‘upper classes’. The latter will therefore be most often labelled ‘ruling classes’. We currrently lack sources for a proper understanding of the class relations of these people; most importantly, it is rarely known who owned the means of production or who owned land.

2

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Ancient pharaonic Egypt is a popular subject not only in research but also for the layman. In very general terms there are two diametrically opposed trends in modern views on ancient Egypt. One sees the ancient civilisation regarded as a positive example, in extreme cases as some sort of ‘lost paradise’.2 The beauty of Egyptian art and the sometimes mysterious histories of kings and queens have inspired the imaginations of many people. The opposing view treats Egypt as a ‘bad’ state, the main example of an evil slave-holding society, perhaps most clearly expressed in the Hollywood movie The Ten Commandments (1956) where the opening scene shows slaves dragging huge stones. The film might be seen as an example of Cold War anti-Communist propaganda. On one side are the Egyptians, shown as slave holders, on the other the Jews, who are depicted as slaves building temples and palaces for the Egyptians. The Ancient Egyptians are the oppressive Soviets, while the enslaved Jews are the freedom-loving US-Americans.3 In 1950s academic research, the same image of ancient Egypt appears in the work of Karl Wittfogel, who describes Ancient Egypt as one main example of ‘oriental despotism’.4 This theory fits into the climate of Cold War writing, where Western writers saw the Soviet Union as a typical example of oriental despotism.5 The motif itself is much older. The ancient Greeks saw themselves as the only free people, while others (Persians) lived in slavery under a tyrant.6 Ironically, the Greek economy was mainly based on slave labour. Evidently, writing a history from below carries a great danger of confirming some negative clichés about ancient Egypt. A conventional history based on kings and queens is more likely to avoid darker aspects, especially in the relations between the ruling classes and the working population. A history of the working population will often also be a history of exploitation and oppression. This is as true for the history of any modern state as it is for the history of an ancient state. Therefore, it should be clearly stated that exploitation and oppression of the wider population are features of most ancient, medieval, and modern societies. Stratified societies with a wealthy ruling class and a poor working class living at the edge of sustenance are typical of almost all pre-industrial societies and are still common in many countries today.7 It should also be remembered that the wealth of most First World nations is built on the exploitation of poorer nations.8 Ancient Egypt is no exception and certainly not worse than many others.

Histories from below in Egyptology The task of writing a history from below for Ancient Egypt is also complicated by the dearth of previous studies of this kind. ‘Conventional’ histories of Ancient Egypt with the king at the centre of attention have a long tradition. With few exceptions they represent the same general data in different prose. The family relations of kings, their deeds, and their building programmes cover a high percentage of recent discussions of Ancient Egyptian history.9 This is certainly heavily influenced by the Egyptian sources, whose centre was undeniably the king. The Egyptian year dating is based on the king.

Introduction

3

With the accession of each king, a new counting of years started. It therefore seems almost impossible to avoid naming kings in writing a history, the kings’ reigns being the backbone of Egyptian chronology. All Egyptian annals so far known are arranged around the Egyptian king and his relation to the gods. Even the newly found fragment of temple annals from Heliopolis has the king very much at the centre of attention.10 Annals of kingship were not the only ancient genre of recording. In one tomb at Meir the wall-decoration includes a list of local governors covering several centuries.11 The list seems to attest other, non-royal, records for officials and not only for the king. More such lists of officials are preserved from the Third Intermediate Period. However, these records of governors and officials are in no sense ‘histories from below’ from ancient Egypt. They still present a view from the ruling class. In 1974, Robert Merrillees described in detail a New Kingdom tomb found at Sedment. He called the people buried there ‘middle class’. At the beginning of the chapter on this tomb he also noticed the obsession of Egyptologists with all that is ‘royal’ and with treasures, asking whether the finds of the ‘less exalted in affluence and rank’ are not ‘rewarding in their own right’.12 Comments like these are rare in Egyptology but do appear. There are indeed some studies that can be classified as ‘history from below’, though they are most often not labelled as such. Foremost among these are studies on groups of people that do not belong to the ruling classes. One of the earlier examples includes the monograph on slavery by Abd el-Mohsen Bakir that appeared in 1952.13 The Russian Egyptologist Oleg Berlev devoted two books to the working population of Middle Kingdom Egypt and supplied an explanation for several terms often translated as ‘serfs’, ‘servants’ or even ‘slaves’.14 Two of these terms (bak and hem) were recently subject to a detailed study by Tobias Hofmann, covering the Old to the end of the New Kingdom. Hofmann came to different conclusions than those of Berlev (see below).15 Among other important studies in recent decades, Juan Carlos Moreno García has written several articles and a monograph on rural society, mainly of Old Kingdom Egypt, using mostly written sources, but also including sociological models and comparative comments in relation to other societies.16 Christopher Eyre has also produced articles aimed at a more detailed understanding of the Egyptian economy and the Egyptian countryside, focussing on Egyptian villages.17 A special focus of research in recent years has been the role of foreign populations in Ancient Egypt. The foreigners certainly included a high number of people not belonging to the ruling class. The popularity of these studies is doubtless influenced by changes in the modern world, where immigration has become a big challenge for many ­societies in recent decades.18 Thomas Schneider provided a more philological view on foreigners in the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period. He lists all the written evidence known to him and then analyses the titles of foreigners and evaluates their position in society.19 In her book on the rise of the Hyksos, Anna-Latifa Mourad combines archaeology and textual evidence. A high percentage of people she covers are again people not belonging to the ruling class.20 Phyllis Saretta in a more general study also covered the Asiatics in the Middle Kingdom. She looks at the archaeology,

4

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

but also at written sources, again including many people certainly coming from the wider population.21 The research on Asiatic people in Egypt is often mainly based on texts, although the excavations at Tell el-Dab‛a (Eastern Delta) have supplied a wealth of finds of their material culture. The studies on Nubians often include much more archaeological material. The studies of Schneider, mentioned above, evidently also included Nubian people. Georg Meurer summarised the sources for Nubians in Middle Kingdom Egypt, using texts but also archaeological evidence.22 Indeed, many of the Nubians most likely belonged to the working population; few are attested in higher positions.23 Finally, most studies on prehistory are focused on the wider population because these societies were less stratified. There is no doubt that most of the simple burials of the Badarian and Naqada periods belong to the farming or even nomadic population of Egypt.24 For periods with writing and increased social stratification, the focus of researchers moves to the ruling class. Nevertheless, here there are exceptions. Stephan Seidlmayer analysed in one monograph the pottery sequence and funerary culture all over Egypt from the end of the Old Kingdom to the middle of the Twelfth Dynasty. His focus is on local cemeteries, and his observations add many valuable insights into the lives and burials of the poorer people in this period.25 Perhaps comparable in a wider way is a book published in 2012 on the people in the Eastern deserts.26 The people living there were mainly nomads, not belonging to the ruling class. Although these nomads perhaps also had ‘leaders’ (a ruling class), these are not always clearly visible in the sources. Most essays in the volume cover archaeological fieldwork. All the studies mentioned above focus on certain groups of people, on certain regions or on certain time periods. Histories that try to provide a wider picture are rare. Barry Kemp offered a broader view on Ancient Egypt from the Early Dynastic to the Late Period and discussed many issues relating to the working population and how the country was organised. He sees a progress in the development from the Old Kingdom to the New Kingdom. The Old Kingdom was the ‘provider state’ which cared about the people, while the Middle Kingdom was a highly restrictive society where everything from the bottom to the top was organised by the state, leaving little personal freedom for individuals. The New Kingdom is the ‘mature state’ with the first signs of a market economy.27 An example of Soviet history writing available in English is a volume edited by Igor M. Diakonoff called Early Antiquity. The essays there have a more Marxist approach, focusing not so much on the king but on developments in society in general.28 So far as I can see, this last volume did not have much impact in Egyptology and is rarely cited. A last example of a history from below should be mentioned. It is Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, edited by Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw and published in 2000. Most, even Egyptologists, might find it strange to call this collection of essays a ‘history’. However, the articles there describe the technologies and their developments over time and therefore the daily tasks of Egyptian farmers and most craftsmen.

Introduction

5

The articles therefore cover the major part of the lives of these people and provide a perfect introduction to the ‘base’ of Egyptian society.

Egyptology and Egyptologists Egyptologists are part of the society in which they live, and are therefore heavily influenced in their ideology by their time and place.29 The English philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) stated: ‘You must admit that the genesis of a great man depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and the social state into which that race has slowly grown. . . . Before he can remake his society, his society must make him.’30 Therefore, the danger of reproducing one’s own world view is extremely high in any history writing, and perhaps even more dangerous when writing on society. Three examples from Egyptology might clarify this point. The Russian Egyptologist Oleg Berlev lived and worked in Soviet Russia and devoted two books to Middle Kingdom society, especially its working population. He discusses the terms ‘bak’ and ‘hemniswt’, often translated as ‘slave’, ‘servant’, ‘king’s servant’ or ‘king’s slave’. Putting all the evidence together, Berlev comes to the conclusion that these Egyptian words each reflect a different status within the working population. For him, large parts of the Egyptian working population were serfs under state and under private control. The ‘bak’31 people he regarded as serfs in a private household, the ‘hem-niswt’ as serfs belonging to the state or king, although they could also work on the estates of officials.32 It is hard to avoid the impression that these interpretations reflect the experience of Russia under the Tsars.33 Especially under the Tsars a significant percentage of the Russian population lived as serfs. Tobias Hofmann devoted his research34 to the same people but came to a quite different conclusion. Hofmann comes from Switzerland (or at least wrote his PhD there) and has a much more positive view on the people he discussed. He sees the ‘bak’ people as servants (not as privately ‘owned’ serfs, as Berlev does).35 The ‘hem’ people are just those working for higher officials, often as seasonal harvest labourer (Erntehelfer).36 The comparison with Berlev almost forces the modern reader to believe that the more favourable living conditions in a country that had the image of being free and wealthy influenced Hofmann’s conclusions, especially his quite positive view of the ‘bak’ people. A third example is Barry Kemp who takes a more archaeological approach to the problem of the organisation of Egyptian society. Kemp sees the Middle Kingdom as a ‘prescriptive society’. One argument for this is the strict town planning of the period, with towns in ‘grid-iron or orthogonal layout’ seen as an indication of a restricted society while Kemp prefers the ‘organic’ models of town planning.37 However, a planned, orthogonal city is not an indication of a ‘prescriptive society’. The Kemp interpretation basically follows a long-standing attitude in parts of the English-speaking world where ‘cities’ in general are seen as rather negative, and where the smaller garden city is seen as ideal.38 Yet ancient Greek towns and cities are also planned on an orthogonal pattern and Ancient

6

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Greece was not a ‘prescriptive society’, at least not in ancient and modern reception.39 In Greece this type of layout was attributed to Hippodamus of Miletus and explicitly connected with democracy.40 However, an Athenian woman or slave might have held a different view (a fact all too often ignored by many modern writers praising the ‘birth of freedom’).41

Social background of Egyptologists The work of Egyptologists, as of others, is liable to be heavily influenced by their cultural and evidently also by their social background. Moreno García showed to what extent some analysis of the social background of Egyptologists seems especially vital in a book where social relations play an important part. In general, interest in the working population of Ancient Egypt is limited among Egyptologists.42 The excavation of poorly equipped tombs and houses of the working population may not have been attractive for many Egyptologists; art works are not to be expected in these contexts, and this factor may be decisive in relation to the funding of excavations and their publicity. Spectacular finds are more attractive and will heavily influence the decisions of sponsors to fund a next excavation season.43 A high percentage of Egyptologists come from a middle- or even upper-class background. This is constantly reflected in their writing and world views, as will be shown below. Examples of working-class Egyptologists are few or even non-existent. However, this comes as no great surprise as the Arts and Humanities are almost automatically subjects reserved for children from well-do-to backgrounds.44 The main countries for studying Egyptology, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, also belong to those Western countries with the lowest social mobility, with Germany and France doing only slightly better in this respect. In general, these are all countries where it is hard to move from a working-class background to a position in the ruling class at the other end of the social ladder.45 In the following short statistics are collected data on 200 Egyptologists who were born after 1800 and died before 2011. The information is collected from Bierbrier, Who was Who in Egyptology. For most Egyptologists the profession or social background of their parents is not given in the book. If it is, only details of the father are provided (with very few exceptions). The statistic is therefore far from complete and can only be seen as a snapshot. However, the result is clear, and not a big surprise.46 Twenty Egyptologists have a father who also comes from an academic background. Thirtytwo Egyptologists have a father who was a merchant or otherwise from the world of business, ten a civil servant and 15 a lawyer or other legal professions (solicitor or barrister); 18 a pastor or clergyman and 14 teachers or schoolmasters. With the exception of the merchants and perhaps the civil servants, these are also professions with a university background. All these people could be placed into the middle or even upper class. There are only very few exceptions. One father was a local boatman47 and there are two farmers: the father of Ahmad Mohamed Badawi48 and the father of George Robert Hughes.49 However it is hard in this context to pinpoint a social class

Introduction

7

or status for these farmers and the boatman. The farmers could be rich landowners or poor peasants. Indeed at least once the father of a German Egyptologist, Hans Schack-Schackenburg, is described as a ‘large landowner’.50 The only biography that really does not fit into a group of well-to-do middle- and upper-class upbringings is that of the Norwegian Egyptologist Jens Daniel Carolus Lieblein (1827–1911), who became an orphan at 11 and worked in his early twenties as a labourer in a sawmill.51 academic 20 architect/engineer 13 artist 4 civil servant 10 doctor 6 farmer 2 lawyer 15 librarian 2 merchant 32 military 8 pastor and other religious professions 18 publishing sector 4 ship captain/boatman 2 teacher/schoolmaster 14 As the cultural background of people influences their thinking, that same is also certainly true for the social milieu.52 The social environment of Egyptologists is therefore reflected in their work and in their view on the ancient Egyptians. The examples are numerous where the surroundings and world view of the writer is seen as ‘normal’, with little reflection that people from a different background, culturally or socially, might have entirely different approaches. One revealing case is the discussion of ancient Egyptian schools and education. Here modern middle- and upper-class views are strongly visible. More than once it has been argued that all young Egyptians and their parents must have aimed for their young boys to become ‘scribes’, as that would lead to a higher position and a better life.53 This is a very middle-class idea, projecting middle-class life onto the working population. It might be true that most ruling-class children in ancient Egypt aimed to become ‘scribes’ or officials in the administration. These are the professions young boys observed in their social environment. Their fathers, grandfathers and uncles had these positions and these people were their role models. The children of Egyptian farmers and ­workmen were however surrounded by farmers and craftsmen. Evidently these people and their professions would have been seen as desirable within their own context. In other words, the children of farmers most likely had other role models. It was not likely to be the ‘scribe’. These different role models for working-class children are clearly documented in modern societies where classical middle-class professions are not the aim for ­working-class children.54 They want to

8

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

become footballers or car mechanics. Many more cases of Egyptologists not familiar with working class life could be added. Beside these there are other cases where people of the working class receive negative attributes, often expressed through the subtle use of adjectives. In contrast to this, the oligarchs and ruling classes often receive positive attributes. The good and bad stereotype describing people might already be visible when using the ‘class’ model to describe Egyptian society. The ruling class is called ‘upper class’, the working population is the ‘lower class’. The difference upper/lower as reference for good/ bad might be subtle and most likely not intentional, but it certainly exists.55 Often members of the ruling class are also called ‘nobles’, even though no formal nobility existed in Ancient Egypt.56 Terming an official noble is therefore most likely an act showing these people in the most positive light. One other striking example is the modern and Ancient Egyptian farmer. In more popular Egyptological works it is quite often noted that their life did not change very much over thousands of years. While the underlying motif might be rather romantic, in practical terms they are represented as people with little individuality. They are always seen as part of a group or crowd that did not develop over 3000 years.57 This view of the Egyptian farmer might also be simply racist and not merely socially grounded. In the nineteenth century in particular, ‘primitive’ societies were regarded as unable to develop.58 Another case is a glass fish found in a simple house at Amarna. The find spot in a poor house and the high value of the object did not fit the expectations of some researchers and was therefore interpreted as part of a robbery cache. Poor people owning valuable objects are evidently robbers. Shortland, however, interpreted the place as a cache for a glassworker.59 Further examples of dividing Egyptian society into the good ruling class and the bad working class are numerous. Walther Wolf (1900–1973), for example, describes the statues of craftsmen found in several Old Kingdom tombs. He noticed that they are often of lower quality in comparison to those of the tomb owners and remarks that these people were, in comparison to the aristocratic tomb owners, ‘ungeschlachtete, plumpe und rohe Gesellen’ (‘cloddish, clumsy and raw fellows’).60 In the statue of the lady Senuy, wife of the Middle Kingdom local governor Hapydjefau (I) from Asyut, he sees noble humanity combined with natural dignity (adliges Menschentum, natürliche Würde).61 In a similar way, the famous medical anthropologist Felix von Luschan (1854–1924) argues that a Middle Kingdom skull of a woman from Abusir is of a noble form. That indicates that this woman must belong to the higher levels of society.62 Now both men were active at the beginning and in the middle of the twentieth century, and one might argue that they were influenced by the Nazi politics of Germany. This is well known for Walther Wolf who was a supporter of the German Nazi Party,63 but Felix von Luschan was opposed to any racist ideas and always stressed that all human races are equal.64 However, these two examples of describing members of the ruling class as ‘noble’, and in the case of Wolf those of the working population as clumsy,

Introduction

9

are not alone and there are more recent examples of describing people of different social classes in this way. In another case it had been observed that the language in the captions for working people in tomb scenes is not vulgar or obscene, although that is regarded as typical of the language of workers, implying that ‘bad’ language seems to be reserved for the working population.65 In other contexts working class people are regarded as not able to be well organised.66 In more recent times foreigners and humble people coming to power are blamed for the end of the Middle Kingdom.’67 The latter motif, blaming poor people for the end of an era, has a long tradition in Egyptology.68

‘Reflections of the modern world within Egyptology’ In general it is quite clear that Egyptologists (and archaeologists more broadly) most often follow the ruling ideology and are therefore part of the ideological support of the ruling classes. The ideas of the ruling class are, in any age, the ruling ideas.69 At the time of writing, neoliberalism is the dominant agenda in politics and economics in most countries around the world. It is often condemned, but many of the underlying ideas heavily influence modern thinking about the world. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Socialist Bloc, state-guided economies are no longer seen as workable models. Research publications on Ancient Egyptian society often reflect this current world view to an astonishing degree. Neoliberalism is the belief in the forces of the market with little intervention of the state into the affairs of the people.70 The freedom of the individual is at the centre of this ideology. Everybody is responsible for his luck in life. Being rich or poor is very much a matter of your own abilities. As a consequence, being poor is evidently seen as your own fault. In this context, gender and race equality are seen as important too. It is certainly no surprise that this dominant ideology also has a major influence on what academics write in history, and specifically in this case on ancient Egypt. The ruling ideology certainly does not stop at the university. Indeed, the university clearly not only has the function of providing education for the children of the current ruling class, it also has the function of providing an ideological foundation for the society and its ruling class.71 Different ideologies are certainly discussed in universities, but with the underlying agreement that the main ideology in a given ideological system is the ‘right’ one. Evidently there are always scholars arguing against the main ideology. In dictatorships these scholars have little chance to ‘survive’. In the former Soviet Bloc there was a phenomenon labelled in German ­Vorwort-Marxismus (‘preface Marxism’). The relevant works are ­basically conservative pieces of research, the reference to Marxism appearing only in the preface or ­summary.72 In theory, ideas opposing the main ideology of a system should not have any problem at Western universities. The self-image of most Western universities is that of places of research and institutions where it is permitted to discuss all points of view. However, even in modern history there are enough examples of how people with the ‘wrong’ ideology got into trouble and were prosecuted by the state. An extreme example documenting

10

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

this point is the Marxist historian Ernest Mandel whose appointment to become professor was blocked for ‘political economy’ in ­Berlin.73 Similar cases are described by Thomas Patterson for the US where in the 1950s it was almost impossible for somebody belonging to the political Left to get a job in the academic world.74 The idea that Western universities are ‘free’ is evidently a myth.75 Not surprisingly, in the context of the rise of neoliberal ideas, recent decades have brought an array of studies stressing that ancient Egypt had an economic independent middle class. The spirit of free enterprise is heavily supported. Egypt becomes almost like an early example of a neoliberal economy. Several studies can be seen in this light, although their intention might be different in detail. Barry Kemp in his Ancient Egypt sees three stages of development from the Old to the New Kingdom. The Old Kingdom is the provider state, where the administration takes care of the people, the Middle Kingdom is described as prescriptive society. The state is seen as the all controlling police state. However, the New Kingdom is the mature state with the birth of the economic man.76 The appearance of a fuller developed market economy is described as the mature phase of Egyptian history. Koenraad Donker Van Heel wrote a study of an Egyptian woman of the Late Period titled Mrs Tsenhor: a female entrepreneur in Ancient Egypt.77 Already the title of the work promises that the person presented was a businesswoman, just as today. Leslie Anne Warden (2014), Pottery and Economy in Old Kingdom Egypt, stresses seriously the importance of local and private enterprises and argues against too much involvement of the state in economical affairs. David Warburton sees in Ancient Egypt a form of ‘nascent capitalism’ with an early form of a market economy.78 John Gee argues that Old Kingdom Egypt was a welfare state (following a rather doubtful idea of Barry Kemp) and wonders whether, with the fall of the welfare state at the end of the Old Kingdom, everybody was much better off.79 The welfare state is the arch-enemy of neoliberalism. Miriam Müller sees some ‘private enterprise’ in late Middle Kingdom Egypt as an explanation for the little wealth seen in some houses excavated at Tell el-Dab‛a.80 These books and article are just a few examples, among many others, where it is evident that the modern neoliberal world had a strong impact on how these authors approached Ancient Egypt. The influential work by Lynn Meskell (1999), Archaeologies of Social Life, covers a number of themes which are essential in the neoliberal world, such as individuals, feminism and gender identities. Precisely the use of these topical subjects might explain the popularity of the book at universities. Neoliberal ideas also sometimes slip into discussions; most often it seems that authors are not even fully aware of this. In a recent study it was claimed that ‘Old Kingdom Egypt had only primitive forms of markets and other capitalist features, but they were sufficient to create one of the world’s richest pre-­industrial states’.81 In another instance, the owners of shabtis in the Middle Kingdom are described as the ‘property-owning elite’.82 I assume many readers might have little problem with this statement. Owning property is seen in many countries, such as the United Kingdom or the United States, as an essential part of middle-class life. There are, on the other hand, many modern countries, such as Germany and Switzerland, where even the well-to-do middle class does not see it

Introduction

11

as an important aim in life to own property.83 There is not much evidence that owning property was seen as very important in Ancient Egypt.84 Furthermore, neoliberal ideas are also clearly visible when Egyptian society is seen as one where there was a certain degree of social mobility,85 where even the sons of farmers had chances to go up the social ladder. Such a rise from poor to rich is, however, not securely attested for Ancient Egypt, but remarkably often stressed in modern literature without providing much evidence.86 Indeed it seems that most researchers on a particular society stress the point that ‘their’ society is not static.87 The reality is often very different. It has long been recognised that the United States has quite low social mobility, despite the self image of this country and its ‘emphasis on equality and opportunity’.88 The assumption of high social mobility and the focus on personal ability seem to reflect the life and status of modern academics and writers. One might argue that this is needed to confirm the social status of many modern scholars. Academics in tenured jobs are evidently in a fortunate position and it seems that they are defending themselves for gaining these positions with their special talents. However, they started from an already very privileged position in that they came from fairly well-off backgrounds. In his general autobiographical reflections on modern English attitudes to the working class, Owen Jones describes this type of situation: ‘How comforting to pretend that they landed in Oxford because of their own talents and that those at the bottom of society are there because they are thick, feckless or worse.’89 The special attention given to an Ancient Egyptian ‘middle class’ in Middle Kingdom Egypt has, as already indicated, become increasingly popular in recent decades in Egyptology and is often taken as fact without much discussion.90 The rise of the middle class is also often connected with the appearance of literature in the Middle Kingdom,91 something that is quite unproven and sometimes even backed by misinterpretations of data.92 A study by Janet Richards is the most substantial one on the subject and perhaps the only one trying to give the discussion a firm statistical ground. She tries to identify the ‘middle class’ in burials and argues that there was already in this period some kind of free market where valuable objects and materials were traded.93 In her study she looks at three Middle Kingdom cemeteries: Abydos, Harageh and Riqqeh. Richards seeks to calculate the ancient value of each object found in the burials. The result is a list of the value placed in each burial and a statistic about the distribution of wealth in Middle Kingdom burials. Richard shows clearly that there was indeed quite a wide distribution of wealth in the late Middle Kingdom. From that, she concludes that the Middle Kingdom was not a ‘prescriptive society’, as in such a society one would expect only richly equipped tombs on the one side and very poorly equipped ones on the other. However, there is no general rule saying that in ‘prescriptive societies’ there is no distribution of wealth. Indeed, the list of ‘prescriptive societies’ with a high distribution of wealth is long and includes both modern China94 and Nazi Germany.95 Both countries are or were highly prescriptive in political terms but had

12

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

a free market economy. Her whole approach is most likely conditioned at a deeper level by the Cold War (the original thesis was submitted in 1988, just before the fall of the Soviet Union). The main message seems to be that Middle Kingdom Egypt was similar to the USA or Western Europe, but in no way comparable to the Soviet Union. In this way, Richards’ book represents also a turning point in viewing ancient Egypt: now the ancient ­Egyptians are the good ones (like us) and not the evil ones (like the Soviet Union). A more recent study was undertaken by Leslie Anne Warden.96 She discussed the redistribution system and devoted a whole sub-chapter to arguments against it, again arguing for something close to a ‘free market’. An interesting point in Warden’s book is her use of the words. When discussing the workmen’s settlement at Giza, dating to the Fourth Dynasty, she clearly prefers the term ‘wages’ and states that in the Old Kingdom the term is synonymous with ‘ration’.97 Warden refers to Barry Kemp, who had also discussed these words, ration and wage, in the Old Kingdom.98 He prefers the term ‘ration’ as ‘wage’ might be much too close to our expectation of modern money-based economies. However, one dimension of ration and wage seems to be missing in this discussion. Wage implies payment for work done voluntarily, while a ration can be given to dependent workers, also including slaves. When Warden uses the word ‘wage’, she almost automatically implies voluntary work, but, especially in the case of the workmen at pyramid sites, we have no firm evidence whether this work was voluntary in the Old Kingdom. Indeed, for the Middle Kingdom there is evidence that it was not voluntary (see p. 175). The application of neoliberal ideas to models for Ancient Egyptian society is not new. Related ideas appear already early on, for example when James Breasted, in his book on Egyptian history published in 1909, referred frequently to a ‘middle class’.99 However, in recent years these ideas seem to take over, while other models for ­Egyptian society and economy seem to disappear altogether. Ancient Egypt is now all too often modelled as a predecessor of a modern, liberal society with strong elements of a market economy.

The Asiatic mode of production or tributary mode of production This book will apply a Marxist approach to history writing. Here, the main aim of the state is seen as a machinery to maintain class boundaries. Social relations will be the main focus. A key question in Marxist history writing is the dominant type of ‘mode of production’ in any given period. The mode of production is the economic base and infrastructure of any given society, while the superstructure is the system of beliefs and ideologies that shapes a society. These include religion, the juridical system and the political system. The superstructure depends heavily on the economy, the mode of production. The important question is, who owns the ‘means of production’? Who owns the raw materials, the workshops, the tools? In capitalism, the capitalist owns them. Therefore, capitalists can dictate the conditions of the work and are even able

Introduction

13

to dictate work from the labourers. The output of the work, minus the investments and obligations to the state (for example taxes) will be the profit for the capitalist.100 In societies that are not capitalist, other forces are at work. The category of the Asiatic/tributary mode of production will be used as a rough guideline for the interpretation of Old and Middle Kingdom Egyptian society. In this study the term ‘tributary mode of production’ will be used, mainly because the term ‘Asiatic’ implies a geographical connection. Egypt is part of Africa and so a more neutral term seems preferable. The ancient Nile valley seems a prime example of the tributary mode of production, and one aim of this book is to explore whether and how the archaeological and written evidence helps to illustrate its operation in history. The term ‘Asiatic mode of production’ was introduced by Karl Marx, mainly to explain developments in contemporary India and China in relation to the establishment of colonial British rule.101 The term was not often used in the writings of Marx and Engels.102 In their time, in nineteenth-century Europe, Egypt was still better known from ancient Greek and Roman writers than from its own written sources. Their comments on Ancient Egypt are therefore very general.103 In the posthumously published Grundrisse (‘sketches’ – these were notes collected for writing Kapital) Karl Marx explained the ‘Asiatic mode of production’. Land was owned by the communities, but the king was the main person benefiting from it.104 Marx refers a few times to Ancient Egypt where he sees some kind of despotic monarchy where people were forced to work building the pyramids.105 He does not really explain whether, in his view, the Ancient Egyptian economy was an example of the ‘Asiatic mode of production’. Only in his earlier article ‘The British Rule in India’ (Die britische Herrschaft in Indien) did he connect in passing the ‘Asiatic mode of production’ with Ancient Egypt. In ancient states with the ‘Asiatic mode of production’, he sees just three government departments: the treasury, mainly in charge of exploiting the people within the country; the war department, in charge of exploiting other people; and the department for public labour. The latter was important for maintaining the canals for supplying water for the fields, an important task in many of the countries with the ‘Asiatic mode of production’, as they were close to deserts and relied heavily on a few rivers for water:106 in Egypt the Nile, in Mesopotamia the Tigris and Euphrates, in China the Yangtze, and in India (now Pakistan) the Indus. An important aspect of discussions of the Asiatic mode of production in the development of early despotic states was the irrigation system, not only for Marx but also in discussions in the twentieth century. Several early states, such as Egypt, Mesopotamia, China and the Indus culture, were thought to have needed complex water management. On a large scale, it was assumed, this could only be managed by a well organised state.107 The need for these water management systems would have forced the development of a central government and the development of states. As already mentioned, the application of the Asiatic mode of production never played an important part in research on Ancient Egypt108, not even in the former Soviet bloc. This is in contrast to research on Mesopotamia and the Near East, where

14

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

much more discussion continues.109 Many more economic texts are known from Mesopotamia, providing a much broader base for an economic history. In ‘official’ history writing in the Soviet Union under Stalin, presented in his Dialectical and Historical Materialism in 1938, there were five main types of mode of production and of societies: ‘the primal society’ (‘primitive communism’, Urgesellschaft), ‘slave holder societies’, ‘feudalism’, ‘capitalism’ and ‘socialism’.110 The primal societies are evidently societies before state formation. Classical Greece and the Roman empire were slave holder societies. Ancient Egypt was a primitive form of a slave holder society.111 However, there was some controversy in the former Soviet bloc over what category applied to Ancient Egypt. Was it a slave holder society or does the Marxist term Asiatic mode of production better suit Ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia as model? As indicated, the Asiatic mode of production was not part of the official Marxist ideology under Stalin and was only reintroduced into discussion after his death.112 Indeed, the discussion became, in the years of the Cold War, of some importance for ideological reasons, as the concept of an Asiatic mode of production was also used to attack the political and economical system of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was identified as a prime example of this mode of production.113 The debate even had some influence on writing in West German Egyptology and beyond (see below). However, in general theoretical concepts of economy and state building never played a big part in western Egyptology. The discussion was here seen as minor or was most often not recognized. Meanwhile, in East Germany the terms Asiatic Mode of Production and slave holder society were avoided and the term Ancient oriental class society (Altorientalische Klassengesellschaft) was used.114 While the Asiatic mode of production was not much discussed under Stalin, several studies appeared after his death.115 In 1957 the German scholar Elisabeth Charlotte Welskopf published a study on ancient societies, using primarily quotations from Marx and Engels.116 One aim of her study was to show that there were in ancient times two modes of production. According to her, the ancient Greeks and Romans were slave holder societies. The earlier civilisations were instead ‘despotic’ and their political and economic system was the ‘Asiatic mode of production’.117 The main unit of the society and production is the family.118 Most property is still communal. The main production is still agriculture, but there is also manufacturing. The small communities are basically self sufficient.119 The surplus of the agricultural production is given to a despot.120 Slavery is not yet fully developed, and the few slaves are ‘domestic slaves’. They are helpers in the house and on the fields and almost part of the family.121 There is no clear division between town and country. The remarkable point of her approach is that she used the Asiatic mode of production to describe the societies of the Ancient Orient. As mentioned before, in the former Soviet bloc Ancient Egypt was regarded as an early form of a slave holder society. Welskopf felt that Ancient Egypt and ­Mesopotamia were so different from Ancient Greece and Rome that something entirely different was in operation here.122 Therefore she moved away from the official history writing of the Soviet bloc. Outside the Soviet bloc, however, her work was not often used. It remains

Introduction

15

uncertain how much she was influenced by others. Wittfogel had already published several articles on the Asiatic mode of production in the 1920s, but it is uncertain whether she used his writings.123 There were other discussions about the Asiatic mode of production at about the same time, but the term was most often used to describe the situation in China.124 Certainly, the most controversial contribution to the subject of the Asiatic mode of production is Wittfogel’s Oriental Despotism of 1957.125 The work appeared in the same year as that of Welskopf, but had much wider impact in the West as it was also an attack on the political system of the Soviet Union. Wittfogel developed the idea of the Asiatic mode of production further, referring to it as ‘oriental despotism’. According to Wittfogel, there was an absolute ruler at the top of the state. The maintenance of the irrigation system was crucial, so he labelled the states he was describing as hydraulic societies, with a well organised administration mainly concerned with collecting tributes/revenues from the farmers. Wittfogel wrote in the time of the Cold War and used the term oriental despotism in part to describe and attack Stalinism. This is a point that is clearly expressed in the introduction and at the end of his book.126 In the discussion of the Asiatic mode of production, the introduction and development of irrigation systems was essential for the development of these early states. John A. Wilson argued against this as early as 1960, seeing not much evidence for state organised irrigation projects in the Old Kingdom.127 Karl Butzer (1976) also argued against the idea that an irrigation system was essential for developing the Egyptian state in his work on the ‘hydraulic civilisation of Ancient Egypt’. Butzer comes to the stark conclusion that there was no need for a strong central government to organise irrigation.128 Samir Amin in 1976 also discusses different modes of productions. He maintains the importance of irrigation. He criticises Marxists for not updating the knowledge on the Asiatic mode of production as, since the time of Karl Marx, extensive new data had appeared. He developed the model of the tribute-paying form. According to Amin, the river plays a major role in the development of a state in Egypt, as in Mesopotamia, India and China. The need to organise the work for irrigation was a big stimulus, and from it a class of bureaucrats developed.129 They organised the country, often to the benefit of the peasants. He distinguishes five modes of production. The earliest is the ‘primitive-communal’ mode (1). This is followed by the ‘tribute paying’ mode (2), which he sees as the most common in pre-capitalist societies. Here he distinguishes an early and a developed form, the latter being the ‘feudal’ mode of production. The classes in the ‘tribute-paying’ mode of production are the peasants and the state-class. The latter do not own the soil, which still belongs to the communities, while the feudal lords own it. In both systems the state classes plan the production, and this is the way they take control.130 In the ‘feudal’ mode of production, the villages are no longer in full control of the soil. Instead the feudal lords have have acquired the ownership of the land. The ‘slave-owning’ mode of production (3) is less common but appears in several places. The ‘simple petty-commodity’ mode of production (4) appears in some places but is never the dominant mode. Finally

16

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

there is the ‘capitalist’ mode of production (5).131 Ancient Egypt was, according to Amin, a society with the ‘tribute-paying’ mode of production. He rejects the term ‘Asiatic’ mode of production as it existed in four continents (Asia, Africa, Europe and America), so the term ‘Asiatic’ is misleading.132 Although Amin does not refer to the prehistory of Egypt it can be assumed that predynastic Egypt, before the development of kingdoms (perhaps in Naqada II), had the ‘primitive-communal’ mode of production. Within Egyptian archaeology, Lech Krzyzaniak in 1977, just one year after Amim, saw the rise of Naqada II as connected with the introduction of irrigation in Egypt.133 In 1978 Wolfgang Schenkel investigated in detail the evidence for irrigation in the Old Kingdom and came to a negative conclusion. Before the Middle Kingdom there is almost no evidence for large-scale state-led irrigation programmes. Schenkel explicitly refers to the Asiatic mode of production,134 and one aim of his book was clearly to disprove this theory. He therefore tried to end the discussion of irrigation for Ancient Egypt. There is still much criticism of the model of the Asiatic mode of production, notably by Jairus Banaji. He discusses several points and provides many examples across Asian countries, especially India and China, where Karl Marx was simply wrong, mostly due to the bad information he had.135 Banaji does not refute the concept totally, however, but prefers the label ‘tributary mode of production’, a model already proposed by others, including Amin (mentioned above). The main features here are that the state controls the means of production and the ruling class and the state also have ‘unlimited disposal over the surplus labour of the population’.136 One of the few discussions on the Asiatic mode of production in relation to Ancient Egypt was published in 1973 by Detlef Franke.137 For him, the foundation of the state is the village, where private ownership of land does not yet exist. The main aim of people is to produce as much as is necessary for them to survive. On the other side, there is the king. He owns the country and the people and takes resources from them in form of corvée, and agricultural as well as other products. Therefore, the people of the country have an almost slave-like status.138 The most recent study and summary on the Asiatic mode of production for Ancient Egypt is by Andrea Zingarelli. Her study is of special importance here as she is mainly interested in using the model for Ancient Egypt. The first part of the article is a survey on how other scholars employed the term. She criticised Wittfogel for using the term Asiatic mode of production for a critique of the Soviet system and therefore misusing the term for political reasons.139 She also refers to Hindess and Hirst140 who argue that the Asiatic mode of production is not part of the Marxist ideology, as the term appears only in Marx’s journalistic articles and not in Kapital. The second part of the article presents a chronological survey of Ancient Egypt up to the New Kingdom. The comments on private land ownership should particularly be mentioned, as private ownership does not really fit into the concept of the Asiatic mode of production but seems to be attested already from the Old Kingdom. Zingarelli sees evidence for private ownership of land in Ancient Egypt, but this land is always in some way closely tied to the king or temples. If land

Introduction

17

changed ownership, it was most often handed over to children but not to third parties. A good example is a contract of the Middle Kingdom local governor Hapydjefau who stated that he inherited a ‘house’ (meaning ‘estate’) from his father and a ‘house’ from his mother.141 Furthermore, according to Zingarelli there is no evidence that the ownership of land led to the development of a hereditary aristocracy.142 This means land could be owned privately, but this did not make much difference to the overall system. It seems remarkable that the most substantial article on the Asiatic mode of production in Ancient Egypt comes from a scholar from Argentina, a country that has not so far played any major role in Egyptology, but it fits well into the thesis that scholars are heavily influenced by their place and time. The Japanese archaeologist Koji Mizoguchi studied the use of theory in archaeology. Anglo-American scholars seem especially obsessed with using theory, perhaps heavily influenced by the identity problems these countries have as a result of their colonial history and the people of mixed origin living in their countries. Continental Europeans, whose countries have fewer identity problems, are much less concerned with theory. In both regions, Marxism does not play a major role. However, it does play a role in South America where poverty and direct visible exploitation are still part of the daily experience.143 Looking back at the literature at the time of the Cold War, it is often hard to follow whether certain debates are related to the discussions of the Asiatic mode of production. In 1960, Ancient Egypt was labelled by John A. Wilson as ‘civilisation without cities’.144 Indeed, one of the main features of the Asiatic mode of production is the lack of importance of towns. There is no real difference visible between cities and villages. It remains debatable how much Wilson was influenced by Marxist ideas.

Class in Ancient Egypt The term ‘class’ is not popular in Egyptology, perhaps from a desire to avoid a term closely connected with Karl Marx and his works.145 Strudwick and Stevenson refuse the use of the word in a review of Richard’s book on Middle Kingdom society.146 Richards herself clearly states that she uses the word ‘class’ but not in its Marxist sense which implies, according to her, a certain ‘identity, self-interest, and interlevel tension’.147 However, the word is used in other works on Ancient Egypt, most often without providing a definition.148 In this book I will use the term ‘class’ in its Marxist definition, perhaps best described by G.E.M. de Ste. Croix: A class (a particular class) is a group of persons in a community identified by their position in the whole system of social production, defined above all according to their relationship (primarily in terms of the degree of ownership or control to the conditions of production (that is to say, the means and labour of production) and to other classes. Legal position (constitutional rights or, to use the German term, ‘Rechtsstellung’) is one of the factors that may help to determine class: its share in doing so will depend on how far it affects the type and degree of exploitation practised or suffered . . .

18

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt The individuals constituting a given class may or may not be wholly or partly conscious of their own identity and common interests as a class, and they may or may not feel antagonism towards members of other classes as such.149

Thus, a class is a group of people within the society and defined by their position and relation to other classes and especially by their relation to production. That means especially the degree of ownership or control of the means of production. The means of production include the land for farming, raw materials, and also tools. Contrary to the view from Egyptian archaeology cited above, people within a class might be aware of their own class identity but might be also totally unaware of his position. Typical of a class society is that a small number of people are able to control the means of production. They are able to exploit the other classes and will gain the surplus the other classes produce.150 The point of class consciousness is important. There is certainly a class consciousness visible in Ancient Egypt. This is most often noticeable for the ruling class, the people with the highest number of resources. They were most likely able to write, as literacy is a common subject in autobiographies and their writings survived while we have no written sources from the working class. Among literary compositions, the Satire of the Trades perhaps demonstrates most clearly an antagonistic top-down group consciousness. Manual work is shown in an extraordinarily negative light, while the scribe is praised as a beneficial profession.151 Christiane Müller demonstrated that people of the ruling class are always shown according to the rules of Egyptian art, while it can happen that workmen and others, not belonging to the ruling class, are shown sometimes in an uncanonical way.152 A most drastic statement is found in an inscription at Hatnub dating around 2000 BC (to the years 6–8 of the local governor Neheri (I) from Khenemu): ‘being (=the governor) who remained in this country, while all (other) people are urine’.153 In many ancient societies, wealth came directly from land. The ruling classes in several ancient states were landowners. This is especially true for the ancient Greek and Roman world.154 Whether this also applies to Ancient Egypt is debatable. However, there can be little doubt that agricultural products were the main source of Egypt’s wealth. The ownership of the land remains a difficult question because it is often not clear whether the highest officials owned land or just had the right to use it while the legal owner was the state or king. There are preserved land registers of the Ramesside155 and Third Intermediate Period156 where the land is owned by the temple, while minor officials, priests and even soldiers were working on it and had to give the temple a certain amount of their harvest. This might give the impression that most land was owned by these big state institutions.157 However, this might be just a simple accident of survival of documents. These big state institutions kept detailed accounts of their land, some of which survived. Free peasants might not keep records in their small farms. No accounts of them survived because they simply did not exist.

Introduction

19

The question now arises: why is it important to use the Marxist terms or even any theory? It seems to me that there is a great danger that modern authors will project their own world view on ancient society without reflecting that ancient Egyptians might have behaved very differently in almost all aspects of life.158 Archaeological theories using anthropological studies are certainly introduced to avoid this problem. However, too often there is the impression that they are used to confirm their own worldview. Christopher Eyre comments on this problem, saying that the models used ‘reveal more on the intellectual climate in which they are written than the period or society written about’.159 Evidently we are all humans and have the same physical needs, but each society developed different solutions for fulfilling these needs.160 Above it was shown how much neoliberal ideas of the market economy influenced views on ancient Egypt. Many of these approaches come from Egyptologists of the Anglo-American world. There is an irony here; the discussion of theories plays a very important part in approaching archaeological material. While there are many uncertainties about the Old and Middle Kingdom economy and society, it seems likely (but indeed needs to be proven) that it was based on other principles than those in the Greco-Roman world (slave holder societies) and medieval Europe (feudalism). In both eras owning land was an important part of gaining power and wealth. This is not visible to the same extent in Ancient Egypt.161 There is little evidence that families or individuals gained power via owning land. Furthermore, in Ancient Egypt ‘both the means of production and the ruling class’ were under state control.162 Therefore the Asiatic mode of production or tributary mode are at a high level of abstraction useful for announcing that Egyptian society was fundamentally different to those of the Greco-Roman world. Evidently, the exact structures need to be researched in future.

Some further terms Finally, some terms will be defined in order to provide some precision in terminology. Not all the following terms are useful for describing ancient Egyptian social relations, often simply because the source base for them is so restricted and complicated. Some terms often found in other books on Ancient Egypt are included, and it be will explained why they are not used in this book. Diakonoff describes three classes in the introduction of his edited volume Early Antiquity:

Upper class The upper class are not engaged in production. They own the means of production and they also own the property for the means of production or own property in return for their services. They are also often called slave-owners, although they do not only exploit slaves in a narrow sense, as they can also exploit serfs or other people that

20

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

are not slaves in a narrow sense.163 As indicated above, the term upper class will be avoided in this book; here it will be called the ruling class.

Middle class Diakonoff describes the middle class as farmers and craftsmen who are engaged in productive labour, but who do not exploit the labour of other people or use other people just for auxiliary work. To this class belong the less wealthy landowners. Many of these people might be less well-to-do members of landowning communities.164

Lower class The lower class do not own property and live in a slave-like dependency. They are subject to heavy exploitation.165 There are two forms of exploitation: extra-economic exploitation is exploitation via direct physical force, while economic exploitation appears when workers can only survive after putting them under an employer in an agreement. The latter form is rare in Antiquity.166 Here the term lower class will be avoided. The terms wider population, working population or working class are more suitable.

Primitive communism This is the mode of production of the hunter-gatherers.167 Everybody in these ­small-scale societies is involved in obtaining food. All members of these groups share what was hunted and gathered. There is no privately owned property, with the exception of items close to the body, such as clothing or personal adornments. These are objects often made of valued materials. Other objects such as tools and perhaps houses are communal property. Class societies developed with the ‘Neolithic revolution’.168 Other terms used for the same phase in human development include Urgesellschaft or Urgemeinschaft (‘ancient society’).169

Household industries A household is here a unit that has three points in common. There is a common space, the house, and a division of production within the family, mostly gender orientated. Most importantly, the household as production unit is identical with the consumer unit.170 The people, most often a family, work for their own consumption and not in order to sell anything to others. Household industries are typical of early societies but are still attested later on.

Slave-owner society Finally the concept of the slave-owner society should be mentioned. The Greeks and Romans are the prime examples of slave-owner societies, as a high proportion of their workforces were slaves.171 In the official view of the Soviet Union, Ancient Egypt, like Mesopotamia, the Indus culture and early China, was a slave-holder society, albeit a ‘primitive’ version. Wasili Wasiliewitch Struwe explained in the introduction to the Chrestomathie (a collection of Ancient Egyptian texts in translation that was also

Introduction

21

translated into German) two types of exploitation in Ancient Egypt. The peasants had to pay some sort of tax to a person owning a village. The owner of a village could be an official of the king who received the tax as some kind of salary. He calls this type of exploitation ‘patriarchal’. The other type is direct exploitation, as in the case of slaves. The direct type was used for bigger tasks such as irrigation projects. Furthermore, a typical feature of the early slave holder societies is the unity of countryside and town. Towns are only administrative, religious and commercial meeting points without a bigger population. The main bulk of the population still works as farmers. The development of private property leads to social differences within the villages.172 Evidently there are overlaps with the Asiatic mode of production, such as the importance of irrigation projects and the unity of country and town. The main difference is that the working population was practically seen as slaves, although the legal status ‘slave’ was not yet so refined in the early slave-holder societies as in the Greek and Roman world.

Feudalism In Marx’s writings feudalism is the next step in development after the slave-holder societies. The Middle Kingdom is especially often characterised in Egyptological literature as a feudal period, as a series of local courts is known from grand style rock-cut tombs. Qau played a particularly important role in this discussion, as the tombs there are among the largest of the Middle Kingdom.173 This discussion of feudalism goes back to Gaston Maspero174 who, back in 1870, described the Middle Kingdom local courts as feudal. A similar approach was adopted by Eduard Meyer who describes the period from the late Old Kingdom to the early Middle Kingdom as such.175 Meyer sees considerable similarities to the feudal system in medieval Europe. The term was sporadically used in Egyptology,176 though scholars often provided a slightly different interpretation. Jacques Pirenne saw a form of feudalism as coming and going in different periods of Egyptian history.177 In 1990 Erika Endesfelder discussed the use of ‘feudal’ for Ancient Egypt, but rejected its use.178 This might be in part related to her Marxist approach to history writing as such an approach would not allow the use of the term feudalism before medieval times.179 Christopher Eyre shortly afterwards, in 1994, remarked that ‘property relations were social relations in the broadest sense of the term, sanctified in law. Ancient Egypt was therefore feudal as in “mediaeval or early modern Egypt”.’180 Eyre does not adopt a Marxist approach to history writing and therefore evidently has no ideological problem with using the term.181 As this book follows a Marxist theoretical approach, the term ‘feudalism’ will not be used for any period of Ancient Egypt. Evidently just following the linear Marxist history interpretation (slave-owner societies – feudalism – capitalism) is not a good reason for not using the term, but there are other reasons too. Although there are certain similarities between Ancient Egypt and medieval Europe in the respect that most peasants were most likely dependant on others, there are also indications that the situation was different. In particular, Ancient Egypt seems

22

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

never to have developed a land-owning ruling class that based its power on owning estates and people.

Elite In recent decades the term ‘elite’, from Latin, ‘to choose, elect’, has become widely used in Egyptology and in other archaeological disciplines. In archaeology it often denotes a group of people at the top of the society. For example, an archaeologist might use it for the people with the biggest tombs in a cemetery182 or the largest houses in a settlement site.183 The word appears today in many parts of modern life, where the term ‘elite’ offers, for example in advertisements, a specially high quality product.184 Thus archaeology, including Egyptology, is just following a general trend in society. Most often it seems that Egyptologists are not concerned to define the meaning of the term according to sociological studies. In several sociological studies ‘elite’ refers to a small leading group of people at the top of society whose decisions are important for the society as a whole.185 In this way the term is different to others, such as ‘ruling class’ which refers to all people of a social stratum, including children or wives of the men of the ruling class. Instead in sociology, ‘elite’ simply refers to the leading men in power.186 The focus of elite here is more on political and economic power and can theoretically include people not belonging to the ruling class, such as a military leader from a poorer family. On the other hand, ‘elite’ is often used to describe ‘the best’; this is perhaps best visible in the military sector where there exist ‘elite soldiers’, evidently those best trained.187 The ‘best’ do not form either a political group or a social class. The term ‘elite’ is therefore not useful for dividing society into different categories. A group of people describing themselves as ‘elite’ evidently also implies that they are ‘the best’.188 Detlef Franke mentioned the term briefly in a footnote, describing the elite as those people at the top of society that had the monopoly of power in the society.189 Stephen Quirke discussed the term ‘elite’ and its use in English, according to which parts of the ruling class label themselves as elite as they were ‘mystically chosen’, a reason in itself for not using the word.190 I employed the term in my book on Middle Kingdom court officials. There it is restricted to the people at the very top of Middle Kingdom society, following some modern sociological definitions.191 In an article published in 2010 I rejected the use of the term, precisely for reasons of the ambivalences discussed above.192 Katalin Anna Kóthay defends the term on the grounds that it is established within Egyptology in the sociological meaning and not in the meaning of the ‘best’. She concludes: ‘Those for whom the term has so far also served to positively discriminate the Egyptian elite would continue on with their prejudice, no matter what new term would be used.’193 The term elite will not be used in this book unless the translation of an Ancient Egyptian word requires it.

Introduction

23

Oligarchs The terms comes from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía, from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning ‘few’, and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning ‘to rule or to command’). An oligarchy is a form of state or society in which power rests with a limited number of people. These people might be distinguished by nobility, wealth, family ties, education, or corporate, religious or military control. Such states or societies are controlled by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of the term. In recent years the term ‘oligarch’ has become commonly used for people running the economy and politics in certain countries.194 It is often used in the media to describe the power structures of enemy countries, though most western countries, such as the USA, are oligarchic too.195 Here the term will be used occasionally, as Ancient Egypt was ruled in most periods by a small number of people in their own interest. The kings and many local governors formed families that held power over long periods. There is also good evidence that these families were connected via marriage ties.196 The term is normally not part of Marxist vocabulary. The term heavily overlaps with ‘ruling class’, although oligarchy stresses the selfishness of a government form, while in theory a ruling class might govern in the interests of a society.

Notes

1. O’Connor 1972, 92. 2. Moreno García 2009. 3. Wright 2003, 89–127; von Tuchmann 2008. 4. Wittfogel 1957. 5. Dementjeva 2005, 160–61, especially n. 16. 6. Jun 1995, 336–7; Hansen 2010. 7. Deveaux and Panitch 2017. 8. Chomsky 1999. 9. For example: Kitchen 1996; Leclant 1999; Verner 2014. 10. Postel and Régen 2005. 11. Grajetzki 2005a, 57–60. 12. Merrillees 1974, 13. 13. Bakir 1952. 14. Berlev 1972. 15. Hofmann 2005. 16. Moreno García 1999. 17. Eyre 1999; 2005. 18. Collier 2013. 19. Schneider 2003. 20. Mourad 2015. 21. Saretta 2016. 22. Meurer 1996. 23. Meurer 1996, 111, 120 (list of titles), 129. 24. For example Midant-Reynes 2000; Tassie 2014. 25. Seidlmayer 1990, see also Seidlmayer 1987.

24

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

2 6. Banard and Duistermaat 2012. 27. Kemp 2006. 28. See the chapter on the Middle Kingdom in Vinogradov 1991. 29. Marx and Engels 1976, 67–71 (the ideology of the ruling class is the leading ideology in any given society). 30. Spencer 1896, 31. 31. Berlev 1972, 147–71. 32. Berlev 1972, 7–74. 33. Dennison 2011. 34. Hofmann 2005. 35. Hofmann 2005, 101, 167–9. 36. Hofmann 2005, 170 (Hofmann distinguishes between ‘hem-niswt’ and ‘hem’ and only discusses the latter word). 37. Kemp 2006, 241–4. 38. Laurence 1997. 39. Festugière 1987; Dagan 1991, 96. 40. Aristotle, Politics 2, VIII; see also Liverani 2016, 237. 41. Thornton 2000, 162–87. 42. Moreno García 2009. 43. Sparks 2013, 2. 44. Shepherd 2010. 45. Isaaks 2016. 46. A high percentage of academics are children of academics, see for example Sullivan et al. 2014. 47. Biebrier 2012, 257: the father of Fritz Hintze. 48. Biebrier 2012, 31. 49. Biebrier 2012, 267. 50. Biebrier 2012, 490. 51. Biebrier 2012, 332. 52. Borrero, Yeh 2013. 53. Erman 1894, 328; Szpakowska 2008, 104. 54. Radford 1998, 147. 55. On the use of the terms ‘up’ – ‘good’ in languages: Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 18–19. 56. Trigger 2003, 149. 57. Reisner 1932, 192; Murnane 1983, 25; often in more general books: Posener 1962, 209; Casson 1965, 102; Mitchell 1990, 135; Pateman and El-Hamamsy 2003, 54. 58. Trigger 1998, 72–3. 59. Shortland 2009. 60. Wolf 1957, 168. 61. Wolf 1957, 340. 62. von Luschan 1908, 147. Felix von Luschan was given the task of examining four skulls from a Middle Kingdom tomb. 63. Bierbrier 2012, 587; see also the comments on Hermann Kees, who was a strong supporter of the Nazi Party and accused the working class of being responsible for the end of the Old and New Kingdom: Moreno García 2009, 190, 196. 64. Six-Hohenbalken 2009, especially 176. 65. Guglielmi 1973, 180. 66. Baines 2009. 118–21. 67. Höveler-Müller 2005, 170. 68. Compare comments by Willems (2014, 132) on Herman Kees. 69. Marx and Engels 1976, 67–71, Mizogucki 2015, 16.

Introduction

25

70. Harvey 2005, 2. 71. Saunders 2010. 72. Florath 2005, 195; compare for example the review by Müller-Wollermann 2012, 334, of Andrássy 2008. 73. Anonymous 1972; Stutje 2009, 144. 74. Patterson 2007, 75, n. 1. 75. The examples given belong mostly to the era of the Cold War. 76. Kemp 2006, 247, 302 77. Van Heel 2014. 78. Warburton 1997, 68; 2000. 79. Gee 2015. 80. Müller 2015a, 251; 2015b, 339–40. 81. Wenke 2009, 286. 82. Reeves 2015, 236. 83. Peppercorn and Taffin 2013, 23, 92–3. 84. Zingarelli 2016, 49–52. 85. Burke 1980, 68–70; Gregory 2014. 86. For example: Brunner 1957, 40–2; Vernus 1970; Janssen and Janssen 1990, 71; Feucht 1995, 226; Szpakowska 2008, 104; Ikram 2009, 84, 86, 168; van de Mieroop 2011, 105; Nutz 2014, 72–3 (more cautious). 87. Burke 1980, 68. 88. Burke 1980, 69. 89. Jones 2012, 120–1. 90. Examples include Richards 2000, 37; 40; Callender 2000, 159; van de Mieroop 2011, 105; Müller 2015b, 361 (is cautious about using the term) 91. Loprieno 1988, 87–8 (there called ‘high Bourgeoisie’); 1996, 520; Parkinson 1996, 137–8; ­Callender 2000, 186. 92. See the fundamental article by Detlef Franke (1998b). Franke shows that the term ‘nedjes’ was often translated as ‘free citizen’ (member of middle class) but means in fact just ‘young man’. He refers to studies by Berlev written in Russian and therefore most likely overlooked by many Western Egyptologists. The article is also a reminder that important studies on the term already exist and are consistently ignored or overlooked, perhaps on the basis of language, but arguably also for ideological reasons. 93. Richards 2005, 173–80. 94. Goodman Minglu 2013, 1. 95. Carson 1988, 407; Overy 1994, 265. 96. Warden 2014. 97. Warden 2014, 59. 98. Kemp 2006, 171. 99. Breasted 1909, 85, 169–70, 251. 100. Bettinger 1991, 165. 101. Welskopf 1957, 96. 102. Diakonoff 1991, 5–6, 11–12; fuller recent discussion include Banaji 2010, 15–44 and for ancient Egypt in particular Zingarelli 2016. 103. Hobsbawn 1964, 21. 104. Marx 1983, 379, 391. 105. Marx 1983, 435. 106. Marx 1853. 107. Wittfogel 1957, 22–48. 108. Exceptions include Franke 1973; Zingarelli 2016, see also Moreno García 2020, 191–7.

26

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

1 09. Compare the full discussion and overview: Zaccagnini 1989; compare also Bernbeck 1994. 110. McGuire 1992, 58; Florath 2005, 188, n. 15. 111. Struwe 1959, 10–13. 112. Dementjeva 2005, 162–3. 113. Nippel 2005. 114. Endesfelder 2011, 187. 115. For summaries see: Florath 2005; Zingarelli 2016. 116. This work was seen as important in the years following its publication. Recent reception is more critical (Nippel 2005, especially p. 183). 117. Welskopf 1957. 118. Wittfogel 1957, 116–17. 119. Wittfogel 1957, 117–20. 120. Welskopf 1957, 111. 121. Welskopf 1957, 105–6. 122. Dementjeva 2005, 158. 123. Dementjeva 2005, 159–60. 124. Dementjeva 2005, 162–2. 125. Wittfogel 1957. 126. Wittvogel 1957, iii, 436–41. 127. Wilson 1960, 130. 128. Butzer 1976; Knörnschild (1993, 57–60) argues that there were already some local irrigation projects in the Old Kingdom, but nothing organised country wide by the central administration. 129. Amin 1976, 51 130. Amin 1976, 23 131. Amin 1976, 13–14 132. Amin 1976, 15–16 133. Krzyzaniak 1977, 127 134. Schenkel 1978, 11–14, 69. 135. Banaji 2010, 17–19. 136. Banaji 2010, 23. 137. A further short discussion in Warburton 1997, 39–44 138. Franke 1973, 63. 139. Zingarelli 2016, 29. 140. Hindess, Hirst 1975. 141. Griffith 1889, pl. 7, line 124. 142. Zingarelli 2016, 52, 75. 143. see Mizoguchi 2015. 144. Wilson 1960. 145. Harris 2011, 20. 146. Strudwick and Stevenson 2006. 147. Richards 2005, 16. 148. Examples include Peck 2013, 71, 92, 109; Bard 2015, 107, 108, 218, 317. 149. de Ste. Croix 1981, 43–4. 150. de Ste. Croix 1981, 43–4. 151. Lichtheim 1975, 184; Grajetzki 2010, 183–4. 152. Müller 1997. 153. Hatnub no. 20, 2; no. 23, 3; 26, 4; Franke 1998, 63. 154. de Ste. Croix 1981, 120–33. 155. The Wilbour Papyrus; Katary 1989; Janssen 1975, 139–47. 156. Papyrus Reinhardt; Vleeming 1993 (the papyrus covers land in the Wadjet province).

Introduction

27

1 57. Katary 1993, 719–28. 158. de Ste. Croix 1981, 33–4. 159. Eyre 1999, 34. 160. Hofstede 1984. 161. Banaji 2010, 17–44. 162. Banaji 2010, 23. 163. Diakonoff 1991, 39. 164. Diakonoff 1991, 39–40; Craib 1997, 99. 165. Diakonoff 1991, 40. 166. Diakonoff 1991, 40. 167. Bender 1978. 168. A term introduced by Gordon Childe (1936, 59–80). 169. Grünert 1989, 14; The term ‘ancient society’ goes back to a book by Lewis H. Morgan (1877). The term is nowadays somewhat misleading. In the book, the most ancient societies are discussed and not only those of ancient Greece and Rome, as a modern reader might expect. 170. Bernbeck 1994, 28–9; slightly different view: Eyre 2010, 304–6. 171. Engels 1892, 107–25, van der Pot 1999, 468; Banaji 2010, 351–2 (‘slave mode of production’). 172. Struwe 1959, 10–13. 173. Gardiner 1961, 140. 174. Maspero 1870, 179–81. 175. Meyer 1909, 249. 176. Breasted 1909, 145; Wilson 1951, 126. 177. Pirenne 1961, 15–30. 178. Endesfelder 1990. 179. Mülller-Wollermann 1986, 131. 180. Eyre 1994, 107, n. 1; Mülller-Wollermann 1986, 131. 181. For a review of the use of the term ‘feudalism’ in Egyptology see: Mülller-Wollermann 1986, 126–34; Kóthay 2011. 182. Verma 2014 (the title of the book is Cultural Expression in the Old Kingdom Elite Tomb), Bard 2015, 264 183. Moeller 2016, 284, fig. 8.26. 184. Quirke 2010, 51–1. 185. Compare the Mills 1956 (The Power Elites), Stanworth 2006. 186. Stanworth 2006, 180. 187. For example, Robinson 2004, i, xii. 188. Grajetzki 2010, 181. 189. Franke 1998b, 38, n. 17. 190. Quirke 2009, 51. 191. Grajetzki 2009, vii. There I followed mainly Stanworth 2006. 192. Grajetzki 2010, 181. 193. Kóthay 2013, 482–3, n. 16. 194. Compare the reactions to the article Gilens and Page 2014 (‘Testing theories of American politics: elites, interest groups, and average citizens’), for example on the BBC: ‘Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy’ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 retrived 11/10/2017) 195. Gilens and Page 2014 196. Morena García 2005 (case study on two Old Kingdom local families)

Figure 1. Map of Egypt (author)

Chapter 1 Setting and history of research in Wadjet Province

Wadjet (snake, cobra) is the Ancient Egyptian name for the Tenth Upper Egyptian nome, or province.1 It is located more or less in the middle of Egypt, about 360 km south of Cairo (Figs 1 and 2). The main archaeological sites there are today known as Qau (also known as Qau el-Kebir or Qaw) and Badari. In Upper and Middle Egypt, the Nile flows from the south to the north as one river (while it divides into several branches in the Delta) within the Sahara, the largest desert on Earth. Agriculture was only possible near the river. Once a year the water level of the river rose and flooded the lands nearby leaving fertile silt behind. The flooding was caused by heavy rains in Ethiopia, as a result all the fertile parts of the country were flooded for some weeks. Settlements could only be built on hills within the floodplain that were not reached by the water, or in the lower desert, that is the desert close to areas of cultivation. In contrast, the high desert lies higher up and is more removed from the river. It was never a real option for any permanent settlements. However, even in the low desert, the water supply was complicated and as a result the settlements on the desert edge are rarely large. The exact size of the Wadjet province is not known for sure. There are no extant ancient maps outlining its borders. Its limits can only be assumed by places known to be in a given province that are attested in written sources. The borders might be also guessed by natural borders such as mountains. An important source is a list of provinces on a temple building excavated at Karnak, ancient Thebes. On the White chapel of Senusret I, there appears a list of all Egyptian provinces with measurements. In theory the list provides a perfect guide for the size of the Egyptian provinces, but there are many problems with it.2 It evidently also includes the Wadjet province and provides the information that it was about 32 km long (3 itrw, 1 xA).3 No further information about the size of the province is given.

30

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Figure 2. The Wadjet province (author)

From the actual landscape of the region, it might be assumed that the southern border of the province was at Gabal as-Saih al-Hardi. This is a mountain very close to the river on the east side of the Nile opposite the modern town of Tahta which almost blocks the route by land. It is a natural border and is therefore a natural point where one can expect to limit a region. Going 32 km north, the northern border of the province was perhaps somewhere south of the modern town Abutig.4 South of the Wadjet province was the Menu (Min) province, named after its main deity Min who was worshipped in Ipu (better known as Akhmim, the modern village not far away) the capital of the province. The rock cut tombs of the local oligarchs of the late Old Kingdom and early First Intermediate Period in the Menu province have been excavated, providing rich textual and visual material for this period. North of the Wadjet province there were two provinces. On the west bank of the Nile there was the province called Sha with its capital Shashotep. The latter town is not far away from the modern village Rifeh. Near Rifeh substantial cemeteries were excavated, ranging in date from the late First Intermediate Period to the end of the New Kingdom, with several finds datable later. The precise extent of the Sha province is not known. Farouk Gomaà believes that Matmar and Mostagedda, on the east side of the Nile, also belonged to

1. Setting and history of research in Wadjet Province

31

this province.5 These places were also excavated by Guy Brunton. The material found is in many ways very closely related to the material found at Qau and Badari. Others, such as Helck6 think that the Sha province was just on the west side of the Nile, while the east bank was all part of the Atfet province. The eastern cliffs of the high desert plateau are close to the Nile and the fertile land in the Wadjet province, providing only a small strip of about 1 km width of cultivation on this side. On the western side the fertile land is much wider, with up to 10 km providing a good base for agriculture and for the support of a substantial population. While on the east side of the Nile settlements were quite close to the desert, on the west side they were spread over the fertile land. In general, Ancient Egyptian burials were close to settlements, often just next to the town walls.7 The cemeteries on the east bank are therefore often close to, or even in, the desert and for that reason are in general well-preserved. The burials on the west bank are most likely in the fertile plains on the small mounds where the settlements were located. There were certainly once also cemeteries in the western desert, but only one near the village of Zaraby has been excavated. Today, the cemeteries close to the towns and villages on the west bank have vanished along with the settlements, although many may still lie under the modern fields. The Nile nowadays flows in a different bed from 4000 years ago. A big flood destroying the remains of the ancient town of Qau is recorded for the early nineteenth century.8 It can be assumed that there were similar floods before, but evidently it seems that there had been none that destroyed the ancient town since Ptolemaic times, as this temple survived 2000 years. For the periods before, no data are available. The cemeteries of Qau (Fig. 3) are the most important ones in the province. They lie in a desert bay about 9 km long, surrounded by limestone mountains. In the north are the monumental tombs of the Middle Kingdom governors. In the middle there is a shallow wadi separating the bay into two halves. North of this wadi was the village of Qau el-Kebir, now called Etmanieh. The desert itself is flat and very pebbly, and so not very suitable for digging burials. The cemeteries of Qau are all north of the wadi. The main cemeteries of the ancient town are south of Etmanieh. Close to the village and to the east is the north cemetery. Further south is cemetery 400 and even further south, the ‘south cemetery’. The latter was found heavily looted, but it was the main cemetery of the town. Cemetery 400 contained many early tombs dating from the Second to the Fourth Dynasty. The north cemetery contained mainly burials of the Second Intermediate Period.9 Going further north, there is the small cemetery, 100, at the northern edge of the bay where the cliffs come very close to the cultivation. Here are the remains of monumental Middle Kingdom tombs with a cemetery of many smaller burials that date down to the Roman and Byzantine periods.10 North of the cliff the mountains remain close to the fertile lands. They provide just enough space for a small desert strip that was used for cemeteries. The region is cut by many wadis.11 The lower desert here is therefore a small strip between the higher rock of the desert and the cultivation. The strip is just a few hundred meters wide but about 10 km long. The main village in the region is Badari, providing the

32

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Figure 3. Map of Qau (author)

name for the chain of cemeteries in this part of the region. It is evident that these cemeteries were in ancient times the burial grounds for several communities along the cultivation (Fig. 4). Not much can be said about the population density in the Wadjet province. From the 21st Dynasty (around 950 BC) Papyrus Reinhardt it might be concluded that the province was quite fertile. Fifteen sacks of grain per aroura (there are about three arouras to a hectare) was the harvest there, while in Middle Egypt it

1. Setting and history of research in Wadjet Province

33

was only ten sacks per aroura.12 Karl Butzer ­estimated the population numbers of the different provinces for Ancient Egypt. His calculations for the Wadjet province, based on much later numbers, come to under 100 people per square kilometre in the northern part and about 100–200 people per square kilometre in the southern part. 13 However, these data are very insecure and should not be used for any further conclusions. There are some calculations about how many people can be fed by 1 hectare. Evidently it depends very much on the type of plants and whether the plants growing here were directly consumed or used for feeding animals. George Wilcox calculates that 7–21 people could live off 1 hectare in the Near East (Mesopotamia).14 On the other hand other calculations for the Near East suggest that 1 hectare of land was needed to feed one person. 15 100 hectares are 1 square kilometre. That means Figure 4. The cemeteries at Badari (author) we cannot expect more than about 100 people per square kilometre if we go for the lower calculation. Farmers rarely travelled more than 2 km to cultivate their fields. If the fields were further away, new settlements were founded.16 Taking all this into account, a village could feed up to about 600 people (π  × 2  km × 100  hectares). For an Ancient Egyptian village this is a substantial number of people. Old Kingdom towns so far excavated, such as Hierakonpolis17 or Elephantine,18 are often small, and many might not have had so many inhabitants. Villages were perhaps smaller, although hard evidence is missing. It is often assumed that many farmers lived in towns.19 As Egyptian towns were often rather small, it also means that they were most likely able to feed themselves from the fields attached to them.

34

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

More information is available from the Byzantine town Aphrodito, Egyptian PerWadjet (see below). In Byzantine times this place was one of the more important in the Wadjet province and is well known because the archive of a local man named Dioskoros was discovered there. His papyri provide extensive details about life in this province in the sixth century AD. Aphrodito and its countryside had about 3000 tax-paying male heads of households. It has been calculated that these might add up to about 15,000 people for the whole ancient town. Aphrodito did not have the legal status of a city, but it was the centre of a network of settlements, making it in practical terms a small market town. The region of the town included about 40 monasteries and 30 churches, and there were two potteries and an olive oil works in the town.20 It was surrounded by a network of canals and dykes. A similar pattern might be expected for the Old and Middle Kingdom and perhaps even earlier: small towns acting as local centres with smaller villages and hamlets around them.

Archaeology In terms of archaeology, Middle Egypt is famous for its decorated rock cut tombs dating to the Middle Kingdom. Indeed, the series of these Middle Kingdom monumental burial places starts at Qau el-Kebir, capital of the Wadjit province, and ends in the north at Beni Hasan. They include the decorated tomb chapels found at Rifeh, Asyut, Meir and Deir el-Bersheh, running from the south to the north. Some further examples are known from the Fayum, Qubbet el-Hawa (First Upper Egyptian province), Elkab and Thebes. Only the tombs in Thebes are comparable in number and decoration to those in Middle Egypt. In the Eleventh Dynasty Thebes was the royal residence and most decorated rock cut tombs belong to the time when the royal court was buried here. The tombs of Middle Egypt are carved into the rocky mountains of the eastern and western desert. Decorated rock cut tombs appear as early as the Old Kingdom and some of the earliest examples are in the Wadjet province, near the modern village of Hemamieh. Nothing comparable is known in the province for the New Kingdom, although there are still some richly decorated tombs of local people of higher standing in other provinces and towns such as in Elkab.

History of research Early European travellers visited the remains of the Ptolemaic temple at Qau el-Kebir. Drawings and reconstructions of it were made for the Description de l’Égypte by the French expedition in 1798–1801. Several stelae and statues are reported as coming from the region, and it seems that before proper excavation started, locals had already investigated bigger tombs and the remains of temples.21 A century after the French expedition, there were several archaeological missions to the cemeteries of Qau el-­Kebir. In 1905/1906 Ernest Schiaparelli excavated in the tombs of the Middle Kingdom governors and brought many finds to Italy. However, the excavations were never fully

1. Setting and history of research in Wadjet Province

35

published. Further research was undertaken by a German expedition under Georg Steindorff in 1913/1914 and Hans Steckeweh briefly in 1928 and 1929.22 The main target was again the Middle Kingdom tombs of the local governors, but parts of the Greco-Roman cemeteries nearby were also investigated.23 1923/1924 William Matthew Flinders Petrie worked at the Middle Kingdom governors’ tombs,24 but also uncovered part of the cemeteries in the region and recorded two Old Kingdom governor tombs at Hemamieh. Petrie was part of the expedition of Guy Brunton who, from 1922 to 1931, uncovered several cemeteries in the region, from Qau in the south to Mostagedda in the north. From these excavations, Brunton published several thousand tombs belonging to almost all periods of Egyptian history. He presented his results at Qau and Badari in four volumes.25 Most graves are presented in tables, providing information on the types of objects found, not on their number (e.g. for several identical pots just the type appears, not the number found). With the exception of the governor tombs of the Middle Kingdom, few more monumental art objects were found in these excavations. A survey was conducted in 1989 mainly targeting the Badarian remains.26 An exceptional feature in Egyptian archaeology is the recording of a chain of ­cemeteries along the desert edge by Brunton’s expedition. On the west side of the Nile little has been so far excavated, only a small cemetery was recorded at Zaraby dating from the end of the Old Kingdom. The cemeteries on the east side are mainly known as those of Badari and Qau in Egyptological literature. Those at Qau most likely belong to the provincial capital Tjebu. Brunton’s excavations were carried out to a high standard for his day but have many shortcomings by modern standards. First, Brunton states that he did not excavate parts of cemeteries where he expected empty tombs or those with few objects.27 This means that a high percentage of burials of the poorest people are missing. For this reason, periods when few objects were placed into burials are also under-represented in the excavation reports. Brunton excavated more than 5000 tombs over the course of a few years. This is a high number of tombs, almost unthinkable today using modern archaeological methods, where careful and precise recording is the main aim. With modern careful recording archaeologists are now able to retrieve a much higher dataset about a single burial. One example is the skeletons. Brunton only provided information about the sex of the people found and noted whether they were children.28 However, in an up-to-date excavation we would be able to obtain information about the age of the buried population and the diseases they had. To a certain extent we would know whether these people worked physically and whether they were properly nourished.29 Most of this information is lost for Brunton’s excavation. However, we gain other information most often lost with the slower methods of today. With Brunton’s high number of tombs found, it is possible to gain an idea of patterns of cemeteries and the development of smaller and larger cemeteries, making many statistical analyses possible. The cemeteries are labelled by Brunton with numbers in the hundreds. In the north at Badari there are the cemeteries with 3000 numbers (3100 and 3200 and so on), in the south are those with 5000 numbers and cemetery 6000. The numbering was provisional. In a cemetery with just 20 tombs, the burials would have received numbers from 101

36

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

to 120; the numbers 121 to 199 would have been left out. The next cemetery would be 200 and the tomb numbering sequence would start with 201. Those cemeteries around Qau received numbers from 100 to 1450, those cemeteries around Hemamieh from 1500 to 2100. The tombs in the most southern cemetery at Qau were excavated by Petrie. He gave them numbers from 1 to 960. To avoid confusion, these were changed in the final publication to 7000 numbers. The actual objects from the cemeteries, now in museums, still have the old numbers. A pottery vessel from tomb 123 will have that number written on it in the museum. In the publication the vessel will appear as coming from tomb 7123. Stephan Seidlmayer has argued that most of the burials found by Brunton belong to the farming population of the region.30 Even in a provincial town like Qau/Tjebu a large part of the population was most likely farmers. The publications of Brunton therefore remain a major source in Egyptian archaeology for burials in a provincial region and for the ‘common’ population. However, this view is not undisputed in Egyptology. John Baines argues that we do not have the tombs of the poorest from Ancient Egypt. He thinks that these people did not leave any remains in the archaeological record.31 He argues for the tombs at Qau and Badari that they belong to an ‘intermediate social level’, but not to the lowest social level.32 However, there were on the other side always archaeologists who noticed that we also have those burials of the poorer segments of the society. Walter B. Emery provided in his Ancient Egypt (1961) a chapter of tomb architecture and included those which he thought belong to the lower classes.33 Janet Richards (2005) argued that simple surface burials are easy to dig and that there is no reason that poorer people would not go for that option.34 One further argument might be brought forward. Many of the smaller and larger burial grounds found in the region of Badari were already being used in early Predynastic times such as the Badarian period, c. 4400–3800 BC.35 These early farming cultures were most likely quite egalitarian. There are no big differences between rich and poor. Many of their burial grounds were still being used in Pharaonic times. The simple tomb architecture often remained the same, though the objects placed there were different, following the customs and religious beliefs of the time. It seems strange to argue that in Pharaonic times different kinds of people were buried here. In all probability they remained the same: farmers living in the villages along the cultivation. Only the few richer burials might belong to the local ruling classes. We know little about the social structures of ancient Egyptian villages, but there were most likely local leaders who had these larger tombs.

Economy Agriculture, or hunting and gathering were the basis of the economy in all ­pre-­industrial societies. A high percentage of people worked in food production. The Wadjet province did not contain one of Egypt’s major cities. The capital of the province might have been a relatively big town but was most likely rather small by modern standards. A high proportion of its inhabitants were most likely farmers too.36

1. Setting and history of research in Wadjet Province

37

Scenes showing agricultural activities are common in Old Kingdom tomb chapels. However, the only agricultural scenes in the Wadjet province are from the tomb of the local governor Rahetep (C5) at Hemamieh, showing the ploughing of fields with cattle in one register and the harvest in another.37 The rich visual evidence found in the tomb chapels at other places gives the wrong impression that all stages of agricultural production are well known. However, these scenes have to be taken with great caution and are problematic.38 Several activities are shown regularly; others, such as weeding, do not appear at all.39 The pictures in these tomb chapels present an ideal image of rural working life. In terms of bread and beer making, for example, it has been possible to show that they do not reflect normal life. Similar problems arise with textual evidence. There are, for example, many technical terms in Egyptian texts that are still not fully understood.40 From the wider archaeological record it is possible to establish some of the parameters of agricultural activities in Egypt. Emmer wheat and hulled barley have been cultivated since about 5000 BC in Egypt and were the most common cereals until the Roman period.41 Bread and beer were produced from them, and these are the most important foods. Bread was made of emmer and beer from barley. Agriculture in Egypt formed an annual cycle in three parts, relating to the three seasons in the Egyptian calendar in written records: inundation (akhet), growth (peret) and harvest (shemu). The inundation started at the end of the summer, in September, when the Nile flooded most of the fertile land. After the flood went down, the land needed to be prepared. At first the land needed tilling. It seems that this was most often done with hoes. Ploughs were known and are often shown in tomb scenes, but there are indications that hoeing the ground was more common. Cattle for ploughs must have been less common, and cattle were certainly expensive animals, not only in terms of the ‘market price’ but also in maintaining them. From Sumerian cuneiform documents it is known that in Mesopotamia ploughs were not common in small households.42 They were even regarded as inferior to hoes.43 Something similar might be expected for Old Kingdom Egypt. The ploughs were perhaps only used on the estates of the highest officials.44 Nevertheless, from tomb scenes several types of preparing the land are visible: 1. tilling, sowing, and sometimes trampling in of the seed by animals 2. sowing and tilling 3. sowing and simply trampling in45 Tilling, sowing, and trampling were always done at more-or-less the same time. Therefore, the Egyptian verb seka could mean ploughing, tilling, or sowing. Different types of cereal were sown jointly. Samples from Egypt show that wheat and barley were planted together. One reason for this may be a simple contamination of seed.46 After sowing, the fields were trampled by flocks of sheep or donkeys. This was important to push the seeds into the ground and protect them from birds and other smaller animals. Emmer and barley needed about 6 months to grow. Little is known about

38

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

the stage between sowing and harvest. There is almost no evidence for weeding and indeed weeding was not common in Egypt even in the nineteenth century, being introduced only with the use of industrial weed killers. Samples of Ancient Egyptian cereal show a high percentage of weeds. Perhaps only larger weeds were removed. The harvest took place between May and September. From parallels in other ­better-known societies, it can be assumed the whole family, perhaps the whole village, was involved in tilling and harvest in February to May.47 Next to grain, fruits and vegetables must have played an important part in ­agriculture. The most common are dates from the date palm and the fruits of the dom palm (Hyphaene thebaica). The latter have big brown fruits with edible flesh. Other common fruits are those of the Christ’s thorn tree, the sycamore, water melons, and grapes. Common vegetables were tiger nuts, lentils, peas, and some rare onions. Fruits and vegetables needed a lot of water and therefore a lot of care.48 It is disputed how much artificial irrigation was already being used in the Old Kingdom. Canals are mentioned in the pyramid texts. The Pepy I decree found at Dahshur, from the pyramid town of Snofru, also mentions canals, indicating that some form of man-made irrigation was being used at least in the late Old Kingdom.49 Several animal species were domesticated. Cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs were the most common. Cattle were not only the most prestigious and the most useful, but they could be used as transport animals to drag heavy objects, they were milk providers, and finally they were useful for their meat. Tomb scenes provide details of how they were treated, although it remains unknown how reliable these scenes are and whether they just show details that have a symbolic meaning that escapes us. For example, in the Old Kingdom the legs of the cows were bound together when milking. This is no longer attested in tomb scenes of the Middle Kingdom. Did this custom stop in the Middle Kingdom or was it just no longer depicted? Furthermore, when possible a calf was placed near the cow when milking as this seems to have enhanced the milk production.50 Those bulls assigned for meat production were often castrated.51 The slaughter of cows is again mostly known from depictions in tombs. According to these, the legs were bound and they were killed with a cut through the throat.52 Sheep were domesticated from the Naqada period and were mostly meat suppliers. They were not so prestigious and are therefore not used as animals in offerings. Sheep were kept for wool only from the Middle Kingdom.53 Goats are known from the Naqada period too. They were again not very prestigious and therefore not used in offerings.54 Pigs are very rarely depicted in Egyptian art, but from bones found at sites such as Elephantine and Tell el-Dab‛a55 it is clear that they were used for producing meat56 and normally slaughtered shortly before they were fully grown.57 Pigs are one of the less useful animals for humans. Cows can be used for dragging heavy objects, and they produce milk. Sheep produce wool. These animals were therefore useful not only for producing meat. Pigs were only useful for their meat, which is evidently the main reason that they were killed as soon as they reached a certain age. The animal bones found at the early Middle Kingdom settlement of Tell el-Dab‛a might provide an idea

1. Setting and history of research in Wadjet Province

39

Figure 5. Meat preparation in the tomb of Kakhenet (Mackay et al. 1929, pl. xxiii)

how common these various animals were in daily life. Here, bones of goats or sheep make up 39.4% of all animal bones found (the bones of both species are identical). The next common animal is pigs, with 36% of bones. In effect the pig is the most common animal, as the bones of sheep and goats come from two different species. Bones of cattle make up 21.7% of the bones found, while only very few bones of donkeys and dogs were discovered.58 Bird bones appear too but are far less common, but birds are often shown in meat production in tomb scenes (compare Fig. 5). Fish were also an important part of the diet. They do not often appear in offering lists and other texts, but from archaeological excavations it is again clear that they were often consumed. The fish bones found on Elephantine provide some evidence on the types of fish often consumed. The Nile catfish (bagrus docmac and bagrus bayad) was the most popular. The second most popular was the Nile perch/lates niloticus, while all other fish bones only appear sporadically such as the elongate tigerfish (hydrocyon forskahlii) or the Nile carp (Labeo niloticus, also L. horie, L. coubie and L. forskalii).59 In the early Middle Kingdom settlement at Tell el-Dab‛a catfish was by far the most common one.60

Textile production After food production, the textile industry must have been very important. Several materials were used for making garments in Ancient Egypt, of which by far the most important was linen. Apart from food production, textile production must have been a central industry, although pottery production was essential too. Fragments of linen that appear to be quite well made have been found in Badarian burials,61 indicating a long tradition of weaving. However, they are not as good as those of the later Naqada period (compare p. 61).62 The textile industry is distinctive also for the prominence

40

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

of women visible in the ancient written sources. Several phases in linen production can be expected. There is the planting and harvesting of the flax plant. The weaving was mainly done by women. This is attested by tomb scenes but also by written documents. The late Middle Kingdom papyrus UCL 32094A63 (found at Lahun) lists at least six women and their output of weaving. They had made flax into linen within 1 month. The papyrus is an account and raises some questions about the organisation of labour. These women most likely worked in a workshop and not at home in a family unit. While the women might well be some servants working in a private household, it seems more likely that they worked in a workshop on a royal estate or on the estate of a local governor or official, or at a temple. In a more private context a written account would seem rather strange, while in an official context record-keeping was important. Another option is that they worked from home, but for an institution or an official.

Wood working As will be seen, several burials of women contained remains of wooden cosmetic boxes. Wood working64 must have played an important part in craft production but, due to the bad preservation conditions of organic materials, only a few wooden objects from the province are preserved. For several reasons it can be assumed that there were local carpentry workshops. The most common wooden objects observed in the funerary archaeological records are the coffins. They were often only recognised by faint traces in the ground, but it was at least possible to take measurements from many of them. It is likely that most of them were once plastered. Brunton noticed that they vary widely in size and concludes that they were made locally, on order and not produced in stock.65 Other common wooden objects placed into burials were the small boxes just mentioned and used to contain cosmetic equipment. They are again mainly only known from faint traces in the ground, but their copper fasteners are often preserved.66 Further carpentry products range in scale from ships to other furniture, wooden vessels, and wooden tools. Furthermore, houses must have had wooden parts, such as doors or parts of the ceilings. Especially the latter types of objects are more likely of local production. A shipyard is depicted in the tomb of Kakhenet (I).67

Towns in the Tenth Upper Egyptian province There has been some debate in Egyptology and beyond as to whether there were towns in Ancient Egypt, especially in the older periods. Some scholars have labelled Ancient Egypt as a ‘civilisation without cities’.68 Chris Eyre called it a village society.69 This impression most likely arose from comparing Egypt with Mesopotamia. In Mesopotamia around 3500 BC several city-states developed with a temple at their heart. Uruk was early on a substantial urban centre, being one of the largest ancient cities not only at that time but also in comparison to later cities. Nothing like this is known from ancient Egypt. There are very few ancient towns known of substantial size. Excavations in the

1. Setting and history of research in Wadjet Province

41

last 200 years have always concentrated heavily on monumental temples and tombs where the excavators expected easy and spectacular finds. Fortunately, there is a strong shift visible in the last few decades towards excavating settlements and accepting that Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt indeed had towns and cities and was not just a village society.70 Many of these towns might be small in size, but it is certain that they were administrative and religious centres, and also centres for local and regional production and goods exchange. In the Old and Middle Kingdom, Qau was perhaps the only town in the province. The other places are mainly only known from written sources. There is no evidence at present to connect them with any of the cemeteries found on the west bank of the Nile. Apart from the provincial capital it can be assumed that these places were rather small, more villages than towns.

Tjebu From written sources it is clear that Tjebu (Tbw – ‘[city of] sandals’) was the provincial capital. Tjebu is most likely to be identified with modern Qaw/Qau, also called Qau el-Kebir.71 From the ancient town there survived until the early nineteenth century parts of a temple built by Ptolemy VI Philopator. The stones of the temple were used in the early nineteenth century for a palace at Asyut. The few remains left were destroyed in a flood in 1821,72 but the name is still used for the town and its cemeteries, although the actual settlement with the remains of the ancient town are fully gone. Nowadays the nearest village is Etmanieh (al-Itmanya). The main deity of Tjebu was Nemtywy, called Antaios by the Greeks (see below). The name Qau goes back to Coptic TKWOy/TKOu, Egyptian Dw-qA (‘high mount’). The latter name is attested from the Late Period on and perhaps originally referred to the eastern mountains in the region, later becoming the name of the town itself.73 The Greeks called the town Antaioupolis, ‘the city of Antaios’.74 The ancient town lay about 45 km south of Asyut on the eastern banks of the Nile. The cemeteries of the town lie along the desert edge and were labelled by Guy Brunton with numbers (Cem. 400, Cem. 1300, Cem. 1400, Cem. 1450); there is also the ‘south cemetery’ which is the biggest and the one closest to the remains of the ancient town. The great Middle Kingdom governors’ tombs are situated about 3 km north of the ancient town at the cliffs of the desert escarpment. The placements of these tombs at some distance from the town might be for reasons of prestige. This is the nearest place where the high desert comes close to the fertile land in the region of the town. There are also important limestone quarries at the cliffs near the governors’ tombs.75

Per-Wadjet Per-Wadjet (‘house of Wadjet’), also called just Wadjet, was on the west bank of the Nile in the middle of the cultivation, about 11 km west of Qau, 5 km north of modern Tahta. It is the modern Kom Ishqau. From the New Kingdom the town appears in Egyptian sources; in Ptolemaic and Roman times it was at least for a while the

42

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

capital of the province.76 In Greek the place was called Aphrodito or Aphroditopolis. The Greeks identified Wadjet with the Greek goddess Aphrodite. The cobra goddess Wadjet was here identified with Hathor. The name of the province might come from this place. In some inscriptions it is not clear whether the province or the town is mentioned.77 There are some archaeological remains. At the beginning of the twentieth century substantial remains of wealthy houses were discovered.78 The finds include the archives of Dioskoros, a local landowner who also wrote poetry and lived in the Byzantine period. It is the largest surviving group of Byzantine papyri from Egypt.

el-Zaraby The only cemetery on the west bank so far excavated is near the modern village of el-Zaraby. About 130 graves were found in 1907 by Ernest Mackay who worked for Flinders Petrie while the latter was excavating at Rifeh (about 15 km north of el-Zaraby). The cemetery was not fully published; only a selection of pottery, stone vessels and other objects are presented in Petrie’s book on his work in Rifeh.79 However, the notebooks from this excavation have survived. They give a short description of each tomb with some drawings. There is no record of the types of pottery and stone vessels found but they provide information on the number of vessels and where within the burial they were found, data not given for most burials found at Qau and Badari. Most of the burials found at el-Zaraby are surface burials in the ground with several pottery vessels as common burial goods. The graves date to the end of the Old Kingdom and this was most likely the burial ground for a village close by.

Gebel as-Sheikh al-Haridi A lesser known site lies near Gebel as-Sheikh al-Haridi at the most southern border of the province. An Old Kingdom rock cut tomb was recorded here in the nineteenth century.80 More recent fieldwork started in 1991.81 Several decorated rock cut tombs were revealed, one Old Kingdom tomb with two sculptured figures at the entrance.82 Monumental tombs of local governors are missing in the Wadjet province for the Sixth Dynasty, and one wonders whether the governors were buried here. The choice of the site so far from the town (about 10 km south) is at first glance rather strange, but might relate to reasons of prestige. It is comparable to the governors’ tombs of the Middle Kingdom which were placed 3 km north of the town and not directly next to it. So far no names have been recorded or published. Some other places most likely in the Wadjet province are known from written sources but it remains impossible to identify them with any site within the region:

Minet A place called Minet was perhaps close to Tjebu. There is a statue from Qau/Tjebu where ‘Anubis, lord of Minet’ is mentioned. It dates to the Late Period.83 On a late

1. Setting and history of research in Wadjet Province

43

Middle Kingdom stela appears the goddess Nefret (‘the beautiful one’), ‘lady of Minet’. The stela was bought in 1910 in Malawi and was once in Leipzig but was lost in World War II. The goddess Nefret is otherwise not attested, it might be another name for Hathor who was, in later times, worshipped in the Wadjet province.84 On a cylinder seal Sobek is called ‘lord of Minet’.85 A Second Intermediate Period stela of a local governor (iry-pat, HAty-a, imy-r Hmw-nTr – member of the elite, foremost of action, overseer of priests) mentions in the offering formula ‘Sobek (?), lord of Minet’. ‘Nemty (?), lord of Tjebu’ and ‘all gods of Tjebu’ are mentioned.86 Therefore it seems likely that Minet was located not very far from Tjebu. Gomaà wonders whether it was even a part of Tjebu.87

Megeb/Magab A place called Megeb is mentioned at least twice in connection with the Wadjet ­province, so that there is some evidence that it was part of it.88 Megeb appears on the Leipzig stela mentioned above. Here, the goddess Mut is called the ‘lady of Megeb’.89 On the statue of a certain Hori a goddess is also connected with Megeb, although her name is not preserved. The statue was acquired in 1886 opposite the west bank of Abutig and is today in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. At this location, on the east side of the river, a small temple was excavated at Badari, and one wonders whether the statue comes from this temple.90 If this is true, Megeb could be identified with the site of the temple, where there was most likely also a village.

Deities Nemtywy and Nemty The main deity of Tjebu is Nemtywy, in Greek sources called Antaios.91 The name Nemtywy is a dual, meaning ‘the two wanderers’, most likely representing Horus and Seth.92 The singular form Nemty was perhaps a different deity, but is also connected with the Wadjet province.93 It is not always easy to distinguish both deities. In hieroglyphs, Nemtywy could be written with two falcons in one or two boats.94 The two falcons might represent Horus and Seth. Once the name is written with two Seth animals.95 Nemtywy was also linked to the sun and in Roman times even often shown with a nimbus (halo).96 In the Wadjet province, Nemtywy is not yet attested for sure in the Old and Middle Kingdom apart from personal names. On stela Cairo 20021 appears a man with the name Nemtywy-nakht. On stela Cairo CG 20022 appears a person just called Nemtywy. Nemty is the main deity of the Twelfth Upper Egyptian province, but also well known from inscriptions in the Wadjet province. Nemty was strongly connected with Seth. Before the New Kingdom, only one larger depiction of the god is known, a rock cut stela in Sinai, showing Nemty with a Seth-animal head.97 Similar depictions are also known from later periods.98 His main duty in Egyptian mythology was being the ferryman of the sun god Re when the latter travelled through the Underworld at night.99

44

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

In the Wadjet province, Nemty is first attested on a copper ewer perhaps dating to the Second or Third Dynasty. The inscription can be read ‘priest of Nemty’ with the name Hetep, or ‘priest’ with the name Nemtyhetep.100 There is no further evidence to the deity within the Wadjet province in the Old Kingdom. Even in the rock cut tombs of the local governors at Hemamieh, he is not mentioned. The god then appears again only in the Middle Kingdom, mainly in personal names in the region but also in names attested in other parts of the country. A governor Nemtynakht is known from his offering table found in the modern village.101 Nemty also appears in an offering formula on a statuette found in the province.102

Mut The goddess Mut103 (Mut translates as ‘mother’) is well known from New Kingdom and other later sources as the wife of the Theban deity Amun. New Kingdom sources also name her as the main deity of Megeb.104 In contrast to the rich evidence in the New Kingdom, she is not well attested before this period.105 Indeed, before the New Kingdom she is known from only two possible references. Once she appears on a magical wand perhaps coming from Naqada. There ‘Hsm mwt’ is written as a caption for a figure.106 The reading of the word ‘Mut’ is not without problems. The goddess also appears on the late Middle Kingdom ‘Leizpig’ stela referred to above. The stela belongs to a ‘lady of the house’, Ibres. Two goddesses are mentioned in the offering formula:107 ‘Mut, lady of Megeb’ and ‘Nefret, lady of Minet’. Megeb and Minet are located in the Wadjet province. It is interesting that the stela with two female deities in the offering formula was dedicated by a woman. Indeed, there is further evidence that Mut was worshipped in the Middle Kingdom in the region. Several women attested on stelae assigned to Qau bear names combined with Mut. These names are Muthotep (Mut is satisfied),108 Dedetmut (given by Mut),109 Mutsenet (perhaps to be translated as ‘sister of Mut’ or perhaps as ‘sister of the mother’),110 Senmut (Brother of Mut),111 and simply Mut.112 In some cases Mut could be translated as ‘mother’. These names with the element Mut are also attested at other places but comprise a relatively high proportion of female names from the Wadjet province. This might be an indication that the element Mut refers to the goddess, as there seems no special reason that names with the word ‘mother’ should be more common here than in other places. If Mut refers to a local deity the frequency of the word in personal names makes perfect sense.

Hathor There are indications that Hathor was worshipped in the Wadjet province. Her worship there is certain for later periods.113 At Wadjet/Per-Wadjet she was, according to later sources, the main deity.114 It seems that Wadjet worshipped at Per-Wadjet was locally identified with Hathor. However, there is no clear evidence for a Hathor cult in the Old and Middle Kingdom. On the stela of Ibres, mentioned above, appears ‘Nefret, lady of Minet’. Renate Krauspe identifies Nefret with Hathor.115 Minet would be the cult place

1. Setting and history of research in Wadjet Province

45

for Hathor. However, it should not be ruled out that Nefret refers to another goddess or is even the proper name of a deity worshipped at Minet (see below), but otherwise not well attested. Several women shown in the Old Kingdom rock cut tombs at Hemamieh bear the title ‘priestess of Hathor’. Stephen Quirke has argued that this title most likely refers to the role of women in providing a musical frame for rituals in the cult of any deity. Hathor was the goddess of music and so making music was serving Hathor. Therefore, there is so far no secure evidence for a cult of Hathor in the province before the New Kingdom.116

Nefret This goddess Nefret (or Neferyt) appears on the stela of Ibres mentioned above. Nefret (‘the beautiful one’) might be a different name for Hathor. On a vessel found at Abydos she is mentioned as ‘lady of Pasheni’, a place otherwise not known. The king’s name on the object dates it to Senusret I.117

Khnum On the ‘White chapel’ of king Senusret I at Thebes, there appears a list of all Egyptian provinces with their measurements. The list also includes the place where the cord for measuring the province is placed. This place is often regarded as the provincial capital, although this is not specified in the inscriptions. For the Wadjet province no town is given, only a ram god, perhaps Khnum, appears there, perhaps as lord of the temple where the cord is stored.118 Khnum is otherwise not well attested in the province. He appears on a stone vessel from the end of the Old Kingdom, naming a king Neferkare, ‘beloved of Khnum, lord of Sesh’.119 This might be an early reference to Shashotep, the Middle Kingdom province capital of the Eleventh Upper Egyptian province on the west bank of the Nile.120

Sobek The crocodile god Sobek appears in several personal names of the Middle Kingdom in the province.121 Names based on Sobek are popular in the Middle Kingdom in general and therefore do not provide any evidence for a temple or specific cult in the region. However, he might be mentioned on a Second Intermediate Period stela as ‘lord of Minet’.122 He is certainly mentioned on a cylinder seal of the 13th Dynasty as ‘Sobek, lord of Minet’.123

Seth Seth has a strong presence in the province as Nemty(wy) is connected with him. The god alone, however, is not well attested. Seth, ‘the strong one’ appears in an offering formula on a statue from Qau.124 Otherwise there are no references to this god in this province before the New Kingdom. From the New Kingdom comes the stela of a local governor from Tjebu, shown in front of a hippopotamus. The offering formula mentions Seth.125

46

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Wahka and Ibu Two of the local governors with the names Wahka and Ibu appear in Middle Kingdom inscriptions as if they were local saints. These two governors are mentioned on several stelae in the offering formula.126 On stela Cairo CG 20549 men appear with the element Wahka in their name in the way that names of deities appear there: Wahka-em-weskhet (Wahka is in the broad hall) and Wahkaankh (Wahka may live). Local saints are well attested for the Middle Kingdom. The best documented example is Heqaib on Elephantine,127 another example is the local governor Isi worshipped at Edfu.128 Heqaib and Isi were officials of the late Old Kingdom.129 For Ibu and Wahka, Detlef Franke wonders whether these governors appeared in the offering formulas of their officials to make sure that their close relation symbolically lasted forever.130

Notes

1. The numbering of the provinces is modern, according to the sequence in which they appear in Egyptian lists. 2. Compare most recently Leitz 2006, especially p. 417. Leitz interprets the numbers on the chapels as those of an area and not as length. 3. Lacau, Chevrier 1956, pl. 3. 4. Gomaà 1979, 87; however, see Helck 1974, 99 who assumes that the Abutig was still part of the province. 5. Gomaà 1986, 253. 6. Helck 1974, 102. 7. Seidlmayer 2006. 8. Butzer 1976, 35. 9. Brunton 1927, 2–3. 10. Brunton 1927, 3. 11. Brunton 1927, 2–3. 12. Vleeming 1993, 72. 13. Butzer 1976, 79, fig. 12. 14. Wilcox 1999, 477. 15. Bernbeck 1994, 58–9. 16. Stone 1991, 349–52. 17. Moeller 2016, 92–103. 18. Moeller 2016, 164–75. 19. Oates and Oates 1976, 120; Seidlmayer 1990, 208. 20. Mac Coul, 1988, 6–8 21. Chassinat 1903, 103. 22. Steckeweh 1936, 4. 23. Steckeweh 1936. 24. Petrie 1930. 25. Brunton 1927; 1928; 1930; Brunton and Thompson 1928. 26. Holmes and Friedman 1994, 105. 27. Brunton 1927, 4. 28. Cortebeeck 2016.

1. Setting and history of research in Wadjet Province 29. Rösing 1987. 30. Seidlmayer 1990, 206–9. 31. Baines, Lacovara 2002, 12–14. 32. Baines 2006, 17; compare Gillam 2011, 113. 33. Emery 1961, 128–64. 34. Richards 2005, 66. 35. For the cronology: Dee et al. 2013. 36. Kemp 1977. 37. el-Khouli, Kanawati 1990, pl. 73. 38. Murray 2000, 507–508. 39. Murray 2000, 520. 40. Murray 2000, 508. 41. Murray 2000, 505–6. 42. Bernbeck 1994, 289. 43. Hruška 1988, 138–9. 44. Moreno García 2008–2009, 55. 45. Murray 2000, 517. 46. Murray 2000, 519. 47. Wolf 1966, 81–7; Bernbeck 1994, 34. 48. Murray 2000, 616–24. 49. Endesfelder 1979, 42. 50. Boessneck 1988, 67. 51. Boessneck 1988, 68. 52. Boessneck 1988, 72. 53. Boessneck 1988, 72–3. 54. Boessneck 1988, 74. 55. Boessneck 1999, 311. 56. Jaritz; Doll; Dominicus, Rutishauser 2001, 155, table 2 57. Boessneck 1988, 77–8. 58. Boessneck 1999, 311. 59. Boessneck 1988, 118–33. 60. Boessneck 1999, 312. 61. Midgley, in Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928, 64–5. 62. Jones 2008, 108–9. 63. Collier and Quirke 2006, 144–5. 64. Gale et al. 2000. 65. Brunton 1927, 46–7. 66. Brunton 1927, 60–1. 67. el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990, pl. 69. 68. Wilson 1960. 69. Eyre 1999, 34. 70. Moeller 2016, 31–8. 71. Gomaà 1986, 239. 72. Steckeweh, p. 1. 73. Gomaà 1986, 239. 74. Helck 1974, 96–7. 75. Petrie 1930: pl. xix 2, 3. 76. Helck 1974, 97. 77. Gomaà 1986, 237. 78. Quibell 1903.

47

48

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

79. Petrie 1907, 10, pls viie–viif. 80. Porter and Moss 1937, 16. 81. Kirbey and Ikram1992. 82. Kirbey 1992; Kirbey and Monkhouse 1999; Alexanian 2016, 187. 83. Chabân 1907, 222. 84. Krauspe 1974, 160–1. 85. James 1974, 64, no. 149, pl. xlii (Brooklyn Museum 44.123.76). 86. Mogensen 1919, 29. 87. Gomaà 1986, 241. 88. Cairo CG 585; Krauspe 1974, 160–1. 89. Krauspe 1974, 160–1. 90. proposed by Gomaà 1986, 243; the statue: Cairo CG 585. 91. Hodjash and Berlev 1982, 208–9. 92. Seyfried 1984, 462. 93. However, recently, the distinction between the two deities seems to have been regarded as doubtful and in the main dictionary of Ancient Egyptian gods, there appears only an entry for ‘Nemty’, and no entry for Nemtywy; Leitz (2002b, 242–4); for the reading Nemty, see Berlev (1969). 94. For example Nims 1952, fig. 2 (list of deities in Medinet Habu). 95. Welvaert 2002, 169. 96. Seyfried 1984, 466, fig. 6. 97. Welvaert 2002, 169–70. 98. Seyfried 1984, 463. 99. Welvaert 2002, 171. 100. Brunton 1927, pl. xviii, 10. 101. Petrie 1930, 13 pl. xvii (according to Petrie found at the ‘Southern village’) 102. Steckeweh 1936, 49. 103. Leitz 2002a, 251–2. 104. Nims 1952, fig. 2, 43; Helck 1974, 21. 105. Bolshakov 2008, 25–6. 106. Quirke 2016, 239 (with further references). 107. Krauspe 1974. 108. Cairo CG 20681, Ranke 1935, 148, 12. 109. Cairo CG 20021, Ranke 1935, 403, 11. 110. Cairo CG 20268. 111. Cairo CG 20245. 112. Cairo CG 20342, Ranke 1935, 147, 3. 113. Montet 1961, 119. 114. See the list in Helck 1974, 21. 115. Krauspe 1979, 161. 116. Quirke 1999, 229. 117. Gomaà 1986, 218. 118. Lacau, Chevrier 1956, pl. 3; Helck 1974, 96. 119. Brunton 1927, pl. xli, 17 (tomb 3202). 120. Gomaà 1986, 250–1. 121. For example, on the stelae Cairo CG 20021, CG 20022, CG 20112, CG 2026, 8 CG 20550, CG 20681. 122. Mogensen 1919, 29. 123. James 1974, 64, no. 149, pl. xlii (Brooklyn Museum 44.123.76); about Sobek in Minet compare Kochelmann 2017, 339–40.

1. Setting and history of research in Wadjet Province

49

124. Steckeweh 1936, 49. 125. Brunton 1930, pls xxxii, xxxiii 126. Cairo CG 20549 (Wahka); Steckeweh 1936, 53–4, pl. 18 (stela Berlin 21822, Ibu); Steckeweh 1936, 49 (statuette in Turin, Ibu), Steckeweh 1936, 49 (statuette in Turin, Wahka) 127. Franke 1994, 118–52 128. Franke 1994, 139 129. Franke 1994, 133 130. Franke 1994, 133

Chapter 2 The Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods

The Predynastic Period There are not many remains of the Old Stone Age (Palaeolithic) in Egypt. Nevertheless, stone tools typical for this phase of human history have been found at several places across Egypt.1 In the Near East, after 10,000 BC, the first societies developed, with domestication of plants and animals as well as pottery making. This is the period of human history called the Neolithic. The first larger settlements, such as Jericho, Nevalı Çori or ‘Ain Ghazal, appear from about 9500 BC onwards in the Near East. In contrast, Egypt lagged a little bit behind this development.2 Research in the last decades has shown that Egypt has to be seen in the wider context of developments in North Africa, in the Sahara and in Sudan. There is indeed evidence for the Sahara that there were already Neolithic cultures there in the seventh millennium BC. Around 7000 BC the Sahara was much more humid than today. In the higher regions there were forests and in the lower regions there was a rich flora of all types. Unlike today, people lived in the whole region. They produced pottery and had simple stone tools; there is also evidence for bone tools. There are beads, bangles and small discs made of ostrich eggs. One important site is Tagalagal in the Aïr mountains in the north of Niger, where pottery decorated with wavy lines was found and also grinding stones.3 Radiocarbon analysis indicates that the site flourished around 7000 BC, one of the earliest dates for a Neolithic culture in the Sahara. Another site is Amekni in southern Algeria.4 Here too decorated pottery was found, similar to that of the Khartoum Neolithic. Stone tools are simple but there are many well-made bone tools. There is no sign of agriculture. The people living here were most likely hunters and gatherers. Three skeletons buried here are identified as ‘negroid’.5 The Sudanese Khartoum Neolithic flourished in the fourth millennium BC. The pottery

52

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

was unpainted but decorated with a punched and incised design. It shows a combination of dots and lines and therefore a close connection with other African pottery wares.6 The earliest Neolithic culture in Egypt was found at the Fayum lake and is therefore called the Fayum Neolithic. The people produced simple pottery and used stone tools. Grinding stones were found and many holes in the ground that were used for some kind of granary. Several types of grain were planted: wheat (Triticum dicoccum), six row (Hordeum hexastichum), four-row (H. vulgare) and two-row barley (H. distichum). There is also evidence for flax (Linum usitatissimum), indicating linen production.7 Linen was found at the site. Another important early site in Egypt is Merimde Benisalame at the western edge of the Delta. Here were excavated the remains of a huge settlement dating to the fifth millennium BC. People produced simple pottery, used stone tools, and created clay figures of animals. They were buried close to the settlement site, so that earlier excavators even thought that some burials were made within houses.8 The people at Merimde Beni Salama had sheep, cattle, pigs and goats. Dogs were also known.9 The Tarifian culture in Upper Egypt is attested in the fifth millennium and is the first culture to produce pottery there. The Tarifian is so far only known from el-Tarif at Thebes, where excavations on Old Kingdom mastabas (a mastaba is an above-ground often rectangular structure with a cult place for the dead; the burial chamber with the deceased body was most often under the mastaba) and First Intermediate Period royal tombs revealed earlier remains, including the earliest Neolithic remains in this part of the country. The find spot provided the name for the culture. About 5400 flint objects were collected, including 561 tools. Pottery was found only in small fragments and it is therefore difficult to reconstruct the original shape of vessels. The few recognisable forms belong to bowls. There were two types of pottery vessels in terms of technology. There are handmade ones that use clay from the Sahaba-Darau formation.10 Other pottery was made on a turntable and used clay from the flood plain. Very little can be said about an exact dating. The levels of this culture were found above gravels perhaps related to the Dishna recession (about the eighth millennium BC) and under levels with material of the Naqada culture of the fourth millennium BC, so it is definitely older than that. A date of the fifth millennium BC for the Tarifian culture has been suggested.11

The Badarian Period The earliest substantial human remains in the Wadjet province belong to the ­Badarian culture, named after the village of Badari in the area where this culture was first recognised in 1922 by Guy Brunton (Fig. 6). The Badarian culture flourished around 4400 BC. The culture is known mainly from Upper Egyptian sites, in the north up to Matmar, just north of the Wadjet province. In the south the culture is attested at Hierakonpolis and Elkab. At most places only a few remains survived, mostly pottery. Up to now, the cemeteries and settlements excavated in the Badari region are still the most substantial relics of this early culture.

2. The Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods

53

There is some ­discussion about the origin of the ­Badarian culture. Early on it was connected with the Near East.12 Lech Krzyazniak examined the rippling of the Badarian pottery and provided parallels for the same effect on pottery found at Jericho, Byblos and southern Anatolia.13 More recent research points instead to a strong African connection14 as the closest parallels to the Badarian black top vessels are to be found in Sudan, and there are similarities in the pottery to the Western oasis.15 The Badarian culture evidently incorporated many different traditions. Béatrix MidantReynes calls it ‘Egyptian’ as it ‘assimilated and converted into powerfully original forms, traits that are rarely encountered elsewhere’.16 The people of the Badarian culture were buried in cemeFigure 6. Badarian sites (author) teries along the fertile land on the lower desert, most likely close to the villages where they lived. Best preserved are the Badarian cemeteries around Badari: Cemetery 5100 – 61 burials. Cemetery 5200 – 11 burials. (These two cemeteries may once have formed a single burial ground.) Cemetery 5300 – 54 burials Cemetery 5400 – 56 burials. Cemetery 5700 – 71 burials Cemetery 5800 – 17 burials The earliest Badarian Period remains at the cemeteries of Qau were heavily ­ isturbed in later times, so that only a few graves and some un-contexted artefacts d were found.17 The graves were hollowed out into the soft ground. They often have no clear shape, evidently just dug out for the body without much concern about an

54

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Figure 7. Examples of Badarian pottery

architectural setting. There is evidence that the burials were once covered to create small chambers for the deceased and the burial goods. Burials are always reserved for just one body; there are no cases of more than one body in one grave. This is unlike many other periods of Egyptian history where there are many examples of burials of one women and a child, as perhaps when women died at childbirth. The head was most often oriented to the south. The tombs do not vary much in size. Burials of men and women are almost the same size.18 There are no signs of coffins. People were most often placed on or even wrapped in mats. Burial goods were found sometimes within the mats wrapped around the body. Remains of linen were found, in a few cases over the face. In general it is possible that people were buried in their daily life dress and wrapped in a mat. In contrast, the remains of linen might belong to shrouds that once covered the dead body. Some remains of Badarian settlements were recorded and partly excavated. The only well documented one is a site near modern Hemamieh. Here several levels were recorded dating from the Badarian Period up to Naqada II.19 Remains of round huts were found, all quite small, and perhaps animal pens or stables rather then permanent houses for people. The Badari culture is defined above all by its characteristic pottery (Figs  7–9). Guy Brunton found 666 vessels and divided them into 451 types. He distinguished seven wares, of which the most typical are black-topped brown and black-topped red ware. There are also polished red, all black, smooth brown, rough brown and ‘miscellaneous’ ware. The pottery shapes are rather simple, with roughly even numbers of

2. The Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods

55

Figure 8. Badarian vessel, tomb 5388, c. 21.5 cm wide (UC 9404) (author)

open and closed forms.20 There are only a few types attested with more than one vessel, evidently almost every vessel has its own shape. This seems typical for a society where pottery was not yet produced on a larger scale but most often at home by farmers. It seems there was not yet any clear division of labour. Other artefacts found are many personal adornments (Fig. 10b). In almost half of the burials beads were Figure 9. Badarian vessel, tomb 5112, c. 10 cm high discovered. Cosmetic objects are (UC 9045) (author) common in burials too. These include cosmetic palettes made of silt and other stones and most likely used for preparing eye paint (Fig. 10a). The Badarian cosmetic palettes are simple in shape, most often rectangular (Fig. 11). Several Badrian examples have a groove at the short ends. 21 Another object category, perhaps also for cosmetic use, comprises elaborate ivory spoons with a handle in animal shape. 22 These spoons are often large, with the container being big and square. One copper object was found, 23 so the Badarian culture belongs to the Chalcolithic, i.e. the Copper and Stone Age. The Badarian is the first Egyptian culture to use metal. In a few burials glazed beads were found, sometimes in high numbers.24 The Badarian people also produced small clay figures showing naked women (Fig. 12), three of which were found. 25 The interpretation of these figures is open to different interpretations, thought to relate to religious beliefs. 26 It is very hard to get a clear picture of the social relations within Badarian society. The burials do not show much difference in size and indicate few social differences. For a long time this created the impression of an egalitarian society. However, a few differences are visible in equipment.27 It must be emphasised, however, that

56

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

a

b

Figure 10. a) Bone spoon as part of cosmetic set, tomb 550 (UC 17791); b) ivory bracelet, Badarian Period, from tomb 5128 (UC 9148A) (both author)

the quantity of data is low. Possibly the excavators just hit cemeteries of the poorer segment of society, perhaps finding only burials of some villages while somewhere else there was a larger town-like place. Nevertheless, another point is that the few richer tombs were found looted while poorer ones on average fared slightly better. However, in comparison to later periods, these differences are small. There are no tombs with an elaborate architecture and even the ones with a greater number or variety of objects do not create the impression that they were once richly equipped. Badarian society therefore appears to represent a society in the development stage at the end of primitive communism. The economic base most likely already included agriculture.28 Hunting and herding were certainly also an important part. The settlements excavated at Badari were most likely not permanent ones. There are no remains of proper houses. There are some post-holes, but they do not form patterns that indicate the plan of a house.29 The Badarian people might have lived in flimsy huts or tents and might have moved around quite often. However, these Badarian settlements are mainly known from low desert sites. It might be argued that these reflect only a section of society mainly involved in animal herding, providing the impression that the people of the time here were mainly hunters and gatherers who were also farming. However, the opposite might be equally true: that these people were mostly farmers while only a small section of society was involved in cattle herding, the latter being those that are mainly visible in the archaeological record. It is not certain whether the glazed beads and the copper object are products of the people of the Badarian.30 At Abu Matar in the southern Levant a settlement of the fifth millennium BC was excavated where copper working was flourishing. Marine shells from the Red Sea, turquoise from Sinai and shells of freshwater snails

2. The Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods

57

Figure 11. Examples of Badarian spoons and cosmetic palettes (not to scale)

that lived in the Nile valley were also found at the site. This indicates that Abu Matar had many trading contacts with other regions, including the Nile valley, and it seems not impossible that the Badarian copper comes from there or from other places in the southern Levant.31 The end of the Badarian culture is little understood. Some scholars regard it as not even a culture in itself, but rather as an earlier phase of the later Naqada culture.32 The archaeological evidence is not that clear. The pottery evidence is rather probFigure 12. Badarian figures of naked women lematic. The vessel types and pottery seen as typical of the Badarian culture (rippled ware and ware with a sharp ankle) are indeed rather uncommon forms.33 In the whole corpus of Badarian pottery, they

58

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

are the exception rather than the norm. In contrast, the cemeteries show quite a clear picture: Badarian cemeteries are always on their own with no Naqada burials. However the settlement sites show a rather different picture: there seems to be no break between the Badarian levels and those Figure 13. Examples of vessels found in burials with just one pot of the early Naqada period. To provide a clearer picture of the remains found, some burials will be described in greater detail. Burial 5739 belonged to a man placed in the ground in a tight contracted position. The head was oriented to the south. There were remains of a mat and animal skin that covered the body. No pottery was found in the burial, but there was a range of items over his knees. Brunton wondered whether they were once placed in a leather bag. There was a cosmetic palette, several pebbles, evidently for grinding eye paint on the palette, a shell, a bone needle, two bone piercers and two stone knives.34 The cosmetic palette seems more typical for the burial of a woman, the knives better fit that of a man, although it might be argued that they belong to cosmetic equipment. Burial 5134 belonged to a child. The body was once wrapped in animal skin and then covered with mats. The burial goods found were a flint tool, two sherds and a pot, the last was placed close to the head (Fig. 13).35 Burial 5348 belonged to the poorest burials. The body of a man was placed in a hole in the ground on a mat. The only burial good was one single pot (Fig. 13). Burial 5352 again contained the body of a man wrapped in animal skin; the hair of the skin was on the outside. No pottery vessel was found.36 It is not easy to make any rules from the burial goods. The protection of the body was most likely the most important issue. Mats and animal skins are common and protected the body. After this, one or a few more pottery vessels are important. This must be for the symbolic eternal food supply. Of some special interest is burial 569 (Fig. 14). It was disturbed and only parts of the skeleton remained, though enough to demonstrate that the person was perhaps a man who was placed with his head to the south. The grave was large although it was not possible to take exact measurements due to the loose gravel where the man was placed. The burial contained a well crafted flint knife,37 a rectangular cosmetic palette, a slab of selenite and four vessels. The pottery is of special importance. One bowl is finely crafted and is a typical Badarian vessel. A jar is also typical of the Badarian culture and belongs to the rough brown ware. One further vessel is a globular jar with four handles and un-Egyptian bright clay, described by Brunton as ‘pinky

2. The Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods

59

buff’. The vessel has close ­parallels in the southern Levant and indicates wider goods exchange contacts with that area, something already suggested by the copper find in one Badarian grave (p.  57). The third vessel is a beaker decorated with an incised pattern of lines and triangles (Fig. 15). The vessel Figure 14. Pottery and burial of grave 569 is of a type attributed to the enigmatic Tasa culture (also called Tasian). North of Badari in the region of Mostaggeda, near a place called Deir Tasa, in 1927/30 Brunton found several burials with a distinguished pottery that is often decorated with incised geometrical patterns. The culture is mainly defined by the pottery. There are three main types: (1) reddish brown and grey vessels of a rough ware, (2) greyish black pottery with a burnished surface and vertical and diagonal ripples, (3) black polished tulip beakers with incised geometrical patterns, such as the vessel in burial 569. 38 Other finds are often close to those of the Badarian culture and it is sometimes hard to separate the two. Brunton assumed that the Tasian was an early stage of the Badarian culture.39 In Figure 15. Tasian vessel from grave 569 at Qau recent decades remains of Tasian culture (British Museum EA 59728) (author) have also been found in the desert, and it seems that the Tasian were rather nomadic people living in the eastern and western desert with some contacts with the people in the Nile valley and Nubia.40

The Naqada Period Most of the fourth millennium BC was dominated in Upper Egypt by the Naqada culture. It was first discovered at a place in Upper Egypt, today called Naqada, where about 2000 burials of that age were excavated by Flinders Petrie. At the beginning, the Naqada culture mainly flourished in Upper Egypt, but over time it spread over all of Egypt and even south to Lower Nubia.41 Flinders Petrie divided the Naqada into two main periods. The early Naqada period he called Amratian (named after the site el-Amrah); the later was labelled Gerzean (named after Gerzeh). Furthermore, he divided the Naqada period into

60

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

further smaller chronological units which he called sequence dates. Mainly according to the development of pottery, he observed small changes and related them to chronological phases of the predynastic period. This system was accepted for many years and in Brunton’s publication of the Naqada-period burials at Qau and Badari, he provided the sequence date for each burial. However, in 1957 the German scholar Werner Kaiser published a new study based on the Naqada cemeteries at Armant in which he divided the Naqada into the periods Naqada I–III with different subdivisions.42 Kaiser’s research remains the fundamental study on the chronology of the Naqada period. Later corrections basically maintain the system while adding small modifications. About 230 burials at Qau and Badari belong to the Naqada period. The burials found are often heavily looted and disturbed by later activities.43 Naqada I in particular seems to be just a continuation of the Badarian culture, supporting the theory that the Badarian was an early phase of the Naqada.44 Naqada I is not, in general, well attested in Egypt.45 There is only a handful of tombs dating to the period, consisting of 11 burials at Qau.46 Figure 16. Early Naqada Period vessel with painted Burial customs are very similar to those decoration, tomb 120 (UC 9524) (author)

Figure 17. Naqada Period: decorated ware

2. The Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods

61

of the Badarian, with surface burials and the bodies most often oriented to the south. Especially in Naqada I, these burials are often rather poorly equipped. A remarkable feature is the appearance of decorated pottery, called ‘white crossed lined’ ware. These are mainly geometrical patterns painted in a bright colour on the darker red surface of the vessels (Fig. 17).47 The painted vessels are mostly bowls. The typical Badarian black topped ware is still common but disappears with Naqada II. In about Naqada II another decorated ware appears. It is often made of marl clay with a slightly brighter background. Figures are also painted on these vessels (Figs  16–18).48 The depiction of ships is typical. The Naqada period produced some major technical advances. The period saw the beginning of copper production. The early Naqada copper is mainly hammered.49 New metals appear for the first time in Egypt, these are lead,50 silver,51 and gold.52 The textile technology changed, making it possible to produced much finer linen.53 Stone vessels are a highlight of craft production of the period. A wide range of stones was used, including basalt, limestone, alabaster, and breccia.54 Cosmetic palettes used for preparing eye paint Figure 18. Naqada Period, decorated vessel, from are still often found in burials of women a hole/deposit (UC 9544) (author) (Figs 19–20).55

Figure 19. Cosmetic palettes of the Naqada Period

Figure 20. Naqada Cosmetic palette, tomb 1742 (UC 9510) (author)

62

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Figure 21. Ivory wand, early Naqada Period from tomb 1787 (UC 26517) (author)

Examples of burials A brief description of a selection of Naqada I burials is given here. Graves 120 and 133 are the earliest, both surface burials. Grave 120 had only one vessel, a bowl with geometric decoration on the inside, painted in white on a dark red background (see Fig. 17).56 For grave 133 little information is recorded on the body of the deceased, but the tomb register indicates that the head was oriented to the south. Again, just one pottery vessel was found, a red polished cylindrical vessel, but there were also shells. Grave 107 was a shallow surface burial most likely already robbed in antiquity. The body Figure 22. Comb, early Naqada of the dead was perhaps once wrapped in a mat. Two Period, Tomb 1670 (UC 9581) vessels were found, one of them a nicely painted vase (author) with the depictions of two ships. Slightly later is grave 110.57 It was found intact and contained the body of a man placed in a contracted position with the head to the south. The only preserved burial good was a simple black topped vessel in front of his face. The body and the vessel were both covered with a grass mat.58 Another burial of a man is 3609, equipped with three black topped pottery vessels found in front of the deceased, and some beads and a slate palette. There were also the remains of a coffin.59 Grave 136 belonged to a woman. Four black topped ware vessels were placed in front of her. She wore ivory bangles and a small double bird shaped cosmetic was found at the knee. Remains of malachite and resin were also found there, evidently for painting the eyes. The body and the objects were covered with a reed mat.60 Burial Badari 3608 belonged most likely to Naqada II and was found undisturbed. It most likely belonged to a woman. The body was placed in a surface burial within a coffin, head to the south. Two vessels, two shells, and a cosmetic palette were found. Burial Qau 1629 also belonged to a woman. She was placed in a contracted position within a wooden coffin or box. The box was quite large and it seems that it was rather some wooden framing for a small chamber in which she was placed. Two cosmetic palettes were placed in front of her. Several pebbles were found, evidently for grinding eye

2. The Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods

63

paint on the palettes. Around her neck were found many beads, evidently once forming one or more necklaces (compare Fig. 23). There was also a stone vessel and two pottery vessels. Some of the beads are made of lapis lazuli; one pendant is of obsidian. Lapis lazuli does not come from Egypt, and the nearest sources are far away in Afghanistan, providing evidence for wide goods exchange networks in this early period.61 The same conclusion can be drawn from the obsidian pendant. Obsidian is not attested in Egypt but can be found in several distant countries such as Yemen and Ethiopia,62 again demon- Figure 23. Beads from tomb 1742, late Naqada strating some wider trading networks. Period (UC 27372) (author) Qau was evidently already connected directly or indirectly with far off lands. Burial 3909 was that of a man placed in a wooden coffin or box with the head to the south. The burial was found undisturbed and contained two shells, perhaps used as personal adornments, and a bigger one, perhaps used as some kind of container. Seven pottery vessels were found.63 The most remarkable is painted on one side with a row of ostriches and on the other side with mountains.64 A dozen burials found at Qau cemetery 200 (south of the ancient town) might belong to the very end of the Naqada period shortly before the time of state formation. They confirm that there was already a settlement at Qau, but the recorded number of interments is small. The pottery found is very similar to that found in other parts of Egypt. Burial 223 belonged to an adult, but the grave was heavily disturbed and contained only two vessels, one of the type that Petrie called a wavy handled jar. The wavy handled jars had a rapid development in the Naqada Period and were used by Flinders Petrie to establish his ‘sequence dating’ system. The example found in burial 223 is painted with a criss-cross pattern, perhaps imitating a suspension net used to hold such a vessel (Fig. 24). Burial 212 belonged to a woman who was placed in a mud brick coffin with the head to the south. Six vessels (vessel types) were found in her burial. One of them had a pot mark, in this case just a simple scratch (Fig.  25). Burial 215 belonged to a child and contained another example of a wavy handled jar, again finely painted with a net pattern (Fig. 26).

Gender issues Not many of the burials of the Naqada period were sexed after the excavation; bad preservation of skeletons seems to have made that impossible in many cases. Therefore,

64

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

it is hard to give any statistics about the burial equipment in relation to gender. In the case of the burials presented, it seems remarkable that one woman has one of the most richly equipped, while the burials of men are rather simple. This pattern is common for many periods of Pharaonic history. Burials of women are often more richly equipped as they often contain a higher number of personal adornments and cosmetic objects (compare Figs 19–22, 27). These are gender markers, objects perhaps already used in daily life. This does not mean that women were in general richer or had a higher social status. Indeed, evidence from other periods and other places show that burials of men are often bigger or were on average equipped Figure 24. Pottery from burial 223 with more pottery.65 Just looking at pottery vessels, the equipment seems almost equal. The 40 sexed female burials contained an average of 2.95 pottery vessels, whereas the average for 32 sexed burials of men was 2.65 vessels.

Settlement remains Some remains of settlements are briefly described in the excavation report by Brunton, but it is hard to obtain a clear picture about what was found.66 These remains appeared mostly as collections of single objects buried under or almost above the ground. It seems that architecture was rarely encountered, although at least some remains of mud floors were found. The objects found include many pottery sherds along with a wide range of other daily life objects that might be expected on a settlement site. These include a breccia spindle-whorl as well as flint and bone tools. Among more remarkable finds are several object hoards. One was found in a pot buried about 130 cm under the surface.67 The vessel contained an ivory tusk with human head at the top and with a loop. Sadly it was heavily decayed when found and could not be preserved. Several ivory amulets were found, two spindle-whorls, many beads and pierced shells for stringing, pieces of wood, resin, malachite, and red ochre were also found. Some of the wood could be identified as cedar.68 This is again remarkable as cedar is not an Egyptian tree. It provides further evidence for long distance goods exchange in these early times. Another hoard was once placed in a goat skin bag and was covered in ancient times by a bowl placed upside-down.69 There were several amulets, one in bird shape (the latter might be a cosmetic palette and not an amulet); flint flakes and shells were

2. The Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods

65

Figure 25. Pottery from burial 212 

found too. There were also remains of brown hair. The function of these deposits must remain open. Hoards of finds are attested for many periods of human history.70 They are often placed into the ground to protect the objects against potential looters (in times of conflict) with the intention of uncovering them later in more secure times. However, they may also represent votive offerings to gods. These hoards did not contain metal or other valuable materials, although ivory must have had some value. Therefore, it seems that they were indeed votives for deities.

Social organization Is it possible to portray village life beyond the artefacts found? Igor Diakonoff provides one model. He describes the social organisation of village life as patriarchal. The centre of social life was the family. Its head was the patriarch who ruled over his sons and grandsons with their wives and children. So long as he lived, all members of the family were under his charge, including people working for the family.71 Diakonoff evidently had a strict patriarchal, rural society in mind. It is impossible to confirm or to deny this idea. In Pharaonic times Egypt was a patriarchal society and thus it might be argued that this was also the case in earlier periods. Gordon Childe also discussed early village societies before state formation. In economic terms the families there were most likely ‘household industries’. 72 These can appear in early

Figure 26. Vessel from burial 215

66

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Neolithic societies but survive till today in remoter parts of the world.73 In these ‘household industries’ there was no privately owned property. Storage for agricultural societies was crucial. A seasonal catch or annual harvest had to be put in a safe place as it was needed for the whole year and even beyond. This presented high risks. A bad harvest had a negative influence for the whole year and the year after. This contrasts with hunters and gatherers for whom a failed hunt affected a family or given group for just a short while74 (though hunters and gatherers were faced with other problems). There is not yet any clear division of labour, although within families there might be works that were typically done by men or women. In theory everybody carried out all tasks when needed and they were able to do so, as craft production was not yet very specialised.75 These ‘household industries’ worked not for profit, but for survival. If there was more work to do, it was done mainly to maintain life and not for profit. It also means that more work was done when the family had several children that could not yet help or when there were also elderly people in the family that were not able to work.76 Household industries did not disappear in later times and are still attested in capitalist societies. Such communities tend to be rather small. An entire family might consist of about 20 members, including several generations, children and grandparents. A whole village might be not much bigger than 6–8 families; otherwise the social relations tend to become unstable unless certain hierarchies developed.77 All these patterns seem to apply to the small communities visible from the small cemeteries of the Badarian and early Naqada people. Evidently, these villages did not operate in isolation. One point is marriage between villages. Such communities are too small to survive over a longer period. There was a high risk that the gender balance in the popu- F i g u re 2 7 . N a q a d a period, Bird-headed bone lation would get out of order. The gene pool would become (?) pin, from grave 1670 too narrow. Therefore marriage between villages was almost (UC 9580) (author) inevitable.78 At other places, the Naqada period saw the rise of a class society. At the sites of Naqada, Hierakonpolis and Abydos large cemeteries were excavated. There are on the one hand several quite large, well built tombs and on the other many rather simple ones. Evidently these bigger, well built and better equipped tombs belong to the ruling classes that emerged within the Naqada period. It is evident that some

2. The Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods

67

locals were able to pay some sort of tributes, making some people in the villages and early towns markedly richer than others. This trend of social polarisation is not that clearly visible at Qau and Badari.79 There are hardly any tombs that can be classified as those belonging to a ruling class. In comparison to the tombs at the centres mentioned above, the burials in this region appear to be quite modest. However, at least two graves (1692, 3771) in the region were lined with bricks, demonstrating that some people invested more resources in building a tomb than other people did or were able to do. The Naqada Period is certainly also the period that saw a division of labour. It can be assumed that there were now craftsmen that were specialised in particular trades. In Tell el-Farkha, in the Delta, the remains of a brewery were excavated.80 The remains belong to a substantial installation, and it is hard to believe that people worked here only on a part time basis. The perfection of the stone vessels might also indicate that full time craftsmen were working here. The same may be true of metal working. Especially at the end of the Naqada Period, vessels became more standardised also indicating that they were produced by specialised potters.81 However, the organisation of craft and art production remains unknown. Certain trades at least might be still done as household industries with the father and family members working together. The survival of such households was more precarious than those household industries producing food, for in a famine, they would be the first not to have enough to eat. Furthermore, it may not always have been easy to find customers for the products that these household industries made. Craftsmen were therefore better off working for a local chief who was able to pay them on a regular basis from the tributes the latter received from the other household industries.82 It remains unclear how the villages at Qau and Badari and in other places were organised politically in the Naqada Period. Was each of these villages independent or did they belong to a bigger political unit? The uniformity of material culture especially in Upper Egypt in the Naqada Period (but also in Lower Egypt for the Buto-Maadi culture) might too easily persuade us to believe that these regions were already one state or chiefdom. Indeed, it seems possible and likely that at some point in the Naqada Period, chiefdoms developed: several villages ruled by one chief. This is the point at which the tributary mode of production began, with a ruler at one place demanding tributes from other places.83 Within the Naqada Period, Egypt also became a clearly stratified class society, something that is visible in the funerary archaeology of the period. At some point Egypt turned into a kingdom, something best visible with the beginning of the written sources. It has been argued that there were several smaller kingdoms, or larger chiefdoms, throughout Naqada period Egypt, with several bigger towns functioning as seats of a local king or chief, however we choose to call this person. Indeed, at Naqada, Abydos and Hierakonpolis there is evidence for cemeteries used by the local ruling classes. Their tombs are set apart from those of the rest of the population and these tombs are better equipped than most of the others.84 It has been argued that some

68

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

of the biggest tombs might belong to early kings. One example of such a tomb of a ruler would be U-j in Abydos,85 the biggest of its time, dating around 3200 BC. It is built of mud bricks with twelve chambers. One chamber was found full of pottery imported from Syria-Palestine,86 underlining the evidence that the person buried here had many resources. Furthermore, in the tomb were found many inscribed ivory labels. The region this king ruled can only be guessed. Barry Kemp proposed three kingdoms in Upper Egypt, one based around Hierakonpolis, a second one around Naqada and the third one around Thinis (Abydos must have functioned as cemetery for Thinis).87 It must remain unknown whether Qau and Badari belonged to the king of Abydos or whether there was another centre north of Abydos, not yet located. So far there is little evidence that Qau was of special importance in this period. Yet the idea that Egypt was divided into several kingdoms in the Naqada period is just one option, despite it recently having received so much support from several leading scholars that it is by now almost regarded as fact.88 It should clearly be stated that other options are possible. Perhaps Egypt was already early on one large nation basically covering the regions with the Naqada culture. Another option is an empire with vassal states: those big tombs at local centres might be those of vassal kings. Indeed in the Ancient Egyptians’ own view, the country was once divided into two kingdoms that were united by king Menes. This option had been dismissed as mythical in recent decades, but perhaps should be still kept as an option.89 If Egypt was early on a single large state, mainly in Upper Egypt, the bigger local tombs, often seen as those of local chiefs, might simply belong to local governors and not to local kings, while there was one king ruling Egypt. There are indeed some odd points in the supposed development of the royal tombs at Abydos at the end of the Naqada period. The earliest example identified there is U-j, now famous in Egyptian archaeology. It is a fairly large (9.10 × 7.5 m) mud brick structure consisting of 12 chambers. The size is outstanding in its period, so the monument might indeed belong to a king. The later tombs assigned to the kings at the very end of the Naqada period are in contrast smaller, consisting of two separate small chambers.90 One wonders whether they really belonged to kings. If they do not belong to kings, this might lead to the conclusion that royal tombs dating before the First Dynasty are so far simply missing and thus there was no kingdom at Abydos. Another odd case is Tarkhan. This is the site of a huge cemetery with more than 1000 tombs, near the Fayum, some 60 km south of Cairo. It had been argued that this was also the cemetery of a local kingdom,91 with a king named ‘Crocodile’ ruling in this region.92 However, the reading of the king’s name was taken from a seal impression that most plausibly shows not the name of a king but rather the temple of the crocodile deity Sobek,93 worshipped not very far away in Shedet in the Fayum. Furthermore, at Tarkhan hardly any monumental tombs are datable before the proposed state formation of the First Dynasty and belong to a potential local king. Ironically, the largest tomb (414) dating to the very beginning of the First Dynasty contained the

2. The Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods

69

seal impressions assigned to king Crocodile but also a large number of seal impressions of king Narmer.94 The person buried here was evidently closely connected to the royal court95 and not to any local court. There is little indication that Tarkhan was ever the capital of any local kingdom.

The Early Dynastic Period Around 3000 BC Egypt appears in our sources as a unified state with a central ­government most likely ruling from Memphis in the north. A central administration is fully visible for the first time. The Early Dynastic period consists of the First, Second and Third Dynasty, from about 3000–2700 BC. Not many written documents dating to this period were found in the Wadjet province. The Dynastic division of Egyptian history is therefore not of special importance and not a very useful chronological frame for this region.

The archaeology of the region The dating of burials to the Early Dynastic Period in the Wadjet province is problematic. About 70 tombs at Qau were placed by Brunton in the Early Dynastic Period (called protodynastic in his tomb register), while altogether about 150 graves were dated to this period. Several burials at Badari were assigned by Brunton to the Second and Third Dynasty.96 However, a reevaluation of these datings by Kemp indicates that many of them are later and might belong rather to the Fourth Dynasty, later than Brunton proposed.97 A clear early dynastic cemetery in the region was excavated at Hemamieh with about 65 burials.98 Most of them were simple shaft tombs; only four had an additional chamber.99 Evidently in ancient times there was a village or settlement close by. The number of tombs so far found does not seem to come from a bigger settlement. Indeed, the other graves excavated are small, on average just 1.6 cubic meters. Some shafts and chambers were paved with bricks. Typical burial goods are about two to five pottery vessels; in some graves a single stone vessel was found. There are some burials with cosmetic palettes. Women are sometimes adorned with jewellery. In a tomb of a man a copper knife was found.

Arriving of class division One tomb at Qau belonging to a member of the local ruling class (429) still ­contained a high number of important objects (Fig. 28). It was found in cemetery 400, close to the ancient town of Tjebu. The tomb consists of a brick staircase leading into a brick chamber with a small side chamber. The underground parts belong to the larger ones of the period. The tomb was already looted by locals who reported to Brunton about it. It contained several stone vessels and a copper ewer with a short inscription: ‘the priest of Nemty’, 100 Hetep. An alternative reading is

70

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Figure 28. Objects from tomb 429

‘priest, Nemtyhetep’. A stone vase in the shape of a lotus flower and some blue glazed beads were also found there. The burial dates perhaps to the end of the Second or to the beginning of the Third Dynasty.101 The title ‘priest of Nemty’ sounds remarkable. It seems possible that Hetep was a local governor. Nemty is in later periods strongly connected with the province and the inscription shows that this was already the case in the Early Dynastic period.

Examples of burials It might be worth describing all undisturbed tombs at Hemamieh to provide an impression in detail of the burial customs in the Early Dynastic Period in this region. 1520 is one of the bigger ones in the cemetery with a separate chamber with walls covered

2. The Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods

71

with bricks. The deceased was placed in a slightly contracted position. The only burial goods found were a bowl and spouted jug, while three pots were found in the filling of the shaft and might be later, perhaps left there after rituals were performed or left there as offerings. 1561 is quite similar Figure 29. Pottery from burial 1699 to tomb 1520, but only a single vessel was found. Grave 1562 belonged to a man and had again a shaft and a chamber. There were no burial goods, just the remains of a wooden coffin. Grave 1686 belonged to a woman and was a simple shaft paved with bricks. The woman was richly adorned with beads although the excavation report does not provide evidence for where exactly they were found. There was no pottery, but two shells and malachite evidently being part of a cosmetic equipment. Grave 1696 was again a shallow shaft with the burial of a man; two types of pottery are recorded, but there are no further burial goods. Burial 1699 belonged to a child, about three years old. It had three beads at the neck. One small bowl with pieces of galena and malachite were found with it, and there were two further pots behind the back (Fig. 29).102 Grave 1714 belonged to a child placed in a rush mat in a simple hole in the ground. Four pottery vessel types are recorded in the excavation report and two beads were found at the neck. Grave 1784 belonged to a young girl. She was placed in the small shaft with the head to the south and richly adorned with jewellery. She had an ivory hairpin, two ivory bangles at the wrists and nice anklets at the legs. There were also beads at the neck and the wrists. At least two vessels were buried with her. Grave 1786 was lined with bricks and belonged to a girl. Three pots and three plates most likely used as food containers were found. A cosmetic palette and a pebble were cosmetic equipment. Galena and malachite were most likely the cosmetic powder also found here. She was adorned with a bead necklace, had a copper ring and a copper bangle. At the head were found a copper and an ivory needle. Grave 1794 was similar. Three types of pottery vessels are recorded. These are a cylinder jar, and two beaker like jars, the latter vessels perhaps for storing grain. The grave contained beads at the neck of the deceased, a cosmetic palette, and galena and malachite. Grave 2048 was lined with bricks and belonged to a man. There are only two types of pottery vessels recorded. One is a bowl like vessel, the other is tall, like a beaker. Grave 2071 was again simple and brick-lined. The deceased was placed in a wooden coffin and had a stone vessel as only burial good. The vessel is made of limestone, not a very common material for stone vessels. Another burial ground, in this case belonging to people from a local ruling class of the Early Dynastic Period, is cemetery 3100 at Badari. The tombs date most likely to the Third Dynasty.103 It is close to a temple and seems to belong to a local

72

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

sub-centre. The biggest tomb of the period is 3227 with a long staircase leading to a rock cut chamber with a small side chamber. The tomb was found looted. On the staircase a later burial in a wooden coffin without any burial goods was discovered. However, this later burial was found undisturbed, demonstrating that tomb 3227 had already been robbed in early times before the second burial was placed into the tomb. From the earlier tomb parts of the mastaba which was built on top of the burial chamber are preserved. Only two walls are recorded, one on the north and one on the east side. Figure 30. Fragment of stone vessel with The remains indicate that the mastaba had Horus name (right) of king Hetepsekhemui mud brick built outer walls with the core of (tomb 3112) the building filled with rubble and sand.104 Another tomb is 3112, perhaps dating to the Third Dynasty. It has a steep staircase leading to a small chamber blocked by a heavy stone. At the end of it, there is another smaller chamber. The burial was found heavily robbed and only contained fragments of alabaster vases. The most important object was a fragment with the name of king Hetepsekhemui, first king of the Second Dynasty (Fig 30). It is so far the only king’s name of the First to Fourth Dynasty attested in the Wadjet province.105 Beside the few tombs belonging to people of the ruling class, there are not many other burials dating to this period at this cemetery. The working population of this place must have been buried somewhere else.

Settlements of the Naqada and Early Dynastic Period Remains of houses and settlements are rare for the Early Dynastic Period in general. No settlements dating to this period have yet been excavated at Qau and Badari. Other sites should be consulted to get an idea of living conditions. Some settlement remains of the Naqada Period were found at Adaima (about 8 km south of Esna). Here large parts of a village area were excavated. Most often only post-holes were found, often arranged rather irregularly on the ground making it hard to reconstruct plans. At least in one case these post-holes add up to a hut about 3 m long and only about 1 m wide. The hut was most likely once constructed of reed and therefore not very high. It was presumably rather a shelter for the night and not a proper living space. The settlement was still inhabited near the end of the Naqada Period, showing that this flimsy type of hut was common up to the beginning of historic times.106 Elephantine is a rocky island. It is the southernmost settlement within Egypt proper. At the beginning of the First Dynasty a fortress was built on the island,

2. The Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods

73

certainly to protect the southern border of Egypt. Before this there was a small village on the island.107 The earliest remains of the village (level 5) date to the end of the Naqada II period. Not much can be said about the earliest settlement. Only three post-holes belong to this level.108 A little bit more is known about the village of the next level (4). Many post-holes were found showing that huts were built of light material. One hut was arranged against a rock, using it as a wall. A niche between three rocks was most likely used as a workplace, fish bones and bones from at least five donkeys were found. There was also a crucible and metal waste (Metallklumpen). Evidently a metal worker operated here, at least for a short while. To this level also belong the remains of a pottery kiln, demonstrating that pottery was produced here.109 In level 2, the first mud brick houses appear. The preserved house was about 7.2 m long and 3.5 m wide. The walls were one mud brick thick. East of the house were found many post-holes, which most likely belong to a fence behind the house.110 From level 1 (shortly before the First Dynasty) come several mud brick walls, but no house plan could be reconstructed. Some walls seem to belong to fences. One round granary, about 2 m in diameter, was found.111 The village therefore most likely consisted of a series of simple mud brick houses, built not too close to each other with fenced areas around. Finds include several small copper tools, demonstrating that copper was already widely available. Many stone tools and pottery sherds were found. A comparison of the pottery found at this settlement site with those found at cemeteries shows a high overlap. This might indicate that in the Naqada period the pottery found in burials was most likely not especially made for the tomb.

The Wadjet province in Early Dynastic Egypt The material culture of the First Dynasty is not much different to that of the Naqada Period. Without writing and further evidence, it is often hard to date a burial to before or after the First Dynasty. With due reservation, this might argue that not much changed in terms of social order in comparison to the Naqada Period. Tjebu might have become a local centre, but most likely on a rather small scale. Egypt was now for sure a class society. The centre of power and the places where bigger decisions were made were far away. Whether the Wadjet province existed already as administrative unit is not known. The early Dynastic Period is the time when Ancient Egypt developed all the features we regard as typically Egyptian. These include formal art and writing, but also a fully developed administration. The question arises to what extent the regions of Egypt at this early stage were incorporated into the new system. In very general terms there is little doubt that the region of the Wadjet province became part of Egypt. The pottery and material culture in general are almost identical to those found at other places in the country. The tomb architecture is also similar to that at other places at the same time, leaving little room for any local traditions.

74

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Nevertheless, this is already true for the Naqada Period. More importantly, kings are well attested in Saqqara and Abydos due to inscriptions. They evidently ruled over both places. The Wadjet province lies between these centres and it seems unlikely that the regions between were not ruled by these kings. Writing is not yet well attested in the province. In the First Dynasty it appears in general only very sporadically at places far away from Memphis and Abydos.112 In the town on Elephantine seals with royal names appear only in the Second Dynasty.113 The earliest inscribed object in the province might be a cylinder seal made of ivory (or bone) found near Hemamieh.114 However, the dating of the object is uncertain. Writing is attested for sure for the Second Dynasty. The stone vessel fragment with the name of king Hetepsekhemui was mentioned above. However, that object is no proof that writing was already used here. The stone vessel was most likely a present or part of a gift exchange from the royal palace and might at least indicate that the person in whose tomb the fragment was found had contacts with the central administration. Perhaps a more secure proof is the inscription on the copper ewer from tomb 429 mentioning the ‘priest of Nemty’ Hetep. Nemty is the local deity (p. 43) and therefore it seems likely that the inscription was made locally, although it might be argued that the ewer and inscription were produced in a workshop at the residence especially for a local priest (who was perhaps also some kind of local governor). Tomb 429 dates to the Third Dynasty.115 In later sources Egypt is divided into provinces or nomes (nomos in Greek, the Greek word is also often used in Egyptology). In the Early Dynastic Period this division of the country into provinces becomes visible for the first time. It is not really certain when this system was introduced, but there are indications that it was as early as the middle of the First Dynasty.116 This might have happened under king Den. From the tomb of his mother Meretneith at Abydos comes a seal impression that can be read as referring to ‘eastern’ and ‘western’ provinces.117 Several proper province names are already attested at the end of the Second Dynasty, under king Khasekhemui. These include the Min province, just south of the Wadjet province.118 The Wadjet province itself appears for the first time in our sources in the pyramid temple of king Snofru at Dahshur.119 Not much can be said about the administration of the provinces at this very early stage. Later there are governors attested who ruled these provinces. They are not yet known for sure before the Fourth Dynasty. There are several theories about the formation of the provinces.120 Perhaps one of the oldest discussions on this subject goes back to Kurt Sethe who assumed that they developed from chiefdoms which might have existed before Ancient Egypt became a unified state.121 Eduard Meyer wondered whether at least some of them were purely introduced as administrative units.122 Wolfgang Helck proposed that they developed from royal domains placed all over the country.123 Nothing can really be said about how this administration system affected the local population. However, there are indications of civil wars in the First and Second

2. The Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods

75

Dynasty. The reasons for these wars are far from certain, but it will be argued that there was much local resistance to a central government that tried to subdue all parts of the country. Civil war-like situations were the result. The clearest evidence for a civil war is two statues of king Khasekhem discovered at Hierakonpolis. The statues show the king in the sed festival garment (the sed festival is the celebration of kingship often after 30 years of reign) and with the white crown of Upper Egypt. He is sitting on a throne. On the base, both statues show rows of dead bodies. The labels on both statues read: ‘beating the north, 47,209’.124 The number is evidently the number of victims killed. Furthermore, there are several vessel inscriptions of the same king with the short text: ‘Year of fighting and beating the north’.125 The number of killed enemies mentioned on the statues may be fictional and simply announce that a large number of people were defeated. However, these short references clearly demonstrate that the unification of the country did not happen without resistance. Altogether not much more can be said about these enigmatic events, but it has quite often been proposed that there was an opponent ruler who was defeated.126 One other option is that local populations were suddenly forced to do corvée service and pay dues. In this context the ‘followers of Horus’ must be mentioned. This is an event that took place every other year in the First and Second Dynasty and is recorded on fragments of annals stones. The largest fragment is known as the Palermo stone, named after Palermo where this best preserved fragment is now. There are several other fragments of the same inscription, now in Cairo and London. On these annals are listed year by year the events of a king’s reign. The meaning of this event is uncertain, but it is often suggested that the king travelled around the country every other year to collect tributes.127 Other options are that the king went around the country to make rituals and to judge legal cases.128 If this event was about collecting dues, it might be assumed that there was some kind of local resistance to this custom. However, it is not known when these dues were introduced. It is quite possible that they are based on old traditions that are simply not visible in the sources. From the time of king Nineter (Second Dynasty) onwards a further event, called the ‘counting’, is attested. This ‘counting’ indicates already by its name some type of collection of dues.129 Furthermore, there are indications that a period of civil wars began with Nineter, although the references to that are vague. 130 However, if there were really civil wars, one might argue that the new system of collecting dues caused the unrest. The new burdens were seen by locals as too heavy. An interesting observation in this context is that a new type of pottery is first attested in the Second Dynasty. 131 These are the beer jars. They belong to the most common vessel type of the Old Kingdom and were important as beer was one of the most essential foods and was also most likely used as payment for workers or in general as rations for people working on private and royal projects.132 One wonders whether the introduction of this type of vessel and the

76

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

‘counting’ attested for the first time in the Second Dynasty are related in some way, indicating a new organisation of food supply. The civil wars mentioned by several texts might be a reaction to that. Finally, it should be pointed out that seal impressions with royal names start on Elephantine at the end of the Second Dynasty with king Peribsen.133 This might be an accident of survival or might just relate to some new foundations of this king on the island. However, it might be another sign that within the Second Dynasty the royal residence reached out in a bigger scale to the provinces.

Society in Early Dynastic Egypt Already at the beginning of the First Dynasty, the king was the centre of Egyptian society.134 As soon as the Egyptian king is noticeable in the written sources he has a god-like status, best visible in the Horus name, that is the main name attested in the Early Dynastic Period. The writing of the names consists of a palace facade (called serekh) with the Horus standing on top of it. Within the palace facade is written the king’s proper name. The king was most likely identified with the falcon god Horus and was therefore seen early on as a god.135 Very little is known about the king’s family in the period. Several royal wives are known but nothing can be said about their role and social background. One of the earliest attested titles of a queen is ‘she who can see the Horus and Seth’, underlining that the king was seen as Horus on earth but also as Seth.136 Around the king were the court officials. Several of them are known from seal inscriptions, a few from stelae and from other inscriptions. From the Third Dynasty they are also attested via their monumental tombs, as these tombs now sometimes have longer inscriptions. It has been suggested that the officials at the royal court came from the king’s family.137 However, there is no definite evidence for this as clear titles and filiations in inscriptions are missing. At least from the Second Dynasty on, the titles ‘king’s son’ and ‘king’s daughter’ are well attested.138 These people often do not bear any other important titles. Therefore, it appears in our sources as if those officials that belong to the innermost circle of the king are not family members. This is a pattern also visible in many other periods of ancient Egyptian history. Indeed, the Old Kingdom is the only period where the king’s son plays a major role in the administration.139 The evidence, however, is not that clear for the Early Dynastic Period. On the contrary, it might be argued that members of the royal family in high positions did not bear any titles that expressed a royal relationship. Only members of the royal family without any important position put the titles ‘king’s son’ or ‘king’s daughter’ on a monument, providing them at least with some special status. Therefore, the upper level of society in the Early Dynastic Period is only very vaguely visible in the written sources. There are several officials known by name and titles, but it is very hard to see any patterns. However, what seems clear is that already in the Early Dynasty Period Ancient Egypt was very close to the court

2. The Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods

77

society described by Norbert Elias.140 In a court society the king was the centre of the state and the state was arranged around the royal court. The titles of the court officials clearly show that the main task of the men around the king was to supply food for the palace and its people. Merka is one of the best known high officials at the end of the First Dynasty. He is known from his large tomb at Saqqara and a monumental stela found there.141 He bears several important titles. These include sem-priest, perhaps a religious title. He was also ‘leader of the royal barque’, ‘adjmer of the hare-province’ ‘priest of Neith’ and ‘leader of the palace’.142 His titles combine different branches of administration, including religious titles, provincial administration, but also part of the palace administration. Another high official of about the same time is Sabef, known from his stela found at Abydos close to the tomb of king Qa-a.143 Two of Sabef ’s titles are clearly related to the royal domains: ‘leader of the dining hall of the inner palace of the (domain) Zahaneb’144 and ‘leader of the red house of the (domain) Pehermensin’.145 Furthermore, he was ‘friend of the king’s house’146 The ruling classes of the provinces are not well known. Around Memphis were several larger cemeteries: Abu Roash, Giza and Tarkhan.147 They flourished mainly in the First Dynasty and it can be assumed that this relates to the rise of Memphis. The cemeteries might mark local centres around the capital that managed estates that provided the capital with food. The big mastabas excavated at these cemeteries most likely belong to local governors running these estates, but as a result of the absence of written sources that is just a guess (Fig.  31). Some bigger tombs were found at Reqaqnah, Bet Khallaf148 Elkab149 and Naga ed-Deir.150 They certainly also belonged to local ruling classes but not all are comparable in size to those found in the Memphite region. However, those at Bet Khallaf dating to the Third Dynasty are huge and the seals found there show royal connections. It must remain open whether these were the burials of local governors or if court officials were buried here. The mastabas at Reqaqnah and Naga ed-Deir are smaller. Evidently these people had fewer resources. These local ruling classes appear quite modest in comparison to those at the royal residence. This is in contrast to the Old and Middle Kingdom where the tombs of local governors are the same size as those of the highest officials in the provinces. In the First Dynasty is attested the custom of placing servant burials around the tombs of the kings, but also around the burials of high officials, as attested at Saqqara. There is some discussion as to whether these people were buried here after they died a natural death or whether they were killed to accompany these burials. There is strong evidence that the latter is more likely. The people who followed their masters into death were of different social status. Especially in Saqqara there is good evidence that many of them were craftsmen, buried with tools related to their professions.151 It seems that high officials did not want to lose the expertise of these people in the afterlife. The servant burials at Abydos around the kings’ burials were found more heavily looted and disturbed and it is harder to tell what kind of social

78

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Figure 31. Early Dynastic mastabas (left to right, top to bottom: Saqqara 2185, Tarkhan 1060, Giza, Naga ed-Deir, Bet Khalaf (Quibell 1923, pl. v; Petrie et al. 1913, pl. xv; Petrie 1907, pl. vi; Reisner 1908, pl. 79; Garstang 903, pl. vii)

levels they belonged to. However, here were found many stelae naming these people and providing their titles. Surprisingly there are several officials with titles; there are women with queenly titles and there are dwarves. Evidently these are people of the royal court, perhaps not the highest but still many of them with some importance. Human sacrifices are known from several early states, such as Mesopotamia or Shang dynasty China.152 They are certainly an expression of the absolute power of the ruling class over their subjects. In Egypt the custom is only attested for the First Dynasty and already within the dynasty there is a decline in the number of people placed around the burial.153 As mentioned before, from the evidence at Saqqara it is clear that many of the people buried in the subsidiary graves were craftsmen. Several of these burials contained objects relating to the profession of these deceased.154 This is highly unusual in Ancient Egypt. Tombs normally did not contain such types of objects, food supply and social status being most important.155 Therefore it can be assumed that the people were buried here because they were craftsmen and their skills were needed for the owner of the major tomb. These burials are highly important for understanding

2. The Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods

79

social relations in Early Dynastic Egypt. The burials indicate that the people in the subsidiary burials were once part of the estate of the mastaba owner. If this is true, it may be an indication that many craftsmen in this period were working on the estates of high officials. This seems certain for later periods when craftsmen are shown in the tombs of officials and were most likely part of their estates. The evidence from the subsidiary burials might indicate a similar arrangement. Already in the First Dynasty high officials had estates with people working for these officials. There were many craftsmen of those estates, providing evidence that craft production was under the control of officials and most likely also under the palace. Whether there were also craftsmen working independently must remain for the moment unknown. The base of the population were evidently the farmers all around the country. At present it seems impossible to draw any conclusion about how they were organised. The sources are simply missing. As already discussed, there are indications that within the Second Dynasty Egypt was heavily reorganised and the population or at least parts of the population were placed under central control. It seems that a regular system of collecting tributes/ taxes was introduced. This might be related to the more monumental royal tombs built in this period.156 More resources were needed and they were collected from all around the country. There are also clear indications of civil wars within the country. It must remain open whether they are related to these reforms. It was argued (above p. 75) that they were a reaction to the new burdens put on the provincial population. However, other options are possible. A reorganisation of the country might result in local unrest when the central government tried to tighten its control over the country with new measures. A third option is that these events are simply unrelated. Local unrest and civil wars might be the result of local oligarchs trying to gain control over parts of the country. The central government tried to extract the resources of the country in a more systematic way. However, details are shrouded in mystery and it seems wise not to draw too many conclusions as the evidence base is very narrow. The question arises whether Egypt was, at this point, a highly centralised state where everything was organised by the central government or whether the central government was quite decentralised and was giving locals much freedom despite some yearly collection of raw materials and agricultural products. The administration developed out of the needs of the royal court. It seems that the royal court in the Early Dynastic Period was relatively small. There were no building projects on the scale of the Old Kingdom pyramids or New Kingdom temples. The royal tombs of the First Dynasty were small in comparison to the later ones. Therefore, the royal court most likely just needed the countryside around Memphis and the provinces closer to Memphis for its food supply, as already mentioned above. It might be argued that only the region around Memphis was fully exploited for tributes to the palace, while regions far away received less attention. Therefore, the label ‘tributary mode of production’ fits this situation best: free peasants are

80

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

living and working in villages all around the country. The contact with the central government was perhaps rather irregular and restricted to yearly collections of resources from the local ruling class. The peasants had to pay taxes (perhaps just once a year a share of the harvest), perhaps to this local ruling class. The material culture shows that the villages were not isolated. There was a constant exchange of good and materials.

Notes

1. For example: Wendorf et al. 1997 2. For Egypt before 4000 BC see Tassie 2014. 3. Roset 1982; Midant-Reynes 2000, 69–70. 4. Camps 1969. 5. Midant-Reynes 2000, 71–72. 6. Adams 1977, 113–55. 7. Midant-Reynes 2000, 100–3; in general see now Holdaway and Wendrich 2017. 8. Afifi Badawi et al. 2016, 67–71. 9. Midant-Reynes 2000, 108–11. 10. Tawadros 2011, 272. 11. Midant-Reynes 2000, 125–126. 12. Massoulard 1949, 128–130. 13. Krzyazniak 1977, 81. 14. Wengrow 2006, 49–55. 15. Math 2014, 361–380. 16. Midant-Reynes 2000, 163–164 (with further bibliography on the origins of the culture). 17. Brunton, Thompson 1928, 3. 18. Brunton, Thompson 1928, 18–29. 19. Holmes, Friedman 1994, 127. 20. Math 2015, 384. 21. Brunton and Thompson 1928, pl. xxi. 22. Brunton and Thompson 1928, pl. xxii. 23. Brunton and Thompson 1928, 33. 24. Brunton and Thompson 1928, 8 (tombs 5132, 5140), 9 (tomb 5155), 11 (tomb 5403), 12 (tombs 5413, 5418), 14 (tomb 5705, 5710, 5711), 15 (tombs 5718, 5721, 5722, 7733, 5735), 16 (tomb 5738), 17 (tomb 5807), 27. 25. Brunton and Thompson 1928, pl. xxiv; Ucko 1968, 1–3, 69–72. 26. Ucko 1968, 427–34. 27. Anderson 1992. 28. Wetterstrom 1993, 215–16. 29. Brunton and Thompson 1928, 5–6. 30. Krzyazniak 1977, 76. 31. Midant-Reynes 2000, 161; Tassie 2014, 258. 32. Brunton and Thompson 1928, 42. 33. Math 2015, 384. 34. Brunton and Thompson 1928, 16, pl. xx, 16. 35. Brunton and Thompson 1928, 8. 36. Brunton and Thompson 1928, 8. 37. Most of the finds are today in the British Museum, see Friedman 1999.

2. The Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods

81

38. Tassie 2014, 266. 39. Brunton 1937, 32–3. 40. Friedman 1999, 9; Tassie 2014, 266–80. 41. Wenke 2009, 228; Midant-Reynes 2014, 7; Bard 2015, 112–13. 42. Kaiser 1957. 43. Brunton and Thompson 1928, 48–52, pls xxx–xxxii. 44. Math 2015. 45. Math 2015, 389–96. 46. Tombs 3, 103, 106, 108, 110, 114, 127, 120, 130, 133, 136 (see Hartmann 2016, 310). 47. Brunton and Thompson 1928, 54, pl. xxxviii. 48. Brunton and Thompson 1928. pls xxxix, xl. 49. Krzyazniak 1977, 104. 50. Ogden 2000, 168. 51. Ogden 2000, 170. 52. Krzyazniak 1977, 141; Ogden 2000, 161. 53. Jones 2008, 100, 127. 54. Brunton and Thompson 1928, pl.  li. Compare in general: Hendrickx 1994, 109–28, Bak– Pryc 2016. 55. Brunton and Thompson 1928, 58, pl. lii. Compare in general: Regner 1996; Stevenson 2009b 56. Brunton and Thompson 1928, pl. xxxviii (the vessel is today in the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology UC 9524). 57. Hartmann 2016, 320. 58. Brunton and Thompson 1928, 49. 59. Brunton and Thompson 1928, 50 (the coffin might be made of wood; the tomb register does not mention the material). 60. Brunton and Thompson 1928, 49. 61. Aston et al. 2000, 39. 62. Aston et al. 2000, 47. 63. Brunton and Thompson 1928, 52. 64. Brunton and Thompson 1928, pl. xl. 65. Seidlmayer 1987, 189–190; 2001, 214. 66. Brunton and Thompson 1928, 43–8. 67. Brunton and Thompson 1928, 45–6. 68. Brunton and Thompson 1928, 62. 69. Brunton and Thompson 1928, 46. 70. Oras 2013. 71. Diakonoff 1991, 34. 72. Childe 1956, 96. 73. Bernbeck 1994, 29. 74. Bernbeck 1994, 30. 75. Bernbeck 1994, 31. 76. Chayanov 1966, 78–88. 77. Bernbeck 1994, 35; but compare Wengrow 2015 for large cities of socially egalitarian societies. 78. Bernbeck 1994, 39–40. 79. Castillos 2000, 255–6; 2003, 115. 80. Cichowski 2008. 81. Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928, pl. xlii, 66o2, 68m2, 69j2, pl. xliv, 30d, 33b2, 36g2; Trigger 1983, 33. 82. Bernbeck 1994, 63. 83. Bernbeck 1994, 50–74.

82

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

84. Kemp 1989, 45, fig. 13; Bard 2000, 63; Köhler 2010, 43–4. 85. Dreyer 1999. 86. Hartung et al. 2015. 87. Kemp 2006, 76, fig. 22. 88. Kemp 2006, 73–8; Wenke 2009, 202–11; Köhler 2010; Bard 2015, 113. 89. Trigger 1983, 44–8; Andelkovic 2011; Bussmann 2015, 81–3. 90. Engel 2008, 37 (tomb BO/1/2, tomb B7/9 and tombB17/18). 91. Köhler 2008, 381. 92. Dreyer 1992. 93. Zecchi 2010, 6–7. 94. Petrie et al. 1913, 9, pls xxi, lxi (tomb register). 95. Kaiser and Dreyer 1982, 240. 96. Brunton 1927, 10. 97. Kemp 1975, fig. 7. 98. Brunton 1927, 10. 99. Brunton 1927, pl. X–XI (tomb register). 100. Jones 2000, 527, no. 1967 reads ‘priest of Nemty’. 101. Brunton 1927, 11, pl. XVIII; Seidlmayer 2007a, 42, fig. 5. 102. Brunton 1927, 13. 103. Brunton 1927, 10; Alexanian 2016, 190. 104. Brunton 1927, 11, 14, pl. xii. 105. Brunton 1927, 12–14, pls xi, xix, xxi; the tomb dates perhaps to the Third Dynasty (Alexanian 2016, 190, 195). 106. Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002, 32–132, especially 27–41 107. Kopp 2006, 25–6 108. Kopp 2006, 29–30 109. Kopp 2006, 32–4 110. Kopp 2006, 34–5. 111. Kopp 2006, 37–8. 112. Regulski 2008, 582–3. 113. Pätznick 2005, 63–4, 311, 374. 114. Brunton 1927, pl. xxx, 68. 115. Alexanian 2016, 189. 116. Wilkinson 1999, 141–2. 117. Engel 2006, 157–8, fig. 3, cat. 17. 118. Engel 2006. 119. Fakhry 1961, 23, fig. 10. 120. Most recent discussion: Willems 2006, 8–25. 121. Sethe 1930, § 38. 122. Meyer 193, 76. 123. Helck 1974, 199. 124. Quibell 1900, pl. xl. 125. Quibell 1900, pl. xxxviii (the readings and translations are not clear). 126. Meyer 1913, 143; Wilkinson 1999, 92. 127. Endesfelder 2011, 145. 128. Wilkinson 2000, 64, 120; Warden 2015, 474–5. 129. Wilkinson 1999, 220–1; Endesfelder 2011, 144–5; Engel 2013, 26–7; Warden 2015, 475–6. 130. Wilkinson 1999, 85–7. 131. Köhler; Smythe 2003, 135. 132. Warden 2014, 245.

2. The Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods

83

133. Pätznick 2005, 66–76. 134. Emery 1961, 105–9. 135. Kemp 2006, 83–6. 136. Roth 2001, 9–30. 137. Wilkinson 1999, 112; Bestock 2008, 102. 138. Examples include the ‘king’s son’ Nesheqet from Helwan (Köhler, Jones 2009, 168–9); the ‘king’s daughter’ Khenmetptah (Köhler and Jones 2009, 152–3); the ‘king’s daughter’ Satba/Satkhnum (Köhler and Jones 2009, 142–3). 139. Baud 1999, 235–46. 140. Elias 1969; best described for Ancient Egypt under Ramses II: Raedler 2009. 141. Emery 1958, pl. 39 (the stela). 142. Wilkinson 1999, 148–9. 143. Petrie 1900, pl. xxx. 144. Jones 2000, 738, no. 2690. 145. Jones 2000, 714, no. 2605. 146. Jones 2000, 896, no. 3289. 147. Köhler 2008, 397–8. 148. Garstang 1904. 149. Huyge 2003. 150. Podzorski 2008. 151. Emery 1954, 146–8, 150; Davis 1983; critical Stevenson 2009a, 181. 152. Wenke 2009, 249–52. 153. Vadou 2008, especially table on p. 151. 154. Emery 1954, 28 (flint tools), 29 (gaming board), 146–7 (paint in vessels; grave of painter?), 150 (copper chisel), 158 (blade of knife); Emery 1961, 66–8. 155. Seidlmayer 2007b. 156. Lacher-Raschdorff 2014, 217–21.

Chapter 3 Old Kingdom I

The Old Kingdom is the period from the beginning of the Fourth Dynasty to the end of the Eighth Dynasty and covers the period c. 2600–2150 BC. It is the first pyramid age. Especially in the Fourth Dynasty huge pyramids were built, concentrating a large amount of the country’s resources at the royal residence. In the Memphite region there was the royal residence with the king’s palace, the royal pyramids, and the tombs of the state officials. The Fourth Dynasty kings Snofru, Khufu (Kheops) and Khaefre are the builders of the largest pyramids. The kings of the Fifth Dynasty built smaller pyramids but are also the builders of sun temples. The political division into dynasties is not visible in the archaeology of the Wadjet province. Here there are two main phases recognisable, based on the archaeological record. The Fourth and Fifth Dynasty (c. 2600–2350 BC) are marked by tombs with limited burial equipment. From this period too date several decorated rock cut tombs. This is the period called Old Kingdom I here. At the end of the Fifth Dynasty, more objects were placed in the burials and the burials in the Wadjet province provide us with a rich array of objects. This phase might be called Old Kingdom II and is best discussed separately in the next chapter.

The archaeological record from cemeteries The dating of burials in the region to a certain period of the Old Kingdom is a major problem, as burials found here are very rarely connected with a king’s name. About 50 graves were dated by Brunton to the Fourth Dynasty. However, Barry Kemp reassessed the dating of the cemeteries and reached different conclusions. He placed many burials that Brunton had dated to the Early Dynastic Period in the Fourth and early Fifth Dynasty.1 Those dated by Brunton to the Fourth Dynasty are, in contrast, later and

86

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

might date to the Fifth or even Sixth Dynasty. These datings rest solely on ­comparison of pottery types with examples from other cemeteries, mainly in the Memphite region. In Kemp’s arrangement of burials, these are those belonging to his period ‘II’. A major problem is evidently that we do not know whether the development of pottery styles in all parts of Egypt was simultaneous. It seems likely that there were some local traditions.2 Certain vessels typical for one place in a certain time might have been common at another place at a different time. The following description of burials rests on Kemp’s datings. Most burials of Old Kingdom I3 are again surface graves or shafts with the body of the deceased placed in a contracted position. Just a few tombs have one additional chamber. Burial goods include pottery, sometimes stone vessels, jewellery and tools.4 There is a wider variation of treating the body. It was most often placed on the left side in a slightly contracted position. The dead were placed there as if they were sleeping.5 There are also several ‘staircase tombs’ cut into the ground with a staircase leading to underground burial chambers, evidently belonging to the local ruling class or at least to people with more resources available.6 The concentration of these tombs at Qau, evidently belonging to some kind of local ruling class, might indicate that the town was already at this time a local centre, something not visible for the Naqada Period. The interpretation of the archaeological record for the Fourth and Fifth Dynasty is complicated by the change in burial customs; only very few tombs and graves are now equipped with a higher number of objects. Burial customs also changed radically at the beginning of the Fourth Dynasty in the residential cemeteries around Memphis,7 where tombs most often have no or very few burial goods. This is radically different to the burial customs of the Badarian, Naqada and Early Dynastic Periods. Already, early in the history of Egyptology, it was observed that Fourth and Fifth Dynasty burials were almost empty of grave goods. Ernest Mackay noted of the cemetery at Kafr Ammar (Tarkhan, some 50 km south of Cairo):8 The almost total absence of offering jars or other objects has always been a feature in the smaller tombs of the period between the iiird and the vth dynasties. Pottery is extremely common in the ist dynasty, one or two jars being placed with even the poorest burial. With each succeeding dynasty, however, the use of pottery for burial purposes seems steadily to diminish, until it almost became the rule not to place anything in the grave for the use of the dead. This state of things continued to the end of the vth dynasty, when pottery again began to come into use, and finally, in the vith dynasty, numerous pieces are found in even the poorest graves.

However, within this period appear the first decorated rock cut tombs in this region, belonging to the oligarchs that ruled the province. They provide for the first time a number of names and titles. The inscriptions in the tombs are the first longer written texts known from this province. In the Fourth and Fifth Dynasty pot burials are well attested. They present a perfect example for the simplicity of burials in this period. Pot burials are burials

3. Old Kingdom I

87

where the body of the deceased was placed into a large pottery vessel. The burials often belong to children, indicating that most adults were buried in a different way, perhaps just in simple surface burials. The vessels were most likely once made for storing grain or for making beer or bread.9 Burial goods in pot burials are rare. In one tomb (7335) of a man, shells were found as the only burial good. There are some further pottery vessels in other graves and a few people were adorned with amulets. The pottery vessels are most often water jars, though flat bowls appear too. Next to the pot burials many graves with bricked up chambers are attested, wooden coffins appear. Typical burial Figure 32. Pot burial 406: the vessels used as goods are pottery vessels and a few containers for the deceased body personal adornments. Burials of small children are a problem in the archaeological record.10 It can be assumed that child mortality was high, as documented from better known comparable societies. However, the burials of children are often missing in the archaeological record. At other places, there is good evidence that children were often buried within the settlements, often under the floors of houses. The effort made for these young children is often not very high. An example is burial 406 of a small child, about 18 months old according to Brunton (Fig. 32). The body of the child was placed in a vessel of a type normally used for cooking. On top of that was placed a bowl and alongside were found two further vessels.11 Another example is burial 623. The remains of a child were found there in a domestic pot that had a hole at the base. It seems a useless vessel was used for burying the child, unless it is assumed that the hole was made especially for the burial. A single sherd was found with the burial that might have once covered the hole to stop sand getting into the pot.12 Brunton only published pot burials that had additional burial goods, most often just another vessel.13 It seems that there was a high number of other burials without any further burial goods. Evidently these were the burial customs of the day: burial goods were not seen as important. Bearing in mind that Guy Brunton avoided excavating empty tombs it seems that many burials of the Fourth Dynasty were most likely just not excavated or recognised. This is certainly not a sign of impoverishment of the broader population, as sometimes stated.14 Almost all pot burials with other pots were found at the cemeteries of Qau, only very few at Badari and Hemamieh.15 It must remain open whether only the pot

88

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

burials at Qau received further burial goods or whether they are indeed something most common in the provincial capital. In the latter case, the pot burials are, at least in the Wadjet province, a phenomenon of the provincial centre. The burials of the farming population away from the local centre are not well attested for the Fourth Dynasty.

First tombs of a local ruling class and the coming of writing From the early Fourth Dynasty come the bigger tombs, belonging to a local ruling class and further attesting the arrival of the class society in the region. A larger tomb is 507 at Qau with a staircase leading into two underground burial chambers. It might date to the Fourth Dynasty and is one example for a bigger tomb. The entrance was closed by a well carved limestone block. The burial was found heavily looted; pottery sherds were lying around (Fig. 33). A single well-preserved pot might be later in date. The most interesting finds are several flint knives. The Old Kingdom belongs to the early Bronze Age. Several metals, such as copper, silver and gold were in use. However, in daily life stone, most often flint tools were still used to a great extent. They do not appear often in burials and are therefore not well attested in the Wadjet province for the Old Kingdom. The examples in tomb 507 are an exception. However, they are well known from Old Kingdom settlement sites all over Egypt, providing evidence for their wide use. It is hard to judge to what extent metal tools were used. While broken flint tools have a high chance of surviving in the archaeological record, metal tools will be melted down for reuse after being broken. In the Old Kingdom, three types of flint tools appear especially often at settlement sites: small flint blade inserts for sickles, and different types of knives and arrowheads.16 The remains of a mastaba (tomb 1795) excavated near Hemamieh may belong to the Fourth Dynasty.17 Brunton gives only a brief account,18 mentioning the remains of a brick mastaba, but not providing a plan. One small fragment of fine limestone was found. It bears the preserved hieroglyphic sign ‘z’. To the mastaba belonged a shaft about 7.6 m deep. There was at least one chamber at the bottom that was lined with limestone blocks. Stone-lined chambers are otherwise not attested in the region and indicate the high status of the person buried here, plausibly a local governor. This tomb raises questions about the connection of the local ruling class with the central government. Another mastaba stood on a hill east of al-Itmanya where small relief fragments were found.19 No names or titles are preserved on the few small fragments collected there. As already mentioned, writing is visible in the Wadjet province for the first time in the Early Dynastic Period. There is the fragment of a bowl with the name of king Hetepsekhemui,20 first king of the Second Dynasty. It remains unknown whether the bowl arrived in the province under the king or later, as it was found in a tomb that dates to the Third Dynasty (compare p. 72). There is also a copper ewer also dating to the Second or Third Dynasty with the short inscription: ‘priest of Nemty, Hetep’ (it is also possible to read it as ‘priest Nemtyhetep).21 A further object from the

3. Old Kingdom I

89

province is a cylinder seal made of ivory or bone, naming a person.22 The stone bowl with the king’s name was certainly a product of a royal workshop and perhaps given to a loyal local official by the king or a higher palace official in the name of the king. The origin of the cylinder seal is hard to tell, but as it is so far unique in the province it might also have been produced somewhere else. Otherwise there is not much evidence for writing before the end of the Fourth or the beginning of the Fifth Dynasty, when the decorated rock cut tombs at Hemamieh appear. With the inscriptions we are at the highest social level close to the royal court. Other evidence for writing is very rare. Some rough signs on pottery might be cited, but they are hard to date.23 It remains pure speculation how much writing was already around in this period at that early stage, as not many objects were placed into the burials on which we would expect to find writing. Papyri Figure 33. Tomb 507 and vessels found there (author) found at Gebelein and dating to the Fourth Dynasty are in this respect a warning. They attest to writing on a full scale early on at a place far away from the royal residence.

Pyramid building The Fourth Dynasty is also the period when the largest pyramids of Egypt were built. The question arises whether these gigantic building projects left any traces in the archaeological records of the Wadjet province. In 1935 George Reisner argued that people became poorer and all the resources of the country were transferred to the royal residence and the big building projects.24 However, looking at the burial customs in general, as mentioned above, there is no evidence of that at all. Even the tombs of the

90

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

highest court officials at the royal residence at Giza were equipped with only a small selection of objects. The limited number of burial goods was therefore the custom of the day, and not a sign of poverty.25 Especially the tombs of the high officials are still impressive monuments but placing stocks of goods into their burial chambers was not regarded as essential. The building of the pyramids has inspired many comments over the millennia. The Greek historian Herodotus (II.126–127) reported that Egyptians were slaves and forced to work for the pyramid project. This description of slave labour has stirred particular controversy in Egyptology and beyond. There is a long tradition in Egyptology of defending Ancient Egypt, pointing out that there is no secure evidence for slavery in the Old Kingdom. On the other hand, there is the opinion that Herodotus’s report is not to be taken at face value but is a general reflection of the horrendous conditions under which the pyramids were built. Muhammad al Muwaylihi (1858–1930) read the pyramids ‘not as representing the power and knowledge of ancient Egypt, but as embodying a history of injustice’ (first published in newspapers between 1898 and 1902).26 Burchard Brentjes has little doubt about the grim working conditions and quotes Herodotus at length about the pyramid building. Brentjes is also attacking bourgeois (bürgerlich) Egyptologists who see the building programme as state organised care for the poor. 27 While many modern readers might be amused at this latter statement, which is clearly politically motivated, it still seems true that many Egyptologists indeed see the pyramid building as some kind of favour for the broader population. Examples of these are many. Walter Wolf, for example, saw the pyramid as a sign of deepest religious beliefs, built by the people for the world god. The work also expresses the people’s loyalty to the Egyptian state, as the king was the Egyptian state. Wolf does not cites sources for this claim.28 Höveler-Müller in a more popular work argues that the pyramid builders were free and well maintained. They saw the work as ‘service for a god’ (Gottesdienst). Again, no evidence for these statements is cited.29 Pérez-Accino, in a similar popular context, notes that there is hardly any reference in Old Kingdom sources to slavery. According to him the pyramids were built as ‘celebration of the orders established by the Egyptian state with the king as its summit’.30 Jan Assmann also refuses the idea that slaves were at work. He admits that the workers most likely had no choice other than to work on the pyramid, but that they were paid for their work. For the latter statement he cites Max Weber who discussed the corvée system in Egypt. Assmann compares the corvée work with conscription where almost a whole nation goes to war but also provides a high degree of identification with the work to be done.31 Barry Kemp devoted one chapter of his Ancient Egypt to the problem. He first points out that there is not much evidence for slavery in the Old Kingdom but then draws attention to conscription that can be as grim as slavery although that is not so often recognised as such in modern views. Kemp then draws attention to the Middle Kingdom when there is indeed some evidence that conscription was seen

3. Old Kingdom I

91

to be extremely negative. The shabti spells, but also the evidence around the ‘great enclosure’ clearly shows that people avoided the conscription at all costs.32

The workforce for the pyramids For the great pyramids of the early Fourth Dynasty a strong workforce, but also raw materials and food for them, were essential. A good logistical infrastructure to combine all these resources was needed. Official inscriptions include several hints of the changes connected with this sudden high demand. The clearest evidence comes from the Palermo stone, the large fragment of annals. On the part preserved are several years from the reign of king Snofru. For one year there is reported: ‘destroying the land of the Nubians, bringing 7000 captives and 200,000 cattle and small cattle’.33 The text is short, as are most of the entries on the annals. It is not stated what happened to these Nubians34 or to the cattle. Further attestations of massive raiding campaigns come from two rock inscriptions found at Khor el-Aquiba in Lower Nubia. The first reports that a ‘king’s acquaintance’ Khabausbet came with 20,000 soldiers ‘to destroy Nubia’. The other inscription reports that the ‘king’s acquaintance’ Sauib was ‘catching 17,000 Nubians’. In his commentary on these two rock inscriptions Wolfgang Helck labels these events ‘hunt for men and cattle’.35 Further evidence for a ‘hunting of people’ comes from the time of king Userkaf and is recorded on an annal stone fragment now preserved in Cairo.36 Evidently it remains an open question whether large numbers of people from each of the regions of Egypt were used in building the pyramids and other state projects. People for building the pyramids were not only taken from raids, but there are strong indications that men and perhaps women from the Wadjet province were also involved in building the pyramids. For evidence of this, it is important to look at several tombs in the royal residence cemeteries. At Giza and Dahshur, besides the pyramids of the Fourth Dynasty kings, are the tombs of the officials who served under the kings who build these pyramids. The titles of these men provide essential information on the administration and the organisation of the workforces. The crucial title in this context is ‘overseer of the work gangs of Upper Egypt’ (imy-r zAw Smaw).37 Among the several holders of this title known for the Fourth Dynasty, one of the first is the ‘king’s son’ Netjeraperef, buried at Dahshur. He was most likely a son of king Snofru, first ruler of the Fourth Dynasty, as he was buried in a cemetery built under the king. Netjeraperef is best known from his stela originally set up in front of his mastaba, where he bears this and several other titles.38 The next attested ‘overseer of the work gangs of Upper Egypt’ was Iunu, who was also ‘great one of the tens of Upper Egypt’ and ‘king’s son’. He was in office under king Khufu, the builder of the biggest pyramid.39 The title ‘king’s son’ might indicate that Iunu was in some way related to the king, but he was, unlike Netjeraperef, most likely not the son of a king, as Iunu was buried in the ‘West field’ of the Giza cemetery, while close family relations of king Khufu were buried in the ‘East field’ right in front of the pyramid. In the Fourth Dynasty ‘king’s son’ was already some kind of title announcing a ­special honour or a more distant

92

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

relationship to the king, such as a grandson, but not necessarily an immediate son of a king. A third title holder was Nefermaat who was buried in a mastaba at Dahshur.40 Further title holders are known from the cemeteries at the royal residences but also from provincial cemeteries.41 All these officials in charge of the ‘work gangs’ from Upper Egypt are among the highest officials at the royal palace, and it is therefore likely that they were in charge of major royal building projects, most likely for the pyramids themselves. Whether the people recruited came from all provinces from Upper Egypt or just from some of them remains unknown. However, we have the names and titles of some local governors for Wadjet province, dating to the early Fifth Dynasty. The first two were buried with other governors not far north of the modern village of Hemamieh and had the name Kakhenet. Among their titles are both ‘overseer of the work gangs of Upper Egypt’ and also ‘overseer of works in the middle provinces’ (imy-r kAt zpAwt Hrit-ib).42 These sources demonstrate that people were recruited in the Wadjet province for royal building projects. In the case of the Fourth Dynasty it seems very likely that these people were employed in the pyramid building. For the Fifth Dynasty this seems likely too, but the title ‘overseer of works in the middle provinces’ of the local governors might indicate that they were also used in more local projects. Taking all this evidence together, it seems likely that people from the Wadjet and other provinces were recruited for building the pyramids at Giza.

The workforce at the pyramid building site New excavations close to the pyramids have revealed how the people from Nubia and the provinces lived. In the last decades the settlement where the workforce for the pyramid lived at Giza has been excavated. In the centre of the settlement were found four sets of galleries. Each consisted of an entrance area, the gallery proper, and a house at the very end with about ten rooms.43 In the middle of the gallery there was a long bench on which were once most likely placed columns supporting the roof. The bench effectively divided the gallery into two parts, one 1.99 m wide, the other 2.14 m wide.44 There were four not very high platforms at one side. These were most likely the sleeping places for overseers while the rest of the gallery was most likely used as a sleeping place for workmen (Fig.  34). The foreman may have lived in the house at the end of the gallery.45 Faunal remains provide an idea of the diet of the people living here. There were few remains of cattle and pig, but more sheep and goat bones. There were also many remains of catfish, not the most desirable fish in Ancient Egypt. The bones of cattle, sheep and goats belonged mostly to young male animals. This strongly indicates that they were taken from herds and did not belong to the stocks of households, where one would expect more female and older animals. The evidence suggests that the meat for the people here was supplied from an institution. The meat was not always of the most desirable kind but it still seems remarkable that food rations included meat.46

3. Old Kingdom I

93

Local leaders So far the burials of the Fourth Dynasty local leaders are not yet certainly identified, although the two mastabas discussed might belong to such people. The first governor attested by name for the province of Wadjet is known not from the province, but from his tomb at Giza: an official called Nisutnefer (‘the perfect king’) buried there under a relief decorated mastaba (Fig.  35). He most likely dates to the Fourth Dynasty.47 Nisutnefer had several titles relating to three provinces in Upper Egypt indicating that he was the governor of them. He was ‘overseer of the affairs’, ‘overseer of the towers’, ‘overseer of the king’s people’ and ‘leader of the land’ (imy-r wpt, imy-r mnw, imy-r nswtiw, sSmtA). He was also ‘ruler of the great domain’ (hqA Hwt aA), and held similar titles for the eighth Upper Egyptian province (Ta-wer) Figure 34. Workmen barracks at Giza (author) and for the Thirteenth Lower Egyptian province (Heqa-andju jabet).48 Evidently, at this period local governors were officials coming from the royal residence and were placed by the central government in charge of select provinces. It even seems that they lived at the residence of the king and might have only sporadically visited the provinces. Otherwise it is hard to explain how Nisutnefer could be in charge of three provinces in different parts of the country. The ‘towers’ (mnw – Moreno García reads swnw49) mentioned in the title ‘overseer of the towers’ are mainly attested in titles of officials working in Middle Egypt, but not in titles relating to the provinces further south (1–7).50 These are perhaps institutions or buildings of the central government. Their function remains enigmatic. Junker wonders whether they are fortresses for defending the provinces.51 Moreno García regards them rather as agricultural centres.52 They are no longer attested in the later Old Kingdom.53 In the case of Nisutnefer the title appears together with the title ‘overseer of the king’s people’. The exact meaning of the ‘king’s people’ is far from certain, but they might have been workforces. One wonders whether these fortresses were necessary to keep these workforces under control. A purely defence function, perhaps against desert tribes, cannot be not excluded, but then we might expect them also in the most southern provinces where raids from Nubia might be a danger. However, it might be argued that the most southern provinces were not as heavily exploited as Middle Egypt, and thus these ‘fortresses’ were not so much needed there.54 The evidence from Nisutnefer indicates how in the Fourth Dynasty,

Figure 35. Relief from mastaba of Nisutnefer at Giza. Over the head of Nisutnefer are shown his titles (Junker 1938, fig. 27)

94 The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

3. Old Kingdom I

95

the Wadjet province was fully incorporated in the state administration. Despite our imperfect understanding of the administration, it seems clear that officials of the central administration worked there and there were institutions of the central government operating in the province.

Royal domains An important institution for understanding the link between the central government and the provincial administration is the ‘great domain’ (Hwt-aAt). Nisutnefer bears the title ‘ruler of the great domain’ attesting that this institution was located in the Wadjet province too. Another Old Kingdom document mentioning the Wadjet province is an ostracon now in Leyden and possibly originally from Saqqara.55 The short text on it reads: ‘The director of the crew Khenmes under the charge of the domain of Wadjet, the son of the herdsman Neb and Wenenefer, the oarsman …’. This further evidence for ‘domains’ (Hwt) in the Wadjet province does not come as a surprise as these ‘domains’ are attested for most provinces of the Old Kingdom, although not very well in all of them. Indeed, they are not so well attested in the Wadjet province in comparison to other provinces. This might be simply a gap in the written sources. The governors’ tombs of the Sixth Dynasty are still missing. In general it seems that they were royal foundations for a better control of the country. Those provinces with other types of strong royal connections often show less evidence for such ‘domains’. These ‘strong royal connections’ are temples of national importance, such as the Khontimentiu temple at Abydos and the Min temples at Akhmim and Koptos. Akhmim is very close to Wadjet and it has been assumed that Wadjet was under the charge of the Min temple in this town.56 Juan Carlos Moreno García sees these ‘domains’ as places of royal power. They were perhaps royal farming estates, but also functioned as warehouses, production and administrative centres. He noted that they were mainly founded in regions where fertile land was especially abundant.57 Evidently they were placed in provinces with a high agricultural output. There is little evidence of how these places actually looked. Moreno García interprets the Hwt (domain)-sign as a tower,58 so the sign perhaps underlines the forces needed to obtain the resources. Whether this interpretation of the sign is correct is another matter. There is no archaeological evidence for an institution of the central government in the Wadjet province. However, other provinces yield some remains providing a clue what to expect. At several places, mainly in Upper Egypt, small pyramids were discovered, built in stone and dating to the end of the Third and the beginning of the Fourth Dynasty. The function of these buildings is disputed but it has been argued that these monuments announced the presence of a royal cult at these places, strongly connected with royal domains.59 On the island of Elephantine were found remains of economic buildings for the central government, close to a small pyramid. A high number of seal impressions found there provide direct evidence for the involvement of the central state. Similar seal impressions have been found at other sites too. The state was evidently already heavily controlling most parts

96

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

of the country at the end of the Third Dynasty. It might be argued on the contrary, however, that the state only controlled important economic points, while the area around was not much under state control. The remains of the economic building at Elephantine are only badly preserved and provide no clear picture of the structures that once existed. From the scant evidence it seems that the new foundations of royal domains throughout the country show a correlation with the pyramid building program. In the First and Second Dynasty, royal domains seem to be concentrated around the Memphis region. Already in the Third Dynasty there is an expansion across Upper Egypt mainly visible in the small pyramids.60 The Fourth Dynasty saw the extension and systematisation of the domains all over the country, precisely as the kingship cult complexes reached maximum size in the Meydum, Dahshur and Giza pyramid complexes.

A royal domain in archaelogy: Buhen As already mentioned, such royal centres in the provinces are so far not well ­documented in the archaeological record. The small pyramids are just one aspect and more a symbolic one. The actual administrative and economic units are so far not yet identified or, as in the case of Elephantine, not well preserved. However, south of Egypt proper in Lower Nubia the Old Kingdom settlement of Buhen was excavated. That was most likely a trading and collecting point for products of the region. The high number of Fourth and Fifth Dynasty seal impressions found here demonstrates the direct control of the central government over this place. The excavated town is small and was once perhaps not much bigger than one hectare. This is markedly smaller than most Egyptian towns of the period. Buhen was certainly not a proper town.61 The settlement was surrounded by a wall and therefore to some extent protected. In the centre stood a massive building with stone foundations, most likely used as a granary. Another building with stone foundations stood close by. It was smaller but still substantial and was most likely also used as a granary or magazine building. Close to these granaries there was standing an almost square well-built mud brick building, 7.70 × 7.0 m, divided into three units. There was an entrance room, one bigger one that was perhaps an open court, and within that court at the northwest side there was again a smaller room. The regular plan suggests some official function. It has been proposed that this was the local temple.62 Other buildings found look like barracks consisting of rows of long rooms. They might have functioned as workshops or as sleeping place for workmen. Several further remains of residential buildings are rather badly preserved.63

Working population in texts The written sources for the broader population are otherwise not very extensive in the Wadjet province. Nisutnefer64 and two of the governors buried at Hemamieh (see

3. Old Kingdom I

97

below)65 bear the title ‘overseer of king’s people’.66 The title ‘overseer of the king’s people of the Ta-wer province’ is also attested on a cylinder seal dated under king Userkaf, not naming the title-holder.67 The names of officials do not appear on official seals in the Old Kingdom, so that is in common with other seals of the period. This indicates that ‘king’s people’ were an important part of the province’s population. However, the status and function of these people are disputed in Egyptology.68 Outside the title ‘overseer of the king’s people’ the term appears in just two texts of the Old Kingdom, once in the tomb of the high official Metjen and once on a royal decree found at Koptos, where they belong to the ‘production place’ (pr-Sna).69 Hermann Junker saw them as people who received land from the king and regards them as free people.70 Wolfgang Helck comes to about the same conclusion.71 Hans Goedicke regards them as people working on royal estates.72 Petra Andrássy argued recently that these were people taken out of their home villages to work on new foundations. No longer part of a village, they were now under the control of the king.73 Émilie Martinet sees the title ‘overseer of the king’s people’ as connected with the organisation of labour in the province.74 All that can be said for certain is that these people included men and women, as can we seen from the writing in hieroglyphs with the signs for both sexes. In the early Old Kingdom they owned land which they could sell and in the late Old Kingdom they were attached to a ‘production place’, most likely a royal one. The exact meaning of the title and these ‘king’s people’ must for the moment remain open. However, it seems that the title ‘overseer of the king’s people’ was in some way connected with the organisation of workforces. as they were put under a special official. This provides further evidence that the Wadjet province was an important place where people for royal projects were recruited.

The first inscribed tombs of local governors The situation for the written sources within the Wadjet province changed in the late Fourth and Fifth Dynasty. There are now the tombs of the local governors at Hemamieh.75 They were first recorded in detail by Ernest John Henry Mackay and Flinders Petrie and then later again in the 1960s by Ali el-Khouli and Naguib Kanawati. It remains uncertain whether these tombs belong to governors with their residence in Qau or whether they had a residence in another place closer to Hemamieh. The exact date of these tombs is disputed within Egyptology. No king is mentioned in any of the tombs. In tomb A3 a person appears with the name Niankh-Userkaf, providing evidence that this particular tomb must date to the beginning of the Fifth Dynasty or later, but not earlier.76 Userkaf was the first king of the Fifth Dynasty. Only two tombs are better preserved, both belonging to a governor with the name Kakhenet. They had a range of titles typical for local governors of the period including ‘overseer of the missions’ (imy-r wpt), ‘ruler of the great estate’ (HqA Hwt-aAt), ‘great one of the tens of Upper Egypt’, ‘overseer of the work gangs of Upper Egypt’, ‘overseer of works in the middle provinces of Upper Egypt’ (imy-r kAt m zpAwt Hriwt-ib Smaw) and ‘overseer of the king’s people’ (imy-r niswtiw). The governors following them in

98

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

office are most often just names for us as their tombs are so badly destroyed, but it seems that they all come from the same family. These governors are Rahetep, Kaemnofret and a third Kakhenet.77 From them only a few titles are preserved. The earliest of the rock cut tombs (A3) belongs to Kakhenet (I), whose wife was Khentikaues.78 Their tomb is cut into the rocks and consists of a u-shaped gangway, leaving a rectangular block in the middle that forms some Figure 36. Plan of rock cut tomb A2. The tomb is cut as kind of mastaba. Evidently the a mastaba into the rocks (redrawn after el-Khouli and intention was to carve a mastaba Kanawati 1990, pl. 31) into the rocks. This already points to a rather early date for the tomb. The tomb evidently transfers a well known and established tomb type from a free-standing building into a rock cut version. Similar rock cut tombs were discovered at Tehna and they also belong to the earliest decorated rock tombs in Upper Egypt.79 The back of the gangway is about 15 m long and decorated with reliefs on both sides. The tombs are in the eastern mountains, while the main decoration with the false doors is on the gangway facing west. That is on the back side of the gangway when entering the chapel from the west. The decoration of the chapel most often shows Kakhenet and his wife, sometimes with their children. There are scenes of bringing cattle to the couple, there is a shipyard depicted and dancing women. Three sons of Kakhenet are named: Iunka, Sekhemre, and Kakhenet. Four daughters are named: Iufi, Meresankh, Hetepheres, and Kheredet. Six people working on his estate are named: Niankh-Userkaf, Tjepu, the ka-servant Iufu, the ‘overseer of linen’ Kaemheset, the ka-servant Tjenti and the ‘overseer of ka priests’ Djefadjed. The latter even had his own decorated tomb not far away. Three of these officials are evidently related to the funerary cult of Kakhenet (I), as they are ‘ka-servants’ and one of them is even ‘overseer of ka priests’. However, even the ‘overseer of linen’ was most likely an official also mainly concerned with the funerary cult of his master. Linen was very important for embalming the mummy. It seems likely that these people had different tasks on the estate. The successor in office was also named Kakhenet (II). His rock cut tomb (A2) is built along the same lines (Figs 36–8).80 The decoration is not so well preserved but again shows the couple in front of offering bearers, cattle, and at the offering table. At one point in his career Kakhenet (II) bore the title ‘king’s son of his body’. Iufi his wife held the title ‘king’s daughter’ and is shown twice alone in a boat (Fig. 39),

3. Old Kingdom I

99

indicating a special status. In both cases the titles ‘king’s son’ and ‘king’s daughter’ were at some point erased from the decoration of the tomb chapel. This seems rather strange as there is no sign that Kakhenet (II) fell into dishonour. Kanawati argued that he started his career at the royal residence and that the title ‘king’s son’ and ‘king’s daughter’ were related to the title ‘overseer of works’. The latter title was often connected with the title ‘king’s son’. When appointed to the province he lost the title. There is no other ‘king’s son’ in the province dating to the Old Kingdom. The only other example is a certain User, known from a false door found at Koptos, but dating to the Eighth Dynasty, the very end of the Old Kingdom.81 Kakhenet (II) has the longest title strings of the Fifth Dynasty governors at Wadjet. Some of his titles are typical of a local governor of this period, as mentioned above, whereas other titles connect him with the royal palace, such as ‘overseer of the palace’ (imy-r aH) and ‘director of the palace’ (xrp aH). Next to the ranking title ‘king’s acquaintance’, he also bears the next higher ranking title, ‘sole friend (of the king)’.82 Two sons are depicted in the tomb. Rahetep bears the titles ‘overseer of the king’s people’, ‘official’ (zAb), ‘scribe of the petitions’ (zS iry spr) and ‘king’s acquaintance’. A second son with the name Kaires was just ‘scribe’. Rahetep is perhaps known from his own tomb and also became local governor. Quite a few people serving on his estate are identified by name and title. In the tomb of Kakhenet (II) several minor officials are depicted:, Neferkeki was ‘king’s acquaintance’, Ankhi, Neferukai, Rahetep, Kaemheset amd Dedu were ‘scribe’, Meri was ‘steward’ (‘overseer of the house’ – imy-r pr) and ‘overseer of the ka-servants’. Neferher and Kainebefwi had the title ‘director of the food-hall’, Heqaib was ‘scribe of the house of the sacred books’. Kaemheset was ‘overseer of the linen’. Djefadjed was ‘overseer of the ka-servants’.83 The titles provide some insights into the organisation of Kakhenet’s estate. Perhaps the most important person was the ‘steward’.84 The title is also well known from the cemeteries at the royal residence, where the stewards are the most important administrators of the estates of officials and members of the royal ­family.85 As main administrator, the ‘steward’ Meri was also in charge of the ‘overseer of the ka-­servants’. He was therefore the main person in charge of the funerary cult of his master.86 Another important title was the ‘overseer of the linen’. The title is common in the Fifth Dynasty and is a typical title for a close servant of a high official. They were responsible for the linen, but also for other personal items, as is known from depictions in several tomb chapels.87 The titles of Rahetep, son of Kakhenet (II) deserve some further comments. As mentioned, he bears the titles ‘overseer of the king’s people’, ‘official’, ‘scribe of the petitions’ and ‘king’s acquaintance’. The title ‘official’ (zAb) is often translated in Egyptology as ‘judge’.88

Excurus: legal matters Very little is known about what happened if the people in a village or in Tjebu needed legal help. We do not know where people went in case of homicide or after a theft. There are several titles of Egyptian officials sometimes translated as ‘judge’, as for

100

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Figure 37. False door in tomb of Kakhenet (II) (Mackay et al. 1929, pl. xx)

3. Old Kingdom I

101

example the title ‘zAb’.89 These translations are misleading and should best be avoided as they create the impression that the Old and Middle Kingdom had institutions exclusively working with legal matters. There is no evidence for this. However, from later sources it is possible to gain a vague idea of what was done in case of legal problems. As indicated, it should be made clear that there were no special law courts or judges, not even in the provincial capital Tjebu. From other cultures, such as India, it is known that small local crimes were often left in the villages and solved there.90 In Egypt this is best attested for the New Kingdom in Deir el-Medineh.91 From the Old Kingdom on, there appears in the sources an assembly of people known as djadjat. The term is sometimes used in the context of people coming together for juridical matters; documents were made in front of it.92 In the Middle Kingdom there appears a similar institution called qenbet perhaps with the same function. The difference between the two expressions is not really clear. However, it seems likely that certain people of a specific place came together to judge on crime. Another well attested option was the local mayor acting as judge; local governors of the Middle Kingdom, especially, often have juridical titles and refer in Figure 38. Depictions of domains in tomb of Kakhenet (II) (Mackay et al. 1929, their biographies to juridical tasks.93 It is very hard to judge how fair the trials pl. xxv) were. Did poor people get the same treatment as those with more resources? Egyptian texts always stress the importance of being fair. However, several later sources indicate that bribery of one party was common. Corruption is mentioned more than once, most likely to the cost of the poorer party involved.94 Several texts of the Old Kingdom indicate that there was a permanent abuse of weaker people by those in power. The references are not direct, but rather praise officials for not carrying out these abuses, but this certainly indicates that they were common. The vizier Khentikai reports: ‘I [never] abuse my authority over anyone […] [I rescued the wretched man] from the one that was more powerful’.95 Punishments were often made by beating people. It seems there was always a high level of violence around, especially directed from people of the ruling class against

102

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

those of the working population. This is well known from depictions in tomb decorations. Here is often shown how minor officials get beaten by others.96 Firm evidence for this practice in archaeology comes again from the south of Egypt, on Elephantine. Here a cemetery that lies close to the ancient town was excavated between 1978 and 1982. Most burials were rather modest, while the local ruling class was not buried on the island of Elephantine, but west of it in the hills today called Qubbet el-Hawa. A total of 405 skeletons were examined for diseases and injuries. Of these, 101 were children, 158 were male, 75 were female and for 71 of them it was not possible to determine the sex. About 30% of the skeletons show signs of a trauma. This is comparatively high. The Old Kingdom skeleton of a man c. 40–55 years old at death confirmed this impression. The skeleton was found in a simple burial. The bones show that twice in his life he was so heavily beaten that some bones broke. Some of his injuries indicate that he had time to recover after the bad treatment; others, however, and those most likely done at a later time, were badly treated after incidents and caused his death. It remains an open question how to interpret this high number of traumas for a person living on Elephantine. War is one option. However, Elephantine was a protected town on an island. War does not explain the traumas in the female population very well. Domestic violence is another option, but the percentage seems to be too high at least for a modern observer. Therefore, the one explanation seems to be violence from local officials.97

Tomb scenes Going back to the tomb of Kakhenet (II) at Hemamieh, it is clear that the depictions in his tomb provide an idealistic view of life in Egypt in the Fifth Dynasty. On the west wall of the chapel, Kakhenet is shown standing with offering bearers. A caption reads: ‘viewing the cattle count’. The bearers bring cattle and fowl and also present documents.98 The person presenting the documents is Djefadjed, behind him stands the ‘scribe’ Ankhi, followed by Hequ and Iku, the latter without title but carrying documents. In the register under that, four men are shown bringing birds, followed by men bringing cattle. Production scenes are rather rare in the tomb. Over one of the false doors the cooking of birds is depicted. Two men are shown, both have the title ‘director of the food-hall’.99 Kakhenet and his wife are often shown in a boat, alone or together (Fig. 39). Of further interest are the decorated frames of two statue niches. They show at the top Kakhenet alone in front of an offering table or Kakhenet and his wife Iufi in front of an offering table. The jambs of the niches show single figures of men or women. Those with a basket on the head show domains (estate). They have the domain names written in front of them (Fig. 38). These domain depictions are typical of many tombs of officials and also appear in royal pyramid temples. However, although such depictions of domains are very common in private tombs at the royal residence, they appear in only three tombs in Upper Egypt; the tomb of Kakhenet (II) is one of them.100 There is some debate about how real these depictions are. Are real estates depicted or are these just fictional ones? Moreno García argued that they were

3. Old Kingdom I

103

Figure 39. Iufi, wife of Kahkhenet (II) in boat; tomb of Kakhenet (Mackay et al. 1929, pl. xxiv)

fictional. He noticed that most often any further information is missing. However, sometimes the information tells us in which parts of Egypt they are based. In this case it can be observed that the same numbers of domains are given for Upper and Lower Egypt. The balance always seems too even to be true, and one wonders whether this is a sign that these names are made up.101 However, even if these names and domains are fictional, it seems unlikely that the concept of having domains was fictional. Most likely there was a real background for placing these names there. So it seems certain that Kakhenet had several domains that supplied him and his court with an income. Iufi, the wife of Kakhenet, bears several titles; she is ‘king’s ornament’. She is also ‘priestess of Hathor’, a title that most likely announces that she was simply a musician (see p. 45). The title appears first in the Fourth Dynasty and is more common at the end of the Old Kingdom and in the First Intermediate Period. Iufi is one of the earliest women with this title.102 More obscure is her title ‘priestess of Neith, north of the wall’.103 ‘North of the wall’ refers to Memphis, the ‘wall’ being one name for Memphis. There is no other evidence that Neith had a cult in the Wadjet province. It seems more likely that Iufi bore the title related to Neith when she was living at the royal court. The tomb of Kaemnofret (C4) is smaller and most likely unfinished. Only one very badly damaged inscription is preserved, providing the name of the tomb owner.104 Kaemnofret erected the tomb of his father Rahetep (C5),105 where an inscription mentions that Kaemnofret made this tomb. Here in this tomb of his son are also recorded Rahetep’s titles, leaving little doubt that he was a local governor too. Rahetep again bears the title ‘overseer of the work gangs of Upper Egypt’, but he was also ‘overseer of the affairs’ and ‘leader of the land’. In the cult chapel of Rahetep’s tomb only two walls still bear remains of decorations. A third one was once also decorated, but only a few remains survived.106 On the south wall, Rahetep is shown in front of an offering

104

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

table; on the north wall appear scenes of agriculture. Such scenes are not common depictions in the rock cut tombs at Hemamieh, but otherwise appear often in Old Kingdom tomb decorations. There are two inscribed tombs not belonging to governors. Djefadjed has a rock cut tomb with the entrance on the west side. From the entrance the door opens into a small room and then on the north side there is a corridor more than 4 m long. The tomb chapel formed is thus L-shaped. False doors are carved on the west side of the corridor, but it seems that this part of the tomb was never finished. Only the entrance room was decorated. There is a statue of the tomb owner, and scenes showing him and his wife, called Hedjethekenu, who bears the title ‘priestess of Hathor, lady of Denderah’. Djefadjed was only ‘overseer of the ka priests’ and is shown as a servant in two of the governor’s tombs (Kakhenet I and II).107 The tomb is surprisingly big for that of a ‘servant’, about the same size as those of the later governors Rahetep and Kaemnofret. All three tombs give the impression of being unfinished. In the case of the two governors, that might relate to short periods in office. Although we do not have any idea how long they stayed in office, it might be argued that they did not have enough time to finish their tombs. The case of Djefadjed seems more complicated. Why did such a minor official obtain such a relatively important burial place? The only other inscribed smaller tomb is that of the ‘overseer of carpenters’ Idi. His burial is carved in front of those of Kakhenet (I) into the entrance passage. A lintel bears a short offering formula and the title and name of Idi.108 The tomb is later than those of Kakhenet (I) and Kakhenet (II), but evidently belonged to a dependent official working on the estate of a governor and having some resources, at least enough for an inscribed lintel.

Excursus: patronage Djefadjed worked for two governors, as his person appears in two governor’s tombs. He was certainly in some way dependent on them. With Djefadjed and Idi some kind of system of dependency is perhaps visible, also known as patronage.109 A patron system involves people in a personal relationship. These people are socially unequal. There are on the one side the wealthy leaders, the patrons, on the other side there are the followers (clients). Both sides have something to offer. Clients offer loyalty, clients receive in return protection and jobs with a steady income.110 The clients are often shown in the tombs of their patrons, as in the case of Djefadjed, who even served two local governors, the father and later the son. The clients are often also buried next to the bigger tomb of their patron, as is very clearly visible with the burial of ­Djefadjed and Idi. Without inscriptions these relations are often not easy to detect in the archaeological record, but there are many examples of bigger tombs surrounded by smaller ones. This is a pattern of the royal cemeteries with the tombs of the kings in the middle and those of the high officials and the king’s family around. In the burial goods a patron-client relationship is not easily visible. It is typical that patrons give presents to their clients.111 On the highest social levels, a king gives rewards to

3. Old Kingdom I

105

his officials. From several Old Kingdom burials stone vessels with the name of a king are known. Tomb 3112 with the fragments of a bowl naming king Hetepsekhemui has already been mentioned.112 From the late Old Kingdom come two modest sized alabaster vessels with names of kings and in one case further vessels with the name of a king’s mother.113 It had been argued that in the Old Kingdom stone vessels with a royal name were exclusively made in royal workshops.114 The workshops do not need to be located at the royal residence, but could be close to the quarries. The burials in which the vessels were found are rather modest and it seems likely that the people buried here received the vessels as gifts from an official they served. Otherwise it is very hard to detect such gifts from higher officials to minor ones in the archaeological records of the tombs. Patronage in general is a subject that has received special attention in recent years.115 In research on patronage in Ancient Egypt, two aspects are often stressed. In tomb depictions but also in arrangements of cemeteries a person of the ruling class may be surrounded by dependent officials, as just described in the case of Djefadjed and Idi. Marcelo Campagno116 discusses Old Kingdom cemeteries, where one larger tomb is constructed first and then surrounded by smaller ones, perhaps belonging to ‘clients’, although Campagno does not use the word. One other example is the Middle Kingdom tomb of Khnumhetep (II) at Beni Hasan. Here Khnumhetep is shown standing on one wall. In front of him are depicted in several rows many minor officials, such as a ‘steward’, an ‘overseer of the fields’ or an ‘overseer of the troops’.117 There can be no doubt that these minor officials were dependent on Khnumhetep. He most likely provided them with income and with other help. However, it might be questioned whether this is a patronage relationship in a narrow sense. The people depicted are working on the estate of Khnumhetep or in the local administration under him. Here Max Weber’s term ‘patrimonial bureaucracy’ might be more useful.118 In this system, officials are not loyal to and working for an abstract institution but are mainly working for a higher official where strict personal loyalty is the most important issue. Weber discusses Ancient Egypt as earliest known example of this type of administration.119 A similar related case are several biographical inscriptions where a person of the ruling class expresses his concern for the poor: ‘I gave bread to the hungry, clothes to the naked’.120 Again, it might be asked whether this has anything to do with patronage. Is this a concern for clients or a concern for the community in general? Patronage in ancient Egypt is certainly a matter of definition. Some sorts of patronage certainly existed, as in almost all societies, but the evidence often presented is easier to explain as a work-related relationship or simply a form of charity. Franke observes that this kind of piety or charity does not fit well into bureaucratic state organisation but rather fits the picture of a patriarchal society where the main unit was the house or domain of an official and where this official had to care for all its members.121

106

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Daily life in tomb scenes The decorated tombs at Hemamieh provide a wealth of information on life in the ­province in the middle of the third millennium BC. We see the clothes of these people, the hair style, the furniture. In one scene a man is playing a harp. In another, Iufi, wife of Kakhenet (II) is sitting on a boat (Fig. 39) and the ‘steward’ and ‘overseer of ka priests’ Meri is playing a drum. In the tomb of Kakhenet (I) we see a shipyard. However, one such scene alone raises an important question. How reliable are these depictions in terms of showing life in the province? Indeed there are indications that most parts of them are heavily stylised and do not reflect the material and practice of the time. One clear example is the range of personal adornments. Men and women are shown with a broad collar, armlets and anklets. However, almost nothing of these is known from the archaeological record in the region of that period (see p. 142). Another indicator are the depictions of the domains, perhaps also purely made up (Fig. 38). It was shown that this might be also true for the agricultural scene in the tomb of Rahetep (p. 37) which depicts the ploughing of fields. From other evidence it seems unlikely that ploughs were widely used in the Old Kingdom.122 The depictions in tomb chapels have a specific religious function, therefore the scenes are highly stylised. Furthermore, it is likely that the decoration of these tombs was executed by artists from the royal residence. They came most likely with a standard program of scenes that were perhaps varied by the wish of the tomb owner, although we know absolutely nothing about how scenes for a tomb were chosen. The ‘steward’ Meri playing the drum123 and mentioned above needs some further comments. From the translation of the title and from texts and depictions it is clear that the ‘steward’ was the main person in charge of a household and/or estate of an official. Therefore, it might come as a surprise to see him here playing the drum. This has various possible implications. Meri was perhaps regarded as part of the family and not just an official doing his job; as a family member he was playing music in his spare time. It might also show how much offices were not seen as fixed, and an administrator could easily become a musician, perhaps in leisure times, but there might be also a religious meaning behind it, perhaps related to Hathor.124 Taking all the evidence together, the decorated tombs at Hemamieh display very little ‘local colour’. The same range of scenes and topics is found at the cemeteries of the royal residences at Giza or Saqqara.125 Perhaps the architecture might be called unique, but that is related to the position of the tombs on the east bank of the Nile and not on the west bank. Several names in the tombs appear very typical of the royal residence. Hetepheres, Hedjethekenu, Meresankh, and Khentikaues are the names of queens.126 Rahetep127 is the name of a son of king Snofru. Other names, such as Iunka,128 and Sekhemre129 are also well attested at the royal residence. These tombs and the people give an impression of an implant from outside, from the royal residence. Almost no local traditions are visible. We might not expect them from the decoration of the tomb, as there were perhaps no, or few, local prototypes, but it is also the case that

3. Old Kingdom I

107

the texts do not mention local deities or local names. The case of the names might be more complicated, as it might be argued that locals took over names known from the royal residence. Local gods are perhaps also not to be expected, as in a tomb we expect funerary deities and those are not local. However, we would expect them in the names of local people. Another feature is the manner in which woman are depicted. In all tomb chapels with a fuller decoration, the wife of the tomb owner plays an important part but is rarely the main person. In the tomb of Kakhenet (I), the wife is most often shown behind her husband in the same size. She even has her own false door where she is shown alone on the door jambs. In the main scene of the false door, where the deceased sits in front of an offering table, she is shown with her husband, she sitting on the right side, he on the left (Fig. 37).130 In Egyptian art, the main person is most often shown on the left. The left side is therefore the more important position as the person was able to look to the right.131 So the husband is the main person even on the false door of his wife. In the chapel of Kakhenet (II) the wife is still more prominent. On the south entrance corridor, she is shown as the main person in a boat, on the west wall of the main chapel she is again shown as the main person in a boat, the other people depicted in the boats being servants.132

Burials of the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties With the burial of Idi mentioned above we are at the lowest social level where there are inscriptions in tombs. It might be also worth having a look at the size of the burial apartments of these tombs. Surprisingly the tomb chambers are often not that big. The largest burial apartment is that of Kakhenet II at about 25.38 m3.133 The second burial chamber and shaft in his tomb is only about 14 cubic meters. It might belong to the wife of Kakhenet. The burial chamber and shaft of Kakhenet I is already much smaller than that of Kakhenet II at about 14 m3, while the wife’s shaft (?) is only about 5 m3.134 The shafts and chambers in the tomb of Djefadjed vary, being 5–8 m3.135 Going further down the social ladder, the next tombs at Qau and Badari of about the same period are shaft tombs with a chamber. The burials of the Fifth Dynasty are most frequently simple shafts with their walls often bricked up. The few pottery vessels found in the burials consist mainly of several types of bowls, globuar vessels, flasks with pointed or round bases and ewers with a flat base. Only 20 recorded shaft tombs with a chamber are datable to the Fifth Dynasty.136 Nine belonged to men, six to women. Many of these tombs once had brick walls and some wooden coffins. All other ­burials of the Fifth Dynasty were simple shafts most often not much deeper than about 2 m. The most common burial equipment is pottery. Most often only one or two vessels were found. Seven vessels are the absolute exception. Further burial goods were personal adornments and some stone vessels. Some burials contained remains of wooden boxes with cosmetic objects, such as stone vessels or shells. These were mainly found in the burials of women. The largest tomb

108

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

was 1114, but it was re-used in the Eighteenth Dynasty and only two pots of the Fifth Dynasty remained (Fig.  40). It was a shaft tomb with a chamber. The next largest tomb is 5524 in a small cemetery (5500) at Badari which had four shaft tombs with chambers, all dating to about the Fifth Dynasty. Tomb 5524 was again a shaft with a chamber. The chamber was lined with rough stones. In the intact burial chamber was found the body of a man in a contracted position with hands in front of the face. The only burial good that is recorded is a pottery bowl (Fig. 41). Tomb 5531 is nearby and is again a shaft with a chamber. It was found looted (Fig. 42). Here were found the remains of what was perhaps an old woman. Two pottery vessels were found, beads, an inscribed cylinder seal and shells, most likely used a cosmetic container. Therefore cemetery 5500 was in the Fifth Dynasty most likely a burial ground for a better-off family in a nearby village. Burial goods in Fifth Dynasty tombs are scarce even in the few wealthier burials. It is therefore not useful to use any statistics about the number of objects found in order to gain an idea of the social profile of the people buried here. Tomb size offers a more reliable guide in general. The 20 tombs with a chamber can plausibly be identified as the wealthiest in as much as these people had the highest number of resources to spend on building them. The next set is a small group of six tombs (453, 929, 1214, 1215, 3162, 7728) with a volume of 8.44–4.97 m3. Seven tombs were 4.55–3.3 m3, 27 burials were 3.3–1.66 m3, and 56 burials were even smaller. Not included in the statistics are the bricks that were added to many burial chambers. However, even with this in mind, the tomb architecture is very simple and not comparable to the rock cut tombs in scale and expenditure.137 However, it seems clear that there was a wide variety in tomb sizes. This might point to a wide distribution of resources available for the people in the province. Two further burials dating to the Old Kingdom may be described in more detail. Burial 2086 was found undisturbed Figure 40. Vessels from 1114 and was most likely a surface burial. It was excavated in a small cemetery near Hemamieh. The deceased was placed in a contracted position within a wooden coffin. The excavators were not able to identify the sex of the person buried here. As burial goods were recorded two Figure 41. Vessel from tomb 5524 types of tall vessels; one is a high vase

3. Old Kingdom I

109

Figure 42. Burial 5531

like vessel; the other one is a beer jar. The latter is a very common pottery type of the Old Kingdom especially in settlement sites. These vessels are in contrast not very common in burials. There are also two stone vessels: a bowl made of breccia (a hard stone) and a small round alabaster vessel.138 Beads were also found. Tomb 969 was one of the richest burials dating to the Fourth or Fifth Dynasty. It was a small shaft with a small chamber on the north side, where there lay a skeleton of a woman in a contracted position. Behind the head was placed a roughly made vessel. In the burial was found a string of beads. These were made of jasper, turquoise and green jasper. One of them was made of lapis lazuli, two of gold. Their find spot within the tomb is not recorded by the excavator. The woman buried here evidently had some wealth. Lapis lazuli comes from Badakhshan in north-eastern Afghanistan and was traded via Syria to Egypt.139 Objects and materials imported from foreign countries appear in Old Kingdom tombs, but mostly in those of the royal cemeteries at Giza and Saqqara. These types of objects are much rarer in the provinces (Figs 43–5).

Women in the Old Kingdom Many burials of women were quite richly adorned with amulets and stone vessels. The rich equipment found in the burials of women needs some further comments on women in Ancient Egypt in general. The discussion of women in Egyptological and more popular books exemplifies how modern world views are projected onto Ancient Egypt. It seems that modern women are in search for role models in history and hope to find them in Ancient Egypt. Especially in more popular works there appears the description of the free Egyptian woman having almost the same rights as men. This is a view also shared by some feminists. For example Simone de Beauvoir in her

110

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Figure 43. Old Kingdom vessel made of marl clay, tomb 1163 (UC 17672) (author)

Figure 44. Old Kingdom vessel, just 7.5 cm high, Nile clay; tomb 1089 (UC 17666) (author)

Second Sex observed that women had an exceptionally favourable position in Ancient Egypt.140 More recent research is more cautious. Wolfgang Helck in the introduction to an exhibition catalogue on women in Ancient Egypt supplies many examples of the unequal social position of Ancient Egyptian women.141 A further point, already mentioned (pp.  63–64) are the burials. The decorated tomb chapels at Hemamieh all belong to men. Smaller burials often show gender difference too. Tombs of men are on average slightly larger and Figure 45. Old kingdom vessel from grave 7351 (UC contain more pottery.142 Nonetheless, 17692) (author) especially for the Old Kingdom, there are examples providing a much more complicated picture. Normally, women do not have any positions in the administration. However, in the Old Kingdom there are several examples where households of high standing women were managed by other women. These women even had administrative titles. They are ‘stewards’ or ‘treasurers’.143 This is a feature only rarely attested for other periods of Egyptian history. This is not attested in any of the decorated tombs at Hemamieh.

3. Old Kingdom I

111

Social structure in rural Egypt The tombs of the broader population do not provide the names and the occupations of the people buried there. For the social relations, professions and organisation of the working population at a provincial place in the Old Kingdom it is necessary to look elsewhere. In one tomb at Gebelein, some hundred kilometres south of Qau, several papyri placed in a box were discovered. The papyri contained several lists of people, identified by name and profession or title. Papyrus Gebelein I seems to be a simple name list for corvée workers, while especially in Papyrus Gebelein II and Gebelein V duties are listed, that these people had to pay for and carry out.144 The papyri offer a rough idea of the social structure of an Egyptian village in the middle of the Old Kingdom. The people of the papyri belonged to a place called Inerty-Inpu. Other places mentioned are Iaru and Djenet. The documents were perhaps written by a scribe called Sobekaa.145 It seems that Inerty-Inpu and its people formed the personal estate (pr-Dt) of a higher official who is not named. It might be the local governor of the province, but a high official at the royal court is another option. The main papyri list duties that the people of the village had to deliver and the food that they had to refine for making bread and beer, but also linen. The duties vary considerably from person to person and it seems that they were collected from households. It seems that the people mentioned are the heads of the households. According to this, the number of duties were most likely calculated from the number of people living in these households, although these other people of the households are not listed in the papyri. The official who collected these duties was a ‘king’s acquaintance’. The papyri also give a rough idea of the social structure of the village. The most common title found in the papyri is ‘king’s servant’ (Hm-niswt), with about 25 title holders. The next most common title after ‘king’s servant’ is ‘member of the team’ (iswt) with about 24 holders. The third most common title is ‘hunter’ (nw), with about 13 people. There appear several craftsmen with titles such as ‘carpenter’ (mDH), ‘carpenter of a ship’ (mDH wiA) or ‘carpenter of the residence’ (mDH n Xnw). Few people had administrative titles, such as ‘scribe’ and ‘administrator’ (sHD). It seems that the head of the village was a person with the title ‘ruler’ (HqA). Perhaps under him were several administrators. There were two officials with the title ‘in charge of goods’ (iry ixt). There were four scribes, two officials with the title ‘in charge of the documents’ (iry mDAt), a ‘sealer of the granary’ (xtmw Snwt), three ‘sealers’ (xtmw), two ‘harvest inspectors’ (nxt xrw), a ‘grain master’ and six ‘inspectors’ (sHD). As already mentioned, the highest number of people appearing are ‘king’s servants’. The exact meaning of this designation is problematic. Many researchers argue that these people were under some obligation to the state (p.  97). In very general terms it seems that they were, in this specific village, the farming population. A high number of the people in a village were most likely farmers unless the village had a specific function such as a workmen’s village near quarries. Nobody is called farmer, perhaps as it was not regarded as worth

112

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

mentioning. These people were instead labelled according to their social status. Sergey Agapov, who worked on these papyri, refers to two texts on the papyri referring to sales of a house, where one person involved was a ‘king’s servant’. According to him, that might indicate that they were free people who owned houses and could accumulate some wealth. 146 Obviously, that does not mean that they were not serfs. There are evidently several problems with the interpretation of data from this village. We do not have any idea whether the village is typical of the Old Kingdom, or had a special status. A place called ‘god’s house of Snofru’ is mentioned, perhaps a temple for the cult of this king. A close connection to this cult of Snofru would explain the presence of several officials with administrative titles. This would make the village a rather exceptional place with close ties to the central government. If the accounts are fairly typical for a rural place, that must lead to the conclusion that Egypt in the Old Kingdom was fully under institutional control into its farthest reaches. Going back to the Wadjet province, it is clear that the population here lived in villages along the Nile, as the spread of cemeteries indicates. The main urban centre in the region was most likely Tjebu. Here were found the highest numbers of burials and this is the place of the later provincial capital. However, as already indicated, the Fifth Dynasty governors’ tombs are some kilometres north of Tjebu. The distance seems almost too far and one wonders whether the main residence for the local governors in the Fifth Dynasty was much closer to Hemamieh. Clear archaeological evidence for that is missing and even the cemeteries around Hemamieh are not particularly big. Settlement archaeology is almost completely missing in the Wadjet province for the Old Kingdom. For the general living conditions of the people it is therefore again important to look at the evidence from other places.

Provincial craft production In the Gebelein papyri are mentioned several craftsmen, such as a ‘carpenter’. It remains unclear how craft production was organised within the Wadjet province. There is evidence for centralised production of luxury objects, such as stone vessels or high quality stone tools. Workshops for stone vessels were found in provincial places, such as on Elephantine.147 This shows that we do not have to expect all workshops of luxury items to be at the capital, but these provincial workshops might be run by the state (=king’s palace) and are therefore royal in a wider sense. For stone tools a different picture emerges from Elephantine. It seems that especially in the Third and Fourth Dynasty they were brought from outside. The materials are not local and the quality of the tools is high. Thomas Hikade wonders whether they were produced in the Memphite region.148 At the end of the Old Kingdom, central production collapsed and they were now done locally, visible in a certain decline in quality.149 For pottery production, mainly for beer jars and bread moulds, Warden has argued that they were produced locally, as they vary considerably in shape and volume from place to place. At Ayn Asil in the Dakhleh Oasis were found workshops for bone tools and copper

3. Old Kingdom I

113

working within the governor’s palace dating to the First Intermediate Period.150 Local production was then still at least partly under ‘state’ control.

Old Kingdom settlements So far as we know, Old Kingdom towns were quite small in modern terms. The Old Kingdom town on Elephantine was about 200 m long and about 60 to 70 m wide. Hierakonpolis was slightly bigger with about 200 by 300 m. However the area of the latter town included the large local Horus temple. While the size of these places might not classify them as towns, at least in modern terms, there are other points that do. All Old Kingdom towns so far excavated seem to have had a massive town wall.151 A local temple is detectable in many of these places. We can also expect the palace of the local governor at least at the provincial capitals. Remains of one were excavated on Elephantine152 and at Ayn Asil.153 In the governor’s palace at Ayn Asil further workshops were discovered.154 These were the administrative centres of the towns. Here seals were found, including those from the central government. Finally, there is evidence for craft production at these places. On Elephantine a stone vessels workshop was found, and at Ayn Asil pottery kilns were excavated.155 The town walls in the Old Kingdom raise some questions. The Old Kingdom is most often seen as a stable and peaceful period with few dangers coming from the outside world. The walls on Elephantine might be an indication that there was still a danger from Nubia and the southern border of Egypt needed to be protected. The same argument might be true for Elkab and Edfu, both towns in the southern parts of Egypt. A town wall is also attested for Abydos, and here the argument for southern invaders is not very strong. One might wonder whether there were other reasons for building these walls. Conceivably, even at the height of the Old Kingdom there were still local wars between the provinces or single towns, not mentioned in the texts of the period. Another option is that these town walls were status markers built by the local ruling classes.156 A further option might be that Old Kingdom Egypt was much less secure and stable than commonly thought. Desert tribes not under state control and bandits might have been more common than we think. It has to be remembered that in Old Kingdom times the ‘desert’ was most likely much greener; many nomads must have lived there. References to such rural lawless people do not appear in texts before the Middle Kingdom.157 No Old Kingdom village has so far been excavated to any satisfactory level, so any comparison is impossible. We do not know whether villages were also fortified or whether this was only typical of more substantial settlements. Several Old Kingdom settlements have been at least partly excavated over the last decades and they provide a rough idea of living conditions and houses in this period. The best recorded example is the town on Elephantine island in the most southern part of Egypt, facing Aswan. In the First Dynasty, a fortress was built here, most likely as some kind of stronghold158 against the Nubians in the south.

114

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

However, the island certainly also functioned as a trading point between Egypt and the south and a town developed here with a town wall. People lived in the town till the Roman period and beyond. The lowest levels are therefore not always well preserved and not easy to excavate. The parts of the Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom town excavated give a rather confused impression. The streets were narrow and not very regularly laid out. One relatively well preserved house dates to the Second Dynasty. The main building consists of one big room about 6.4 m long and 2.5 m wide, most likely the living room, but also the place for sleeping. On the north side of this were three smaller rooms, one of which led to the entrance. The other two rooms were bigger, but still small by modern standards, being 3.6 m2 and 2.9 m2 in size. It seems they functioned as kitchen, storage and workplaces. In one of them was found a grinding stone and pottery in the floor. On the west were two further rooms, one perhaps a small open courtyard, the other perhaps was used as an animal stall. North of the house there was a bigger courtyard with a silo in the middle. In the Third Dynasty, the house was enlarged. Over time, the whole plan of the building became more regular, perhaps as neighbouring buildings were also restructured. One entirely new feature is now a staircase built into the main hall.159 The building may have had at least two storeys, although the staircase might just have led to the roof. Another section of housing was excavated near the northern end of the town in an area that was an enlargement of the town in the Second Dynasty. Four house units were found arranged along a small alleyway. The houses were mainly used as workshops with additional places for living. It remains difficult to decide which room belonged to one house and which room to another. Unit A consisted of an open courtyard with a room on the south side. The room was most likely used for living and sleeping, while there is in the courtyard evidence for a hearth used as a kitchen and perhaps as a workplace. North of this there was another unit, consisting again of an open courtyard and south of it a room, most likely used for living and sleeping. In front of these houses ran a gangway, perhaps protecting these houses from being viewed from the outside. We have to remember that wooden doors might have been not that common at this time, although not much is known about how doorways were protected in this period. The doorways were exposed to the outside and needed at least some protection. The third house had its main entrance from the gangway. There followed a small room, a corridor and a bigger living room, besides an adjacent space that was perhaps once an open courtyard.160 The houses described show some characteristic features of Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom houses at other sites. Typical is an entrance area, either a smaller or bigger courtyard, or just a single, small room. The courtyard was used as kitchen, but also as workspace. The smallest houses often only had one living room. Such houses are attested at Buhen in Nubia. More complex houses had additional rooms, either entered from the courtyard or from the main living room.161 Although there are by now several better excavated Old Kingdom town quarters, hardly any Old Kingdom

3. Old Kingdom I

115

settlements have been excavated on a bigger scale. Therefore it is difficult to see the social divisions within these places.

The Old Kingdom state: summary The Old Kingdom central administration was there to provide the palace and royal projects with resources. The administration of the regions outside the royal residence was in the hands of the local ruling classes and representatives of the royal residence to ensure that the needed resources could be extracted without any problems. Developments of new settlements and regions might be seen in the same light. New towns were arguably founded to provide more resources for the residence. In the difficult task of describing Old Kingdom society, the broader population especially is not well represented in the written sources. Best documented are the royal family and the highest state officials. Until the Sixth Dynasty there is some evidence that the high officials and the royal family formed several families that were heavily interwoven. There are already exceptions early on, but the general picture is that the sons of the king received important positions at the royal court and the daughters of the king were married to important officials. The wife of the king was often a woman related to the king’s family, but there is also evidence that kings married daughters from an important family.162 The opinion often expressed about these relations is that the king most likely wanted to maintain good relations with important families and that there is a deliberate policy behind these marriages.163 However, it should also be stressed that there was not much choice of whom to marry for a king’s daughter. Who else should they marry than the highest court officials? There are two groups of courtiers. There are those with administrative functions, but there are others that fulfil tasks around the king. The latter are those looking after the clothes of the king, the hair and the finger and toe nails. In other periods these people were not very high in the social hierarchy, but in the Old Kingdom they had tombs equal in size to those officials with administrative functions, indicating their access to a similar scale of resources.164 In several cases there are powerful families visible, where several members kept influential positions in their hands over numerous generations. One example is the Fifth Dynasty family of officials where many had the name Seshemnefer. Members of the family held high office perhaps over four generations, in three generations at the very top with the titles of a vizier.165 Another example is the family of the vizier Ptahhetep, dating to about the same time. They again kept the vizier’s office at least for three generations.166 Offices in the Old Kingdom were not fixed as in the Middle Kingdom. Renate Müller-Wollermann described the Old Kingdom administration as a typical example of a patrimonial bureaucracy, a term used by Max Weber (compare p. 105).167 The king was the centre and he appointed the men around him. Personal relations to the king were most important. The positions of officials were not in the manner of a modern

116

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

prime minister, or a modern chancellor; instead the men around the king received different functions, visible to us in their titles. The combination of these titles and not just one office made their position. The office of a local governor must be seen in this light too. There is a long discussion within Egyptology that questions which title in the Old Kingdom is that of the local governor of a province. Perhaps there was no local governor in the way we would conceive of that position.168 Certain officials might have been sent to certain places in the provinces to fulfil certain tasks, such as to maintain a royal domain, while those parts of the province not part of the royal domain might have been under the charge of another official. The evaluation of burials of the Fifth Dynasty in the Wadjet province provided evidence for a wide distribution of tomb sizes, from the big decorated tombs of the governors to the shallow surface burials of poorer people. This broad distribution of tomb size might indicate a wider distribution of resources available for people in the region. There are not just burials of very wealthy and very poor people but also burials in between in terms of size. In this period only a few burial goods were placed into tombs, and therefore tomb wealth cannot be calculated from the number or cost of objects found.169 The ‘middle class’ of the Middle Kingdom is not a phenomenon visible at this particular period. The Gebelein papyri provide an idea about the social structure at provincial areas at this time. Most people were most likely farmers and worked as family units. However, there are many professions listed in the papyri providing evidence for a division of labour, even in a remote place. They had to pay some sort of dues but seem to have worked in general independently and belonged to an official of an institution. It seems that these people were also liable to corvée labour. Gebelein Papyrus I seems to be a list of people who were send to do some such work.170 The division of labour was most likely advanced. The palace workshop at Ayn Asil171 indicates that people did not live at the place where they were working. There were certainly also still house hold units, people manufactured at home, next to the agricultural activity simple objects for their own needs or perhaps also for an exchange with neighbours. Households specialised on certain products are very hard to see in the surviving records. Those professionals listed in the Gebelein papyri worked on an estate. It seems possible that some of them offered their work for an exchange of commodities.

Redistribution system There is a debate over whether the Old Kingdom had some kind of redistribution system by which food and other commodities would have been produced locally, collected by an institution, and then redistributed as payments to all people, as the workforce in this model was fully employed by the state.172 This idea was supported by the evidence of the New Kingdom where there are huge magazines next to the royal temples at Thebes, evidently for storing goods that were later redistributed to other people. There is already for the Old Kingdom some evidence that goods were produced by the central government and then distributed to parts of the population, either special tools to workmen or luxury objects to members of the local ruling classes. Seidlmayer

3. Old Kingdom I

117

discussed the case of stone vessels. They are clearly made for consumption and are not objects used as tools. The stone for these vessels is not available everywhere; hard stones especially often come from remote quarries, so there was no chance of local production at all places. They were most likely produced at selected workshops. As objects of consumption they might have been given as rewards or some kind of payment to local officials and might be given by them to other minor officials or servants and therefore reached quite a large number of people. Indeed these stone vessels are very common in burials of the early Dynastic Period and attest already for the first dynasties a network distributing objects throughout the country.173 Tools might be items distributed by the government for production in the interest of the state. It has been observed that many stone tools found on Elephantine were not produced there but brought from somewhere else and most likely then used in the local workshops of the government.174 Interestingly the daily life pottery shows an entirely different pattern in the Old Kingdom. Kemp noted that there were certain types of pottery vessels only attested at Qau and Badari (see p.  133). Warden emphasises that a redistribution system needs a well organised central government that is able to collect goods and distribute them all over Egypt.175 Warden argues that the idea is quite straightforward, but in practice it was certainly restricted by the not very advanced Early Bronze Age technology. She also observes that data in Egyptology were often taken from the New Kingdom and then applied to the Old Kingdom, almost 1,000 years back in time.176 She further argues that a redistribution system does not allow private property and it does not allow markets. She observes that private property is to a certain extent attested via inscriptions and that markets are well attested in several Old Kingdom tomb scenes too.177 However, the latter two arguments especially are weak. There is no reason to assume that a redistribution system did not allow private property, at least on a small scale. Furthermore, there is nothing to say that there were no local markets in a redistribution system. These markets might have had the function of providing additional goods not supplied by a central institution in a redistribution system. Warden looked at beer jars and bread moulds, the most common pottery types found at Old Kingdom sites, essential for making the bread and beer, the staples in the ancient Egyptian diet. Warden compared the pottery types found at different sites and observed that the volumes of these vessels range quite widely from site to site but also differ from vessel to vessel at the same find spot. If there had been a redistribution system in the Old Kingdom, she argues, we would expect these vessels to be more standardized. Bread and beer were used as wages and rations and so a centralised redistribution system should be interested in having these rations standardized. Instead, all evidence indicates that the vessels were produced locally.178 The conclusions of Warden should be taken with some reservation. It seems true that all the vessels that were important as rations for workmen were produced locally. There is also no question that their volumes were different, implying that there was no central system taking control of

118

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

a standardisation of contents. However, one might ask whether this was the intention. The central government of the Old Kingdom might not have seen it as important to set exact standards, so that workmen at Memphis and Elephantine received exactly the same ration.179 What we call ‘standard’ might be a vaguer qualification of the amount seen as necessary for the survival of a workman. An exact standardisation of rations was perhaps not seen as important and might be after all a rather modern concept. The local authorities, on behalf of the central government, just provided bread and beer without bothering too much about any putative national standard. A redistribution system is undoubtedly also a matter of definition. Karl Polanyi saw a wider range of patterns.180 It seems certain that the state produced many items of higher quality and distributed them throughout the country. It also seems certain that the state demanded local products, mainly food, but certainly also manpower. Dominic Perry draws attention to a ‘requisition practice’. Sometimes, when resources were needed, the government just took them from the people, in other words stealing them.181 On the other hand, there is no evidence that agricultural products were collected, stored and then given to the farming population again. It is more likely that farmers produced for the state or the owner of a domain, but kept as much as possible for their own consumption. In a similar way, scholars such as Bernbeck provide a quite wide definition of redistribution. He sees such a system at work in many societies, but most often the ruling class collected resources but did not really redistribute. Most often only people close to a ruler received a share of the collected resources, but not the broader population.182

Mode of production In general terms, the Old Kingdom provides many of the features regarded as typical of the tributary mode of production. So far as we can see, the ruling classes did not emerge from local families, but they were creatures of the king, a point that Banaji stressed.183 This point is clearly visible in the sources for the Wadjet province. The earliest attested local governors are only known from the tombs at the royal cemeteries. The later governors are known from their rock cut tombs in the province, but here too, these tombs give the impression of being implanted from the outside. These governors do not seem to come from local families but were most likely appointed by the king from people at the royal court. At court, the officials were also all people of the king, in the Fourth Dynasty often even close family members. Close family ties between the king’s family and many officials are still visible in the Fifth and Sixth Dynasty. In the context of the tributary mode of production, the question of private property should be mentioned too. The inscriptions of Metjen provide evidence for land being bought and sold,184 but as Andrea Zingarelli185 noticed, property owning did not lead to a landowning ruling class. So far as we can judge from the sources, power came mostly via the relation to the king and not from the landed estates. The same is true for local markets. They are depicted in several tombs, but this does not mean that the Old Kingdom was a market economy.186

3. Old Kingdom I

119

Another important point was also stressed by Banaji in presenting his own definition of the tributary mode of production.187 A main feature there is that the ‘state … has unlimited disposal over the surplus of labour of the population’.188 The exact status of the provincial population is certainly still debatable, and they were most likely not slaves. However, all evidence shows that these people could be recruited whenever needed for any sort of state project, in particular in the surviving sources for pyramid building.

Dependency of the population The main question about the provincial population is whether all people and villages within Egypt proper were under direct or indirect189 state control.190 Many local farmers and craftsmen certainly worked on estates of officials, either courtiers or more likely local governors. At present it seems impossible to say whether all people of the broader population were put under direct or indirect state control.191 The strong Egyptian presence in the Dakhleh Oasis might indicate that the Egyptian administration penetrated even faraway regions. However, the oasis might have been of special interest for the central government and therefore fully incorporated into the Egyptian administration. Buhen in Lower Nubia might indicate a slightly different picture. The Old Kingdom settlement was evidently an outpost in a foreign land. There are no signs that the countryside around was incorporated into the Egyptian administration. A similar situation might be possible in Egypt proper, regions that supplied useful raw materials and manpower being placed fully under Egyptian administration, most likely through local governors placed there by the central government. But other regions within Egypt might have been under much looser control from the centre. One substantial part of the population were most likely the meret-people (see also pp.  205–206). From titles of Old Kingdom officials some information can be gained about these people. Several titles connect them closely with ‘fields’ and to ‘enterprises of local officials’.192 Furthermore, there are officials with scribal titles relating to these people, such as ‘overseer of scribes of meret-people’ or just ‘scribe of meret-people’.193 These people are all attested at the royal residence. However, in the tomb of the provincial governor Pepy-ankh at Meir there is a scene showing different people coming to the tomb owner, with the caption: ‘the meret people of the estate come with all good things’. The people shown are named and have titles. They include a ‘steward’ (imy-r pr), but also an ‘inspector of physicians’ (sHD swnw).194 Finally there are a few viziers with meret-people as parts of their titles, such as ‘overseer of the two chambers of the meret-people’.195 The meret-people also appear in certain royal decrees showing that they were used for labour.196 The status and function of these people for the Old Kingdom is heavily under ­discussion. Petra Andrassy summarised the evidence proposed in the literature, where she found two main explanations: 1. This is a general term for people, who were dependent, similar to serfs. 2. These are people that are tied to certain fields.197 After

120

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

reviewing the evidence, she concludes that the meret-people were those attached to and dependent on institutions that owned land.198 According to Andrassy it can be concluded that most of Egypt was owned by ­institutions, and most of the population would have had a meret-status. Being dependent does not automatically mean that their life was heavily regulated. Most likely they were attached to the land of one institution and had to deliver part of their products periodically. This type of ‘taxation’ had a heavy impact on what peasants produced. Moreno García noted that their life and productivity were mainly arranged just to fulfil these burdens.199 Bernbeck comes to a similar conclusion, noting that not free time, but mechanisms of reciprocity forced people to produce more.200

Notes

1. Kemp 1975, 286, n. 63. 2. Kemp 1975, 281. 3. Kemp’s Qau II. 4. Brunton 1927, 10–18, pls x–xi. 5. Seidlmayer 2001, 224–30. 6. Brunton 1927, pl. xii. 7. Grajetzki 2003, 15–26. 8. Mackay 1915, 8. 9. Brunton 1927, 21; Donadoni Roveri 1969, 36. 10. Zillhardt 2009. 11. Brunton 1927, 10. 12. Brunton 1927, 21–2. 13. Brunton 1927, 21. 14. Reisner 1932, 105; Baines et al. 2000, for a respond see O’Connor 2000. 15. Brunton 1927, 21. 16. Kobusiewicz 2016, 59. 17. The date of the tomb is problematic, vessel type 9m seems to fit a Fourth Dynasty date, compare Warden 2014, 134, fig. 5.1. 18. Brunton 1927, 13. 19. Brunton 1927, 68, pl. xli, 18–23. 20. Brunton 1927, pl. xix, 25. 21. Brunton 1927, pl. xviii, 10. 22. Brunton 1927, pl, xx, no. 68 (text hard to read, clearly visible is the word ankhet). 23. Brunton 1927, pl. xxi, 4–7. 24. Reisner 1932, 105. 25. Grajetzki 2003, 15–26. 26. Megeed, 2015, 270, 275. 27. Brentjes 1968, 218–19. 28. Wolf 1977, 111. 29. Höveler-Müller 2005, 77; similar Vymazalova 2013 (no sources are cited). 30. Pérez-Accino 2003. 31. Assmann 1996, 54. 32. Kemp 2005, 179–84. 33. Schäfer 1902, 30. 34. Gundlach 1994, 70–2.

3. Old Kingdom I

121

35. Helck 1974b, 215–25. 36. Wilkinson 2000, 217; Altenmüller 1995. 37. Jones 2000, 202–3, no. 759; Roth 1991, 73–4, 212. 38. Alexanian 1999, fig. 22 on p. 49, p. 75–6. 39. Junker 1929, 175–6, fig. 31; der Manuelian 2003, 98–103. 40. Barsanti 1902, 203–4. Not to be confused with the famous Nefermaat known from his tomb at Meydum. 41. Roth 1991, 121, n. 8 (list of title holders). 42. Mackay et al. 1929, pls xii, xv, xx, xxii, xxiv, xxviii. 43. el-Aziz 2007, 196. 44. el-Aziz 2007, 206. 45. el-Aziz 2007, 225. 46. Redding 2007, 268. 47. His dating is disputed: Kanawati 2002, 36–7 (Sahure or slightly later); Cherpion 1989, 226 (Khephren or later); Brovarski 2018, 79–80 (Fifth Dynasty). 48. Junker 1938, fig. 27; the reading and translation of the titles is disputed, compare Jones 2000, 94 (no. 391). 49. Morena García 2013, 120. 50. Moreno García 2013, 120; Jones 2000, 137–9, nos 537, 539, 540. 51. Junker 1938, 173–5; see also Moreno García 2013, 97. 52. Moreno García 2013, 124. 53. Moreno García 2013, 124–5. 54. Moreno García 2013, 120. 55. Goedicke 1968, 24–6; discussed by Moreno García 1999, 157–9. 56. Moreno García 1999, 257–8. 57. Moreno García 2013, 88–9. 58. Moreno García 1999, 22. 59. Seidlmayer 1996, 122–7. 60. Seidlmayer 1996, 122–7. 61. O’Connor 2014, 17. 62. O’Connor 2014, 152–3. 63. O’Connor 2014, 136–9, 163–5, 186–8. 64. Junker 1938, 173, figs 27 and 28. 65. el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990, 26, 54. 66. Jones 2000, 156, no. 603 (with full bibliography). 67. Jones 2000, 156–7, no. 604. 68. Martinet 2011, 158–9. 69. Goedicke 1967, 128–9, fig. 10. 70. Junker 1938, 173, figs 27 and 28. 71. Helck 1954, 81, n. 26. 72. Goedicke 1967, 134–5. 73. Andrássy 2008, 108. 74. Martinet 2011, 165–6. 75. el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990. 76. The datings are most recently summarized by Martinet 2011, 28–9. 77. Kanawati 1991. 78. el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990, 54–66, pls 18–23, 54–70; Baud 1999b, 597–603 supplies arguments for placing tomb A2 before A3; see further comments in Martinet 2011, 29, n. 34 and Swinton 2014, 144. 79. Kanawati 1992, 38.

122

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

80. el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990, 26–53, pls 6–17, 31–51. 81. Kanawati 1992, 39. 82. el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990, 26–. 83. el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990, 29–30. 84. Helck 1958, 92. 85. Grajetzki 2000, 196. 86. For the importance of the ka-cult for local governors compare Vischak 2015, 212–13 87. Vasiljević 1995, 78–9. 88. el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990, 28. 89. Jones 2000, 802, no. 2932. 90. Compare for example India: Nath Sen 1999, 489. 91. Lippert 2008, 78. 92. Lippert 2008, 29; Philip-Stéphan 2008, 49. 93. Favry 2004, 363–72; Philip-Stéphan 2008, 38–47, 63–6. 94. Helck 1958, 545–6. 95. James 1953, 40; Campagno 2014, 11. 96. Klebs 1915, 24–5. 97. Gresky et al. 2013. 98. el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990, 40–2, pl. 44. 99. el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990, pl. 48. 100. Moreno García 1999, 82, n. 46. 101. Moreno García 1999, 116. 102. Fischer 1968, 24–5. 103. el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990, 27; Jones 2000, 531, no. 1980. 104. el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990, 69–71, pls 71–2. 105. el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990, 72–5, pls 72–3. 106. el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990, pl. 73. 107. el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990, 20–5, pls 2a, 3–5, 25–30. 108. el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990, 67–9, pl. 53. 109. Campagno 2014, 10–14. 110. Burke 1980, 72; Bardoňová and Nováková 2016, 77–8. 111. Burke 1980, 73. 112. Brunton 1927, 12–14, pls xi, xix, xxiv. 113. Brunton 1927, pl. xli, 15–17. 114. Schulman 1979, 94; Sowada 2009, 213. 115. Franke 2006; Moreno García 2013c, 1042–56; Campagno 2014; Bardoňová and Nováková 2016. 116. Campagno 2014, 10–14. 117. Newberry 1893, pl. xxx. 118. Weber 1968, 1006–69. 119. Weber 1968, 1044–7. 120. Franke 2006; Campagno 2014, 11. 121. Franke 2006, 110. 122. Moreno García 2008–2009, 55. 123. el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990, pl. 44. 124. Klotz 2010, 232–3. 125. Similar observations are known from other places, compare Smith 1948, 214–15; Vischak 2015, 160–1, 164–5. 126. Baud 1999b, 525–9, 531, 460–3, 546–54. 127. Baud 1999b, 512. 128. Baud 1999b, 409.

3. Old Kingdom I

123

129. Baud 1999b, 574. 130. el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990, pl. 65. 131. Fischer 1977, 6. 132. el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990, pls 35, 36, 44. 133. el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990, 34. 134. el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990, 58. 135. el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990, 23–4. 136. 556 (M), 656 (M), 657, 955, 1089 (M), 1106 (F), 1114, 1146 (M), 1156 (F?), 1224, 3157 (F), 4847 (F?), 4862 (F), 4891 (M), 5102, 5320 (M), 5524 (M), 5530 (M), 5531 (F), 5533 (M). 137. Brunton 1927, 23–5; 1928, pls li–lii. 138. Brunton 1928, pl. LII (tomb register). 139. Sowada 2009, 183–185. 140. de Beauvoir 2009, 110, 121. 141. Helck 1985. 142. Seidlmayer 1987, 196–201. 143. Fischer 2000, 19. 144. Posener-Kriéger 2004 (publication of the papyri); Agapov 2015 (interpretation). 145. Agapov 2015, 584. 146. Agapov 2015, 591–592. 147. Seidlmayer 2007a, 42, 148. Hikade 2015, 117. 149. Seidlmayer 2007a, 42–43. 150. Jeuthe 2012, 277 (copper working), 240–294 (bone workshop). 151. Moeller 2004. 152. Moeller 2016, 220–226. 153. Moeller 2016, 175–182; Jeuthe 2018. 154. Jeuthe 2012. 155. Moeller 2016, 18–19. 156. Moeller 2004, 64–65. 157. Berlev1978, 63–73 (the words discussed in this contest are shuau, tuau, maru, huru and shuu). 158. Ziermann 2003, 114. 159. Ziermann 2003, 80–88. 160. Ziermann 2003, 101–107. 161. Ziermann 2003, 88–90. 162. See the list in Baud 1999a, 369, table 22. 163. Baud 1999a, 368–369. 164. Helck 1954, 65–67, see also the tomb of the ‘twins’ Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum; they were ‘manicurists’: Moussa, Altenmüller 1977. 165. Junker 1938, 8–14; Strudwick 1985, 138–140. 166. Strudwick 1985, 87. 167. Müller-Wollermann 1988. 168. Moreno García 2013b, 13–14. 169. Richards 2005, 109–112 (for the Middle Kingdom). 170. Posener-Kriéger 2004, 14. 171. Jeuthe 2012 172. Already Polanyi 1957, 252, compare North 1981, 97–99. 173. Seidlmayer 2007a, 42. 174. Hikade 2015, 117 (on stone tools). 175. Warden 2014. 176. Warden 2014, 8–11.

124

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

177. Warden 2014, 11–13. 178. Warden 2014, 223. 179. Compare Janssen 1975, 138 on the vagueness of Ancient Egyptian prices. 180. Polanyi 1957, 253–254. 181. Perry 2017. 182. Bernbeck 1994, 51–52. 183. Banaji 2010, 16. 184. Strudwick 2005, 192–194. 185. Zingarelli 2016, 52, 75. 186. As stressed by Warburton 1997, 68. 187. Banaji 2010, 23. 188. Similar for the Near East: Zaccagnini 1989, 48. 189. ‘Indirect’ means here peasants working on the estate of state officials. 190. Kóthay 2013, 487–503. 191. Andrassy 2005, 64 (assumes that there were hardly any inhabited places left that were not under state control). 192. Morena García 1998, 73–75. 193. Morena García 1998, 75–76. 194. Blackman 1924, 9; discussed in Papazian 2012, 92. 195. Jones 2000, 65–66, no. 305. 196. Papazian 2012, 96–98. 197. Andrassy 2005, 30. 198. Andrassy 2005, 64. 199. Moreno García 2014, 217. 200. Bernbeck 1994, 61.

Chapter 4 Old Kingdom II, the First Intermediate Period, and the early Middle Kingdom

End of the Old Kingdom: the archaeology of the period The start of a new archaeological phase is clearly visible around 2350 BC within the period that is known as the Old Kingdom. The end of the Old Kingdom, here called Old Kingdom II, the First Intermediate Period, and the early Middle Kingdom (2350–c. 1950 BC) form one unit in the province in terms of material culture and burial customs. Politically the Sixth Dynasty still belonged to the Old Kingdom. The country was united. The capital was at Memphis. Kings of the Sixth Dynasty still built monumental pyramids. After the Sixth Dynasty a political decline is visible at the centre. The reigns of the kings were short and it seems that they lost control over the country. In the following First Intermediate Period Egypt was divided in two political units. Around 2000 BC Egypt was again united under one king. Mentuhetep II managed to take control over the whole country.

Part I: the archaeological record Burial customs In the archaeological record of the province, the whole period appears as one phase. Burials were now equipped with more objects. This is perhaps most evident at the cemeteries at the royal residence, where burials of the ruling class were almost empty in the Fourth and in the Fifth Dynasty. This can hardly be a sign of poverty. In the Sixth Dynasty, by contrast, the burial chambers of the ruling class contained a much higher number of objects.1 The trend of placing more objects into burials is also apparent in those of the working population. More personal adornments, pottery vessels and cosmetic objects were placed close to the body of the deceased. The highest number of burials excavated at Qau and Badari belong to exactly this period. Yet, in conventional

126

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

history writing, the period is often seen a time of decline and disorder. Written sources report wars and famines.2 In terms of number and equipment of the tombs for the local population, however, this period marks the heyday of the province. The wealth and high number of these tombs in a time normally seen as a period of decline and poverty remains a point of discussion.3 As Brunton avoided excavating burials with few finds, periods with many objects in burials are evidently much better represented in his publications. The issue of burials without burial goods is therefore a complicated matter. As empty tombs are avoided by excavators, it remains hard to say how many of them there were in any period. Recently about 22 burials at Saqqara dating to the end of the Old Kingdom or to the early First Intermediate Period were published. This is exactly the period of the general trend in placing more objects in burials, yet the people buried here did not follow this trend. In these 22 burials not one pottery vessel was found, normally the most common find in even the poorest graves. Most of the bodies were placed in a reed coffin or a simple wooden one, providing evidence that these people had some resources, and some traces of linen reinforce this impression. The people here had perhaps been wrapped in shrouds, but family members of the dead did not see it as necessary to place any further objects in the graves. Indeed, only three burials contained further items. Tombs number 16, 24 and 295 included a quantity of amulets on the body of the deceased.4 Burial 295 belonged to a young woman, about 20–25 years old, exactly the age and gender that typically receive these types of objects. Placing burial goods near the deceased was evidently not seen as essential in all parts of Egyptian society even in periods when other people regarded burial goods as important. No or few burial goods are therefore not automatically an indicator that the person placed here was poor. On the other hand, any richly equipped burial most likely belonged to a person with some resources.5 Several grave types are now attested in the Wadjet province; almost half of the graves are just holes in the ground. About 45% of the burials have a shaft with a chamber and c. 3% are mud brick chambers. Evidently certain types are more typical for one phase than other types. Mud brick burial chambers are more common in Old Kingdom II and disappear at the end of the First Intermediate Period, instead shafts with a chamber became more popular.6 There is no hard evidence that the bodies were mummified, but wooden coffins became common. Pottery and stone vessels as well as personal adornments are the most frequent burial goods. Stone vessels (as cosmetic containers) and personal adornments are typical for burials of women (Fig. 46).7 From other sites it seems that the custom was to lay the body with the head to the north; however, the bodies are not strictly oriented to the north but are rather placed parallel to the Nile. The burials of the local governors of the Wadjet province for this entire period are not yet securely located, although it seems possible that the badly researched rock cut tombs at Gebel as-Sheikh al-Haridi (p. 42) belong to some of them. It is also possible that there were no governors in the province and that the place was ruled from somewhere else (see p. 154)

4. Old Kingdom II, the First Intermediate Period, and the early Middle Kingdom

127

Figure 46. Some objects found in burials of Old Kingdom II, stone vessels, button seals, spearhead, spoon, head rest, comb (not to scale)

Previous research and dating problems Several studies have been dedicated to the cemeteries of Qau, Badari, Matmar and Mostagedda, especially of this period. David O’Connor noted the high number of burials dating to the First Intermediate Period. He assumes a higher death rate8 and wonders whether this relates to the permanent crisis of the time described in some of the texts dating to this period.9 Barry Kemp uses the cemeteries to demonstrate the usefulness of pottery seriation.10 The most thorough study was conducted by Stephan Seidlmayer11 who concentrated on the pottery, stone vessels, and button seals to provide a sequence for the burials and tried to date them. The corpus is perhaps the most important for the First Intermediate Period.12 Seidlmayer also provides comments on the general nature of the cemeteries excavated. Seidlmayer divides the burials into seven chronological phases (Stufen). Phases IA, IB and IIA belong to the Old Kingdom, Phase IIIB to the Middle Kingdom. His Phases IIB, IIC and IIIA correspond to the First Intermediate Period. Inscribed, datable objects are rare at Qau and Badari. Therefore, the precise end of the Old Kingdom and the beginning of the First Intermediate Period are very hard to pinpoint in the archaeological records of the Qau/Badari region. Apparently, life in the provinces continued without any major breaks.13 The most important artefacts found in the region for dating these phases are several stone vessels naming kings and royal family members from the end of the Old Kingdom. The Horus name and birth name of Teti, the first king of the Sixth Dynasty, are inscribed on a stone vessel found at Matmar, dating to Phase IA. There are two vessels naming

128

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

a king Neferkare, most likely Pepy II rather than one of his ephemeral successors with that name. One of the vessels is also from a burial which dates to IA, while the other one was found slightly out of context. A stone vessel inscribed ‘king’s mother’ Ankhnes-Pepy was found in a burial of IIA.14 These objects provide only a rough guide because stone vessels were often used over several generations. No such royal name is known from the graves of the First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom. The datings therefore rest only on the comparison of pottery, stone vessels, and other objects with better datable sites.15 Seidlmayer also discussed the political implications of the relatively richly equipped burials, especially of the First Intermediate Period. He sees a decline of ruling class culture at the residence at Memphis. However, he interprets that mainly as reduced capability in concentrating the resources of the country at the royal residence and not so much as decline in production in general. A higher percentage of the country’s resources now remained in the provinces.

The archaeological record: burials The main cemetery in the region was still the one south of the modern village et-­Itmanie. Another burial ground of the period was found west of the town. Both belonged to Tjebu, demonstrating that the town still flourished at the end of the Old Kingdom into the First Intermediate Period and beyond. A substantial cemetery was also found near Hemamieh, which has only few tombs of the previous periods although there are the big rock cut tombs of the local governors of the early Fifth Dynasty. Further larger and several smaller burial grounds were excavated in the Badari region further north. Finally, there is a small cemetery excavated on the west bank: Zaraby.

Zaraby, a cemetery on the west bank From the end of the Old Kingdom comes the only substantial cemetery so far excavated on the west bank of the Nile. It is close to the modern village el-Zaraby.16 The cemetery was dug up in 1906/07 by Ernest Mackay who was working in the team of Flinders Petrie, who himself was excavating at Rifeh. About 126 burials were found, mostly dating to the very end of the Sixth Dynasty. It seems that this was the cemetery of a small village for a short period of time. Most graves were simple surface burials. The most common burial goods were pottery vessels, often only one was placed next to the deceased although there are also burials with up to six vessels (tomb 18). Other items are small alabaster vessels and beads. Wooden boxes for cosmetic items appear sporadically (tomb 3, 5, 21, 30), also mirrors and button seals. In seven instances the body was placed in a wooden coffin (tomb 10, 21, 25, 32, 49, 50, 52).17

Examples of burials in Qau and Badari In the following pages a selection of burials belonging to the period will be described in more detail. These finds are the most tangible source we have for the people in the

4. Old Kingdom II, the First Intermediate Period, and the early Middle Kingdom

129

region. Many of the related topics could be conveyed through tables. However, the focus here on individual tombs provides a chance to come as close as possible to the inhabitants of the area around 4000 years ago.

A small cemetery at Badari Tomb 3217 belongs to the end of Old Kingdom II, or possibly the First Intermediate Period. The tomb was found in the very north of the Badari area. The burial shaft was only a meter deep. The northern part of the burial was destroyed by a later Roman one; above the knees of the person buried here, nothing survived. However, at the foot end of a wooden coffin were found a black polished cosmetic vessel and two stone vessels, one with the inscription ‘king’s mother Ankhnes-Pepy’ mentioned above (Fig. 48). There are several kings’ mothers known with this name, but they all belong to the Sixth Dynasty, providing a rough date for the burial, though the person placed here might have died much later. An exceptional further object was found with the stone vessels. This was a natural shell. The shell had been reworked. At one end a ram’s head in clay and limestone was added, and the figure of a monkey and a dog’s head was carved into the wall of the shell. Further finds in the burial are a bone spoon with a handle that ends in a hand. Other finds were a bone spatula, several beads, a steatite cylinder, and a button seal18 with a rosette/swastika-like motif on the underside.19 The burial is interesting for several reasons. First, the arrangement of the burial appears in contrast to the elaborate finds. The stone vessel with the name of a king’s mother is most puzzling. The object most likely comes from the royal residence. How did this object come to the province and into such a modest burial? Seidlmayer wondered whether such objects were given as gifts by the king to important locals and they in turn gave these prestigious objects to lower officials working for these ‘important’ locals or somehow related people.20 They were then in a certain way clients of a higher official, as discussed above (pp. 104–105). This might be the case with this burial. The decorated shell seems so far unique. In the context of the other finds it seems to be a cosmetic object, perhaps a container for eye paint. The shell is indentified by Brunton as ‘Strombus tricornis’ (?). This is a sea shell. One wonders where the shell was decorated. Is it a local product or was it too made at the royal residence? Another burial with an inscribed vessel is 3202, excavated nearby in the same cemetery. Here in a brick chamber a woman was buried in a wooden coffin. At the head end was a single pottery vessel. At the foot end were two alabaster vessels, one with the short inscription ‘king Neferkare, beloved of Khnum of Sesh’. At the neck of the woman was one single steatite cylinder bead.21 Both tombs just described were found within a small cluster of eight tombs and one wonders whether the people buried here were connected in some way. Seven are quite close in time, dating to the end of the Old Kingdom or to the First Intermediate Period, while only one (3207) dates much later.

130

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Figure 47. Objects from graves in cemetery 3200

4. Old Kingdom II, the First Intermediate Period, and the early Middle Kingdom

131

Figure 48. Objects from burial 3217

The other burials of this small cemetery should be described too. 3201 was a simple 3 m deep shaft tomb; it was undisturbed but only contained one pottery vessel (type). However, the 3 m depth provides evidence that the person (or the people burying him or her) had some resources. The body in the burial was not sexed. 3208 was disturbed. The burial was arranged in a chamber in a shaft more than 3 m deep. The deceased was placed in a wooden coffin. At least five pottery vessels were found and one ivory bead. Tomb 3211 was again a shaft tomb, about 4 m deep with a chamber on the west side. There was no pottery, but there was a stone vessel and a glazed pot, both objects indicating that the person buried here had some resources. Burial 3212 was again a tomb with a shaft, about 3 m deep, at least part of it bricked up. Only two stone vases and the faded remains of a wooden coffin were found there. 3214

132

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt has a shaft about 2.6 m deep with a chamber to the west. Here was placed the burial of a woman in a stuccoed coffin. Two pottery vessels were discovered as well as some beads.

Burial of three women An unusual case is burial 3195. Here three bodies Figure 49. Amulets from 3195 (stylised Hathor head, frog amulet) were found in a simple surface burial. All three and pot individuals were perhaps women, all in slightly different positions. The first had been laid on the left side with outstretched legs and hands in front of the face. The second was also lying on the left side but with slightly flexed legs, and the arms down to the pelvis. This woman was also bearing personal adornments. There was a heavily stylised carnelian pendant, perhaps showing a Hathor head, and a stylised frog, again in carnelian (Fig. 49). The third individual was placed in a contracted position on the left side. Next to her was found a pottery vessel, the only one in the tomb.22 The burial is remarkable for several reasons. In the Old Kingdom it was the general rule that only one person was placed within one burial. Among many exceptions, the most typical is the pair of an adult woman and child. This combination suggests the burial of a mother who died at or shortly after childbirth and that these are burials of people who died at about the same time. The individuals in 3195 were perhaps buried hastily without many burial goods, the jewellery of the second individual might be just those already worn in daily life. Why were these women buried together? Evidently it is only possible to guess what was going on. One wonders whether they died of a disease at the same time and were buried without the time for any further arrangements.

Burial of an outsider? Another atypical grave that raises several questions is 2058 at Hemamieh. It was again just a simple surface burial. Here was found the body of a man. He was lying face down, with one arm bent to the back. Under the face there was found a group of bone instruments. Around his neck there was an array of amulets, including a carnelian head of a hawk, a green glazed steatite grasshopper and a blue glazed cow that is milked by someone. They all show signs that they were worn in life and the cow was even broken. Brunton in the publication wonders whether this man was killed violently and buried without any ceremony.23 He points out that the amulets are either unparalleled or rare

4. Old Kingdom II, the First Intermediate Period, and the early Middle Kingdom

133

for burials. There are other options for explaining this strange burial.24 He might have been an outcast and therefore received special treatment. Higher numbers of amulets were often found with children. It seems that children were seen as especially vulnerable. One wonders whether this man was seen as especially vulnerable in life too and thus received a high number of special objects for protection in the next life. There is another totally different option. Perhaps the man was a criminal and the amulets were placed there to keep him at his place, to prevent him doing harm to the living.25

Burial 2057 and pottery production Another burial close by is 2057 belonging to a woman buried in a shaft tomb with chamber. The intact burial chamber was bricked up. Several pottery vessels were found. Those of type 63F are of some special interest. The technology of pottery production in Ancient Egypt is well researched, but the organisation of the production again remains highly enigmatic. Clay is the raw material for pottery. Two types of clay are known from Egypt: the silt from the Nile floodplain, with new deposits arriving with each annual inundation, and marl clay which is mixed with limestone and rich of minerals, and not found everywhere. After firing the clay is often creamy white (compare Fig. 43). Old Kingdom pottery kilns were excavated on Elephantine and in the Dakhleh Oasis, providing evidence that pottery was produced locally albeit there is some evidence suggesting a centralised production too. There are several pottery types only attested at Qau/Badari suggesting some degree of local production at village level. Kemp observed that the vessel types 63A, F, G, H were mainly found in cemetery 1900–2000. Eight examples come from there, while two other vessels of this type were found in cemetery 3100–3200, just to the north (Figs 50 and 51).26 The evidence indicates that a single village might have produced the types in the Old Kingdom.

Burials with tools Burial 3251 was a surface burial that might have been disturbed. One vessel type is recorded for the burial, a fine polished water jar. The only other object found is a copper harpoon. This is a highly exceptional object in a tomb.27 At first view one might ask whether the person buried here was some kind of hunter or fisherman. However, ancient Egyptians did not place objects relating to their professions into their burials.28 The function of the harpoon here therefore remains enigmatic. Was this perhaps indeed a fisherman, with the harpoon providing an exception to the rule? Alternatively, the grave might have been looted or disturbed, in which case the harpoon was not a grave good but ended in the burial by chance, perhaps lost by a fisherman who looted the tomb – but why would a tomb looter carry a harpoon? The harpoon raises the question about who owned the means of production. If most craftsmen worked on estates of officials or of those of the king, the tools evidently belonged to the estates and not to the craftsmen. It is not to be expected that these tools would end up in burials. A comparable situation is found in burials in the

134

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Figure 50. Vessels of type 63

Figure 51. Cemetery 3100 to 3200 (author)

4. Old Kingdom II, the First Intermediate Period, and the early Middle Kingdom

135

Figure 52. Crucible, tomb 4964, c. 12.5 cm high (UC Figure 53. bronze mirror from tomb 4903, First 18146) (author) Intermediate Period (UC 18024) (author)

north-western provinces of the Roman Empire. Here it was custom to place objects relating to the profession of a man into the burial.29 However, in contrast, Roman legionnaires were rarely buried with their weapons as these were owned by the army and not by the soldiers.30 Is there a comparable situation in Egypt? It is well attested that tools at workplaces were owned by the institutions, especially metal tools, such as in Deir el-Medineh.31 If all means of production were owned by institutions, this would easily explain why tools and objects relating to professions were never placed in burials. The man with the harpoon might be in contrast an independent fisherman (or tool-maker?), owner of the means of production. The same question arises with the following burial. From burial 4964 comes a crucible (Fig. 52).32 The burial place was a shaft tomb with a chamber that was found collapsed when excavated. There were remains of a stuccoed coffin and the head of the man33 buried here was covered with a plaster mask. At the foot end there was a single globular vessel and the crucible.34 As with the harpoon, the crucible is again an unexpected object to find in an Egyptian burial. Copper is already attested from Badarian burials, though only one pin. It is not certain whether the piece found was made locally or imported. It might have been made from a piece of metal found locally and not from ore. 35 Metal objects appear sporadically in the burials from the Naqada Period onwards. In the late Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period weapons appear sporadically in burials; perhaps the highest proportion of metal in these tombs consists of the bronze/ copper mirrors (Fig. 53). Amulets found in the burials of the period are not often made of metal, here gold is the most common material, while copper appears too. A high number of metal objects is certainly missing from the archaeological record, not so much because of the looting of tombs, but simply because certain types of

136

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

objects were not placed into a burial, including most importantly tools. The exceptions are several tombs (306, 321, 330, 859, 4973) where model tools were found, most likely ritual objects rather than tools in production or repair. 36 There is no evidence for copper mines in the Wadjet province, although there is evidence that the eastern desert has copper ores. The extent to which they were used is not yet fully explored. Better known are the copper mines in the Wadi Dara on Sinai37 and in Lower Nubia where there is evidence for copper working at Buhen.38 It seems plausible that ingots were brought to the Wadjet province and there turned into the objects needed. Here a state institution or the local governments might have been involved. Little can be said about production places within the province. Were the smiths working on their own or were they attached to the temple or to a government institution?

Further burials Tomb 1107 belonged to a child most likely born into a family with substantial resources. It was found in an undisturbed chamber, about 2 m long. There were remains of a coffin that was white on the inside. Over the head were found the remains of a mummy mask. Around the neck were found several glazed steatite beads of various shapes. Remarkable is a copper circlet around the head, something not known from other burials in the region. At the head was also found a copper seal with a monkey figure carved on the back.39 Furthermore, there were at least two pottery vessels, a stone vessel, and a mirror.40 Tomb 1518 belongs to the end of the First Intermediate Period. It was a simple shaft with the remains of a coffin and just one rough beaker-like vessel as a burial good. The burial belongs to a small cemetery slightly north of Hemamieh where several similar simple burials of about the same time were excavated. The man buried in 1518 had health problems as he suffered from osteoarthritis on his left foot. This is a common bone problem causing pain and is more common with older people. The cause is only known as the excavators noticed some strange deformation of the bones which were collected and are now in the Science Museum in London.41 Only the bones of the foot are preserved, so not much else can be said about this man. An interesting grave is burial 3405 at Badari. The burial of an older woman with a hand at the face was placed into an older shaft. She was placed in a wooden coffin. Two vessels were found. Around her neck there was a long string of black glazed beads and forty-eight amulets. Brunton described the woman as ‘very old’ and remarks that the burial is interesting as amulets were normally only found with young women.42 What does this mean in this case? Why was this woman so richly adorned with amulets? She was most likely not very wealthy. The burial chamber is modest in size, but had a coffin. Tomb 3147 dates around the time of unification (about 2000 BC) and belonged to a young woman placed in a stuccoed coffin. The burial in a not very deep shaft was

4. Old Kingdom II, the First Intermediate Period, and the early Middle Kingdom

137

Figure 54. Leg amulets from tomb 3147; Tomb 3147 belonged to a woman. Around her neck were found two necklaces with many dark and blue glazed beads, at her ankles there was an anklet with a leg amulet as pendant (photo: author)

intact. Three pots were found. She was wearing a necklace of mainly black glazed steatite beads. On her ankles were found anklets with carnelian legs as pendants (compare pp. 141–142). Two deposits (2004, 3516) of pottery found at Hemamieh and Badari belong to the end of the First Intermediate Period.43 They contained a high number of pottery vessels but no burial. Deposit 2004 consisted of about 17 water jars and a few other vessels. Such deposits also appear sporadically in other cemeteries, often in those related to mummification, being left over after it and its rituals.44 Whether this is the case here too might be doubted. The vessels remain mysterious, though they are certainly the remains of some activities in the cemetery area. Ritual activities seem to be the most likely explanation. Purity was important in religious contexts, and the water vessels might best fit a purification ritual. There are several burials of the First Intermediate Period with weapons. These burials are not very common, and it was evidently not a regular practice to place weapons in a burial. Most of them were found in graves of men. Seidlmayer wonders whether these weapons are a reflection of the unstable political situation of the First Intermediate Period, when war-like situations appeared in the country.45 One example of a burial with a copper blade of a dagger is the untouched grave 2041 at Hemamieh. It consisted of a shaft with a chamber on the west side. The chamber contained a wooden coffin and several pottery vessels. In the publication the body is identified as being male. Another example is tomb 4975. It was again a tomb with a shaft, about 8.2 m deep. A man was buried here in a chamber within a heavy wooden coffin. Pottery vessels and beads were found, many vessels were discovered in the shaft. Here was also found the copper blade of a dagger.

138

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Figure 55. Three simple burials from main cemetery at Qau: Tomb 7704 belonging to a woman and was found partly disturbed. The legs were gone. She was placed in a wooden coffin with only one vessel as a burial good. On the tomb card is noted that two of the spinal vertebrae had fused together; Tomb 7764a was found undisturbed. It contained the burial of a man in a contracted position in a simple shaft, about 2 m deep. There were no burial goods. A precise dating of the burial seems impossible; Tomb 7795 was a shaft with a wooden coffin. There was the burial of child or young adult in a contracted position. The only burial item was a group of beads found around the neck (author, from tomb cards)

Burials of the poorest The very poorest burials published provide evidence for what was seen as essential for a burial. Examples are illustrated in Figures 55–9. Several graves were recorded with only one vessel (examples include tomb nos 4937,46 7551, 7704). These are often water jars and it seems that when resources were limited, placing a water jar into the burial was seen as crucial. Some of these graves (606, 672, 1085, 1146, 5528) also contained squat jars, most often made of high-quality clay. Together with bowls they formed a washing set and might have been used in funerary rituals.47 Other tombs (606, 672, 901, 1149) contained bread moulds. This is evidently not tableware but seems to provide the dead with the opportunity to prepare bread. These moulds are not very common in tombs. One other option is simply that a container that was available by chance was placed into the burial as a symbolic food container. The contents of pottery vessels in burials do not always correspond to the usual function of the vessels. One example is a nicely shaped ewer from tomb 1085, normally part of a washing set, but in this burial containing grain.48 A better preserved poor burial is also 4899 belonging to a man who was placed in a simple surface burial. The only grave good was one pot, a small, pinkish brown, roughly made globular vessel. The body of the man was covered with a mat. Burials without burial goods do not appear in Brunton’s publication and are evidently hard to date. Some appear in the tomb cards, such as 7764A. This is the burial of man in a contracted position in a simple shaft. There is no pottery and no remains of a coffin. Evidently the date of the burial is open to question.

4. Old Kingdom II, the First Intermediate Period, and the early Middle Kingdom

139

The mat from burial 4899 needs some further comments. Objects made of ­ asketry played an important part in daily life.49 Baskets were an important means b for the storage of all types of objects. In ancient cultures many things we would store in cupboards were placed in baskets or boxes, the latter often made of reeds. In contrast, wooden boxes are heavy and were perhaps more costly, making baskets a perfect storage utility, especially for people with limited resources, although baskets are well attested in richer burials too. Reed mats must have been very common for covering floors and as sleeping places for those who did not have a proper bed. Remains of mats were already found in Badarian burials. These were most often reed but also rush.50 Remains of mats were also found in later burials.51

Surface markers for tombs It remains unknown whether these burials were marked on the surface. The arrangement of the burials in the cemeteries indicates that there were some markers, as burials of about the same period do not cut into one another, while it is not uncommon for later burials to disturb earlier ones. Evidently the tomb markers disappeared over time. At two burials were found remains of clay offering tables. Similar and better-preserved examples are known from the cemeteries at Rifeh on the west bank, just north of Qau and Badari. There were found small clay offering tables and model houses that once marked the surface of a tomb.52 The models often show food offerings, roughly modelled into the clay, again demonstrating how important the eternal food supply was considered to be.53 These offering trays and model houses are often seen as objects especially made for the tomb, but examples have been found in domestic contexts and one wonders whether they were originally placed in the houses of the living for some kind of domestic cult.54 The dating of these houses is problematic. The earliest example at Rifeh might belong to the Eleventh Dynasty.55

Gender in burials In the First Intermediate Period the size and architecture of tombs show only a few differences related to gender. The position and the treatment of the body are almost identical for men and women. However, in terms of burial equipment major differences between the sexes appear, similar to other periods of Egyptian history. Women are often buried with jewellery and toilet objects. Men could be buried, although this does not appear very often, with weapons

Figure 56. Burial 7551 (author, redrawn from the tomb card)

140

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Figure 57. Burial 7949 (author, from tomb cards)

Figure 58. Burial 7504. A further example of a rather simple burial (author, from tomb cards)

4. Old Kingdom II, the First Intermediate Period, and the early Middle Kingdom

141

Figure 59. Burial 7785 An example of a rather simple burial with many personal adornments

and tools, and more often with meat offerings.56 The underground parts of tombs for men are in general larger than those for women, which are about 70% smaller.57 Between age categories within one gender, young women wear in general more jewellery than older women. This was already observed by Brunton.58 Seidlmayer also discussed the point and assumes that older women gave their jewellery to their daughters when they died unmarried.59 Grindstones are also more often found in burials of women than those of men. This seems to imply that the grindstones were placed into tombs as part of a gender identity. They were perhaps used for preparing eye paint. This task was also important in the next life.

Personal adornments in burials The burials of the period contained a high number of personal adornments, making it possible to reconstruct the way they were worn. They appear mainly in burials of young women and were rich in beads, amulets, and seals (Figs 60–5). A wide array of figurative amulets appears in these graves. These include human figures and parts of human bodies, such as faces, hands and legs (Figs 63 and 65). The many animal motifs included lions, hippopotami, cows, rams heads, frogs, fish, flies, hornets, and even grasshoppers. Birds include hawks, vultures, ibises, and chicks. Some of the amulets are also hieroglyphs, such as wedjat eyes (Fig. 64), crowns, and djed and ankh signs. Burials of men contained far fewer personal adornments and amulets. Most of the amulets were found in the region of the neck and chest. Evidently these amulets were worn as pendants on a necklace or on a single string. Other types of amulets were worn at different parts of the body. A very common type is a single carnelian leg (Fig. 62). Unsurprisingly they were most often found at the legs of the deceased, most

142

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

often as part of a string of beads worn as an anklet. A few examples were also found around the neck, while they never appear on the arms. It seems that these carnelian legs offered some kind of protection for the leg. A similar observation can be made with amulets showing arms or hands (Fig. 63). They were found at the arms and around the neck, but never at the legs.60 A certain range of materials was used for these amulets. Faience and glazed steatite were the most popular ones for almost all types. Amulets showing body parts, such as heads, arms, and legs were made of carnelian (Figs 62–4). Most likely the red colour was associated with the red of the skin, the flesh, and the blood.61 It is interesting to note that in the First Intermediate Period, the number of materials used was smaller than in the Old Kingdom and in the Middle Kingdom. Lapis lazuli (from Afghanistan), ivory (elephant ivory from Nubia), and turquoise (from Sinai) are much rarer in First Intermediate Period burials than they are in those of the Old Kingdom.62 It seems that access to goods exchange routes was limited. A typical object of the period are button seals (compare Figs 46, 47, 48, 59). 63 These are small most often round seal amulets. The back side most often has the shape of a small pyramid or a pierced bar with a hole for a string. There are also animals or human figures on the back (Fig. 60). The underside, the sealing side shows different patterns, often geometrical designs, but also animals or stylised human figures. These designs appear quite un-Egyptian. Few designs are also known from ‘formal’ art. In the burials they were mostly found at the neck and where most often the centre piece of a necklace. They appear most often in burials of women and children, not so often in those of men. Only a few scarabs were found at the hands.64 In the early Middle Kingdom the back was most often decorated with a beetle and turned with this into scarabs. There is good evidence that they were not only used as amulets, but also for sealing goods.65 The personal adornments and button seals found in Qau and Badari need some further comments. They were often regarded as an expression of Egyptian folk culture.66 These personal adornments look entirely different to the jewellery depicted in formal art and different to those personal adornments known from the cemeteries excavated at Giza and Saqqara. Here, the broad collar, armlets and anklets are the most common types represented and sometimes found. The button seals with their un-Egyptian looking designs and many amulet types, such as the carnelian legs and hands, do not appear in depictions of formal art and they were not often found in burials at the royal cemeteries in the Memphite region. The different types of seals and amulets are indeed mainly known from the cemeteries between Qau and Matmar. However, recent research had shown that they appear at other sites too.67 Qau and Badari as well as Matmar and Mostagedda are just the best excavated cemeteries of people belonging to the wider population. The most striking example of these amulets outside these places is the burial of a local governor in the Dakhleh Oasis who had a broad collar made of similar amulets.68 That indeed shows that this type

4. Old Kingdom II, the First Intermediate Period, and the early Middle Kingdom

Figure 60. Seal with figure of frog, from tomb 3748 (UC18917) (author)

143

Figure 61. Beads and copper vulture, end of Old Kingdom, from tomb 685 (UC 20383) (author)

Figure 62. Shells and Carnelian leg amulets, most likely worn as anklets; tomb 2090 (UC 20410B+C) (author)

of personal adornment could be worn at the highest social level. In contrast, the personal adornments at the royal residence were quite limited in repertoire. There are often just broad collars made of simple cylinder beads; there are also armlets and anklets. In contrast, the amulets so often found in the Qau and Badari are rare in the Memphite region, but do appear there too.69 More recent excavations in the region, focusing on burials of the wider population, have brought to light quite a number of these amulets.70 Comparing the evidence for the personal adornments found in the provinces and those found in burials at the royal residence, it seems now more likely that amulets are objects used in daily life in general, all over the country. Seidlmayer has observed in the burials of the Old Kingdom cemeteries on Elephantine that all social classes followed the same models.71 There is no distinguishable folk culture. Burials at the royal cemeteries contained a high number of objects especially made for the burial; these are precisely the broad collars, armlets, and anklets made of beads. These are ritual objects, often shown in connection with deities. Here at the royal residence, the burials also contained in general a high

144

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt number of other ritual objects. Those personal adornments that we regard as more typical of ancient Egypt and more typical of the ruling classes are however most often personal adornments made for the funeral. The two types of jewellery do not reflect social differences but reflect the difference between daily life jewellery and jewellery for the dead.72 Diana Craig Patch called the latter the ‘divine jewellery’.73

Changes in material culture

Figure 63. Carnelian hand amulet, tomb 1975 (UC20521D) (author)

Figure 64. Eye amulet, carnelian from tomb 7835 (UC 17778) (author)

Figure 65. Amulet in shape of face, from tomb 451 (UC 20384) (author)

The history of the Wadjet province in the First Intermediate Period can be written from the material culture known from the burials. Here the research of Seidlmayer provides one guide. He observed two major breaks in the development of the material culture. One change is indeed visible at the beginning of the First Intermediate Period. Many stone and pottery vessel types typical of the Old Kingdom disappear from the repertoire in the tombs and one wonders whether it is possible to link these changes with the new political landscape (see below).74 A further change is visible at the end of the First Intermediate Period. The material culture of his Phase IIIB is again totally different to that of the First Intermediate Period. One wonders again whether that has to do with the change of politics and the unification of the country at the beginning of the Middle Kingdom.75 The most obvious change in material culture is perhaps visible in globular round-bottomed vessels. In the Old Kingdom they have a roughly elliptic shape and are widest near the top. In the course of the First Intermediate Period they became more spherical in shape, widest in the middle. Later, towards the end of the period, they are widest near the bottom.76 Substantial change is also clearly visible in the development of seals. At the beginning of the period, the classical button seals were most popular. Their back is often in the shape of a small pyramid; others are round with a simple back with only a loop. The decoration on the underside appears often rather rough, more like sketches. Figures were common on the underside. In the middle of the period, animals became popular on the back. At the end of the First Intermediate Period, labyrinth patterns and the first

4. Old Kingdom II, the First Intermediate Period, and the early Middle Kingdom

145

scarab-shaped backs dominate the picture.77 For the stone vessels there is also visibly a change of style over time. At the very beginning of the First Intermediate Period big vessels dominate the finds and some Old Kingdom forms with a longer tradition still appear. Early on flask-like stone vessels appear (Fig. 66), very popular in the middle of the period, while slightly later more round stone vessels (Fig. 67) appear that are still attested in the early Middle Kingdom, and that pre-date in type the later kohl vessels.78 The question arises whether these changes reflect political developments, changes in life styles, or changes in technology. Perhaps a change of lifestyle is in this case the most likely option. In the Early Dynastic Period, stone vessels were used as table ware; in the late Old Kingdom they are most often used as cosmetic containers and are therefore much smaller. With regard to the change in the shape of the pottery vessels, Seidlmayer argues that this relates to the introduction of the pottery wheel. In the classical Old Kingdom the wheel was not yet in use. It seems that it appeared during the Fifth Dynasty. The earliest elliptic vessels were evidently made without a wheel. The underside of the vessels is most often rounded. Without a potter’s wheel, such vessels without a flat base evidently created some problems. The potter therefore left a large lump of clay on the underside to give the unfinished vessel a base on the work table. The potter formed the inside of the pot and also the upper part of the outside. After that, the vessel was taken from the table and the lower part of the outside was cut away with a knife or other suitable instruments. The production of a vessel was similar with the introduction of the potter’s wheel. However, now it was much easier to model the outside of the vessel further down, so that only a small portion of the lower part needed to be cut away. It is interesting to note that the new shape did not appear automatically with the introduction of the wheel. Potters were quite conservative and did not use the full potential of the new technology. Furthermore, the pottery types in Lower Egypt in Memphis continued in use for much longer. For the introduction of new types at Qau and in Upper Egypt in general, Seidlmayer argued that two factors were important. First, the region was much less under the control of the central government than before. That gave a stimulus for the development of local styles as the potters most likely no longer saw it as important to follow models of the royal residence. Furthermore he wonders whether the production of pottery increased in the First Intermediate Period and therefore cheaper production methods were preferred.79 While I accept his first conclusion, it is arguable whether there is much evidence that pottery production increased due to the burial customs in the First Intermediate Period. More pottery vessels were now placed into burials, but whether this means more vessels were really produced might be arguable. Towards the end of the Old Kingdom, there are also indications visible that ­production structures and supply chains changed. Stone vessels give a strong indication of this. Those of the Early Dynastic Period and early Old Kingdom seem to come mainly from a few centralised workshops and are often of highest quality.

146

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Figure 66. Small alabaster vessel from tomb 401 (UC 17746) (author)

Figure 67. Small alabaster vessel from tomb 550, Late Old Kingdom (UC 17790) (author)

In the late Old Kingdom the stone vessels are now most often made only of alabaster, while before a wider range of materials was used. The vessels start to appear in a much wider range of burials and are now often smaller and much less well made. Seidlmayer argued that these vessels were now most likely produced at local centres, perhaps connected to the local governors.80 Few changes are visible in the archaeological record of the Qau and Badari region at the beginning of the Middle Kingdom. It is the unification of the country that marked the beginning of a new political era for the ruling classes. However, the event seems to have had no impact on the life of most people living here. In terms of archaeology the cemeteries of Qau and Badari flourished in the same way as before. It is practically impossible to decide whether a particular burial belongs to the time before or after the unification of the country. However, on a closer look at the pottery forms at this time, found in the burials of the province, there appear several forms previously found only in Lower Egypt.81 That spread of northern forms might indeed relate to the new political situation of the country. Now the goods exchange between different parts of the country and the outside world started to flourish again.

4. Old Kingdom II, the First Intermediate Period, and the early Middle Kingdom

147

Texts in burials At the end of the Fifth Dynasty in the pyramid of king Unas at Saqqara long religious texts appear, written on the inside walls of the chambers. They are known in Egyptology as the Pyramid Texts. Shortly afterwards officials also started to decorate their burial chambers, which had been a text-free zone in the previous period. Evidently the introduction on a bigger scale of the written word into the burial chamber reflects the increased attention to the underground parts of the burial, as was already visible in the higher number of burial goods. So far no decorated burial chambers dating to the Old Kingdom or First Intermediate Period have been found in the Qau region. Nonetheless, they are attested in the Middle Kingdom tombs of the local governors.82 It is most likely that there were many inscribed coffins dating to these periods as these are well known from comparable sites, but here at Qau and Badari they are mostly lost as a result of the bad preservation conditions for organic materials. However, other inscribed objects are preserved. In one tomb at Qau (7695; Fig. 68) a bowl was found bearing on both sides a cursive written ‘Letter to the Dead’, addressing the dead father on one side, the dead mother on the other, appealing to them for help in a legal or family dispute.83 The tomb was quite simple, with a shaft about 3.5 m deep and a chamber on the south side. The chamber was about 0.53 m wide, 2.28 m long and just 0.81 m high. Shaft and chamber tombs were lined with bricks, although the brief information in the tomb register of the excavation report does not supply much information on exactly how the bricks were placed. The burial in the chamber was quite plain. There was a man laid on his back with his head to the north. On one side of the head there was the bowl with the ‘Letter to the Dead’, on the other side three other vessels, according to the tomb card; only two vessels appear in the tomb register, indicating that two examples of one type were found. Shepsi writes to his dead parents for help in a dispute over property. He writes on the inside of the bowl to his father, with a shorter message on the outside to his mother. Inside: (1)  Shepsi speaks to his father Iinekhenmut. (2) This is a reminder of your journey to the dungeon (?), to the place where Sen’s son Hetepu was, when you brought (3) the foreleg of an ox, and when this your son came with Newaef, and when you said, Welcome, both of you. Sit and eat (4) meat! Am I to be injured in your presence, without this your son having done or said anything, by my brother ? (And yet) I was the one who buried him, I brought him from the dungeon (?), (5) I placed him among his desert tomb-dwellers, even though thirty measures of refined barley were due from him by a loan, and one bundle of garments, six measures of fine barley, (6) one ball (?) of flax, and a

148

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt cup – even though I did for him what did not (need) to be done. He has done this against this your son evilly, evilly (7) – but you had said to this your son, ‘All my property is vested in my son Shepsi along with my fields’. Now (8) Sher’s son Henu has been taken. See, he is with you in the same city. (9) You have to go to judgement with him now, since your scribes are with (you) in the same city. (10) Can a man be joyful, when his spears are used [against his own son (??)] ?

Outside: (1)  Shepsi speaks to his mother Iy. (2) This is a reminder of the time that you said to this your son ‘Bring me quails for me to eat’, and when this your son brought to you (3) seven quails for you to eat. Am I to be injured in your presence, so that the children are badly discontent with this your son? (4) Who then will pour out water for you? If only you would judge between me and Sobekhetep! I brought him from another town, and placed him in his town (5) among his male and female dead, and gave him burial cloth. Why then is he acting against this your son, when I have said and done nothing, evilly, evilly? (6). Evil-doing is painful for the gods!84 There is writing in other burials of the period Figure 68. Burial 7695 (author, from too. In some tombs were found pottery hes-vases tomb cards) with short inscriptions.85 Hes-vases are tall bottle-like vessels often used in purification rituals. Some examples in Qau provide a person’s name sometimes with that of a father. Not surprisingly the graves with these inscribed vases are among the larger ones. Most of them were found at one part of the main cemetery (‘south cemetery’) of Qau indicating that this zone was the burial ground at the very end of the First Intermediate Period into the early Middle Kingdom of people with significant resources. One example is tomb 301 with two hes-vases naming ‘the revered lady, Redu’s daughter Hesu, true of voice’ and once ‘the revered lady Hesu, true of voice’. Her tomb consisted of a 4 m deep shaft with a small chamber on the south side. According to the short summary in the tomb register two bodies were found, a man and a woman, although the sexing

4. Old Kingdom II, the First Intermediate Period, and the early Middle Kingdom

149

of the bodies is not certain. There were remains of a wooden coffin. About 15 pottery vessels were found in the burial and some beads and a mirror. Remarkable are an axe and a dagger.86 These vases seem to reflect a local custom, as they are not well attested at other places. They provide us with a few names of the period: in addition to Hesu and Redu, there are Sepui, son of Senbim (tomb 309), Khentikhetyemsaf (tomb 314), Nakht, son of Shau (tomb 321).87

Excursus: learning reading and writing How did people learn to read and write? In Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt there were most likely no schools or other institutions dedicated to training people for certain trades. Especially for the Middle and New Kingdom, Egyptologists have repeatedly assumed that there were schools training young boys. The main Middle Kingdom evidence for this comes from a literary work today called the Satire of Trade. There, at the beginning, we read: ‘Beginning of Teaching, made by a man from Sile with the name Khety, son of Duauf, for his son named Pepy. Now he travels south for going into the room of training for writing among the children of officials at the head of the residence’. ‘Room of training for writing’ is often seen as a word for ‘school’. The idea that there were schools in Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt goes back to the nineteenth century, when the German scholar Adolf Erman even thought that the Satire of Trade was a composition used in teaching. The view soon became the standard opinion, with little further discussion. Only over the last few decades have there been further discussions that expressed some doubts.88 There are indeed several problems with the idea that there was some kind of school system in Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt. First, there is very little evidence in the contemporary written sources about schools. Many Old and Middle Kingdom biographies are preserved, but they hardly mention any education at school. The evidence so far points to another system where the father taught his son. This is visible in the New Kingdom sources from Deir el-Medineh, but also in Middle Kingdom sources, where there is good evidence in both periods for families where many members had titles directly connected with scribal activities.89

A temple The remains of a temple were found near Badari (Fig. 70). Its exact date is not known for sure, but there are general similarities with the Old Kingdom temple of Satet on Elephantine. It was built over the remains of predynastic structures, perhaps also a temple. The preserved remains of the later temple are all in mud brick. The building is oriented roughly east–west. The remains of a long wall were found, running north–south, on the west side, facing the Nile. It is possible that this was once an enclosure wall for the whole temple. Behind the wall to the east there was an open courtyard in the middle of which was a square brick structure. Four thin brick walls encircled an empty space. The function of this structure remains unknown. From

150

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Figure 69. Objects from burial 301

the courtyard a door opened into a long narrow room. There was a door leading to another room, perhaps the main sanctuary with the image of a god. Most of the walls of the temple were once plastered and whitewashed. Some fragments indicate that at least some parts of the building were made in stone, such as the door frames.90 In the New Kingdom a new temple was built at the same place, evidently replacing the older one. The New Kingdom temple was also mainly built of mud bricks. There are no indications of major parts of this temple executed in stone, unlike many other temples of the same period. There is also little evidence for any changes to the temple in the early Twelfth Dynasty, when temples throughout Egypt were completely rebuilt in stone.91 There are several explanations for the absence of any reconstruction in stone, in stark contrast to most other known Middle Kingdom temples which were all heavily rebuilt at the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty as decorated stone buildings. One option for the lack of rebuilding is simply that the temple was no longer used in the Middle Kingdom and was therefore not renovated. Middle Kingdom pottery was found,92 but that does not prove that the temple was fully functioning. Only in the New Kingdom was it decided to construct a new temple here. This decision could be

4. Old Kingdom II, the First Intermediate Period, and the early Middle Kingdom

151

taken to imply that some form of cult, even on a very small scale, continued in existence. Another explanation for the fact that the temple was not turned into a stone building might be that the cult place was a very local one that was not considered important enough to embellish or enlarge by the central Middle Kingdom government. It might therefore be argued that this is a really local temple, built and maintained without state intervention. There is some evidence that Mut was worshipped here, at least from Figure 70. Plan of the temple found at Badari (the North the late Middle Kingdom on. Several is at the top; redrawn after Brunton 1927, pl. xxiii) inscriptions refer to ‘Mut, lady of Megeb’.93 If the identification of Megeb with the area around the temple is correct, the temple might belong to her. However, this is far from certain. Furthermore, Mut as a goddess is not yet attested before the late Middle Kingdom.94 It therefore remains pure speculation who was worshipped here before; some type of mother goddess seems likely, but hard evidence is missing. The New Kingdom temple had two cellas; possibly Mut and a male deity were worshipped here in the manner of Isis and Min at Koptos, but again there is no direct evidence.

Part II: the written records, history and social relations The political history of the period is quite clear, at least in rough outline. At one point after the reign of Pepy II the country seems to have disintegrated into two power blocks, one in the north, with kings reigning in Herakleopolis, and one in the south. Around 2000 BC, the Eleventh Dynasty Theban king Mentuhetep II managed to unify the country. About 30 years later, under the Twelfth Dynasty king Amenemhat I, the capital of the country was moved from Thebes to the north, most likely close to a modern place called Lisht.95 He called it (Amenemhat)-Itj-tauy. The reason for this demise of central power and disintegration of Egypt into smaller political units is often discussed in Egyptology but there is still no general consensus about the actors involved.96 At the beginning of the period the kings in Memphis may still have been acknowledged in most parts of the country but, in practical terms, many local governors started to rule independently. The First Intermediate Period is often described as some kind of dark period because the whole country was no longer under the rule of one king. The texts of the period report wars between local governors. Famines are often mentioned although they always appear in a context

152

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

where local governors proudly report that they were able to feed their own population while the rest of the country was starving.97 In earlier discussions some Egyptologists saw a revolution at the end of the Old Kingdom.98 Burchard Brentjes,99 writing from a Marxist point of view, argues that there was an uprising of the working population. The building of the great pyramids was only possible through the heavy exploitation of the working population. Now they rebelled and destroyed the Old Kingdom state. The principal written evidence is a literary composition, the Laments of Ipuwer, which previous Egyptologists dated to the end of the Old Kingdom. It was believed that the events described there (revolts against the state, the social order turned upside down) must date to the end of the Old Kingdom and describe a revolution. The Laments of Ipuwer are, however, now dated to the end of the Middle Kingdom100 and are therefore no help in interpreting the end of the Old Kingdom. The idea of a revolution has been revived in recent years. There is evidence that the governor’s palace in Balat (Dakhleh Oasis) was sacked and burnt down. At Mendes, the local temple was also burnt down and about 30 bodies were found there, without any order, in the rubble.101 The idea of a revolution based on this evidence seems rather unlikely, however. It would mean a coordination of events at two faraway places, something almost unthinkable for this time as communication technology was not yet so advanced. The events might be just two unrelated occurrences. If the events are related it might be that the central government became weaker and locals or nomads were able to take advantage of this situation. Most probably a combination of reasons led to the end of the Old Kingdom.102 The weakening of the central government is often seen as one of the main factors. This would have been caused, on one side, by granting local temples too many privileges, as many were freed from obligations to the royal residence.103 Furthermore, it has been argued that the bureaucracy grew so heavy that it became ineffective.104 On the other hand, however, it has also been argued that the royal residence mainly relied on its own domains all around the country and not on dues collected from temples.105 Karl Jansen-Winkeln proposed that foreign invaders caused the end of the Old Kingdom. According to him, all Egyptian kingdoms were brought to an end by foreigners. In his scenario they invaded and ruled the Delta. He refers to missing monuments belonging to the ruling class in the Delta. Jansen-Winkeln argues that the move of the capital from Memphis to Herakleopolis might best be explained as the result of foreigners occupying the Delta and being a threat to the capital, which lies close to it.106 Barbara Bell107 and Fekri Hassan saw climate changes at work. Hassan wonders whether there were reduced Nile floods and whether desert sand encroached onto the Delta, two factors that might have led to famines.108 However, others such as Juan Carlos Moreno García do not see any evidence for such climate change; he wonders instead whether society and state changed in general.109 It must clearly be stated that in the archaeological record of the Wadjet province the end of

4. Old Kingdom II, the First Intermediate Period, and the early Middle Kingdom

153

the Old Kingdom is not visible. Certain changes in material culture, as seen in the stone vessels (compare p. 146), can be linked to a political change, and even to a weak central power. However these changes can also be easily explained in different ways, such as new rituals that require different types of stone vessels, or just a change in general taste. The political history of the Wadjet province in this period remains mostly shrouded in mystery. From the Eighth Dynasty comes a decree found at Koptos and mentioning the Wadjet province. In Koptos was found a series of royal decrees issued by kings of the Sixth and Eighth Dynasty. Many of these provide privileges for local governors. It seems evident that the king was seeking support in Upper Egypt. One of these inscriptions most likely dates under the Eighth Dynasty king Neferkauhor, although this is not certain as the name of the king is not preserved. The decree is issued to a certain Shemai, an influential person at this time in Upper Egypt, holding many titles including ‘vizier’ and ‘overseer of Upper Egypt’. The decree might have been issued at the beginning of the king’s reign to confirm the official in his position. As Shemai was ‘overseer of Upper Egypt’, all 22 provinces of Upper Egypt, including the Wadjet province, are listed and the text confirms that they are under the charge of Shemai. The text seems to prove that in the Eighth Dynasty Upper Egypt was still ruled by a king in the north.110 The text also confirms that the ‘overseer of Upper Egypt’ was indeed in charge of the whole Upper Egyptian province, though it is hard to tell what real power he had over these regions. Within the First Intermediate Period two power blocks emerged in Egypt. There were kings in the north reigning in the tradition of the Old Kingdom, and there was a line of kings ruling at Thebes. The kings in the north are often called Herakleopolitan kings, as they were labelled by Manetho. The kings in Thebes started most likely as local governors and at some point took over selected royal titles. At least from the time of Wah-ankh Antef II, inscriptions indicate that the Wadjet province belonged to the Theban territory.111 On the stela of the ‘steward’ Rudikhnum found at Denderah it is mentioned that the queen Neferukayt had estates from Elephantine in the south to the Wadjet province in the north. Rudikhnum lived most likely under Antef II or Antef III and was the manager of the queen’s estates. Antef II was the second Theban king with royal titles and the first one well known from contemporary sources.112 The Theban kings fought several wars against the Herakleopolitan kings and the Wadjet province was on the front line. Asyut, just to the north, remained a stronghold of the northern kingdom. There are only two local governors known from the period in the Wadjet province. One is attested on a 70 cm high partly damaged stela found at Mesheikh (near Naga ed-Deir). The governor’s name is lost. He bears the title ‘member of the elite’, ‘foremost of action’, ‘royal sealer’, ‘sole friend’, ‘overseer of the two houses of refreshment’ and ‘overlord of the Wadjet province’.113 The find spot of the stela in the Ta-wer (Eighth) Upper Egyptian province is curious. The style of the stela fits the other monuments

154

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

found there. So there is little doubt that the stela was from this place and that the governor was even buried there. It is a mystery why he was buried here and not in his own province.114 The main title providing evidence that this person was the governor in the Wadjet province is ‘overlord of the Wadjet province’. The title ‘great overlord of a province’ (Hry-tp aA n zpAt) appears first at the end of the Old Kingdom. It is often regarded as the main title for a local governor from the Old Kingdom onwards,115 down to the early Middle Kingdom.116 It has been argued that the provinces under Theban rulers were reorganised and they were no longer under the charge of a governor with the title ‘great overlord of a province’. Instead single towns became more important and the main titles were now ‘overseer of priests’ and ‘mayor’ (imy-r Hmw nTr, HAty-a). The unknown governor from this stela would be in office before the Wadjet province came under Theban rule.117 The second governor is known from coffin fragments seen on the art market. They belong to a Inheretnakht, who was ‘overseer of Upper Egypt’, but also ‘great overlord of Ta-wer and Wadjet’. Inheretnakht was governor of two provinces. Mesheikh where the stela of the other governor was found, is lying within the Ta-wer province. So, there are two local governors of the Wadjet province with strong connections to the Ta-wer province, providing the impression that both provinces were ruled at this time from the Ta-wer province.118 Around 2000 BC, Egypt again became a united country ruled by one king. The Theban king Mentuhetep II managed to overcome the kings ruling in the north at Herakleopolis. Not much is known about the exact timing of the process and the events around it. After the reunification of the country, the Wadjet province was no longer at the frontier but again right in the middle of Egypt. Nothing is yet known about the political history of the province in the early Middle Kingdom, but it is mentioned once in the biography of the ‘steward’ Henenu: ‘I taxed (bAk) for him (the king) This, of the Ta-wer province (till) the lower part of the Wadjet province’.119 Henenu was the highest ‘steward’ at the royal court, responsible primarily for looking after the royal domains that supplied the palace and the royal residence with food and other products. However, the exact meaning of this reference remains unclear. Evidently the sentence means that the Ta-wer province (Eighth Upper Egyptian province), the Min province (Ninth) and the Wadjet province were ‘taxed’. But why is that stated in the biography? As ‘steward’ that must have been part of his official duties, so it is unexpected to find it written down in a biography when ancient Egyptian biographies often focus on special events. So it seems that Henenu was sent there on a special mission to provide additional resources and not just ordinary revenues. The Wadjet province was evidently a place where resources were collected for the king, most likely residing in Thebes. Another reference to the province from about the same time comes from a stela found at Abydos, but the reference is obscure and does not provide any information.120 No names of local governors of the early Middle Kingdom are securely known for the Wadjet province and there are no governor tombs datable to this period.

4. Old Kingdom II, the First Intermediate Period, and the early Middle Kingdom

155

One wonders whether the province was still ruled from the Ta-wer province. However, local governors are well attested at other places in this period, such as at Beni Hasan, Deir el-Bersheh,121 and Asyut. It remains unclear whether there were no governors at Qau in the early Middle Kingdom or whether they are simply not yet attested. Local governors appear in the region in the first half of the Twelfth Dynasty. At other places, the king was placing new governors and new families at certain places. This seems certain at Beni Hasan, where Khnumhetep I proudly reports that he was placed there by Amenemhat I.122 At Asyut under Senusret I governors with the name Hapydjefau123 appear, perhaps an indication that a new family was placed here, as the governors before were called Mesehti and Anu,124 indicating that they came from one family with a preference for this name. So, it seems that old structures in the provincial administration were kept essentially as before. The only change visible is perhaps appointing new people. The situation at Qau is perhaps comparable to the cemeteries at Meir where there are governors’ tombs of the Old Kingdom, but none of them dates to the First Intermediate Period. The line of Middle Kingdom governors starts under Amenemhat I.125 This might indicate that the king installed a new governor there. It is known from other sources that this king started to reorganise the provincial administration on a larger scale.126 For Qau, however, the local governors may simply have moved cemetery and we just have not yet found the burial places or they have not survived.

Society and political history of the late Old Kingdom to the beginning of the Middle Kingdom Very little is known about the administration and society in the Memphite region after the end of what is called the Old Kingdom. On one side there is the impression that the kings lost control over large parts of the country, but titles and administrative structures did not seem to change very much. There may be many monuments from this period, but their exact dating is problematic.127 In general they provide an impression of continuity in administration and social structures. The picture in the provinces seems to be slightly different. Here the evidence at the beginning of the period indicates that several local governors acted almost independently. At least one of them seems even to have taken over parts of royal titles. This is Khui, who is known only from a stone fragment. His name is written in a cartouche, the symbol of royalty. Khui is often connected with a substantial pyramid-like tomb found in Middle Egypt at Dara, between Meir and Asyut.128 His name was found on a relief fragment nearby and might come from the pyramid.129 The structure is impressive and provides evidence for the resources one local ruler was able to accumulate. Khui may have been a local governor before taking over the parts of the royal titles. A piece of wood (from a coffin?) was found nearby with the short text: ‘governor’ (HAty-a), ‘lector priest’, Khui.130

156

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

However, looking at all the provinces, it seems that governors’ tombs are smaller and less elaborate than in the Old Kingdom, although the dating of single tombs is always a challenge.131 This might indicate a decline in resources, but it might also mean that trained craftsmen and artists for bigger tombs were simply missing. The best-known figure of the period is the local governor Ankhtyfy buried at Moalla in the Third province of Upper Egypt. Long biographical texts survive on the pillars in his tomb chapel.132 Ankhtyfy was ‘overlord of the provinces of Edfu and Hierakonpolis’, the normal title of a local governor of the period. Two important events are mentioned in his biography. He went to Edfu province to pacify it and to fight against the Fourth Upper Egyptian province, with the capital Thebes. There he faced a coalition of Thebes and Koptos. However, the latter refused a battle. It seems that the actual output of Ankhtyfy’s effort was quite minor. Nevertheless, he had the resources for a small decorated tomb chapel and the inscriptions in the tomb reflect some pride in his achievements. The evidence from the Koptos province (Fifth Upper Egyptian province) indicates a hierarchy of local governors within a province in this period. There were on the one hand the governors of the whole province, but there were also governors of smaller towns. The governors of the province had the highest ranking titles (iry-pat, HAty-a, xtmty-bity, smr-waty), but were also ‘overseer of priests’ and ‘overlord of the province’. They are mainly known from their inscriptions found at their burials at the provincial capitals (Koptos and Khozam). At Naqada were buried people from the less important town Qus, within the same province. The governors here were just ‘royal sealer’ and ‘sole friend’ (xtmty-bity, smr-waty). Their main title was ‘overseer of the priests’ (imy-r Hmw-nTr) or ‘inspector of the priests’ (sHD Hmw-nTr).133 For the Wadjet province such a hierarchy is not yet attested. It can be expected that there were governors of the whole province at Tjebu and one wonders whether some of the minor places had ‘inspectors of priests’ too. There are many funerary stelae preserved from the First Intermediate Period, some with short biographical inscriptions. These stelae come from all over Egypt. The highest number from controlled excavations were found at Naga ed-Deir in the Ta-wer (Eighth Upper Egyptian) province. Many of these short biographical inscriptions express pride in the stelae owner’s own deeds. Antonio Loprieno sees here the development of individual values (‘individueller Werte’).134 The stela of Indi from Naga ed-Deir is a typical example: I am a young man, excellent in combat, a companion of his team [?]. I am one who is beloved of his father, praised by his mother, whom his siblings love, kind to his family, raised from the back of his father’s house by the might of Onuris, ruler of Thinis, with a desire to build and act for good, one who speaks with his mouth and who acts with his arm, no man being found who speaks against the revered Indi.135

Indi is ‘lector priest’, but bears the high ranking titles ‘member of the elite’, ‘foremost of action’, royal sealer’, and ‘sole friend’ (iry-pat, HAty-a, xtmty-bity, smr-waty).

4. Old Kingdom II, the First Intermediate Period, and the early Middle Kingdom

157

Similar texts are already known from the Old Kingdom. At the beginning of the Fourth Dynasty Metjen presented his titles and achievements in long texts in his tomb chapel.136 Shorter and longer biographical inscriptions are then known from throughout the Old Kingdom, the most famous being that of Uni from the Sixth Dynasty.137 He was judge in a court case against a queen, was sent on a military mission into the southern Levant, and provided building material for the king’s pyramid complex. The question arises whether the First Intermediate Period texts reflect a new social reality of the period or whether the texts just continue Old Kingdom traditions. Some differences are indeed discerned between the texts of the Old Kingdom and those of the First Intermediate Period. Those of the Old Kingdom mostly belong to the highest court officials or leading officials in the provinces. In the Old Kingdom the officials related themselves closely to the royal residence and the king.138 The centre of the biography is most often the king. Royal favours and honours are the most important events in these texts. The texts of the First Intermediate Period belong to a much wider social spectrum. The biography of a coffin maker has even been preserved. Furthermore, the focus is no longer the king, but the province, the local governor and the family. Their favour is important, not that of the king. The biography of the coffin maker Nakhty may be translated here in full as a further example: An offering that the king gives to Osiris, lord of Busiris and to Khontamentyu, lord of Abydos, a voice offering of bread and beer for the honoured one Nakhty, who says: I did what was praised by this town and this province and all its rulers, since the day on which I arrived in this town. I buried its great ones and its small ones. Then the overseer of priests, Tjeti-iqer built a house of the West [= tomb]. I provided it with wood, while I was united with all carpenters of this town, never was it found that a brush escaped me. Then the overseer of priests made my heart big, more than any craftsmen who was there, except Minemhat only. I set up 180 coffins in this town, never had any carpenter achieved it, who grew up in it.’139

The text might provide the impression that Nakhty was a self-made man, running his own business. However, the local governor (‘overseer of priests’) Tjeti-iqer is mentioned and Nakhty might well have worked on his estate. In the same context several other stelae dating to the First Intermediate Period and early Middle Kingdom should be mentioned. They describe how the stela owner acquired his estate and position on his own. A famous example is the stela of the ‘god’s servant’ Mentuhetep from Abydos who states that he was brought up as an orphan and built his own house.140 Janet Richards calls him a ‘self-made man’.141 Here again, it might well be possible that Mentuhetep was working on the estate of an higher official or of the king, but was also running his own estate at the same time. The written evidence is open to different interpretation.

158

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Interestingly, some tombs with tools as burial goods belong to this period. The burial with the harpoon (3251) and that with the crucible (4964) (pp. 133–135; Fig. 52) might belong to independent craftsmen. The objects might be interpreted as expressing their pride about their profession. However, as discussed, there are other options for an interpretation of these burial goods. There are two additional general observations to make on the stelae of the period found in the provinces. Many of the men bear quite high-ranking titles. In the Old Kingdom, the ranking titles ‘member of the elite’, ‘foremost of action’, ‘royal sealer’, and ‘sole friend’ were restricted to a small number of officials. These titles announced a very high social position in the hierarchy of the country. Already at the end of the Old Kingdom it is clear that these titles became more common with some kind of title inflation at work. Many lower officials now received these high status titles.142 The trend continues well into the First Intermediate Period, where there is the impression that almost everybody could bear these high ranking titles.143 There is a second observation to make about the titles of the First Intermediate Period: quite a large number of men bear the title ‘lector priest’ (Xry-HAb).144 The title is well attested in other periods too, but most often within longer title strings. It is not often the main title of an official. Why is the title so common on stelae of the period? Were there more ‘lector priests’ around? However, the title might have been regarded as quite prestigious and was placed on monuments instead of other, more prosaic ‘job’ descriptions.145 All these ‘lector priests’ might, in reality, have had others functions too, not worth placing on a monument. This is only a guess, but one explanation for the common appearance of the title. There are indications that the provincial administration was not altered to a great extent by the kings of the Eleventh Dynasty (p.  155) after the country was unified again. At Asyut and Deir el-Bersheh146 unbroken lines of local governors from the First Intermediate Period to the early Middle Kingdom are attested. At Beni Hasan a new line of governors started after unification, although the exact date of its introduction is disputed. At Meir, a new line started at the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty.147 The cemeteries of these local courts consist of the monumental tombs of the local governors and of those of the lower administrators. The latter are often well equipped and provide evidence for the spread of wealth at this higher social level. A typical example is the burial of the ‘sole friend’ Antef at Beni Hasan. His burial was found intact and still contained his simple coffin and a set of funerary wooden models, including two boats, a baking scene, a granary, the figure of a woman with basket, and a brewing scene. Model sandals, two head rests, and finally several pottery vessels were also found there.148 He was most likely an official working for the local governors.149 Similar burials must have existed at Qau, but are not that visible as most objects in the tomb of Antef are made of wood which would not have survived at Qau. However, it might be argued that those burials with the inscribed hes vases and that one with the Letter to the Dead (pp. 147–148 and see below) belong to this social level.

4. Old Kingdom II, the First Intermediate Period, and the early Middle Kingdom

159

Next to these cemeteries of local ruling classes, other provincial cemeteries flourished at the end of the Old Kingdom into the early Middle Kingdom. Those at Qau and Badari are the main examples to have been excavated and documented that include a high number of well equipped burials of people most likely not belonging to the ruling class. The graves of the poorest are probably missing, but the high number of burials with some pottery and personal adornments, sometimes of gold, seems to indicate a spread of wealth not seen before or after in Egypt.150 Evidently the burial customs of the age have to be taken into account. Perhaps it was simply more common in this period to place more personal adornments into the graves, thus providing a misleading picture of its relative wealth (Fig. 71). The social structures in the province remain obscure. However, it seems certain that a high number of resources now remained in the province and were no longer brought to the royal residence. From the biographies it is possible to see that many more members of the local ruling classes were able to commission inscribed monuments where they express their pride. Some of the wealthier burials found at Qau, such as those with the inscribed vases (p. 148), might belong to people of this social level. Some of them might be classified as middle class, as for example the coffin maker who could afford his own stela (p. 157). The status of the wider population remains unknown. It might be assumed that there were no longer royal domains operating in the province. People were most likely also no longer deported to the royal residence for large corvée projects as there is no longer evidence for bigger pyramid buildings or bigger temple projects. However, does this mean that the peasants and craftsmen were freer? It seems more likely that they now worked for the local ruling class on their estates and domains. The best evidence is perhaps the stela of the steward Rudikhnum who served queen Neferukayt. According to his biography,151 she had estates all over the region that was ruled by the Theban kingdom. Local people most likely worked on her estates. The overall system might be still described as the tributary mode of production. Most likely it was no longer the residence in the north that collected the tributes. Local authorities would have kept the tributes for themselves without sending them to the royal residence. Only within the Eleventh Dynasty, the Theban kings took over and the tributes went to the South. There is not much evidence that the local rulers based power on owning land. Furthermore, it seems that these local governors had only limited resources. Their tombs are in general not very big. The exploitation of the local resources was most likely not very thorough. At one point Thebes took over control of the province and the few sources clearly speak about collecting tributes, such as the just mentioned case of the steward Rudikhnum.152 Henenu (p. 154) came to the province to collect tributes.

160

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Figure 71. Small selection of objects found in late First Intermediate Period and early Middle Kingdom burials at Qau and Badari

Notes

1. For the change of burial customs at the end of the Old Kingdom: Grajetzki 2003, 27–28; Bárta 2012. 2. Seidlmayer 1987, 175–168; Willems 2010, 82. 3. O’Connor 1972, 94; Seidlmayer 1987, 176–178; Kemp 2006, 309 4. The burials are published in Kowalska, Radomska 2008; the burials with objects are on p. 63, 70–78, 250, 252 5. Ben-Shlomo 2012, 211. 6. See Seidlmayer 1990, 202, table 55. 7. Seidlmayer 1990, 201–6. 8. O’Connor 1972, 94. 9. O’Connor 1974. 10. Kemp 1975. 11. Seidlmayer 1990, 123–210. 12. Seidlmayer 1990, 124–210. 13. Seidlmayer 1990, 441. 14. Seidlmayer 1990, 210. 15. Seidlmayer 1990, 349–52. 16. Petrie 1907, 10 (information in this paragraph is also based on the notebooks of Ernest Mackay, now stored in the Petrie Museum, also available on the Petrie Museum archive CD-Rom). 17. Information taken from Mackay’s notebooks, now in the Petrie Museum of Egyptian ­Archaeology. 18. Wiese 1996, pl. 26, no. 545 19. Brunton 1927, 30, pl. xlix. 20. Seidlmayer 2007a. 21. Brunton 1927, 30. 22. As Brunton mentioned only the types found, it is possible that several vessels of the same type were placed here.

4. Old Kingdom II, the First Intermediate Period, and the early Middle Kingdom

161

23. Brunton 1927, 29. 24. Reynolds 2009. 25. Parker Pearson 1999, 7 26. Kemp 1975, 281. 27. Odler 2016, 85–6. 28. Seidlmayer 2007b. 29. Hafner 1989. 108–9. 30. Schuhmacher 1989, 271. 31. Endesfelder 2018, 93–5. 32. Davey 1985, 145–6. In the crucible were found copper remains, but no tin. 33. The skull of the burial is today in the Department of Biological Anthropology of Cambridge University, see Mann 1989, 248. 34. Brunton 1927, 36. 35. Ogden 2000, 151. 36. Messiha and Messiha 1964. 37. Abd el-Razif et al. 2011, 47–48. 38. Ogden 2000, 149–51. 39. Brunton 1927, 39. 40. Brunton 1928, pl. lv (tomb register). 41. Object number: A634911. Information kindly provided by Chiara Fiaccavento. 42. Brunton 1927, 40. 43. Brunton 1927, 42. 44. Knoblauch 2016. 45. Seidlmayer 1987, 190. 46. Despite the excavation report, the burial might belong to a man (Mann 1989, 249). 47. Rzeuska 2006, 397; compare Wodzińska 2009, pl. 120. 48. Bourriau 1981, 52, no. 86. 49. Wendrich 2000. 50. Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928, 67. 51. Brunton 1927, 70–1. 52. Brunton 1927, 67. 53. Assmann 2005, 330–1. 54. Salvador 2015. 55. Seidlmayer 1990, 231 (‘Stufe I’). The tomb numbers with a ‘H’ are those burials with a soul house. 56. Seidlmayer 1987, 189. 57. Seidlmayer 1987, 200. 58. Brunton 1927, 74. 59. Seidlmayer 1987, 192–5. 60. Dubiel 2008, 52, table iv.7. 61. Dubiel 2008, 59–64. 62. O’Connor 1974, 27. 63. Brunton 1927, 55–9, pls xxxii–xxxiii; The main study is Wiese 1996. 64. Brunton 1927, 57; Wiese 1996, 33 65. Wiese 1996, 30, fig. 3 66. Kemp 2006, 141–2. 67. Wiese 1996, 38–9. 68. Dubiel 2010. 69. Examples: Jéquier 1929, 52, figs 56, 57, 65, 70, 79, 82, 91, 109, 123 70. Kowalska, Radomska 2008, 63, 70–8, 250–2; Dubliková et al. 2015.

162

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

71. Seidlmayer 2003, 239. 72. Grajetzki 2014, 129–34. 73. Patch 2005, 192. 74. Seidlmayer 2007a. 75. Seidlmayer 1990, 199. 76. Seidlmayer 1990, 161–9. 77. Seidlmayer 1990, 185–94. 78. Seidlmayer 1990, 178–85. 79. Seidlmayer 2012, 9–11. 80. Seidlmayer 2007a, 42–3. 81. Seidlmayer 1990, 440 82. Ciampini 2003. 83. Gardiner and Sethe 1928, 3–5, 17–19, pls ii–iiia. 84. Gardiner, Sethe 1928, 3–4; Wente 1990, 11–212, no. 341 (interior), no. 342 (exterior); most recently: Miniaci 2016 85. Brunton 1927, pl. xli, 1–13. 86. Brunton 1928, pl. lxiv. 87. Brunton 1927, 38, pl. XLI. 88. Most recently Widmaier 2013. 89. McDowell 2000; Grajetzki 2000, 176–7. 90. Brunton 1927, 18–19, pl. xxiii 91. Lorand 2011, 238–322. 92. Brunton 1930, 2. 93. Krauspe 1974, 160–1. 94. te Velde 1984, 246. 95. For summaries of the period see: Valbelle 1998, 99–113; Willems 2008, 36–59; 2010, 82–6. 96. Müller-Wollermann 2014 (summary of the evidence). 97. Vandier 1936, 3–12; Morenz 2012. 98. Moret 1926, 251–2; Grimal 1992, 138–9. 99. Brentjes 1968, 221–7. 100. Enmarch 2008, 18–24. 101. Baud 2010, 80. 102. Summary of different proposals: Gee 2015, 60–4. 103. Freed 2002, 30. 104. Müller-Wollermann 2014, 5. 105. Müller-Wollermann 2014, 5. 106. Jansen-Winkeln 2010. 107. Bell 1971. 108. Hassan 1997; 2007; the idea is not new, compare Butzer 1976, 54–5; see also van de Mieroop 2011, 86; more critical Moeller 2005; Willems 2010, 82. 109. Moreno García 2015 110. Goedicke 1967, 172–83. 111. Gomaà 1979, 89–90. 112. Petrie 1898, 52, pl. xv. 113. Cairo CG 1646. 114. Compare Gomaà 1979, 89 for explanations. 115. Moreno García 2013a, 124–5. 116. Willems 2013, 381–92. 117. Gomaà 1979, 89.

4. Old Kingdom II, the First Intermediate Period, and the early Middle Kingdom

163

118. Brovarski 2018, 249–51; there are examples for governors at Ta-wer in charges of a second province, compare Abdel-Raziq, Abdalla. 2016, 136. 119. Hayes 1949, 46–8, pl. iv. 120. Stela Petrie Museum UC 14430; Stewart 1979, 22 (line 7, translated there as ‘Buto’). 121. Favry 2004, 27, 38–9. 122. Newberry 1893, pl. XLIV. 123. Favry 2004, 38. 124. Grajetzki 2006, 105. 125. Willems 1988, 84. 126. Gomaà 1987, 2–3. 127. See for example the list of sources collected in Daoud 2012. 128. Seidlmayer 1990, 351; Willems 2010, 85 (sceptical about the identification of Khui with the owner of the pyramid); Lehner 2008, 164–5. 129. Kamal 1912, 132, fig. 9. 130. Kamal 1912, 132. 131. For example at Dendera: Petrie 1998, 13–22; Fischer 1986, 113–76, 187; Seidlmayer 1990, 106–8. 132. Lichtheim 1975, 85–6 (partly translated); most recent discussion: Mostafa 2014, 197–200. 133. Fischer 1964, 61; Willems 2006, 40. 134. Loprieno 1988, 98; Lichtheim 1975, 83. 135. Hayes 1953, 139–41, fig. 83; Lichtheim 1975, 84–5 (stela Metropolitan Museum 25.2.3). 136. Sethe 1933, 1–7. 137. Sethe 1933, 98–110; Simpson 2003, 400–9, 597–8 (bibliography). 138. Eyre 1999, 39. 139. Roccati 1986. I am grateful to Gianluca Miniaci for sending me a copy of this article. 140. Bourriau 1988, 21–2, Martin 2005, 20–1, no. 16 (Fitzwilliam Museum Acc.No. E/9.1922) 141. Richards 2005, 23–4. 142. Helck 1954, 111–19. 143. Grajetzki 2001b. 144. Jones 2000, 781, no. 2848. 145. For the function of the title: Parkinson 2009, 157–8. 146. Willems 1985. 147. Willems 1988, 83–4. 148. Garstang 1907, 54–65, 211 (tomb 1). 149. For this social level compare: Seidlmayer 2007b 150. Seidlmayer 1987, 177. 151. Petrie 1898, 52, pl. xv. 152. Petrie 1898, 52, pl. xv.

Chapter 5 The Middle Kingdom

A new phase in the archaeology of the Wadjet province starts around 1950 BC. Suddenly the series of cemeteries with many burials finish. Only a few graves are datable for a period of about the next 250 years, making it very hard to follow the burial customs of the wider population. On the other hand, there are monumental tombs of the local governors dating into the period of this gap, the Egyptian Twelfth Dynasty. They are not well preserved but are among the most monumental private tombs of Ancient Egypt, demonstrating the wealth of the local ruling class. Furthermore, there are several dozen stelae known from people of the province, providing names and titles. There are also some graves belonging to people of the eastern deserts and a few, not well documented, settlement remains. Guy Brunton published about 70 burials, dated by him to the Twelfth Dynasty. They are all rather simple, often consisting of only a simple shaft and very few with a chamber. Only one (7251) was bricked up.  There are pottery vessels, stone vessels were found in a few graves, and women especially were often adorned with jewellery. In a few tombs mirrors were found. The style of the pottery, stone vessels, and jewellery is Twelfth Dynasty and Thirteenth Dynasty. In the Twelfth Dynasty amethyst was a popular material and indeed many amethyst beads were found in the tombs. Apart from the style of the objects, the categories of burial goods are almost identical to those of the First Intermediate Period (Figs 72 and 73). There are only a few object types found in the burials, not known from the periods before. In grave 5323 a well-preserved limestone statuette with an inscription was found. It might be doubted that the statuette originally came from here, as the grave was a shallow surface burial. The simplicity of the burial does not really fit the social level of such a sculpture. In two tombs fragments of so-called soul houses or offering trays were found (p. 139).

166

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Middle Kingdom burials were mainly found in the cemeteries around Qau. The eastern part of the southern cemetery contained burials of the late First Intermediate Period and also some of the Middle Kingdom. The north cemetery contained some Thirteenth Dynasty burials. A few burials were also found in front of the governor’s tombs (cemetery 1400). No Middle Kingdom burials were found at Hemamieh, but there are a few in the Badarian cemeteries. Table 1 provides the main data on the undisturbed Middle Kingdom tombs.1 As already indicated, these burials are rather simple in archiFigure 72. Examples of Middle Kingdom pottery tecture and equipment (Figs 72 and 73). In about half of them the remains of a coffin were found, in one even a painted example. Decorated coffins are a highlight of Middle Kingdom funerary culture, but examples for the Wadjet province are rare due to the poor organic preservation conditions in the region. The decorated coffin was discovered in a burial (315) with shaft and chamber and most likely already belonged to a person with some standing. Coffins were made especially for burials and were therefore most likely not affordable for all. The other burials repeat patterns of burials from the First Intermediate Period. Two burials may be described in more detail. Burial 315 is that of a man who was buried in a shaft tomb with a chamber; his body was placed in the painted coffin just mentioned. The only other burial good was one pottery vessel. He certainly had resources despite the simple appearance of the tomb. Organic preservation is not very good at Qau and one wonders whether the chamber once contained wooden models, now totally gone. Wooden models are typical of burials of the early Middle Kingdom up to about the reign of Senusret III.2 Almost no remains of them were found in the Wadjet province due to the bad preservation conditions. The intact tomb 734 belonged to a woman and contained a rich selection of personal adornments. They are well-described in the publication, making it possible to reconstruct how they were worn. The burial was found in a shaft without a chamber. Two vessels were placed there, one bowl and one bottle-like one. The woman was lying on her left side. Around her neck were three necklaces, one of amethyst beads, another with amethyst scarabs and nine hawk amulets, the latter made of turquoise, feldspar, and

167

5. The Middle Kingdom Table 1. Undisturbed Middle Kingdom tombs No.

Type

Sex

Vessels found

Further objects

315 409 452 523 604 701 734 965 1207 1301 1302

shaft with chamber surface burial surface burial shaft shaft shaft shaft shaft shaft shaft shaft

man woman woman man

painted coffin necklace necklace coffin

man woman child woman man, pan grave woman, pan grave

one vessel one vessel one vessel scarab two vessels stone vase two vessels

1415

shaft

woman

1419 1420 3918 5003 5250 5259 5464

shaft shaft shaft shaft shaft shaft shaft

man man Child, pan grave man2 woman child Child, pan grave

7120

shaft

woman

7817

shaft

woman

two vessels, two model vessels, four stone vases two vessels three pottery vessels, one vessel

one vessel, three stone vases

coffin jewellery, mirror simple jewellery jewellery, mirror, coffin beads, earrings leather sandals jewellery, coffin1 coffin coffin, gazelle jewellery jewellery, coffin jewellery shell, fragment of a soul house jewellery, wooden coffin

1 Bourriau (2010, 23–25) dates the burial to the early Second Intermediate Period. This is the Thirteenth Dynasty 2 Mann (1989, 249)

lapis lazuli. More strings of amethyst and garnet beads were found around the waist. Four strings of glaze, garnet, amethyst, and carnelian beads were found around the arms.

Building a new state in the early Middle Kingdom Due to the few Middle Kingdom burials, this chapter will rely heavily on written sources, many of them not from the Wadjet province. Why are there so few tombs dating to the period c. 1950–1750 BC in the Wadjet province? One reason for this might be a change in burial customs. Perhaps cemeteries were now placed much closer to the fertile lands and disappeared from the archaeological record, as today these grounds may lie within the agricultural fields and are therefore much harder to excavate. Egyptologists often seem to assume almost automatically that most burials were in the low desert. However, there are indications that it was common to bury people close to the settlements, while burials in the desert are rather the exception than the rule.3 Another option is that burials of the wider population were much less well equipped with objects than

168

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Figure 73. Examples of scarabs found in Middle Kingdom burials

before, making them much less attractive for potential excavators. Who wanted to uncover a cemetery with many empty graves? Whatever happened, the disappearance of the graves for the wider population might point to changes in society and a considerable reorganisation of Egypt on almost all social levels. It seems that these changes most affected the wealthier levels of the working population in the provinces, as their burials disappear from the archaeological records, while burials of the ruling classes are still well attested. This problem of the missing tombs was already noticed by Guy Brunton.4 He discussed the option that the material culture, especially the pottery, was so conservative in the region that some burials dated to the First Intermediate Period might indeed belong to the Middle Kingdom. A second option is the possibility that the population was buried on the west bank of the Nile, although that seems strange as the governors are buried on the east bank near the town.5 It is rather unlikely that the poorer segment of the population decided to be buried far away, something that would certainly cost some extra resources, while the richest part of the population decided to be buried close by. However, looking at all sites in Middle Kingdom Egypt it appears that everywhere the tombs of more ‘common’ people disappeared at about the same time in the early Twelfth Dynasty. Examples include the cemeteries at Sedment with many burials of the First Intermediate Period and the earlier part of the Middle Kingdom.6 Another example is the cemeteries at Naga ed-Deir. Here there are

5. The Middle Kingdom

169

also many burials of the First Intermediate Period, but few securely datable to the classical Middle Kingdom. There are indeed strong signs that around 1950 BC Egypt was reorganised on a grand scale.7 The new organisation of the country affected all social levels and all parts of the country, and this too might be partly responsible for the disappearance of tombs in the region. For this reorganisation the following indications might be put forward. Each of them, taken in isolation, might not seem too significant, and could relate to general changes in society and administration that might be explained in a different way. However, all these indications taken together point to that reorganisation. This change in society is most clearly visible under king Senusret I (c. 1971–1926 BC), but it may have been a process of several generations, perhaps even starting at the beginning of the Middle Kingdom after unification under king Mentuhetep II. 1. Military campaigns to Nubia under Senusret I 2. New settlements founded in all regions of Egypt 3. End of many provincial cemeteries, especially for ‘common’ people Figure 74. Reconstruction of burial 315. The 4. Introduction of the title ‘overseer of only burial goods are a vessel and the remains the marshland dwellers’. With this of a painted coffin (author, from tomb cards) title people living at the edge of the Delta came under direct control of the king 5. New system of labour organisation: ‘the great enclosure’ 6. Reorganisation of provinces 7. Temple building programme of king Senusret I 8. Famine 9. Changes in material culture 10. Changes in society

170

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Military campaigns and new settlements 1. Military campaigns to Nubia One major project affecting many levels of society was most likely the Nubian campaign under Senusret I.8 From several sources is known that the king invaded Lower Nubia and conquered it. Military campaigns raiding foreign countries are known from the beginning of Egyptian history. However, it seems that Senusret I went one step further this time, putting the raided regions in Nubia under permanent Egyptian control. From written sources it is well attested that several provincials were part of the military enterprise. The local governor Amenemhat from Beni Hasan reports in his tomb about his involvement in the military enterprise.9 Sarenput I, local governor on Elephantine, reports on his involvement too.10 This indicates that people from different regions of Egypt were conscripted to take part in the mission. The logistics of the military campaign might have forced the central government to organise the young men in the provinces to an extent not known for a long time and perhaps only comparable to the pyramid building of the Fourth Dynasty. In this context it should also be noted that several huge fortresses were built in Lower Nubia. The planning and building of these massive fortifications must have required substantial resources and organisation after the military campaign proper finished.

2. New settlements In recent decades several Middle Kingdom settlements have been excavated and many of them were evidently planned by a central authority.11 They date to different reigns of the Twelfth Dynasty and are therefore not specific to the reign of Senusret I. However, they are evidence for a permanent inner colonisation of Middle Kingdom Egypt, most likely organised by the central administration, though they are not all very long-lived. These planned settlements so far known are: Tell el-Dab‛a (early Twelfth Dynasty): This is the (so far) earliest known planned settlement of the Middle Kingdom. It was built at the edge of the Eastern Delta. The settlement consisted of long rows of extremely small houses. They are about 25 m2 in size and each of them is laid out on an almost identical plan. The town had walls. Its eastern part was most likely not built up and might have been used for trading or some production. The settlement dates to the early Twelfth Dynasty and was occupied for only a short time.12 Ezbet Rushdi (near Tell el-Dab‛a; early Twelfth Dynasty, about Amenemhat II to Senusret II): Not far away from the previous early Twelfth Dynasty settlement there are the remains of a smaller one also built on a grid pattern, but only excavated in small parts as its remains were found under a Middle Kingdom temple.13 Lahun14: This is the best known and most fully excavated planned settlement from the Middle Kingdom. The town lies at the entrance to the Fayum and was most likely built under king Senusret II. His pyramid is very close and the valley temple of the pyramid complex lies right next to the town. For this reason Lahun is often regarded as the classical pyramid town. One motive for building the town was surely for the

5. The Middle Kingdom

171

maintenance of the funerary cult of the pyramid valley temple that was part of the town.15 However, there is much more to Lahun than the status of a pyramid town. Papyri and seals found there document that Lahun functioned as a local centre. Building the pyramid of Amenemhat III at Hawara was organised from here.16 Wahsut: This is a town founded under Senusret III next to his funerary temple at South Abydos where this king may even have been buried. Only parts of the town have been excavated so far but these show one large house for the local governor and smaller mansions for other officials. So far only houses belonging to the local ruling class have been excavated. Houses of poorer people have not yet been uncovered.17 Thebes: At several points, excavations uncovered parts of Middle Kingdom houses, some of them once quite large. They show that even Thebes was at some point in the Middle Kingdom a city built on a grid pattern.18

3. End of provincial cemeteries As noted above, the cemeteries in the Qau–Badari region stopped being used on a large scale under Senusret I, a phenomenon also visible at other sites such as Sedment. At the latter place there are several quite richly equipped burial grounds dating to the First Intermediate Period and early Middle Kingdom, in contrast to the few graves so far excavated datable to the Middle Kingdom after Senusret I.19

Population movements While the evidence from burial customs is open to different interpretations, there is good evidence from settlement sites and textual evidence for population movements. The clearest signs of these movements are the new towns mentioned above. All these people in the newly founded towns and settlements must have lived somewhere else beforehand. There is also some textual evidence for these movements. In the biography of Sarenput I, found in his chapel within the shrine of Heqaib on Elephantine, it is mentioned that the official received from ‘his majesty’ ‘300 heads from Lower Egypt’. They seem to be men and women, as the writing of the hieroglyphs with the sign of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ suggests. The word ‘heads’ is most often used to refer to people of lower status20 and counted by head. They might be dependent on others. On the big annals stone of Amenemhat II found at Memphis, there is the report that troops destroyed two towns or fortresses with the name Iuai and Iasy, perhaps in southern Palestine. The list of loot also contains 1554 people. The exact figure might be symbolic (2 × 777) but in general it indicates that a large number of people were transferred to Egypt.21 In a further section of the stone, people are given as honours to certain officials and it is mentioned that some of them are given to the pyramid of the king Sekhem-Amenemhat, most likely as workforce.22 It seems possible that these were precisely the Asiatic people captured by the army before. Here meret-people are also mentioned and one wonders what happened to the Asiatic people after the pyramid was finished.

172

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Some further information on population movements can be found from control notes on stones of the pyramid of Senusret I at Lisht. They provide information on the workmen responsible for moving stone blocks and were written on them when the stones were deposited for a short time at a storage place.23 They would no longer have been visible when the pyramid was finished. The workmen were described as coming from different places. Most of them came from Lower Egypt, Sekhet-djau, the fourteenth Lower Egyptian province is often mentioned; others came from a place or a region called Rekhet in the Sixteenth Lower Egyptian nome. Few were from places in Upper Egypt. Others were just called ‘Lower Egyptians’ (bityw) and one wonders why their precise local origin is not specified.24 Little is known of the living and working conditions of these people. It is not known whether they came with their whole family or just as workers. However, the excavations at Giza, where an Old Kingdom workmen’s town was found, and the site at Qasr el-Sagha indicate that they were placed in simple barracks, several men in one room.25 Qasr el-Sagha is a settlement site in the Fayum. Here barrack-like buildings were excavated, most likely erected to house workmen.

4. ‘Overseer of the marshland dwellers’ The introduction of the title ‘overseer of the marshland dwellers’ (imy-r sxtyw) might indicate that the king aimed to bring people under his rule who before were perhaps just under loose state control. The position is only attested for officials at the royal court. Therefore, these officials were in charge of people that were for some reason of direct interest for the central authorities.26 The meaning of the word ‘marshland dweller’ (sxty) is disputed in Egyptology. It is sometimes simply translated as ‘farmers’.27 Quirke, however, argued that these were the people living at the edge of the cultivation on the sekhet fields, especially east and west of the Delta. They were perhaps not farmers but rather hunters and gatherers.28 However, there is no full agreement in Egyptology about the real meaning of ‘sekhet’. First, tomb owners are often shown hunting in the marshes and watching people working in the marshes, most likely the strip of land very close to the Nile not really suitable for agriculture. These marshes are indeed also called sekhet.29 Certain parts of Egypt were also called sekhet, because they were basically just marshlands. In the Eastern Delta, there is a region called Sekhet-Hor, ‘Marshland of Horus’.30 Indeed, the Eastern Delta is a marshy region. The Sekhet-Hemat (‘salt field’, the modern Wadi an-Natrun) is a depression near the Western Delta comprising a series of salt lakes. This is the homeland of the ‘peasant’ in the literary composition, ‘The Eloquent Peasant’, who himself is indeed called sekhty (marshland dweller) in the original Egyptian text. In the story he is on the way from that region to Herakleopolis to sell a range of products on the market there. These products include salt, natron, and other items, but no agricultural products. This might indeed demonstrate that the ‘marshland dwellers’ were not farmers, but people living at the edge of the cultivation in the Eastern Delta and in the Wadi

5. The Middle Kingdom

173

an-Natrun beside the Western Delta. However, it might be argued that he was a farmer but went on the market to sell other products. The people were making a living from certain raw materials these regions have to offer. Further marshland dwellers appear sporadically in texts and on monuments, for example, in some inscriptions on Sinai where they might have been employed as provisional workers. Most often they are not named and appear in a group of 30, such as in one inscription dated to year 4 of Amenemhat III (while almost 100 other people are named).31 In another inscription dated to year 40 of the same king32 and finally in one dated year 6 of his successor Amenemhat IV,33 several more appear. In other inscriptions 2034 and 43 appear.35 Only once is a marshland dweller mentioned by name there.36 Marshland dwellers do not appear in expedition inscriptions in Lower Nubia and the Wadu el-Hudi, a region with an abundance of comparable rock inscriptions, and one wonders whether the marshland dwellers in Sinai were mostly recruited from the Eastern Delta as the closest region with a higher population. Not surprisingly many Asiatic people also appear in the northern inscriptions, perhaps drawn to Sinai from South Palestine or from the Eastern Delta where many Asiatics settled from the late Middle Kingdom onwards.37 These marshland dwellers were also used for pyramid building. They appear on the control marks on blocks from the pyramid of king Senusret I at Lisht.38 Other references beside those just mentioned are rare. In one account found at Lahun, a group of them appears next to a group of Lower Egyptians (bityw).39 The appearance of the latter people might be a further indication that the marshland dwellers lived mainly in the Delta region. However, the title ‘steward of the sekhet fields’ also appears sporadically. The title is mainly attested in Upper Egypt and might simply indicate that at least some of the sekhty-people also come from there.40 Finally in Roman sources they might appear as the boukoloi. The latter are described as people living at the edge of the Delta and it seems that they were not only farmers, but rather hunters and gatherers, living somewhere at the edge of organised structures. In the second century AD there are several revolts of these people known both from later history writing and from contemporary sources.41 A comparable but rarer title is the ‘overseer of the Lower Egyptians’ (imy-r bityw). The designation is so far known from only three sources: a scarab, a stela, and a stone fragment.42 All attestations might even refer to the same person, Antef. One of the monuments, a stela, is dated under a king Senusret, without mentioning another name of the king. However, scarab seals with names and titles only appear in the late Twelfth Dynasty,43 so Antef most likely dates under Senusret III. The ‘Lower Egyptians’ (bityw) are also attested in about a dozen control notes on blocks of the pyramid of Senusret I at Lisht.44 Evidently these people were working at the pyramid of the king. The title ‘overseer of Lower Egyptians’ itself is therefore attested about 60 years later and might provide evidence that these people were systematically placed under one official. As the office is not well attested it might have been in use for a short period of time or even only for one large project, most likely under Senusret III. Nevertheless, it demonstrates the need for the central government to place a large number of people under central control.

174

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

5. Labour reorganisation In the late Middle Kingdom there appears in several documents an institution called ‘enclosure’ (xnrt) or ‘great enclosure’ (xnrt wr), which played an important part in administrating the workforce and organisation of labour in this period.45 It is hard to say when this institution was introduced. Officials with the title ‘overseer of the enclosure’ are already attested in the Eleventh Dynasty, but it is not always clear whether the ‘enclosure’ already had the later meaning or whether these people were simply ‘overseer of a fortress’, as ‘enclosure’ might also mean fortified place.46 There are indications that in the Eleventh Dynasty the title already had the meaning ‘overseer of the enclosure’ The main evidence is Djar, known from his Theban tomb chapel and dating under Mentuhetep II. The chapel is decorated with paintings and Djar is ‘overseer of the enclosure’, but also ‘royal sealer’.47 Therefore he belongs to the highest state officials, an official we would not expect to be just the ‘overseer of a fortress’. There are indications that the system of workforces was fully established under Senusret I. The main evidence is the stela48 with a biographical inscription from the ‘scribe of the king’s document’, Samonth. He reports several stages of his career which include the position of a ‘scribe of the big enclosure’ (zS n xnrt aA). For the following period there are in general three sets of evidence for this institution. They provide a general picture, although many questions of detail are still open. One of the highest officials at the royal court was the ‘overseer of the enclosure’, once even called the ‘great overseer of the enclosure’.49 The title and this official are mainly known from the late Middle Kingdom. These officials bear ranking titles which are reserved for the most important officials at the royal court and for some important local governors, perhaps for those with a special link to the royal court. Another important official is the ‘scribe of the great enclosure’. These officials did not belong to the highest level of ministers, but to the social and administrative level just under them. The title is one of the best attested from the period,50 confirming the importance of the institution they were working for. Finally the terms ‘enclosure’ and ‘great enclosure’ appear sporadically in several texts, most importantly in a papyrus now in the Brooklyn Museum (35.1446) and most likely coming from such a ‘great enclosure’. The exact difference between the ‘great enclosure’ and the ‘enclosure’ is not certain. However, there is evidence that there were several ‘enclosures’ in the whole country, while the ‘great enclosure’ was more an administrative term used for the whole organisation in general.51 William Hayes published the Brooklyn Museum 35.1446 papyrus relating to the ‘great enclosure’ and argued that this was a place where criminals had to work as punishment; hence he translated the term as ‘great prison’ or ‘prison’.52 However, there is no evidence that the ‘great enclosure’ was used for punishing people. Here again, one gets the impression that an author is projecting a custom of his own country on ancient Egypt. It will be shown that in the ‘great enclosure’ people worked under hard conditions. In the US prison farms are a practice53 and it seems that Hayes had them in mind while working on the papyrus.

5. The Middle Kingdom

175

The Brooklyn Papyrus is the most important document for our knowledge of the ‘great enclosure’ and reports the cases of about 80 fugitives from this institution. The document consists of several lists. At the beginning there is a name list of runaways in three columns, most of them men. They are mentioned together with their fathers (‘the son of Sobekaa, Nedjemib’), as if to ensure that they can be distinguished in case of identical names.54 Behind there appear names of towns or officials. It seems that the people in the list belonged to those mentioned in the latter column.55 Finally a profession is given, most often ‘farmer’.56 It remains uncertain whether this is their original job or whether this refers to their task in the ‘great enclosure’. Mainly men were working in the ‘great enclosure’, although in the Brooklyn Papyrus one woman is mentioned. Finally, it is recorded what happened to them. In case the officials could not get hold of them, the family was forced to work in the ‘great enclosure’. Beside this papyrus, not many texts refer to the ‘great enclosure’, but they confirm the impression that it was more an office, while the ‘enclosures’ were the actual workplaces. The ‘great enclosure’ appears in the Laments of Ipuwer: ‘See, the great enclosure is an open house, the wretched come and go into the great house’.57 A reference in the ‘Duties of the Vizier’ refers to criminal files, stored in the ‘great enclosure’.58 Other references to an ‘enclosure’ appear in the Lahun Papyri. There it is mentioned in a letter that it was situated at the ‘Mouth of the Lake of Sobek’,59 perhaps meaning the entrance to the Fayum in the immediate area of Lahun. On one document, the ‘singer’ Sattepihu and a ‘small one’ are mentioned as coming from that place. Both appear in a list of workmen and lower officials which should be sent, most likely to the writer of the letter. In a second letter, a ‘door keeper’ of the enclosure is mentioned.60 In sum, there was an important institution in the late Middle Kingdom, organising labour on some kind of corvée basis. The work was hard, as we have records of people running away. However, it remains unclear whether people had to work there on a regular basis or just when needed.

The office of providing people Besides the ‘enclosure’, there appears in sources of the late Middle Kingdom another institution most likely connected with the organisation of labour. This is the ‘office of providing people’.61 The office is not often attested but was clearly involved in organising labour and labour forces. The following list shows the main attestations of this institution. Small fragment of a papyrus found at Lahun (UC 32150A 5+8+4): ‘Completed … office of providing people for/of Khesef …’ There follows a list of food, only two lines preserved.62 Papyrus Boulaq 18 (the Thirteenth Dynasty palace account from Thebes) In one list the ‘office of providing people’ appears next to the ‘district of the head of the South’ and the ‘treasury as provider of bread and beer’ in a second list, next to the same institutions as provider of several types of grain.63

176

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 (the register of the runaways of the ‘great enclosure’) i. Copy of a letter dated to year 6 of an unknown king made in the office of the herald of the southern city. The vizier Ankhu issues a decree for the ‘overseer of the fields’ in whose home (Xnw) are some troublemakers who are taking people; the vizier orders to take new people from the ‘office of providing people’ to replace them.64 ii. One family was handed over to the ‘office of providing people’ because they were involved in some incident, perhaps a crime. Stela of Sobekhetep IV, found in Karnak temple (the king is listing donations to the temple) The ‘office of providing people’ appears next to the ‘office of the vizier’ and the ‘treasury’ as provider for offerings. In a further context an ‘office of providing people of the district of the head of the South’ is mentioned. Here it provides meret-people for serving the great offering (aabet).65 The ‘office of providing people’ in titles: i. ‘Scribe of the office of providing people’. It appears twice on the stela Louvre C. 249 and on a stela in Leyden no. 30.66 ii. ‘Scribe for the seal of the office of providing people’: the title appears in a legal document found in Lahun dating to year 29 of Amenemhat III. The title holder appears as somebody who draws up a document about the transfer of people.67 iii. ‘Chamberlain of the office of providing people’. It appears again on the stela Louvre C. 249.68   iv. ‘Bodyguard of the office of providing people’. It appears only once on a stela in Cairo.69

It seems clear from the translation of this institution that it mainly dealt with workforces. This is confirmed by several references. On the stela of Sobekhetep IV the office supplies meret-people. In the letter in Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 people are taken from the office to replace others. In the same papyrus there is a reference that people were sent to the office. The references on the stela of Sobekhetep IV and in Papyrus Boulaq 18 provide evidence that the office could supply food. Title holders within the institution are not well attested, though there are four ‘scribes’. Certainly more officials were working there, but they may not necessarily have had ‘office of providing people’ in their title and would therefore be impossible to identify in the sources. In the Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 the ‘office of providing people’70 appears in a close relation to the ‘great enclosure’ and one wonders whether they are part of the same institution. One option is that the ‘great enclosure’ was basically the archive and the administrative head of the late Middle Kingdom labour system, while the ‘office of providing people’ was the actual office collecting the workmen and assigning them to officials and institutions, such as the Karnak temple, or to the ‘enclosures’ in the whole country.

6. Reorganisation of the provinces There is good evidence for the reorganisation of the country in terms of provincial administration. On the White Chapel of Senusret I at Karnak, there appears a list of

5. The Middle Kingdom

177

the Egyptian provinces with measurements and the place where the measurement tool was stored.71 The list might indicate some special interest of the king in the provinces, but it might simply establish the claim that the king was the ruler of all of Egypt. From the reign of the king at least two boundary stelae are known bearing his name, demonstrating a further interest from the central government in matters of provincial administration.72 It seems that in different parts of Egypt new lines of governors were installed. Perhaps the best evidence for this comes from the Wadjet province. Here the line of Middle Kingdom governors starts around the reign of Senusret I. Another example is the line of governors on Elephantine where the Middle Kingdom line also starts under Senusret I.73

7. Temple building A connected point is the extensive temple-building programme under Senusret I. Old local temples, often mud brick structures, were rebuilt in stone and more fully decorated with reliefs and inscriptions.74 It might be argued that, with this building programme, religious and administrative matters in the provinces were brought under the direct control of the central government.75 This temple building project had already started under the kings of the Eleventh Dynasty, but they concentrated on temples in Upper Egypt, south of Abydos. Only Senusret I seems to have renovated all the temples around the country systematically. Richard Bussmann concludes that the temples became the domain of the king, taking them away from the provincial milieu.76 The temples were now fully under central control. This was perhaps not only an act of piety but also a way of taking over provincial affairs. It has been noted several times that the kings after Senusret I did not build many temples.77 Clearly this was no longer needed as local temples had already been placed under central control in the reign of Senusret I. Therefore, the kings of the later Twelfth Dynasty and Thirteenth Dynasty concentrated on their pyramids, mortuary temples, and minor additions to existing temples.

8. Famine In year 25 of king Senusret I a famine is attested in Egypt. There are only two references, one on a stela (UCL 14333)78 belonging to Mentuhetep, governor of Armant, and the other in the tomb of the governor Amenemhat at Beni Hasan.79 Both sources proudly state that these governors helped the people in their provinces. There is no record of this famine in Qau and Badari, but the province is between Armant and Beni Hasan and it seems likely that the famine also devastated the Wadjet province. According to the governor Mentuhetep, the famine was caused by a low flood.80 Basically the governor blames nature as cause of this disaster. However, the low Nile flood might have gone together with the reorganisation of the country at about this time. Several times in human history it is documented that the reorganisation of a country created problems with food supply, leading to disturbing famines. An extreme example is India at the

178

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

end of the nineteenth century where the British reorganised the agricultural sector in favour of cotton production. The results were several devastating famines in which several million people died.81 One final point should be added. In the temple at Tod are preserved the remains of a longer text datable under Senusret I.82 This inscription mentions the looting of a temple, providing written evidence for some kind of social unrest in that reign. Detlef Franke wonders whether the temple pillage happened at the time of the famine.83 Starvation seems to be common and is mentioned several times in texts, mainly of the First Intermediate Period. Famines are mentioned in biographical inscriptions of high state officials, most often in a context where it is made clear that the official prevented any harm to the people for whom he was responsible. It has been argued that they represent stereotyped phrases with little historical value. This might be partly true, but the references only make sense if there was the fear of real starvation. In the Heqanakht letters it is even said (Letter II): ‘Look, they’ve started to eat people here’.84 The letters written by Heqanakht, a mortuary priest, to his household are not official documents, and therefore we would not expect any official disinformation. Nevertheless, the phrase remains open to several interpretations, and ‘started to eat people’ might be just a graphic way of describing a bad situation. Our limited knowledge of everyday ancient Egyptian language makes everything possible.

9. Changes in material culture Another important point is art and craft production. Here again important changes are visible, which again seem most likely to be the result of centralisation at the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty. Indeed, the early Twelfth Dynasty under Senusret I seems to be a major turning point in the material culture of the country. This change has long gone unrecognised as Egyptologists, when studying material culture, very often focus on art production. Here, big changes are visible in certain periods while in other periods they are not so dramatic. One example is the portraits of Senusret III and Amenemhat III. They no longer show a young ageless king, but instead a face with furrows and signs of age. Egyptologists quickly connected this new type of royal representation with political changes under these rulers.85 In contrast, changes in art and craft production in the early Twelfth Dynasty are not so fundamental. They are not often connected in research with important changes in society. However, a closer look at daily life objects used by most levels of society provides a different picture. Here changes are visible that might be connected with political changes. The pottery style of the classical Middle Kingdom from the time of Senusret I onwards is markedly different to that used in the First Intermediate Period up to the early Twelfth Dynasty. Dorothea Arnold demonstrated that a new pottery style appeared first under Senusret I at Lisht and spread within a short time across the whole country. The pottery in Lisht in the first years of his reign was still made in First Intermediate Period tradition, but later new forms appear that are almost identical to those found at sites such as Harageh or Riqqeh.86 Bettina Bader discussed the pottery found at Sedment and came to the same conclusion. She even wondered whether there existed a ‘controlled organisation power that also reached to pottery making’.87

5. The Middle Kingdom

179

A similar observation can be made with the development of coffin styles. Before the reign of Amenemhat I, coffins were quite localised in production. Almost every cemetery had its own style.88 Coffins at Gebelein were decorated on the outside with figures. Coffins in Asyut had double or even triple text bands on the outside and those from Akhmim often show an offering list on the front side.89 In the early late Old Kingdom to the early Middle Kingdom a simple coffin type (Willems’ type I) was the most common form in many parts of Egypt. This type shows one text line on all outer sides and two wedjat eyes on the front.90 However, in the reign of Senusret I it was replaced in most parts of Egypt by coffin type IV, which has an additional four columns on the long sides and two columns on the short ends.91 In detail coffins are still different from cemetery to cemetery, but the differences seem now to be quite minimal. A further indication is the development of amulets. Amulets are very common in the First Intermediate Period and especially the cemeteries around Qau and Badari, as we have seen. There are dozens of different types, especially animals and body parts made in carnelian, though other materials are also common in this period. The rich variety of amulets disappears in the early Middle Kingdom, to be replaced by a markedly limited range of types.92

10. Changes in society It seems that several institutions well known from the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period did not ‘survive’ the early Twelfth Dynasty. One interesting title is HqA Hwt – ‘estate administrator’.93 The title is well attested in the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period and plays an important part in the discussion on how the countryside was organised by the central government. The title is still sporadically attested in the early Middle Kingdom for lower officials, but no longer in the late Middle Kingdom, when its meaning seems to have changed.94 Attestations in the Middle Kingdom: i. Hetep on a bowl found on Elephantine, dated to year 46 of an unnamed king.95 ii. Hetepkhnum in the Heqanakht papers, in an account dated to year 8 of an unnamed king; early Middle Kingdom96 iii. Iqery is depicted in the tomb of the local governor Amenemhat in Beni Hasan.97 The tomb dates under Senusret I. Iqery is shown next to two offering bearers in front of Hetepet, wife of the tomb owner.  iv. The title appears several times in the ‘Eloquent Peasant’ One further interesting point is the disappearance of the word nedjes (nDs), ‘young man’. This word has played an important part in the discussion of First Intermediate Period society and is sometimes taken as evidence for some kind of free citizen.98 Oleg Berlev99 was able to show, and Detlef Franke confirmed, that this interpretation is not really based on any firm evidence. Instead, the word appears in several inscriptions of the First Intermediate Period in two contexts; one to describe an individual, the other with references to a group. Often an official describes himself as nedjes,

180

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

as for example the ‘overseer of troops’ Nesmonth, who is an ‘able nedjes in the art of warfare’. On the other hand the nedjes people appear in groups as vulnerable.100 Therefore a translation as ‘young man’ seems most suitable; the individual is the ‘brave lad’ while in the group he is the youth in the mass of defenceless people. The word is no longer used in texts after Senusret I. Does this reflect a social change? Is this just a change in vocabulary, or do the types of texts using this word disappear? Arkadiy Demidchik discussed several other terms common in the First Intermediate Period, but which disappeared in the reign of Senusret I. These include abet, often translates as ‘family’,101 wehyt, also a term for a group of closely related people, and shuau (SwAw), poor people. Demidchik sees the disappearance of these words as being connected to social changes under the king. He makes clear that the terms themselves may not have disappeared from the language but the words were no longer used in inscriptions. He wonders whether this has to do with a shift from inscriptions of the First Intermediate Period, relating to more private matters, to inscriptions under Senusret I and after, focusing much more on the king and the relation of the officials to the king.102 Indeed, those stelae where officials describe themselves as self-made men (compare pp. 156–157) disappear in the early Twelfth Dynasty. It remains hard to determine whether these types of people disappeared or whether this type of text was no longer in vogue.

The late Middle Kingdom The reign of king Senusret III marked the beginning of the late Middle Kingdom. The period saw a further step in centralising the country. Changes are visible in all parts of Egyptian society and culture.103 In funerary culture104 most coffins no longer show any interior decoration. The tradition of placing long religious texts on coffins all but disappears. Another drastic change in burial customs is the disappearance of wooden models showing food production, workshops, boats, and offering bearers. These changes indicate that there were new developments in the belief in the afterlife, or at least changes in the view of how burials should be best equipped. Other innovations strongly indicate that there were measures taken by the central government for tighter control of commodities and people. First, around the time of Senusret III, the first scarab seals with the titles and names of people appear.105 They show that sealing goods became increasingly important. Scarab seals with names and titles do not appear often in the Twelfth Dynasty, but in the Thirteenth Dynasty they are very common and demonstrate a further tightening of control. In the late Middle Kingdom double naming also became a regular practice, especially in administrative documents.106 Administrative titles now also became more focused. In the early Middle Kingdom there were officials with the title ‘steward’. In the late Middle Kingdom, this title was often very precise, such as ‘steward who counts the cattle’ or ‘steward who counts the boats’.107 Furthermore, strings of titles for higher officials are now much shorter in their inscriptions. While the officials in the early Middle Kingdom often have long title strings, indicating different tasks and responsibilities, the late Middle Kingdom

5. The Middle Kingdom

181

officials most often had just one function expressed on a monument. Again, that may point to a tighter control of officials.108 The one change that was recognised by early Egyptologists of the twentieth century is the disappearance of the local governors.109 The series of big governors’ tombs in Upper and Middle Egypt seems to stop under Senusret III. In discussing the fall of the local governors, Qau plays an important part. In the publication of the German excavation at the governors’ tombs, all available material for the governors was evaluated. Hans Steckeweh noted that there is a stela of a governor Wahka dated under Amenemhat III and identified him with the Wahka known from the latest and biggest tomb at Qau.110 This provided his evidence that at least one big governor’s tomb was still built under Amenemhat III. This has been quoted repeatedly by later researchers.111 In very general terms this evidence certainly does not imply that Wahka at Qau was an exception. If Senusret III destroyed the power of local governors, it was not an act within a short time, but a process over a longer period. The last big rock cut tombs at Meir, Beni Hasan, and el-Bersheh are all more-or-less finished monuments.112 There is no sign that the governors buried there suddenly lost power or were removed by force. Franke evaluated the evidence and drew attention to the governor Khnumhetep II at Beni Hasan and his son Khnumhetep.113 The latter is known from monuments outside Beni Hasan and it seems certain that he followed a career at the royal court. He was sent there on several missions, became ‘high steward’ and finally even vizier. He was buried in a mastaba next to the pyramid of Senusret III and was in office under that king and perhaps even under Amenemhat III. Franke argued that the policy of Senusret III was to take the sons of local governors to the royal court. There they made their career and were therefore excluded from succeeding their fathers in the home province. However, there are some flaws in the argument.114 Local governors are indeed still well attested after Senusret III. They just no longer commissioned the huge rock-cut tombs. Furthermore, it seems that Khnumhetep III was not the eldest son of Khnumhetep II, in which case we would not expect him to follow his father in his office. It seems common practice that second sons left home to make their career somewhere else.115 The successor of Khnumhetep II is known to have been another son also called Khnumhetep (IV), who built his tomb at Beni Hasan.116 However, the latter remained unfinished, and it might be argued that he lost resources and power while he was in office. It seems that something else is going on. Local governors, but also other officials, lost resources under Senusret III and were no longer able to build the grand style rock tombs. Their burials became more modest and are therefore often no longer visible in the archaeological record. Furthermore, it seems possible that the governors chose new burial grounds. The governors’ tombs of the early Middle Kingdom are often placed quite apart from the local towns, evidently in order to build these tombs in a dramatic position within the landscape, best visible at Qau. With the move of the governors, their officials also moved closer to the towns and their burials too disappear from the archaeological record. Qau presents the fortunate situation that

182

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

several local governors of the late Middle Kingdom are attested on other objects, such as seals, offering tables and statues (see below). Against Franke’s idea that people were taken from the local courts to the royal residence, it might be argued that there is not much evidence for other similar examples. Just one other possible case is known from our sources. the ‘chamberlain of the bureau of the treasurer’ Sasatet.117 He perhaps came from the governor’s family at Hutihyt, the capital of the Third Lower Egyptian province (although his name indicates Elephantine as his birthplace). On his stela, dated to year one of Amenemhat III, there also appears the ‘daughter of the governor of Hut-ihyt’, with the name It (or Iq?). The relation of this local woman to Sasatet is not stated, but her appearance on the stela shows there were connections between a court official and a provincial governor’s family.118

The local governors in the Wadjet province In the third millennium BC, the Wadjet province did not provide much evidence of the monumental art known from Ancient Egypt. The only exception is the group of Old Kingdom rock cut tombs at Hemamieh, but they are relatively modest. The picture changes in the Middle Kingdom. In the Twelfth Dynasty several large tombs for the local governors were cut into the rocks north of the town.119 They rank among the largest private tombs built in the Middle Kingdom. The three biggest belong to ‘governors’ and ‘overseers of priests’ (HAty-a imy-r Hmw-nTr) Wahka I, Ibu, and Wahka II. A fourth, slightly smaller tomb is for the ‘governor’ Sobekhetep. All tombs were found already heavily looted and destroyed. Their exact dating and the sequence of the Middle Kingdom governors therefore remain problematic. None of the governors is directly linked to a royal name. The three larger governor tombs were all cut into the cliffs along the same line. At the edge of the cultivation was some kind of gateway; this is partly preserved for the tomb of Wahka I (Fig. 75), while it is gone for the others. Little can be said about its overall structure. The foundations are made of mud bricks. Behind the gateway was a causeway, again mainly made of mud bricks with some stone paving going up to the cult chapel of the tomb proper. The cult chapels were carved into the rock and had an entrance courtyard with columns at the back. In this court was a staircase leading up to a smaller columned hall. There followed a second hall with several side chambers; the central rear chamber was presumably, as at other sites, the location for offering to the statue of the deceased. The burial chambers were underground, reached by a shaft. At least one of the burial chambers discovered by Schiaparelli was decorated with Coffin Texts. He brought the chamber to Turin but did not report in which tomb it was found.120 Each of these tombs had some special architectural features. The tomb of Wahka II is the largest and most elaborate with three cult chapels at the back (Figs 76–7). Its causeway is the longest, incorporating a bend with an additional gateway. In general plan, the three big tombs resemble royal funerary complexes of the Old Kingdom. Petrie compared them with Nubian temples.121

5. The Middle Kingdom

183

Figure 75. Tomb of Wahka I (plan, author)

In the burial chambers were found the sarcophagi belonging to these governors. The limestone sarcophagus of Ibu122 is decorated with an elaborate palace façade and so far has no parallel in the Middle Kingdom. The tombs were richly equipped with statues, some of them carved out of the rocks.123 The chapels were decorated with fine reliefs surviving only in small fragments. In the tomb of Wahka II paintings were also recorded. The ceiling of the great hall in this tomb was painted too and shows a great variety of different patterns arranged as on a chessboard.124 The wall paintings here are typical of tombs of the reigns of Senusret III and Amenemhat III, showing women at work and fertility figures. Similar paintings were found at Meir in the tomb of Ukhkotep IV and are to be connected with new religious beliefs of the late Twelfth Dynasty.125 The tomb of Sobekhetep is the smallest,126 through still a monument on a large scale. No causeway is so far known. It was decorated with paintings, none of which are yet published. The name of Sobekhetep was copied by Petrie from the wall painting. A fragment of an offering table bears his name too.127 The date and sequence of the Middle Kingdom governors remains a problem.128 Wahka II had a son with the name Senusret-ankh.129 Senusret in this name is written within a cartouche and clearly therefore refers to a king, but it is not known whether it is Senusret I, II or III. Therefore the dating of the governors rests mainly on stylistic observations of the reliefs and sculptures found. The tombs of Wahka I and Ibu (I) are certainly the earlier ones. In particular the statue fragments found in the tomb of Ibu (I) are datable under Amenemhat II and belong to the finest examples of Middle Kingdom private sculpture,130 perhaps made in a workshop which also produced royal sculpture, as Biri Fay argued.131 Dorothea Arnold comes to a similar dating but sees a local workshop at work.132 Ibu was the son of a certain woman called Hetepuy. His father is not known. Wahka I dates to about the same time, but the sequence of the governors is not

184

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Figure 76. Painting from tomb of Wahka II (Petrie 1930, pl. xxv)

5. The Middle Kingdom

185

Figure 77. Painting from tomb of Wahka II (Petrie 1930, pl. xxviii)

clear. His mother was called Henu, as indicated by the fragment of a false door found in his tomb. His father was perhaps a man called Nakht(i).133 Nakht is not attested by a separate tomb, but he is known from a wooden coffin lid and the filiations of his sons.134 On the coffin lid he is simply called ‘governor’ (HAty-a). It was found in a tomb chamber within the tomb of Ibu.135 He might have been in office after Wahka I and Ibu (I). Wahka II had the biggest tomb, but not much else is known about him. His mother was a woman called Hetepuy.136 In Stockholm there is a stela showing a Wahka, begotten of Nakht and dated by a cartouche of Amenemhat III.137 The stela might belong to Wahka II, indicating that his father was called Nakht. However, it is also possible that the stela belongs to a third Wahka, as Nakht on the stela seems to refer to a woman.138 Nakht is perhaps also known from a stela now in the British Museum. There, there is another governor with the name Nakht. On stylistic grounds the stela belongs to a workshop at Qau.139 Nakht is here just called ‘governor’. There the mother of the governor Nakht is also called Nakhti. His wife is called Netnub.140

186

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Figure 78. Two examples of smaller rock cut tombs, perhaps belonging to officials working for the local governors (Petrie 1930, pl. xvi)

Finally, there is a further governor with the name Wahka. Wahka III (or IV) was the son of an official called Dedusobek and his wife Neferhetep. He is known from a statue141 and a stela. The style of the statue is late Twelfth Dynasty.142 The exact date of Sobekhetep, known from the smallest of the four monument tombs, remains unknown. Further governors are no longer attested with their tombs, but from a range of other objects. Nemtynakht appears on an offering table,143 while the names Ibu (II), Hetep, and Hetepuy are attested on seals with the title ‘mayor of Tjebu’ and ‘mayor of/in the Wadjet-nome’.144 Some of these governors most likely date to the Thirteenth Dynasty, providing evidence that the administration in the province went on without any major break into the Second Intermediate Period and beyond. Near the big rock cut tombs of the governors are some smaller ones most likely belonging to officials working for the governors, although the exact date of the tombs remains unknown.145 Some Middle Kingdom finds in these tombs indicate that they once belonged to people of a higher social level. In the low desert, Tomb 1453 even yielded the inscribed fragment of a canopic jar.146 The latter burial was cut into the rocks close to the tombs of the governors, and also contained small model pottery and broad collar end pieces. These objects are evidently items especially made for a burial and not taken from daily life. This is one of the few examples of a burial of a person of the ruling class. Similar tombs with a high number of objects belonging to a funerary industry are well known from other Middle Kingdom cemeteries such as at Asyut, Meir, and Beni Hasan.147 Here were found the tombs of lower officials ­working for the governors. Such burials are largely missing from Qau but 1453 certainly belongs to this social level even though no name or title has survived from this tomb. Other similar tombs must have been close to this one, but it seems that they were heavily looted or are not yet excavated. Just a

5. The Middle Kingdom

187

few occasional small objects indicate the presence of once richly equipped burials of this social level.

Evidence from stelae There are more than 30 stelae known from Abydos set up by people from Tjebu and providing us with at least a glimpse into titles and families in the town at the social level just under the local governors.148 Abydos was the main centre for worshipping the Underworld god Osiris. In the Middle Kingdom many people from all around the country set up stelae, statues, and offering tables and often even small chapels at Abydos to be close to the god and to receive some of the offerings made to him. It remains a point of discussion what type of people went to Abydos to place a stela or even a whole chapel there. Some scholars have envisaged some kind of pilgrimage to Abydos, made by many people who could afford it.149 More recent research argues that most of the people placing a monument at Abydos were officials living there or sent on a mission at or beyond this place.150 The substantial, nearly continuous, royal building work would have brought a steady stream of many officials, artists, and craftsmen to the town. A similar situation is visible on the island of Elephantine where a small chapel for the local saint Heqaib was augmented by shrines, statues, and stelae set up by different officials. The people setting up these stelae were local officials, but there were also people on mission in the region. Elephantine was the most southernmost town of Egypt proper, and therefore there were officials passing this place constantly on their way to Nubia or working in the quarries at Aswan, across the river. There is hardly any evidence that officials not working here set up a stela or shrine. A slightly different picture is visible in Edfu, another town in southern Upper Egypt. Here the locale saint Isi was worshipped, and again there are many stelae set up by officials around his tomb. However, almost all these stelae belong to local people. There were not many bigger royal projects at Edfu, so the interest in Isi remained almost exclusively on a local level.151 The stelae assigned to Qau are listed by Alexander Ilin-Tomich:152 Abydos stela153 Berlin 21822154 BM 143 BM 363 Cairo CG 20021 Cairo CG 20022 Cairo CG 20043 Cairo CG 20112 Cairo CG 20164 Cairo CG 20180 Cairo CG 20193

Cairo CG 20200 Cairo CG 20206 Cairo CG 20227 Cairo CG 20236 Cairo CG 20243 Cairo CG 20245 Cairo CG 20268 Cairo CG 20298 Cairo CG 20301 Cairo CG 20303 Cairo CG 20306

188 Cairo CG 20313 Cairo CG 20316 Cairo CG 20342 Cairo CG 20431 Cairo CG 20549 Cairo CG 20550 Cairo CG 20580 Cairo CG 20584 Cairo CG 20588 Cairo CG 20595 Cairo CG 20599 Cairo CG 20681

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt Cairo CG 20753 Chicago Field Museum 31672 Leiden F.1926/8.2 (statue) Leipzig 5128 (Fig. 78)155 Lyon H 1576156 Marseille 230 Petrie, Memphis I, pl. IV Rodin 1305157 Stockholm MM 32004158 Stockholm NME 59159 Turin 1547

Figure 79. Stela in Leipzig inv. no 5128 (author, stela lost in WWII, from photograph courtesy of Dietrich Raue and Kerstin Seidel)

5. The Middle Kingdom

189

Four stelae mention a local governor: these are Nakht, Nehy, Wahka (II?), and another Wahka (III?).160 One other stela belongs to the ‘deputy governor of Tjebu’ Ibu, whose father had the same title.161 This post may be just under the ‘governor’ in the administration. Many of these stelae were found at Abydos, and the question arises why they were placed there. Looking at all the people with titles on the stelae, it becomes clear that these were involved in some building project at Abydos. On one stela appears the ‘overseer of builders’ Wahka.162 On another one appears the ‘lector priest’ and ‘draughtsman’ Ibi,163 while the ‘draughtsman’ (zS qdwt) Ini appears on a further stela.164 On stela Cairo CG 20431 appear two ‘overseers of craftsmen’. On a further stela appears the ‘carpenter’ Sobekhetep, whose father Wahka was also ‘carpenter.165 Evidently all these titles can be directly linked to building activity, most likely at Abydos although no texts explicitly state this on the stelae. For other officials this link to building work does not seem so evident but can be inferred. The most common title in Middle Kingdom Egypt was ‘steward’ (imy-r pr), perhaps better translated as ‘administrator’. People with this title appear on several of the stelae assigned to Tjebu.166 An essential source for understanding the context of the latter title and on these stelae from Qau, are the Reisner papyri. They were found in a tomb at Naga ed-Deir not far from Abydos. These are four papyrus scrolls with building accounts dating to the reign of king Senusret I. In these papyri the ‘stewards’ play an important role and it seems that they were the main officials organising the building work there. In the context of the Abydos stelae of Tjebu people, it might also be assumed that they went to Abydos mainly to organise the work. Furthermore, several people appear with the title ‘overseer of the serfs’ (imy-r mrt).167 They were most likely responsible for organising the workforce (on the meret people see p. 119). It is not entirely clear who was the main person in charge of all these people that were going to Abydos. They might have joined in with officials and workmen from other parts of the country so that the main leader is not visible on the Tjebu stelae. However, one wonders whether the above mentioned ‘deputy governor’ was in charge. Another person of high standing was the ‘treasurer’ (imy-r xtmt). A ‘treasurer’ Sobekhetep appears on two stelae.168 The ‘treasurer’ Wahka is mentioned on another one.169 ‘Treasurers’ belonged to the staff of many local courts. At the royal court they had a very high position and are often involved in royal building works.170 A similar situation might be expected at local courts. From an inscription in a tomb at Beni Hasan belonging to the local governor Khnumhetep (II) we learn that the ‘treasurer’ there was in charge of building the governor’s tomb.171 This might lead to the conclusion that the ‘treasurers’ were leading the enterprises at Abydos. However, perhaps the governors were the officials in charge of the workforce from Tjebu, as they are attested there on stelae too. A governor with the name Ibu is attested on seal impressions at Wahsut, at Abydos South, providing further evidence for connections between Tjebu and Abydos.172 In general terms, most of the stelae were set up by one official with a title and mention and depict several family members. Therefore on most of them only the

190

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

stela owner bears a title. A few show wider groups of lower officials;173 in these cases perhaps the individuals could not afford their own stela and so several of them commissioned a joint monument. These group stelae are typical of the late Middle Kingdom, the time after Senusret II, while family stelae are still common at the same time. These family stelae also sometimes provide an idea of the households of these lower officials. Indeed on two of them ‘female serfs’ (Hmwt) appear, and on one stela an ‘Asiatic woman’ (see p.  206). One ‘nurse’ called Neferyt appears on these stelae and it seems clear that she was regarded as part of the family.174 This is also visible on other stelae, where nurses appear often together with the core family. Certain names such as Wahka, Ibu, or Sobekhetep are very common at Qau. This makes it extremely complicated to identify the same person on different monuments. Even if the same name and title appear on two different monuments, the identification often remains uncertain. The large number of stelae from Qau at Abydos is not comparable with other local centres. Not many stelae from Abydos can be assigned to other places in Middle Egypt (Fig. 80). The only exceptions are the royal residence in the north and Thebes, both places with a strong royal presence and the presence of many important officials. Stelae set up by or for a woman are rare. The Abydos stela CG 20316 is one of the few examples. It belongs to the ‘lady of the house’ Dedetsobek, begotten of Meryt Ini. Stela Cairo CG 20549 is of special interest as it depicts a extended family and can be taken as example of the problems a modern researcher faces with the data. The stela belongs to the ‘steward’ Wahka begotten of Hetepuy and his father, the ‘follower’175 (Smsw) Wahkaemweskhet (read: Wah-ka-em-wes-khet – ‘Wahka is in the broad hall’), begotten of Muty. Wahka is shown at the top of the stela on the left side, occupying the main position. In front of him there is an offering table and an ‘Asiatic’ woman, also called Wahka,176 preparing the offerings. Wahkaemweskhet is depicted on the right side (Fig. 81). He is sitting on a chair and holds a flail. Behind him stands his wife Hetepuy. As already mentioned, the wider family of Wahka is also depicted on the stela. The relations between the people are expressed in terms such as ‘his son’, ‘his daughter’, ‘his brother’. Nevertheless, it is hard to reconstruct a family tree since ‘son’ could mean ‘son’, but it also could mean ‘grandson’. Furthermore, it is often not possible to decide whether ‘his’ (son, daughter, or whatever) refers to the main person on the stela or to another person mentioned. On stela Cairo CG 20549 the main person is Wahka, but the reference point for the family members seems to be mainly Wahkaemweskhet. The mother of the latter is called Muty in the filliation. Muty is also depicted on the stela with the caption ‘his mother Muty’. Evidently ‘his’ refers to Wahkaemweskhet and one wonders whether ‘his’ always refers to him and not to Wahka, albeit Wahka is the main person. Several of Wahka’s family members had positions at the local court. Another Wahka, most likely a brother of Wahkaemweskhet, was ‘treasurer’, another one, Wahkaaa, ‘keeper of clothing’.177 Of some further special interest are several members of the household that were most likely some kind of servants. Five women are called ‘Asiatic’,178 and four ‘servants’ (Hmt). There is

5. The Middle Kingdom

191

Figure 80. Stela with people from Qau, found at Abydos (Petrie 1903, pl. xxxi (top left))

some discussion in Egyptology about the meaning and position of the titles ‘servant’ and ‘Asiatic’. The Asiatic women on the stela mentioned have purely Egyptian names. One of them is called Wahka and one wonders whether she is named after Wahka, the stela owner. She is indeed shown in front of him preparing the offerings at an

192

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Figure 81. The family of Wahkaemweskhet (boxes with dashed lines = woman; author)

offering table. The ‘Asiatic’ woman Hetepuy may likewise have been named after the wife of Wahkaemweskhet. From other monuments it is clear that a large number of women in the Middle Kingdom were labelled ‘(female) servant’. Strangely there seems to be no male word ‘servant’. However, the designation ‘king’s servant’ appears in lists, often together with ‘(female) servants’, and it appears most likely that ‘king’s servant’ is the male equivalent of ‘(female) servant’. From several sources it is clear that these people were dependant on others. The most important source for this is Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 which bears on the back a contract of transfer of people.179 Ninety-five people were transferred, many of them labelled as ‘servant’ (Hmt), ‘king’s servant’ (Hm-niswt), or ‘Asiatic’. No one person was called both ‘servant’ and ‘Asiatic’. As the papyrus documents a transfer of people, Hayes, who published the document, regards Hmt and Hm-niswt as ‘slave’.180 In the Brooklyn papyrus, both Asiatics and servants can have occupations. Three male servants are ‘home master’ (Hry-pr), five are farmers (iHwti) and there is one sandalmaker (Tbw). Female servants have a wider range of occupations. There are two ‘weavers’ (DA sSr), one hairdresser (nSt), two gardeners (kArt) and one cosmetician (zSt n r.s).181 ‘Servant’ was evidently not a job description but most likely a social status. Tjebu does not appear often in other sources of the Middle Kingdom. In the Reisner papyri the town is mentioned as a destination or source for mud bricks.182 In the Semna despatches, copies of letters from the Nubian fortress Semna, found in a Theban tomb, a ‘warrior of Tjebu, Rensi’s son Senu’ is mentioned.183 The despatch dates to the reign of Amenemhat III. It was written in the fortress Khesef-Mediau, which is today known as Serra-East in Lower Nubia, a short distance south of Abu Simbel.184 Evidently a person from Tjebu was on military duty in Nubia under Amenemhat III.

Nubians in the Wadjet province At the southern border of Egypt, foreigners continually tried to enter the country. The affairs at the Egyptian Nubian border are well known from the Semna despatches. One of these letters reports that two Medjau men, three Medjau women and children came asking whether they could work in Egypt. The Medjau people were hunters and gatherers living in the eastern desert of Nubia. They were asked about the conditions

5. The Middle Kingdom

193

in the desert but were sent back there even though the desert was ‘dying of hunger’.185 Evidently they were facing death in the desert. Other letters are not so bleak and report on goods exchange between Nubia and Egypt. A similar picture appears on the Semna stela found on the border with Nubia at the fortress of Semna and set up under king Senusret III. The inscriptions on this monument report that Nubians are allowed to cross the border in order to trade, but not to settle in Egypt.186 Nevertheless, there is good written and archaeological evidence for Nubians and Medjau coming to Egypt and living there. Nubians appear in inscriptions often in lower positions, but there are also Nubian women at the royal court.187 The Medjau people may also be visible in the archaeological record all over Egypt, including in the Wadjet province where remains of Nubian settlements and burials were found. Their burials are known as ‘pan-graves’ in Egyptology (Fig. 82). When their burials were first encountered in excavations, they appeared as round, not very deep holes in the ground superficially resembling ‘pans’.188 The burials were first described by Flinders Petrie in his excavation report on the cemeteries at Abadiya and Hu.189 When preserved, the superstructures of these burials consist of stone circles. It seems clear that these people lived for a long time in Egypt and might have used at least some cemeteries over several generations. There are some difficulties in placing these people in a specific chronological order within the Middle Kingdom. Their burials do not often contain datable objects. Furthermore, so far it has not been possible to see a development in style of their pottery.190 Petrie first argued that the pan-grave people came from Libya. However, there is now enough evidence to indicate that they most likely came from the eastern deserts, although they are mostly just known from sites along the Nile, in Upper Egypt, and in Nubia.191 One further piece of evidence is the common use of the Nerita shell. This shell appears in the Red Sea and is well attested in connection with pan-grave people in Qau and Badari.192 The pan-grave culture, especially the pottery, is in many ways Nubian.193 The pottery is often decorated with rough patterns of parallel incised lines. Most vessels are bowls with a round foot; others are plain with a dark rim at the top (Fig. 96). Other typical burial goods are beads, most likely worn as necklaces. Small pan-grave cemeteries were found at two places in the Wadjet province. One such is cemetery 1300. It lies north of the other Egyptian cemeteries at Qau and apart from the cultivation, more into the desert. Only eight graves are recorded in the publication. The other cemetery (5400) was found at the south end of Badari, close to Hemamieh. It contained only 20 burials which were typical of the pan-grave people. The graves were round holes and there was not much pottery; many burials did not even contain one pot. The most common objects were personal adornments, mainly beads but also several silver earrings. Many bodies still had the remains of skin wrappings. A copper axe was found in one tomb (5462) and animal horns were occasionally placed into the burial. The deceased were always in a contracted position. The remains of settlements belonging to these people were found too. Sadly the excavation report is very terse on this and no plans are presented, only descriptions. The largest settlement consisted of the remains of eight huts, some round, some

194

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Figure 82. Pan grave pottery, a silver ring and clay figurine

rectangular. Some of the huts are quite small, not much more than 1.6 m in diameter, one was bigger, being more than 3 m in diameter. The smaller ones might be storage installations rather than huts for living. They were all built of mud bricks. One piece of mud plaster still showed the imprints of palm sticks and very likely comes from the roofing of the hut. The same hut was divided by an internal wall into two rooms but was just 1.3 × 2 m overall. The finds in these huts include pottery sherds, scraps of copper, beads, shells, and pottery figures.194 From this evidence it seems that these people lived in small groups apart from the Egyptian population.195 The animal bones found in the tombs might indicate the importance of animals in their lives. In Egyptian burials animal bones appear too but are much rarer. Therefore, it might be argued that their main income base was cattle breeding. Egyptian objects show that they were in contact with the Egyptians living close by. The precise nature of the relation between these two people remains a matter of speculation. It was often assumed that they became mercenaries but arrived as herdsmen and were later hired as soldiers.196 The evidence for this is not strong. Many weapons were found in their burials.197 The evidence for this in the Middle Kingdom is not so rich, while it is well attested for later periods.198 Whether this also applies to the small groups of pan-grave people attested in the Wadjet province remains unknown. The burials of the pan-grave people here show little Egyptian influence and seem to belong to the earlier examples of the pan-grave people attested in Egypt, dating perhaps to the second part of the Middle Kingdom.199

Middle Kingdom settlements The Middle Kingdom is one of the periods of ancient Egyptian history with a high number of well excavated settlements, providing a more detailed idea of how large parts of the population lived. One important recently excavated site lies in the Eastern Delta near the modern village of Ezbet Rushdi (Fig. 83). Here were found the remains of

5. The Middle Kingdom

195

a temple dating to about the reign of Senusret III. Under the temple lay the remains of a small planned settlement. This was most likely a village placed there in order to develop a region within Egypt perhaps also to defend the region against people coming from the East. The exact date of the settlement is not known for sure, but it must date before or under Senusret III. The excavators estimated that the place was in use for only about 30 years before the temple occupied the space.200 The settlement was surrounded by a wall. The walled area was only about 55 m wide, but perhaps much longer, providing a long rectangular shape. The houses within these walls were built in rows on a grid pattern. Four houses formed one block and remains of eight blocks were found, although some were only partially preserved. There were also several deviations. In the north-western corner of the village there was a space built up with irregular walls, perhaps some kind of communal area used for economic activities. No house was fully excavated, making it difficult to supply a typical plan. One of the better preserved houses was found in the north-eastern corner of the village.201 House I, as labelled by the excavators, was once perhaps 5 × 10 m, with a central room about 3.75 × 2 m. South of that was a narrower room of same length. Here were found remains of economic activities, such as fragments of a beer jar and a place for grinding grain. East of it there was another large room covering the whole width of the house. On the west were perhaps two smaller rooms, possibly forming the entrance area. In front of the house there was a round granary that stood in an open area, perhaps a courtyard. From the beginning of the Middle Kingdom, parts of another settlement in the Eastern Delta are preserved. The settlement was found at the lowest level in the modern village of Tell el-Dab‛a, known as Hutwaret in ancient Egyptian sources and Avaris in Greek sources. This town was situated at the very edge of the Eastern Delta. The houses were about 5.5 × 5.5 m in area and arranged in blocks of 12 and perhaps

Figure 83. Middle Kingdom settlement at Ezbet Rushdi (author from Czerny 2015a, 39, fig. 5A)

196

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

24 houses. It can be calculated that there were originally at least 342 such houses. This would amount to a settlement of at least around 1000 people, assuming that each house contained a nuclear family. Remains of a wall survived on the north side of the settlement, perhaps originally surrounding the whole town. On the east was a big open square and one larger building, too badly preserved to yield any idea of its function. Each house had five small rooms. There was an entrance hall with a tiny kitchen; behind it was a court, about 3 × 2.5  m, and two further rooms, perhaps used for sleeping. From the excavations it is clear that the houses were soon enlarged and so were seen as too small even for the early inhabitants. In practical terms either the houses were extended to the street, or two were united into one unit. Some courtyards had holes in the ground, perhaps for placing water jars. No fireplaces are securely attested, although ash was found quite often. Within the settlement were found some burials of newborn and small children. One was that of a child about 1 year old. It was placed in a contracted position with the head to the north, looking east. There were no burial goods, with the sole exception of an animal bone, perhaps the remains of a funerary meal.202 Another burial of a newborn was found in a hole within a house. The child was again placed in a contracted position on its left side, with the head to the north. There were again no burial goods, but a charred fruit was found, perhaps a symbolic eternal meal.203 People lived here only for a short period but the remains comprise some of the most important evidence for the living conditions of the working population. The faunal and floral remains provide a clear idea of their diet, at least in this part of Egypt. From the identifiable bones of domesticated animals were donkeys, cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, and dogs. Interestingly bones of pigs were the most common; although not often mentioned in texts or shown in tomb depictions, they were a popular meat source. About 36% of the bones of house animals belonged to pigs. About 40% of the bones are of sheep or goats. Their bones are very similar, so it is not often possible to distinguish between the two. Some bones of wild animals were found, such as antelopes; there are only a few bones of birds. Another important food source was fish, by far the most common being the catfish (80% of the fish bones), followed by the Nile perch (with just 4.5%).204 The most common find was pottery, which can be divided into household ware and vessels used in food production. The household ware consists of many types of bowls, most with a rounded bottom, there are beakers, globular jars and finally a few big storage jars. Among food production pottery, a high number of bread moulds were found in two main forms, both in a rough Nile clay. One is a cylindrical type, found throughout Egypt, while the other is a short cylinder, not so well attested at other sites.205 Other functional pottery included several fragments of huge plates, perhaps once used for an oven. Finally, there were fragments of spinning bowls used in textile production. These are flat bowls with handles on the inside.206 Most of the pottery was made on a wheel. There are two types of fabrics. There are Nile silt vessels, which is a red ware, and marl clay vessels. Marl clay contains a high proportion of chalk and

5. The Middle Kingdom

197

the vessels are often yellowish/whitish in colour. The marl came from the Memphite region, so it seems that the settlement was supplied from there, at least with the pottery. Few vessels had any decoration. On some sherds pre-fired pot marks were found, such as crosses or just a simple stroke.207 Few of the finds could be classified as ‘luxury’ objects. There are two fragments of stone vessels, some faience beads and some scarabs. Metal finds were extremely rare. There was one copper needle and there were fragments of a mould, indicating that there was metal working at this place. All tools found were of stone. Even around 2000 BC metal tools were evidently still a rarity. Metal objects would doubtless have been taken by the inhabitants when they left the settlement, but the overall evidence seems to indicate that metal was scarce, otherwise one would expect some more examples. There were almost no objects that could be classified as art. Some fragments of clay figures were found. Two fragments, about 4 cm in size, are of humans. There were also three fragments of animal figure, one perhaps a dog and another perhaps a hippopotamus.208 The houses excavated were extremely small. The whole settlement was doubtless planned by the state or at least by some local authority. Its function remains unknown. Possibly this region was not densely populated at that time and farmers were placed here in an effect to colonise sparsely settled parts of the country. Other possible reasons include large scale building projects for which the workforce would need nearby habitations. One option is the building of the ‘wall of the rulers’ mentioned in literary sources of the early Twelfth Dynasty. Another option is that there is a connection to the ‘marshland dwellers’ (sekhtyw). It has been shown that these people, living at the edge of the Delta and therefore at the edge of Egypt, were brought under systematic state control at about this time. The finds at the settlements show that the people living here prepared their own food and were most likely also involved in farming. However, in the houses of the first phase, no installations for keeping animals were found, so that it has been assumed that the animals for the whole community were placed at a separate location.209 Another sign of the heavy involvement of the state is the marl pottery; marl was not local, but came from the Memphite region where the royal residence lay. Interestingly, already in the second phase of the settlement, when people started to alter the houses and united some of them to gain more living space, there is also evidence that certain installations were placed into the newly designed living units. Storage places were built into the houses and perhaps places for animals.210 Is this a sign that the function of the settlement changed? Another well excavated town of the Middle Kingdom was found on Elephantine. The preservation conditions of the houses vary. The excavated part of the town, located in its centre, is not big. It remains problematic to relate houses to a certain social class. Space on the island was limited, so it is possible that small houses do not necessarily belong to the poorest. Where space is limited, even wealthier people might live in small dwellings, something best visible today when comparing house

198

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

and flat sizes in major cities such as London or Paris with houses in the countryside. House 12 on Elephantine (Fig. 84) dates to the end of the Twelfth Dynasty and replaced a house of the early Middle Kingdom of about the same size and layout. At about 10 × 5 m it is one of the smaller dwellings excavated in the town. The house consisted of a middle hall or courtyard. From the archaeological evidence it remains uncertain whether this middle room was once roofed or not. The entrance of the building is not preserved and can only be reconstructed; it was on the short, north-east side. Behind the entrance there was a small room, just 2.5 × 2.5 m, and next to this was the kitchen. No oven was preserved but the room was found full of ash layers, indicating its function. At the opposite side there were two rooms. The smaller one was open to the main hall, while the second had a door. The room is so hidden, one wonders whether it functioned as a sleeping room. Animal droppings Figure 84. House on Elephantine were found throughout the house, indicating (redrawn from von Pilgrim 1996, fig. 9) that the inhabitants lived here together with animals. There are no remains of a staircase and no indication of a second storey or that the roof was used.211

Society in the Middle Kingdom For some Egyptologists the Middle Kingdom state has a negative image and is seen as highly oppressive. Jan Assmann recognises a ‘police state nature’ in it.212 Jürgen von Beckerath describes the Egypt of Amenemhat III as a ‘totalitarian’ state.213 Barry Kemp labels the Middle Kingdom a ‘prescriptive society’.214 These are certainly subjective views and not very useful for understanding the Middle Kingdom state. In the Middle Kingdom the king was still the head of the state and most likely the most powerful person. However, for the Twelfth Dynasty and partly for the Thirteenth the king and his family remain a mystery. It is as yet not clear how the king related, in terms of family ties, to his subjects and officials. So far as can be seen, most kings were the son of their predecessor. Several king’s wives were also daughters of a king. Neferu was the daughter of Amenemhat I, wife of Senusret I and mother of ­Amenemhat II. Khenmetneferhedjet,215 Neferethenut and Itakayet were both king’s wife (of Senusret III) and king’s daughter.

5. The Middle Kingdom

199

On the other hand, there is evidence through examination of bones that ­ menemhat III was married to two women who were not related to each other. A Therefore, at least one of them did not come from the king’s family.216 Nevertheless the royal family appears in the sources as an exclusive circle of people; no relations of family members to other parts of society are recorded. Several king’s daughters are known, but there is no evidence that they were married to any officials. They are mainly known from their burials, some of them found undisturbed with high quality personal adornments. ‘King’s sons’ are almost totally invisible in the Twelfth Dynasty. It is hard to believe that Amenemhat I, Senusret III, or Amenemhat III did not have any sons besides their successors but few appear in our sources. It might be argued that they dropped the title ‘king’s son’ after becoming adult and that they entered a career as officials at the royal court. That would mean that several of the officials known from monuments might be members of the royal family but invisible in the sources. This is in stark contrast to the Old Kingdom where the king surrounded himself with family members.217 Sons, brothers, and nephews had high positions. King’s daughters were married to important officials, perhaps to secure their loyalty. All this is not visible in the sources of the Twelfth Dynasty. The situation also contrasts with the Thirteenth Dynasty, which left substantial evidence for connections between the royal family and officials. The queens Aya and Nubkhaes218 came from important families of high officials. Aya was connected to the family of the vizier Ankhu. She appears in Papyrus Boulaq 18 (a palace account). The name of her husband is not well-preserved there. Nubkhaes is known from several monuments, the most famous being stela Louvre C 13.219 Her uncle was the ‘high steward’ Nebankh and her brother the ‘reporter’ Sobekemsaf. Family relations of the king to officials are also attested on other occasions. The wife of the ‘personal scribe of the king’s document’ Iymeru, Senbsimai, also bears the title ‘king’s sister’.220 There is at least one case of a ‘king’s son’ in an administrative position. The ‘king’s son’ Hapy was ‘scribe of the king’s document of assembly’. His mother was the ‘king’s wife’ Abetni. Her royal husband is not known.221 The case of women of important families becoming queen has often seen as evidence that these families were able to marry one of their daughters to a king. However, it seems equally possible simply that one member of the family became a king. After unification of the country under the Theban king Mentuhetep II, new developments are visible in the administration at the royal court. The ranking titles were now again restricted to a small number of officials at the highest social level.222 It is clear that the king considerably reorganised the royal court. On the one hand, many offices that were typical of a provincial court were continued, as the court at Thebes was previously organised as the court of a local governor. On the other hand, the king reinstalled offices so far only known from the royal court, such as the vizier, so far not well attested for the First Intermediate Period. The ‘scribe of the king’s document’ is another title not yet attested at provincial courts. The ‘steward’, the ‘treasurer’ and the ‘overseer of the gate’ are not attested at the royal court in the Old Kingdom but were

200

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

used in the provincial administration of the late Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period. These people administered the courts of local governors. When the local provincial Theban court became a national one, these local officials became national ones.223 These officials were the highest at the royal court, distinguished with the full ranking title string: ‘member of the elite, foremost of action, royal sealer and sole friend’ (iry-pat, HAty-a, xtmty-bity, smr-waty). In addition to the officials mentioned of Mentuhetep II, the court also included several other officials with these ranking titles: the ‘overseer of troops’ Antef, the ‘scribe of the king’s document’ Iai, the ‘overseer of sealers’ Meru, the ‘overseer of the enclosure’ Djar, the ‘overseer of the gateway’ Dagi. The social background of these high officials is not known.224 The lower officials at the royal palace are not well-attested for the early Middle Kingdom although it can be expected that high officials had a staff of people working for them in the palace. A rare exception is Meketre. ‘The sealer’ Meketre is attested in a rock inscription at Aswan together with the ‘overseer of sealers’ Khety and dated to year 41 under Mentuhetep II.225 This Meketre is most likely the later ‘treasurer’ and ‘high steward’, who is well known from other sources including his monumental Theban tomb.226 The case demonstrates a certain social mobility within the ruling class at the royal court, but also seems to indicate that most people visible in written sources around the royal court belong to a quite closed social group. They were perhaps also connected by family ties, a feature which only becomes evident in the sources of the late Middle Kingdom. Perhaps the best known official belonging to this social level of lower officials, but still belonging to the ruling class, is Heqanakht, known from his letters found at Thebes. Heqanakht was ‘ka-priest’ and most likely responsible for the mortuary cult of the vizier Ipi. Heqanakht was running a small estate with several servants; altogether 15 people are attested in his household.227 These include family members such as Ipi, the mother of Heqanakht, Hetepet, his aunt or sister. It remains unclear who was the legal owner of the estate. Did Heqanakht own it, or was it given to him as a source of income for his post as funerary priest, while the legal owner was somebody else and the estate would return to the legal owner when the duties were done? Nevertheless, Heqanakht still had a workforce that he exploited. Heqanakht evidently belonged to the lower end of the ruling class. The provincial governors of the early Middle Kingdom form the best-known social group of the period.228 They are mainly known from their monumental rock cut tombs in Middle and Upper Egypt. The chapels of these tombs are often decorated, and some of them bear long biographical inscriptions. The governors at Beni Hasan are particularly well-researched. Two groups of governors are visible at Beni Hasan, one dating to the Eleventh Dynasty and one to the Twelfth. The governors of the Eleventh Dynasty are less well-known. They had decorated rock cut tombs but no long biographical inscriptions. In contrast, three of the tombs of the Twelfth Dynasty bear long texts providing important information on the duties of these people but also information on their social networks and marriage strategies.229 These inscriptions show how much

5. The Middle Kingdom

201

one group of people kept power in their hands: all governors of the Twelfth Dynasty came from one family. Intermarriage with relatives of governors of neighbouring provinces is also visible. Evidently the families of different provinces were thus closely connected.230 At other places the evidence for intermarriage between provinces is not that clear. For example, the coffin of the ‘son of the governor’ (zA-HAty-a) Wahka has survived from Meir.231 Wahka is a name very often found in the Wadjet province and there is the possibility that this Wahka married across provinces. It is unclear how the families of governors related to the other officials in the provinces. Most lower officials are known from coffins and from the depictions in the governor’s tombs.232 Neither type of source normally provides information on the parents or other family members. Occasional evidence might indicate that these lower officials were connected by family ties to the local governors, but the evidence is open to different interpretations. First of all there are some lower officials with the title ‘son of a governor’. Ukhhetep at Meir was ‘son of a governor’ and ‘overseer of fields’.233 At Rifeh the burial of the great wab-priest and ‘son of a governor’ Khnumnakht was found.234 The Late Middle Kingdom is one of the better periods for gaining at least a vague idea of Egyptian society as a whole. The stelae of the period provide evidence for networks and family relations for a much wider scale of society than in many other periods of Egyptian history. Burials, houses, and papyri provide evidence from the broader population. According to the sources, the ruling class consisted at this time of a number of families in which most members held important administrative positions. The men close to the king are easy to see in our sources as they carry the ranking titles ‘member of the elite’, ‘foremost of action’, ‘royal sealer’, and ‘sole friend’. At the royal court there were about ten men at any given time with these titles combined with a title announcing their function, such as ‘treasurer’, ‘high steward’ or vizier. In the provinces the local governors also often carry these paramount ranking titles. So it seems that the highest officials at the royal court were on the same level as local governors, at least as expressed in their titles. These men at the royal court were most likely those mentioned in several Egyptian texts as the ‘friends’ (smrw) of the king.235 The social background of the high officials of the late Middle Kingdom is rarely identifiable. For the Twelfth Dynasty there are a few cases where it is possible to establish family relations between officials. One of these few cases is the vizier Ameny (datable under Amenemhat III), who was married to a daughter of the ‘overseer of troops’.236 The family might be further related to two other high officials: the ‘overseer of fields’ Nehy and the vizier Senusret-ankh.237 One better known example is Khnumhetep. He was the son of Khnumhetep (II), local governor at Beni Hasan. It seems that he was sent as a young boy to the royal residence. There he was involved in several expeditions. He became ‘high steward’ and at the end of his career he became vizier.238 The best documented example for a wider family of officials is that of the vizier Ankhu.239 He was the son of a vizier, perhaps of Samonth. He was also the father of two viziers, Iymeru and Ressenb, thus forming a dynasty of viziers in the Thirteenth Dynasty. Through marriage it is clear that the family had a network of

202

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

high positions. His mother Henutpu was the daughter of a ‘royal sealer’ and ‘priest of Amun’, evidently the highest religious personality at Thebes at this time. His daughter Senebhenas was married to the ‘overseer of the half domain’ Upuauthetep. However, it is remarkable that there are almost no other officials visible whose social background is known. It remains unclear whether there was any social mobility from a working class or middle class background to the position of a higher official. Officials whose fathers do not bear titles might be taken as evidence that these fathers were people from a lower social background. However, it seems rather that there is a dominant tendency not to mention important titles of the parents. In the New Kingdom fathers are often just called zab leading to the assumption that they did not hold important positions, but some of these fathers appear in other sources as important officials. The sons just do not mention those high titles in their filiation.240 The functions of several of the high officials are well researched, while we do not have much knowledge for the tasks of others. The duties of the viziers, the treasurers and high stewards are quite well known. The vizier was the head of the administration in general. He was the main person in charge of the palace administration, that includes legal matters but also the provincial administration. The treasurer was in charge of the commodities that were administered and stored in the palace, such as food, oil, and textiles.241 The high steward was in charge of the agricultural domains all around the country that supplied the palace with food. For other high officials with ranking titles, the function remains rather obscure. From both the royal and provincial courts, the ‘overseer of the gateway’ is known. Especially in the middle of the Twelfth Dynasty, this official seems to have been important at the royal court, leading expeditions and undertaking building works for the king.242 However, we have very little idea about his daily tasks. Under the highest officials, there was a wider pool of officials with less important titles, often working for them in the administration. They are mainly known from many stelae and statues and to a lesser extent from other objects, such as their burials and burial equipment. They also appear on monuments of the higher officials. These lower officials and the higher ones formed the ruling class and are heavily interconnected by family ties. Most people known from monuments, mainly stelae, therefore belong to one social stratum: the ruling class. One example providing evidence for the close connection of these people is an official called Khenmes. He is known from several stelae of the Thirteenth Dynasty. On several of them he bears the title string ‘keeper of the chamber, butler’ (iry-at wdpw). On other monuments he is ‘king’s acquaintance’ and belongs with this title to a higher social level, just under the court officials.243 Indeed there are several cases where a ‘king’s acquaintance’ was promoted to the position of a high official, such as the ‘high steward’ Nebankh244 or the ‘treasurer’ Senebi.245 Under the social level of the officials with titles there was most likely a level of people often labelled ‘middle class’. These are peasants or craftsmen who were

5. The Middle Kingdom

203

engaged in production. They did not exploit the labour of others and might just use other labour for auxiliary work. Many of these people might be less well-to-do members of landowning communities (compare pp. 19–20). It remains hard to identify these people in the archaeological or written records. Burial 734 at Qau (see p. 166) might belong to a woman of the middle class. Her burial is well equipped with personal adornments. No inscriptions survived to pinpoint her social position. She could well be the daughter or wife of a local official. The same problem appears with burial 315 at Qau (Fig. 75). The man was buried in a shaft tomb with a chamber and placed in a painted coffin. The only burial good was one pottery vessel. He certainly had resources, despite the simple appearance of the tomb. A painted coffin was certainly not cheap. However, again, he might have been a local official. Nothing can be said for sure about his social class. Much research has been done in recent years to identify this middle class, although there are only a few substantial studies. Janet Richards looked at tombs and grave goods mainly at Harageh and Riqqeh and observed a wide range of wealth in the Middle Kingdom. Miriam Müller discussed one house at Tell el-Dab‛a/Avaris and observed there a certain level of wealth visible in the archaeological record.246 Both researchers argued for a middle class in the Middle Kingdom. In both cases written records are mostly missing to confirm the class of the people involved. The house presented by Müller might well belong to a lower official working in the administration of Avaris. One example for comparison is the tomb chapel of Khnumhetep (II) at Beni Hasan Khumhetep is clearly the main person depicted here. Other people are his family members. Beside these, there are about 80 people shown in the tomb with titles. Some of them were perhaps manual workmen, like three herdsmen.247 Many others, however, were administrators on the estate of Khnumhetep and in the province. There is a ‘treasurer’, an ‘overseer of fields’, an ‘overseer of sealers’ and even a ‘scribe of the king’s document’. Similar middle-ranking officials would probably have existed at Tell el-Dab‛a/Avaris or at Harageh and Riqqeh. Clearly, one option is that many of the wealthier houses belonged to these people. Many tombs that display some wealth might belong to those lower officials, who still belong to the ruling class, something that is even confirmed by inscriptions found at Harageh248 and Riqqeh,249 two of the main cemeteries investigated by Richards. It is plausible that large parts of the population would have worked for the corvée system of the ‘great enclosure’. People in the Brooklyn Papyrus 35.1446 called in for work often bear titles; these are mostly rather modest. The highest position seems to be a ‘skipper of the treasury’.250 The papyrus provides evidence for the social range of people who were called in for corvée, perhaps including those that might be labelled middle class.251 It remains unknown whether members of the ruling class also had to do corvée. The corvée system was perhaps already introduced under king Mentuhetep II. The title ‘overseer of the enclosure’ is attested at the royal court for this period (p.  174). Under Senusret I there is further evidence for the ‘enclosure’, including scribes working there. The conquest of Nubia might have put the king to the necessity

204

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

of organising the country very tightly, and it seems that the division between poor and rich became starker than ever. It has been argued that many people of the middle classes became poorer and disappear from the archaeological records. They could no longer afford well equipped tombs, although it might be argued that burial customs changed; a rich burial equipment was no longer important. Furthermore, the central government was building new settlements and towns in many parts of the country. This might be part of an ‘inner’ colonisation. Less developed parts of the country were exploited. The most famous example is the Fayum. At the edge of the Fayum, a town, Hetepsenusret (today better known as Lahun) was founded close to the pyramid of Senusret II. The place functioned as a pyramid town, but there is also good evidence that it was a regional centre. The building of the pyramid of Amenemhat III was organised from here.252 The working population in Middle Kingdom Egypt is not clearly visible in the archaeological records of the cemeteries, as few burials of people belonging to this social level have been excavated. Settlement archaeology fills a gap here with several places with smaller houses that most likely belong to this level of people. Their living conditions are therefore quite well known. However, the settlement archaeology and the archaeology of the burials do not provide any idea of the social status of these people within the society. An empty tomb might indicate a person with few resources but might also be a deliberate choice of someone with resources. Therefore, at this point it might be useful to have a look at the different words used for the working population in Middle Kingdom Egypt. One major topic of discussion in Egyptology concerns the status of particular groups of the working population, and how to translate the different designations of members of social groups in the Middle Kingdom. The main words under discussion are ‘bAk’/‘bAkt’ (servant), ‘Hmt’ (female servant) and ‘Hm-niswt’ (‘servant of the king’, shortened to ‘Hm’ (male servant). These words were used for individuals. A word often employed for a group of people is ‘mrt’, already encountered in the title ‘overseer of meret-people’ and briefly discussed for the Old Kingdom (p.  119). Different studies have sought to provide a more precise idea of the position of these people. In general the discussion focuses on whether these people were slaves, servants, or serfs. Before these terms and the discussions are summarised, however, it should be said that there is good evidence that there were serfs or at least people dependent on higher officials not provided with any special designation or title, such as the ones just mentioned. In Brooklyn Papyrus 35.1446 runaways from the ‘great enclosure’ are listed. These people do not bear titles, but behind their names appear other names, institutions or names of towns. The town behind a name might indicate the home town of the person mentioned. However, in cases where an official is mentioned, the impression arises that these runaways were owned in some way by these officials. There are certainly different options for understanding this relationship. The runaways might have worked for them on their estates, basically as employees. In this case they would be the equivalent of free labourers. However, another option would be that these people were in some way

5. The Middle Kingdom

205

owned by the officials, perhaps not in the social category of a slave, but as a serf. In practical terms these might be not very different. A legally free labourer working on an estate in the countryside perhaps had little other choice, was fully dependent on the estate owner, and was therefore in practical terms ‘owned’. As the evidence in the Middle Kingdom is not very abundant, several points remain speculative. The designations ‘Hm-niswt (king’s servant),253 ‘Hm’ (servant),254 and ‘Hmt’ (female servant)255 appear regularly but not frequently in the Middle Kingdom. Oleg Berlev looked at the evidence and tried to reconstruct the social meaning of these terms, concluding that all three denote the same social status. According to Berlev, ‘servant’ was simply a shorter version of ‘king’s servant’, while ‘female servant’ was the female version. Women are never called ‘female king’s servant’. According to Berlev these people constituted the entire working population of Middle Kingdom Egypt, with the exception of the foreigners who were not called ‘king’s servant’.256 Berlev relates the term Hm – servant to the term ‘majesty’. Both words are identical in ancient Egyptian and seem to have the same meaning: ‘body’. By calling the male Egyptians ‘body of the king’, they are addressed as owned by the king and in some way part of him, being his body.257 Therefore the ‘king’s servants’ were basically state-owned. Women could not be called ‘king’s servant’ as they are the opposite sex to that of the king. They could not be part of him. Asiatic people were foreigners and evidently also not part of the ‘king’s body’. All these people could work for state institutions, including temples, which were also always part of the state administration. Other ‘king’s servants’ were working for higher officials but were still allocated from the state. Documents and inscriptions indicate that officials had their private estates (called ‘per’ – ‘house’ in Egyptian), but they also had ‘estates’ connected to their office.258 On the latter estates the ‘king’s servants’ were working. Therefore, the working population were all ‘king’s servants’ and in legal terms they had some kind of ‘serf ’ status. We will see that they were employed for royal building projects and other state enterprises. ‘King’s servants’ are attested in different professions. These people were evidently not only agricultural workers.259 According to Berlev, ‘king’s servant’ as a group of people were called meret.260 ‘King’s servants’ are also well attested as the labour force for higher officials. They appear with these designations most often on stelae or administrative documents.261 It is uncertain whether there were also ‘free’ peasants, labourers, or carpenters. In the tomb scenes of the local oligarchs in Middle Egypt and elsewhere, these people are not labelled ‘king’s servants’ and ‘servants’. This might just mean that it was not important to record here, but it might also indicate that the people of these workforces had a different status. The title ‘overseer of meret-people’ is well attested in the Middle Kingdom (for the Old Kingdom see p. 119).262 In a tomb at Beni Hasan, one ‘overseer of meret-people’ is shown overseeing weavers. This has led to the conclusion that the meret-people were weavers. Obviously weavers could be meret-people. One key source for the late Middle Kingdom is an inscription in the tomb of Bebi in Elkab. Bebi was ‘commander

206

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

of the ruler’s crew’, a military position. In his tomb there are two lists of people, one of ‘Hmwt’ – ‘female servants’ and the other consisting of ‘hemu nisut’ – ‘king’s servants’. The heading for the latter list describes these people as ‘meret-people’.263 The meret-people also appear on the annals stone of Amenemhat II from Memphis. Here there appears a list of items given as honour to certain people. These items are meret-people, fields, gold, cloth, and all good, great things.264 Here, the meret-people appear again together with fields. The meret-people remain obscure. ‘King’s servants’ can be called meret-people, and there is good evidence that were a part of the working population, perhaps attached to land. They could be given to officials, indicating a certain level of dependance. The term bak is often translated as ‘servant’ or even ‘slave’, but the exact meaning of the word is disputed. Many higher officials call themselves ‘servant of their lord’. On one level this supports a translation as ‘servant’ in a looser way. However, looking at the later Amarna letters, vassals of the Egyptian king describe themselves often as ‘dirt of your feet’,265 something that clearly expresses a stark hierarchical contrast. In the Byzantine empire, the highest court officials refer to themselves as slaves in relation to the emperor.266 The comparison indicates that bak/servant can be more than a loose term for ‘servant’ and might mean something more radical. Even if the term is less dramatic in the courtly expression, words can have different levels of meanings, and there are indeed texts indicating that a bak/servant was owned by another person.267 On a stela from Edfu, the ‘warrior’ Hormeni reports that he came from Kush (Nubia) with a baket (female servant). He also refers to 26 (deben) gold, but the sentence mentioning the servant and the gold is hard to understand; nevertheless, one interpretation would be: ‘I came from Kush and bought a servant for 26 (deben) gold’.268 Regardless of the exact meaning of the sentence, it seems to imply that this woman belonged to Hormeni, though whether as slave or serf might be disputed. Finally, ‘Asiatic’ people should be discussed. On a number of Middle Kingdom sources, a person is called ‘Asiatic’. However, ‘Asiatic’ people are never ‘king’s servant’ or ‘servant’, as they can’t be the body of the king. They are foreigners.269 Nevertheless, it is remarkable that Asiatic people appear so often in inscriptions of the Middle Kingdom. Evidently a large number of them came to Egypt.270 Some of them may have been prisoners of war, but others may have immigrated to Egypt for economic reasons. In the Middle Kingdom the regions of the eastern border at the Delta became almost purely Levantine and Palestine in terms of material culture. In the Twelfth Dynasty Asiatic people appear mainly in lower positions. There is hardly any higher official with an Asiatic background or even Asiatic name. In the Thirteenth Dynasty and later Asiatic people are attested even in higher positions at the royal court. One example is the ‘high steward’ Ptahwer, known from his statue. He dates to the Thirteenth Dynasty and his mother is named ‘Asiatic’.271 One other and later example is the ‘royal sealer’ and ‘treasurer’ (xtmty-bity, imy-r xtmt) Har. He is only known from scarabs, one of them found in Badari tomb 3763.272 His name is Semitic (and might

5. The Middle Kingdom

207

relate to ‘Hur’273). In the Second Intermediate Period there are finally Asiatic kings ruling in the Delta. One group of them is known as the Hyksos. There is not much evidence that foreigners gained important positions in the Wadjet province. Nubians are attested in Middle Kingdom Egypt too, but they appear less often in the written sources and the term ‘Nubian’ for a specific person is much less common.

Final remarks Unlike the Old Kingdom (p. 119), it seems that the central government tried to bring all parts of the population under state control. The introduction of the ‘overseer of marshland dwellers’ seems to be one indicator. The conquest of Lower Nubia seems to point to the same direction. In the Old Kingdom, there were only Egyptian outposts in Lower Nubia, such as Buhen. The countryside around was not placed under any Egyptian administration. In the Middle Kingdom this changed and the whole region was placed under Egyptian control. Taking all the evidence together, the state now sought to bring all people within its territories directly under its control. On many levels, the reforms at the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty discussed at the beginning of this chapter transformed Egypt into something very close to what Karl August Wittfogel called ‘oriental despotism’, with the king at the head of society and the bureaucracy acting for the king. The towns and cities were not independent but fully under the control of the state, therefore there were no free citizens. Part of ‘oriental despotism’ is the idea that the foremost function of the state was to control the irrigation of the fields.274 Evidently it is arguable how important the organisation of Egypt’s irrigation system was. Other major projects in the Middle Kingdom were the pyramids, but it should also be remembered that the Fayum was brought into cultivation in the Middle Kingdom. The project is not mentioned in contemporary sources, but by Herodotus (II.101). The number of Middle Kingdom monuments in the Fayum provides further evidence for the cultivation of the region. One wonders whether Wittfogel had Middle Kingdom Egypt much in mind when describing ‘oriental despotism’. Due to the archaeological and textual sources, the Middle Kingdom appears were much as prescriptive society, as Kemp described the period. It remains difficult to get a clear picture of Middle Kingdom society. Although the archaeology of some cemeteries and settlements provides evidence for a wider distribution of wealth, it remains hard to pinpoint the social class of people related to wealthier burials and larger houses. The wealth in tombs might just reflect the spread of wealth within the ruling class. In the Wadjet province we face the problem that most burials of the wider population are missing. Many local resources must have gone into the monumental governors’ tombs. Here, it has been argued that evidence for the wider population is missing as burials became poorer in this period and therefore have not received much attention from archaeologists. This is only a possibility. Further work in the Wadjet province or in other parts of the country might confirm this impression or might bring other solutions.

208

Notes

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

1. Brunton 1930, 1, pl. ii (tomb register with Middle Kingdom burials). 2. Eschenbrenner-Diemer 2017. 3. Seidlmayer 2006. 4. Brunton 1930, 2. 5. Dubiel 2008, 166–9. 6. Bader 2012, 233. 7. Grajetzki 2017a; 2017b, 202–3. 8. Obsomer 1995; Favry 2009, 63–85. 9. Newberry 1893a, 25–6. 10. Franke 1994, 192, 197. n. 4 (comments). 11. Moeller 2016, 249–300. 12. Czerny 1999; Moeller 2016, 252–9. 13. Czerny 2015a, 2015b. 14. Moeller 2016, 271–90. 15. Quirke 2005, 30–7. 16. Grajetzki 2009. 17. Wegner 2001; Moeller 2016, 290–6. 18. Kemp 2006, 225–31; Moeller 2016, 300–5. 19. Seidlmayer 1990, fig. 168 on p. 395. 20. Franke 1994, 177, 186 (9). 21. Altenmüller and Moussa 1991, 12 (M x + 16); Altenmüller 2015, 67, 71. 22. Altenmüller and Moussa 1991, 18 (M X + 25), 36; Altenmüller 2015, 116–17. 23. Arnold 1990, 19. 24. Arnold 1990, 22–5. 25. Di Teodoro 2018, 94–9. 26. Grajetzki 2013, 221–3; 2017a, 156–6. 27. Junge 2000, 158, 159, 177. 28. Quirke 2004b, 183–4. 29. Grajetzki 2000, 182–3. 30. Gomaà 1987, 348. 31. Gardiner and Peet 1965, 93, no. 85. 32. Gardiner and Peet 1965, 111, no. 106. 33. Gardiner and Peet 1965, 123, no. 120. 34. Gardiner and Peet 1965, 118, no. 114 (reign of Amenemhat III). 35. Gardiner and Peet 1965, 138, no. 137 (reign of Amenemhat III; Seyfried 1981, 174). 36. Gardiner and Peet 1965, 116, no. 112 (reign of Amenemhat III). 37. Gardiner and Peet 1965, 94, no. 85; 113, no. 110, 118, no. 114. 38. Arnold 1990, 25. 39. Collier and Quirke 2006, 162–3 (UC 32100B). 40. Grajetzki 2000, 182, n. 5. 41. Alston 1999; Blouin 2011. 42. Martin 1971, 23, no.  234, stela Cairo CG 20181, relief fragment from Heliopolis, Abd el-Gelil et al. 1996, 156, fig. 6. 43. Ben-Tor 2007, 5. 44. Arnold 1990, 25. 45. The main study on this institution: Quirke 1988. 46. Quirke 1988, 101–2. 47. MMA drawing of a tomb wall: INST.1979.2.11.

5. The Middle Kingdom

209

48. London BM EA 828, Budge 1902, pl. 21; discussed by Quirke 1988, 100–1. 49. Marée 2012–2013. 50. Quirke 2004a 307. 51. Quirke 2004a, 94. 52. Hayes 1955, 36–7. 53. Oshinsky 1997. 54. Hayes 1955, 20–2. 55. Hayes 1955, 25–30. 56. Hayes 1955, 33–4. 57. Quirke 1988, 97; Enmarch 2008, 116 (prefers the reading xnti – ‘forehall’). 58. Quirke 1988, 98. 59. Luft 2006, 44–6 (pBerlin P.10021) 60. Luft 2006, 60–61 (pBerlin P.10026) 61. Di Teodoro 2018, 82–3 62. Collier/Quirke 2006, 38–9 63. pBoulaq 18, xxix; xxix (in the second list, just as ‘office’). 64. Hayes 1955, 72–85, pl. vi. 65. Helck 1983, 33. 66. Andreu 1980, pl. xxxix; Boeser 1909, pl. 30 (the stela dates under Amenemhat III). 67. Collier/Quirke 2004, 118–19 (UC 32167). 68. Andreu 1980, pl. xxxi. 69. CG 20577. 70. Hayes 1955, 53–5. 71. Lacau, Chevrier 1956, pl. 3; Helck 1974, 2, 11–12. 72. Habachi 1975, 33–7. 73. Franke 1994, 12–13. 74. Recent summary: Lorand 2011, 238–322. 75. Callender 2000, 162. 76. Bussmann 2010, 512–13. 77. Gestermann 1987, 121; Callender 2000, 163. 78. Steward 1979, 20, pl. 18, no. 86. 79. Berlev 1981, 318–19; Simpson 2001, 8. 80. Stewart 1979, 20, pl. 18. 81. Davies 2002, 312–23. 82. Barbotin/Clère 1991, 1–32. 83. Franke 1988, 101. 84. Allen 2002, 17. 85. Smith 1981, 183–6; Borriau 1988, 39; Tallet 2005, 187–8. 86. Do Arnold 1988, 144–5; Bourriau 1991, 7. 87. Bader 2012, 233. 88. Grajetzki 2016. 89. Zitman 2010, 367. 90. Willems 1988, 122–7. 91. Willems 1988, 135, 159–60. 92. Grajetzki 2017b. 93. For the title in the Old Kingdom, see Moreno García 1999. 94. Grajetzki 2005b, 49–50. 95. Von Pilgrim (1996, 287) dates the bowl to the reign of Amenemhat III. It was found in a late Twelfth Dynasty context, supporting this late dating. Fragments of similar bowls dating to the early Middle Kingdom were found at other places on Elephantine; Dorn 2015, 241–2.

210

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

96. Allen 2002, 19. 97. Newberry 1893a, 16, pl. xviii. 98. Loprieno 1988, 87–8. 99. Berlev 1978, 73–125. 100. Franke 1998b. 101. Willems 2014, 185. 102. Demidchik 2013. 103. Gestermann 1995. 104. Bourriau 1991. 105. Ben-Tor 2007, 37. 106. Vernus 1986, 90–2. 107. Berlev 1972, 5; Quirke 1996. 108. Grajetzki 2000, 254. 109. Meyer 1913, 276. 110. Steckeweh 1936, 8 (stela Stockholm MM32004). 111. Willems 1988, 101; Franke 1991, 54. 112. Franke 1991, 51–5. 113. Franke 1991, 56–67. 114. Nelson-Hurst 2015, 266. 115. Lippert 2013, 3–4. 116. Newberry 1893a, 7 (tomb 4). 117. Franke 1984, 332, Dossier 551. 118. Louvre C5, Simpson 1974, 23, pl. 3 (ANOC 1.7). 119. Petrie 1930 ; Steckeweh 1936; D’Amicone 1988; 1999; Martellière 2008. 120. Ciampini 2003. 121. Petrie 1930, pl. xviii. 122. Steckeweh 1936, pl. 16. 123. Steckeweh 1936, pl. 2a. 124. Steckeweh 1936, pl. 9. 125. Franke 1991, 54–5. 126. Petrie 1930, 9, pl. xv. 127. Steckeweh 1936, 9. 128. for a discussion see Grajetzki 1997, for the titles Favry 2004, 47–9. 129. Steckeweh 1936, 7. 130. Fiore Marochetti 2016, pls x–xiii. 131. Fay 1996, 53 and n. 238; several images of these sculptures: D’Amicone 1988, 120–3, fig. 161–6. 132. Arnold 2015. 133. Fiore Marochetti 2016, 38. 134. Habachi 1977, 25–6; Leospo 1988. 135. Fiore Marochetti 2016, 38, n. 10. 136. Fiore Marochetti 2016, 40. 137. Steckeweh 1936, 7. 138. Nakht is called ‘true of voice’. The latter is once written with a feminine grammatical ending. It should not be excluded that this is a mistake. 139. Ilin-Tomich 2017, 151–2. 140. BM 143; Scott-Moncrieff and Hall 1912, pl. 44. 141. Melandri 2011. 142. Connor 2014, 64–5. 143. Petrie 1930, pl. xvii (early Twelfth Dynasty? compare: Ilin-Tomich 2018, 70). 144. Martin 1971, 90–1, nos. 1159, 1163; Grajetzki 1997, 62; Wegner 2010.

5. The Middle Kingdom

211

145. Petrie 1930, pls xv–xvi. 146. Brunton 1930, 1, pl.  iv, 23 (the fragment of the canopic jar), II (tomb register with Middle Kingdom burials). 147. Still best described in Garstang 1907. 148. Sources are collected in Ilin-Tomich 2011. 149. Bourriau 1991, 6. 150. Quirke 2000, 237. 151. Franke 1994, 136–9 152. Ilin-Tomich 2017, 148–9, table 50 153. Petrie 1903, pl. xxxi (top left) 154. Steckeweh 1936, 53–4, pl. 18 155. Krauspe 1974 (not listed by Ilin-Tomich). 156. Ilin-Tomich 2017, pl. 23 (stela might show people from different place). 157. Stefanović and Satzinger 2014. 158. Mogensen 1919, 6–8. 159. Mogensen 1919, 29. 160. London, BM 143 (Nakht); Lyon H 1576 (Nehy); Stochholm 32004 (Wahka; dated under ­Amenemhat III) and Turin Cat. 1547 (Wahka). 161. Cairo CG 20022. 162. Cairo CG 20180. 163. Cairo CG 20243. 164. Cairo CG 20549 (Fig. 81). 165. Cairo CG 20268. 166. Cairo CG 20022, 20236, 20298, 20549, 20550, 20580, 20584, 20599, Chicago, Field Museum 31672. 167. Cairo CG 20431; Chicago, Field Museum 31672; Turin. 168. Cairo CG 20268, 20342; perhaps two different people. 169. Cairo CG 20549. 170. Grajetzki 2000, 73. 171. Newberry 1893a, pl. xxvi, line 222. 172. Wegner 2010, 173. Cairo CG 20022, 20431, 20549, 20580. 174. Cairo CG 20580. Stefanović 2009, 64, 70. 175. Stefanović 2006, 110 (dossier 570). 176. Schneider 2003, 45. 177. Ward 1982, 65, no. 529 (iry Hbsw). 178. Schneider 2003, 45. 179. Hayes 1955, 87–109. 180. Hayes 1955, 90. 181. Hayes 1955, 108; Schneider 2003, 61. 182. Simpson 1969, 35. 183. Smither 1945, 8. 184. Meurer 1996, 50. 185. Smither 1945, 9. 186. Meurer 1996, 11. 187. Meurer 1996, 111–15. 188. Näser 2012, 82. 189. Petrie 1901, 45–9. 190. Näser 2012, 82; in general see de Souza 2013. 191. Näser 2012, 81. 192. Brunton 1930, 35.

212

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

193. Bourriau 1981, 101–2. 194. Brunton 1930, 3–4. 195. Näser 2012. 196. Meurer 1996, 86. 197. Meurer 1996, 127. 198. Näser 2012, 87. 199. Meurer 1996, 86. 200. Czerny 2015a, 444. 201. Czerny 2015a, 49–52. 202. Czerny 1999, 29–30 (Grab 55). 203. Czerny 1999, 31 (Grab 17). 204. Boessneck, in Czerny 1999, 309–312. 205. Czerny 1999, 101–104. 206. Dothan 1963; Allen. 1997 207. Czerny 1999, figs on 205–211. 208. Czerny 1999, 108–109. 209. Czerny 1999, 131. 210. Czerny 1999, 23. 211. von Pilgrim 1996, 45–6. 212. Assmann 1996, 139. 213. von Beckerath 1971, 28. 214. Kemp 2006, 241. 215. Stünkel 2015. 216. Strouhal, Klír 2006. 217. Strudwick 1985, 338. 218. Ryholt 1997, 239–46. 219. Spalinger 1980. 220. Grajetzki 2001, pl (stela Berlin 7288). 221. Stefanović 2015, 118–20 (stela Lowe Art Museum, Miami, 877509). 222. Helck 1958, 92; Grajetzki 2001b. 223. Grajetzki 2000, 236–41. 224. Grajetzki 2013, 217–23. 225. Allen 2003, 19. 226. Grajetzki 2000, 45–6; Allen 2003, 16–17. 227. Allen 2002, 116–17. 228. Grajetzki 2009, 109–21; Willems 2014, 4–58. 229. Newberry 1993a, pls vii–viii, xxv–xxvi, xliv. 230. Nelson-Hurst 2015. 231. Lapp 1985, 12–13, pl. 26. 232. Seidlmayer 2007b 233. Willems 1988, table on p. 87. 234. David 2007, 78–82. 235. Grajetzki 2000, 224. 236. Franke 1984, 95 (Doss. 101) and 103 (Doss. 116). 237. Grajetzki 2000, 21. 238. Allen 2008. 239. von Beckerath 1964, 98–9; Ryholt 1997, 243–6. 240. Raedler 2004: 308. 241. Quirke 2004a, 48–9. 242. Grajetzki 2000, 144–5.

5. The Middle Kingdom

213

243. Collection of data: Franke 1984, 266, Doss. 460; Grajetzki 2001a, 44. 244. Grajetzki 2000, 56–57 (II.21). 245. Grajetzki 2000, 93–94 (III.25). 246. Müller 2015a, 2015b. 247. Newberry 1893a, 51, pl. XXX. 248. Engelbach 1923, pl. LXXI (stela of an official with several titles, including ‘keeper of the chamber of the treasury’), LXXV (stela of an ‘overseer of boats’). 249. Engelbach 1915, pl. XXV (coffin of an ‘overseer of the gateway’), pl. XXVII (‘regulator of the watch’). 250. Hayes 1955, 58. 251. Di Teodoro 2018, 81–82. 252. Quirke 1990, 173. 253. Berlev 1972, 7–27. 254. Berlev 1972, 28–44. 255. Berlev 1972, 45–73. 256. Berlev 1972, 32. 257. Berlev 1972, 34–6. 258. Spalinger 1985. 259. A summary in English of Berlev’s reconstruction: Vinogradov 1991, 163–5. 260. Berlev 1972, 96–146. 261. Berlev 1972, 23 (list of those attested with names). 262. Ward 1982, 28–9, nos 197–9; these are most likely one title, compare: Franke 1984b, 117. 263. LD, Text IV, 54. 264. Altenmüller, Moussa 1991, 18 (M x + 25); Altenmüller 2015, 111–13. 265. Moran 1992, 216, 232, 233. 266. Angold 2009, 222. 267. Berlev 1972, 147–71. 268. Gunn 1929, 5–14; Säve-Söderbergh 1949, 57–8; Schneider 2003, 177–8; Kubisch 2008, 227–30. 269. Berlev 1972, 74–95 270. Mourad 2015. 271. Statue Berlin 8808; Berlin 1904, 146; for the date see Grajetzki 2000, 99; Schneider 2003, 26. 272. Brunton 1930, pl. xix, 19. 273. Schneider 2003, 153. 274. Wittfogel 1957.

Chapter 6 The End of the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period

The Second Intermediate Period (c. 1750–1550 BC) is one of the most problematic ages in Egyptian history. The country was separated into several political units, with people from the Levant ruling in the Eastern Delta. The extent of their kingdom is disputed. Monuments, often small stelae, are abundantly found in Upper Egypt, south of Abydos. Only a few belong to the regions north of Abydos. In terms of archaeology, Qau is one of the main sites of the period (Table 2). About 300 burials are known for the Second Intermediate Period, but it seems hard to pinpoint the beginning of this sequence in terms of absolute chronology. These burials are especially important in Egyptology for providing a pottery typology in the region for the Second Intermediate Period. In terms of Dynasties, the Second Intermediate Period is here seen as the second half of the Thirteenth Dynasty (after parts of the Delta were ruled by kings from the Levant), the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Dynasties. The Fifteenth Dynasty consisted of sovereigns in the Eastern Delta who most likely never ruled over the Wadjet province. The Fourteenth Dynasty remains enigmatic and was most likely restricted to the Delta The main archaeological record for the period in the Wadjet province is again the burials. A few stelae also come from this region, though their exact find spots are not known. Second Intermediate Period burials were found in all parts of the province, a particularly large number being discovered in cemetery 4500. However, most tombs of the period come from the north cemetery of Qau itself (about 200 burials). The general burial customs are not that different to the preceding periods. People were sometimes placed into rectangular wooden coffins that were once stuccoed (Figs 85 and 86), but in all instances only traces have survived. Pottery vessels are the most common burial good (Fig. 87), although not all burials contained one, so they were evidently not seen as essential. Next to the pottery vessels, personal adornments are common too, mostly beads and some scarabs (Fig. 88). Stone vessels

216

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Table 2. List of the undisturbed burials of the Second Intermediate Period at Qau and Badari No. 420 438B 720 909 1015 1033a 1307 1549 3921 4503 4506 4839 4854 7045 7047

chamber shaft shaft shaft shaft shaft shaft shaft shaft

man woman woman child child male woman man woman

7121

shaft

woman

7123 7125 7129 7138 7140 7152

male woman woman? child child woman woman, three children

7382

shaft shaft shaft shaft shaft shaft shaft with chamber shaft with chamber shaft

7430

shaft

7475

shaft

7323 7352

Type

Sex two men two men woman man child

woman

Vessels one stone vessel two pottery vessels three pottery vessels one vessel

one vessel glazed vase two vessels one vessel stone vase, two pottery vessels one pottery vessel about nine pottery vessels, stone vessel two vessels three vessels two vessels five vessels one vessel stone vase

tweezers, scarab beads, two scarabs shell scarab, coffin coffin coffin, beads coffin, beads coffin, copper ring coffin, copper ring coffin, scarab, gilded mask coffin coffin, scarab coffin coffin scarab

scarab, beads one coffin, scarabs, beads

one vessel, one stone vase

child three vessels, one stone vessel woman?

Other finds

two vessels, one stone vessel

bricked, coffin, tweezers, pin, pebble, beads beads beads, coffin, kohl stick, hair pin (Fig. 86) coffin

appear in burials and might have been used as cosmetic vessels. Most burials are surface graves or not very deep shafts, chambers are not common, sometimes older chamber tombs were reused. In general, the burials make a rather poor impression, especially when compared to those of the First Intermediate Period. This limited provision of burial equipment seems to be intentional, and not automatically linked to poverty. One example is burial 7045 found in the town cemetery of Qau. A man was placed in a wooden coffin within a simple shaft. The burial was found intact. The only burial goods were two pottery vessels, one stone vessel and one scarab. The coffin was heavily decayed when found.1 There were remains of a painted and gilded face, perhaps belonging to a mummy mask. This man evidently had substantial resources for his burial but spent most of them on the coffin and the mask. There is no way to tell whether there were once more wooden objects. Similar burials are known from

6. The End of the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period other parts of the country, and it therefore seems that, especially in the Second Intermediate Period, burial goods became less important. Those who had more resources spent them on decorated coffins and mummy masks. Such mummy masks are mentioned only twice in the excavation report for the region (tombs 1001, 7045). None is known to have been preserved in a museum collection. Plaster mask faces are also well known from Rifeh, across the river from Qau, and from other cemeteries of the Second Intermediate Period.2 One drastic change of burial customs in the Second Intermediate Period is the position of the body. From the Old Kingdom to the end of the Middle Kingdom, the dead were always lain on the left side with the head to the north. In earlier periods the body had repeatedly been arranged in a contracted position. Within the early Old Kingdom the body was most often stretched out, but still lying on the left side. Within the Second Intermediate Period, the body more often was placed on its back.3 Unlike the burials of the First Intermediate Period, the find spots of personal adornments (Figs 86, 88, 89, 91, 93) were not that carefully recorded and it is therefore less easy to reconstruct. Furthermore, amulets are now much rarer. Many forms had already disappeared in the Middle Kingdom (p. 179). Beads are still common and there are now scarabs (Figs 88, 91 and 93). The latter were found at the neck

217

Figure 85. Burial 7430. The burial of a person of unknown sex was at the bottom of a shaft in the remains of a wooden coffin. There were three pottery vessels, a kohl pot, a shell and a hair pin (Fig. 86); furthermore there were beads, two metal rings and a green glazed amulet in the form of a fly (bottom right, exact find spot not recorded; author, from tomb cards).

Figure 86. hair pin from tomb 7430, Second Intermediate Period (UC 26040) (author)

218

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Figure 87. Pottery from two Second Intermediate Period burials: Burial 3918 and 7123 

(tomb 7352) and at the fingers (tomb 3712), evidently used as ring bezels. Ear rings appear for the first time in Egypt (tomb 7323, 7578; Fig. 89). Beads are found as necklaces and bracelets (tomb 7578). On the body of one girl in burial 3712 many beads were found that might indicate body chains. The chronology of the burials is problematic. There are few securely datable objects in them. In tomb 3763 a scarab seal was found naming the Figure 88. Scarab, Second Intermediate Period, from ‘royal sealer, treasurer’ Har, dating tomb 7157 (UC 26031) (author) to the Second Intermediate Period, contemporary with the Hyksos (c. 1650–1550 BC).4 Several other scarabs can be dated to about the same time.5 Some scarabs show features typical of those produced in Canaan, providing evidence for goods exchange or other contacts.6 Janine Bourriau divides the burials of the Second Intermediate Period into three phases according to the pottery at Qau and Badari. She sees a break in the material culture between Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase 1 she divides into Subphases 1a and 1b. Phase 1 still belongs to the Thirteenth Dynasty and therefore to the late Middle Kingdom. The pottery can be linked to those found in the Memphite region and belonging to about this period.

6. The End of the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period

219

In Phase 1 and 2 most bodies of the deceased were placed on their left side. In Phase 3 they were placed on their back.7 The finds in the burials provide evidence that the province was not isolated at this time. In the Second Intermediate Period scarabs were mainly produced in the north, so all scarab seals found are ‘imports’ from that region or from the southern Levant. Something remarkable happened with pottery. Several types were now decorated, something that was rare in Egyptian pottery from the Naqada Period on, although there are examples from the late Middle Kingdom.8 Several vessels bear incised lines and geometrical patterns (Fig. 92). Painted decoration on Egyptian vessels appears too and is most often also geometrical with some figurative motifs such as birds and plants. It is most likely that Nubian pan-grave people still lived in the province, although the dating of single graves remains a big problem (see Fig. 96).

Examples of burials The burial in tomb 1001 dates perhaps to the very end of the Second Intermediate Period Figure 89. Tomb 7578 or early New Kingdom. The burial reused an Old Kingdom shaft tomb with a chamber. The burial was found disturbed but still contained three pottery vessels including a big storage jar, there were also the remains of a gilded plaster mask, two stone vessels, and tweezers. Tomb 3763 was a shaft tomb without chamber and contained a scarab of the ‘treasurer’ Har. The burial contained at least three vessels and a kohl stick. It was found robbed. The publication does not say anything about the skeleton found. 902 was most likely the burial place of a couple, it is one of the richer burials and might belong to the very end of the period. Two skeletons were found, both lying on the back, a man and a woman. The burial contained several pottery vessels, including one decorated with a geometric pattern and a rough drawing of a bird. Two scarabs were found, one shows on the back a face and on the underside two facing figures. It was most likely produced in the southern Levant.9 The second scarab is undecorated. Many beads were found and a stone vessel. A beautiful scarab most likely also coming from the Southern Levant was found in burial 7413 belonging

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Figure 90. Pottery from tomb 7578

220

6. The End of the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period

221

Figure 91. Scarab designs (author, from the originals), tomb 7578 (compare Fig. 93)

to a woman. Her simple burial was found looted. Some beads were found and a stone kohl stick. The nicely carved scarab shows a gazelle (?) on the underside. An outstanding tomb is 7578, perhaps dating to the beginning of the Second Intermediate Period.10 It was a shaft with a chamber, perhaps originally from Figure 92. Second Intermediate Period the Old Kingdom. In the small chamber were vessel with incised decoration, tomb 7578 found the remains of six individuals. There (UC 18789) (author) were three or perhaps four adults and two children. Several pottery vessels were found. The dead were partly equipped with personal adornments, including several scarabs (Figs 91, 93), two with a geometrical pattern on the underside. A woman had bracelets made of beads. One woman had a necklace, armlets, and rings of beads. It seems she was wearing a bronze ear ring and a mirror was found at her shoulder. Tomb 3712 was found at Badari. In a shaft there was one single coffin with three bodies Figure 93. Two scarabs from tomb 7578, of women. The two upper bodies were found Second Intermediate Period (UC 26052) heavily disturbed by a Roman burial. The (author) burial of a further young woman was found on top of these two women. She was richly equipped with scarabs, including one in a gold mount, found on the fingers. On the body were found many beads, perhaps once forming body chains. Within the coffin there were also several pottery vessels

222

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

and the remains of a box with bone inlays decorated with circles. In the box was a kohl pot and remains of a second, glazed vessel.

Historical overview of the period The Thirteenth Dynasty is the continuation of the Twelfth Dynasty without any major break in material culture. Burial customs, art and craft production continued without any disruption. Without the name of a king it is often impossible to decide whether an object belongs to one or the other dynasty. The national ruling class and the kings were still based in Itj-tauy11 The initial phase of the dynasty was most likely very short. There were a few kings each reigning perhaps 3–5 years. Then comes a group of several kings reigning together for perhaps only 5 years.12 They are only very badly attested in the sources; these kings include Awibre Hor, known from his burial at Dahshur. A phase of stabilisation started with kings such as Khendjer, known from his pyramid and some minor objects, and Sekhemresewadjtawy Sobekhetep, known from a greater number of sources. The two brothers Khasekhemre Neferhetep (I) and Khaneferre Sobekhetep represent the peak of the dynasty. Both are known from a relatively large number of monuments. Monuments of members of the ruling class are numerous. The officials of the period are better known than those of the Twelfth Dynasty. King Wahibre Ibiau and Aya Merneferre ruled for more than 30 years according to the Turin canon, a badly preserved Ancient Egyptian king list written on papyrus, but there is a sharp decline in the extant number of royal and private monuments.13 The rest of the Thirteenth Dynasty as a whole is characterised by many short reigns. Some of the local governors from Qau mentioned above (p. 186), known from their scarab seals, stela or statues, might belong to the late Thirteenth Dynasty. Their tombs have not yet been found or, at least, are not yet identified. At some point, Egypt was ruled in the north by kings from the Levant. This division marks the start of the Second Intermediate Period.14 The manner and timing of their rise to power is not yet ascertained, but it might be safe to say that by around 1650 BC the Eastern Delta was ruled by kings from the Levant. At one point Upper Egypt was raided by Nubians from the powerful Kerma Empire in the south.15 The raid is known from an inscription in a tomb chapel at Elkab, but the inscription does not mention which other parts of Egypt were affected. However, in Kerma itself Egyptian objects were found, including statues that might plausibly have been taken on this military trip. Statues of Hapydjefau and his wife Senuy, found in Kerma,16 most likely come from Asyut, north of Qau, indicating that the raid went as far as Asyut. It means the Nubians passed through the Wadjet province, but further evidence for this event in the province itself is lacking. At about this time an independent line of Egyptian kings reigned in Thebes, and a potential line of kings ruling from Abydos has been discussed. If this dynasty really existed, Qau would probably have been part of its realm of influence, as king Wepewawetemsaf of that dynasty may be attested by a graffito in Beni Hasan, north of Qau (the reading of the name is

6. The End of the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period

223

not fully certain). If Upuautemsaf belonged to a Theban line of kings, Qau was evidently part of the Theban kingdom.17 However, we have little idea how tight the control over Middle Egypt was. From the end of the Second Intermediate Period there is evidence of a local count named Teti residing in Neferusi (north of Qau)18 and ruling the neighbouring regions. The count is mentioned on the Kamose stela found at Karnak where there is a report of fights between the Theban kings and the Hyksos rulers. The count was allied to the Hyksos. It remains unknown whether his influence also reached Qau. A strange feature of the period is the lack of written sources. Especially in Middle Egypt, very few texts were found that are securely datable to the Second Intermediate Period. In contrast Elkab, Edfu,19 Thebes,20 and Abydos21 provide rich sources from which we can gain some idea of at least of parts of the society. The inscribed monuments are often of low artistic quality, but they name people, providing clues to administrative structures. Almost nothing like that is attested north of Abydos. There are some stelae known from Asyut22 and only a handful can be attributed to Qau, but their dating is uncertain and they might rather belong to the early Thirteenth Dynasty. The missing written sources in Qau and Badari might be simply a gap in the archaeological record. Thebes and Abydos have strong links to the king’s house. The cemeteries there are the richest of the period and inscribed material is common. The burials at Qau and Badari appear poor in comparison, although wooden coffins might have been inscribed. Burials of the richer segments of society might simply be missing in the Wadjet province. The stela Stockholm NME 5923 most likely belongs to the Second Intermediate Period. It bears one of the very few longer inscriptions of the period and belonging to Middle Egypt. According to the gods mentioned the monuments must come from Qau (or Abydos, but showing people from Qau). Its offering formula is typical of the period. The stela was already in ancient times heavily worn and most likely reused. The offering formula invokes ‘Nemty, lord of Tjebu’ and ‘Sobek, lord of Minet’ and ‘all gods that are in Tjebu’. The name of the stela owner is lost, but he was ‘member of the elite, foremost of action’ and ‘overseer of priests’. These are typical titles of a local governor of the Middle Kingdom and indicates that the local administration was similar to that of the Middle Kingdom. Stela Lyon H 157624 dates to the middle of the Thirteenth Dynasty or to the Second Intermediate Period. The stela belongs to ‘governor’ and ‘overseer of priests’ Nehy. His son was also ‘governor’ (but not ‘overseer of priests’) and is called Ipep. On the stela are also shown some officials. There is the ‘keeper of clothing’ Ipepi, a ‘steward’ with the same name, and ‘overseer of the house of clothing’ (reading of title uncertain) and the ‘overseer of sealers’ Hornakht. The stela can be attributed to a small group of stelae all most likely showing people from Qau, as indicated by Alexander Ilin-Tomich.25 The names on the stela are otherwise not common at Qau. This might just mean that the family of this governor comes originally from somewhere else. Another option is that the family here ruled not at Qau but somewhere else, and they

224

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

used artists from Qau. The people on the stela seem mostly to be from one family, as the use of the same names indicates. It also seems that a governor is shown here with the most important administrators of his local court. There is a ‘steward’, an ‘overseer of sealers’, and a ‘keeper of clothing’. The first two officials are also very important at royal courts. The royal court still was used as model for the local courts.

Settlements of the period Settlement remains are again mostly missing in the Wadjet province for the Second Intermediate Period. Other places need to be consulted for this. At Balat, in the Western oasis of Dakhleh were excavated the remains of a rural settlement dating to the Thirteenth Dynasty and Second Intermediate Period. The function and status of this settlement are not entirely clear; the scale and uniformity perhaps comes closest to something we can call a ‘village’, although the possibility remains that these are the badly preserved traces of a larger settlement. If we are dealing with a village, these remains are so far the only fully documented and excavated remains of an Egyptian village and are therefore of the greatest importance for understanding rural life, albeit in this case not in the Nile valley. Three clusters of houses were excavated. It remains open whether they once formed one unit, while the houses in between are gone, or whether these were indeed three separate groups of buildings. The houses found are built of mud bricks, sometimes several layers thick. The central unit is a group of houses arranged around an open space, containing numerous silos, most likely for the storage of grain. In the southern part there were also four larger trenches in the ground, plastered on the inside. The largest was about 2 m long and 1 m wide and was divided by a wall into two parts. It seems that these were storage units for items which needed to be kept cool. In the largest were found a complete jar and a double pottery mould which was used for making bread. The second largest was found full of pottery, including eighteen double pottery moulds. There were also two plain bread moulds, some further vessels, and two simple beads. One of the houses may have had two storeys. Its ground floor consisted of two large main rooms, one of them about 10 × 7 m. In the middle there was a column to support the roof and on the north side there was a staircase to the roof or second floor. Further north there was a second large room just a little smaller than the first. One wonders whether this building had some official function. The plans of most houses excavated seem to be incomplete. Several of them seem to have consisted of just two or three rooms,26 though it is extremely hard to separate one house from another especially as they are built close to each other. Fireplaces were found in the middle of some rooms27 and in many vessels were found dug into the floors. A remarkable feature was the foundation deposits under the walls of several buildings. These often contained vessels with a spout, most likely water jars. The vessels were not new when they were placed under the houses. Other objects are rare: there is one scarab and

6. The End of the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period

225

some beads.28 Foundation deposits are common for temples and tombs but are very rarely found in domestic contexts. It remains uncertain whether this is just a gap in the archaeological record or if the deposits here are based on a local tradition. Altogether 46 silos were excavated.29 They range in diameter from 1.24 m to 2.9 m. They were often dug slightly into the ground and at least some of them had a domed top. It seems that at least some were not tall, perhaps less than 1 m.30 The silos were only found in the courtyards or next to the houses. Another sign of the importance of food production is the large number of bread moulds found, about 3000 of the ‘double bread mould type’ and about 1750 of to the ‘single bread mould type’.31 Many other pottery types were most likely also connected with the production or storage of food, such as large handmade cylindrical vessels, of which some 200 were found.32 Indeed similar vessels are shown in Middle Kingdom tombs in connection with food production.33 Most of the pottery was produced locally, but shows similarities with the ware produced in the Nile valley. Besides the pottery other finds are rare. There were some scarabs, one of them belonging to a lower official.34 There were several stone tools, while no metal objects were found.35 Some stone vessels were used as cosmetic objects (Fig. 95).36 A senet game board on a flat stone and gaming pieces were found.37 A number of clay figures presumably had a cultic function. There are many simple clay figures of cattle. Clay heads of birds were found and several clay figures of naked women. Unique is the complete figure of a man riding on a donkey. Sadly the figure was found without clear context, so its precise dating within the late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period remains open. Contact with Nubia is attested through pottery fragments belonging to the Kerma culture.38 A Cananite jar attests contact with Palestine-Syria.39 In the absence of any parallels in settlement archaeology of this period it is impossible to decide whether this is a typical farming village or whether the settlement had some more official functions. In either case, it might have been the centre of an estate. The pottery and the silos point strongly to an agrarian function. There are little signs of the presence of officials. The few scarab seals might have been used as personal adornments rather than for sealing goods.

The society of the Second Intermediate Period Within the Thirteenth Dynasty, Thebes became more important. There was a royal palace40 and there is good evidence that Thebes became an important administrative centre. Several highest officials were based here.41 The rise of the city might be related to the conquest of Nubia, which could be administered more effectively from Thebes than from Itj-tauy far in the north. From the preserved inscriptions it seems that the organisation of society did not change much in the period. The ‘great enclosure’ is still well attested. In Thebes there was also an important vizier’s office42 sending despatches and orders to Nubia.

226

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Figure 94. Late Middle Kingdom kohl pot found in Second Intermediate Period grave (3921) (UC 26021) (author)

Figure 95. Two bone flies, Second Intermediate Period, tomb 7196 (UC 26032) (author)

In the Second Intermediate Period, Egypt was ruled by a line of Egyptian kings. At a certain point the royal court moved to Thebes. This Theban state extended for sure from Hu in the north to Elephantine in the south.43 However, boundaries and zones of interest might have changed over time and the question as to whether an Abydos dynasty existed must remain open.44 It is not known what happened to the Wadjet province in this period; while texts relating to the province and texts from the province are rare, the surviving examples seem to indicate that not much changed though the local court became poorer, especially in comparison to the Twelfth Dynasty. The cemeteries of the period appear rather poor too. There are many more burials dating to the period than to the Twelfth Dynasty, but there is nothing that compares to the high number and richly equipped burials of the First Intermediate Period. This contrast might however relate to burial customs and not so much to actual poverty. The recently discovered Abydos tomb of king Senebkay shows the limited resources available to the southern or Theban kings of the Second Intermediate Period. The surviving remains of the monument consist of three underground chambers and an entrance ramp. The main burial chamber is built of reused limestone blocks. The tomb was found looted, but even the burial equipment was partly reused.45 Senebkay seems to be more or less contemporary with the local governor Sobeknakht II at Elkab.46 The latter had a substantial decorated tomb at Elkab.47 The contrast between his tomb and that of Senebkay seems striking. There is not much difference in expenditure visible between the two tombs. However, the comparison might be not that fair, as it is the comparison between a tomb chapel and a burial chamber. It would be interesting to see what Senebkay’s funerary temple or funerary

6. The End of the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period

227

chapel looked like. No superstructure for the king’s tomb has been preserved. There might have been a small pyramid, making the comparison difficult. Nevertheless, the tomb of Senebkay indicates a decline of royal resources and, on the other hand with Sobeknakht, a strong local oligarch. The people shown in Sobeknakht’s tomb are also of special interest and ­demonstrate how society had changed Figure 96. Pan grave vessel from tomb 1989 (UC since the Middle Kingdom. In several 17889), Old Kingdom (author) scenes in the tomb chapel, Sobeknakht is shown with family members and lower officials around him. The titles of these officials are striking. They are most often military men with the title ‘commander of the ruler’s crew’.48 This clearly demonstrates a high level of militarisation of society in this period. This is in stark contrast to the Twelfth Dynasty, when governors’ tombs also often show lower officials in front of the governor, but they bear mainly administrative titles such as ‘treasurer’, ‘steward’, ‘overseer of cattle’, or ‘overseer of fields’.49 The tasks related to these titles were certainly also needed in the Second Intermediate Period and one wonders whether many of the military people had these tasks in real life too. Perhaps not much changed in reality, but in inscriptions it was regarded as more important or more prestigious to be presented with military titles. Nevertheless, it shows that in Upper Egypt, military titles became more common in the period. This was certainly a response to permanent threats from Nubia, attested by the Elkab inscription,50 and possibly from other areas of hostile aggression, including from the Delta. This militarisation of society is not very visible in the Wadjet province where few written sources are preserved. However, in burial 7196 near Qau two large bone flies were found (Fig. 95). From written sources of the New Kingdom we know that golden flies were given as a mark of rank to military people.51 One wonders whether the two ivory flies were indeed such a mark for a rank, perhaps for a common soldier. Not much is known about the broader population beyond the archaeological records. In the Theban region, the ‘great enclosure’ was still operating. Some written sources, such as the ‘stèle juridique’ (a stela found in Karnak reporting the transmisson of a governor’s post), provide evidence for the title ‘scribe of the great enclosure’.52 A title that became important especially at the end of the late Middle Kingdom and in the Second Intermediate Period was the ‘overseer of a half domain’. The title is so far not yet attested in Qau, but title holders are known from the Delta53 down to Upper Egypt at Elkab.54 Many title holders were local governors or became local governors later in their career. These officials are also often connected with the king’s house via family links. It seems that these were officials in charge of the royal domains throughout

228

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

the country.55 It remains problematic to see what this really means. Evidently in the Thirteenth Dynasty and Second Intermediate Period these ‘half domains’ were all over the country.56 They were administrated by high officials directly responsible to the king. Many title holders have the ranking title ‘royal sealer’, linking them to the royal court. They were often locals and later in their career became governors or had the governor title at the same time.57 The question arises how they differ from the local governors of the Twelfth Dynasty? It seems certain that they also had to pay some tribute to the royal court. However, it might be argued that the new system brought the tribute directly from the provinces to the palace, fewer resources remaining in the province. If that was the case, it might explain the decline of the governor’s wealth. In the late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period they no longer had direct control over all resources of the provinces. The status of the working population remains problematic for this period, but texts indicate that nothing changed in comparison to the Middle Kingdom. From the tomb of Bebi at Elkab comes a long list of meret-people. The men in the list are all ‘king’s servants’, the women are all ‘servants’.58 These people were certainly owned in some way by Bebi, otherwise the list would not make much sense in the tomb. The burial customs of the period are not very helpful for gaining any clearer picture. Burials are less richly equipped than before and after. It seems that this was the custom of the day and must have been related to new religious beliefs of the late Middle Kingdom. These new beliefs seem to have affected all social classes.

Notes

1. Brunton 1930, 8, 10, pl.  v (the tomb register says anthropoid coffin, in the text, p.  10, it is remarked that the face more likely belongs to a mask). 2. Rogge 1988. 3. Bourriau 2001. 4. Ben-Tor 2007, 112–13. 5. Ben-Tor 2007, 50. 6. Ben-Tor 2007, 50. 7. Bourriau 2010, 23. 8. Bourriau 1981, 57, no. 99. 9. Ben-Tor 2007, 50, n. 206 10. Bourriau 1981, 40 11. Hayes 1947. 12. Quirke 2006, 265. 13. This summary follows Grajetzki 2006, 63–75. 14. Ilin-Tomich 2016 (most recent summary). 15. Davies 2003. 16. Franke 1984, 447 (dossier 777); Smith 1981, 180–1. 17. Ryholt 1997, 165. 18. von Beckerath 1964, 207. 19. Marée 2009. 20. Ilin-Tomich 2017, 101–11.

6. The End of the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period

229

21. Marée 2010. 22. Mahfouz 2013. 23. Mogensen 1919, 29. 24. Ilin-Tomich 2017, pl. 23 (left). 25. Ilin-Tomich 2017, 153 (‘workshop 5’). 26. Marchand and Soukiassian 2010, 33–43, 52, fig. 61 (rooms 23–5); fig. 87 (rooms 15, 16; 3–5; 6–7). 27. Marchand and Soukiassian 2010, 73–4, 92. 28. Marchand and Soukiassian 2010, 122–6. 29. Marchand and Soukiassian 2010, 111–21, fig. 150. 30. Marchand and Soukiassian 2010, 118, fig. 144. 31. Marchand and Soukiassian 2010, 146, fig. 156 (nos 1a, 1b). 32. Marchand and Soukiassian 2010, 132–3, 169. 33. Newberry 1893b, pl. VI; Newberry 1893a, pl. xii. 34. Marchand and Soukiassian 2010, 305–7. 35. Marchand and Soukiassian 2010, 277–93. 36. Marchand and Soukiassian 2010, 293–6. 37. Marchand and Soukiassian 2010, 299–300. 38. Marchand and Soukiassian 2010, 206–7. 39. Marchand and Soukiassian 2010, 227. 40. Quirke 1990, 17. 41. Ilin-Tomich 2015. 42. Grajetzki 2000, 38–9; Smith 1990, 210. 43. Ryholt 1997, 159. 44. Franke 1988, 259; Ryholt 1997, 163–6; Ilin-Tomich 2016, 9–10. 45. Wegner 2017. 46. Wegner 2017, 501–4. 47. Tylor 1896, Davies 2003. 48. Tylor 1896, pls iv, viii, ix. 49. See for example in Beni Hasan; Newberry 1893, pls xiii, xxx; compare Seidlmayer 2007b. 50. Davies 2003. 51. Aldred 1971, 19. 52. Lacau 1949, 22. 53. Lange 2015. 54. Grajetzki 2000, 201–2, compare also Franke 2013, 77–78. 55. Franke 2013, 77. 56. Grajetzki 2010b, 309. 57. Grajetzki 2000, 201–2. 58. Lepsius, Denkmaeler, Text IV, 54; Berlev 1972, 14–16.

Concluding remarks

This survey of one Egyptian province must end with the beginning of the New Kingdom, around 1550 BC. It becomes harder to identify the traces of poorer people in the archaeological and written records. A history from below seems almost impossible for many periods after 1550 BC, at least in the Wadjet province. There are still some substantial monuments in the Wadjet province dating to the New Kingdom and later, but the extensive archaeological record of the burials for the wider population is no longer there. The written sources become more important instead: a group of Third Intermediate Period papyri provide details on agriculture,1 there are many stelae and statues, and, for the Byzantine Period, the archive of Dioskoros from Aphrodito,2 an exceptionally rich and informative collection of letters and other writings, invaluable for social history. The disappearance of burials within the New Kingdom from the archaeological record might lie in a change of burial customs, as fewer objects were placed with the deceased, but another factor is a general lack of interest in the later periods of Egyptian history on the part of Brunton and other archaeologists. In the Brunton excavation report, the periods c. 4000–1500 BC cover three and a half volumes, the time from around 1500 BC to AD 500 just half a volume. Therefore, the New Kingdom is a reasonable point in time to stop the survey. Receiving this rich data set was only possible due to what, by modern standards, was rather superficial work in the region, with at best sketchy recording of finds by Brunton and his team. Nowadays a similar project would cover several decades or a large number of people that would need abundant funding. Here a problem in archaeology is evident. The more careful recording of today leaves many sites exposed to full destruction by modern robbers or modern building work. A set of data gained by careful recording of single finds and graves on the one hand is the loss of statistical

232

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

and regional data on the other. Sites are, in effect, sacrificed for careful recording. It is easy to complain about the data lost due to Brunton’s methods, but his methods also supply us with much valuable information. His typology of amulets and beads and his pottery corpus is still a fundamental resource. In the ancient sources of the Old and Middle Kingdom the Wadjet province appears mainly as a resource base for manpower. The history from below is often only visible due to the written sources of the ruling classes. In the Old Kingdom, people were needed for the construction of the gigantic pyramids of the Fourth Dynasty, and they were taken from everywhere, including the provinces. The archaeological record within the province does provide many rather poorly equipped burials for this period. In early research this was related to the removal of all local resources for the pyramid building. However, more recent analyses are more cautious. Changing burial customs are more probable. There were local ruling classes in the province, mainly visible from their large tombs. As only a few inscriptions are preserved, it remains hard to identify the social and geographical background of those people. However, as we have seen, a copper ewer was found in one of these burials with the short label: ‘priest of Nemty, Hetep’. Nemty is attested as one of the main deities of the province, and so this man was evidently from the area, indicating that there was a local ruling class not automatically linked to the royal residence. His title might also indicate that the local temples were the centre of the local administration.3 The earliest preserved larger monuments in the province were made for officials organising the local contribution to the workforce for royal projects and running state estates. These officials came from the royal residence in the north, and it seems they had little connection to local traditions. From the inscriptions, they appear as implants from the outside. The interaction between royal residence and province appears in the sources as that of exploitation of local resources, in this concrete case explicitly manpower. With these new people in charge, for the first time estates within the province are securely attested by inscriptions. At least some of these were managed by the central government. The people running these (often) agricultural estates were those buried in the tombs just mentioned. These are those men often labelled nomarchs in Egyptological literature.4 However, it must remain an open question whether the whole population worked on these estates, that were most likely agricultural places. In addition to agricultural centres, there is also evidence for craft production, sometimes not only for local consumption. Outside the Wadjet province, the Gebelein papyri provide evidence for the high level of bureaucracy and an idea how such an estate was organised. There are clear indications that each head of household had to pay tribute/dues to the local authorities. It seems that family size was decisive for the amount of the tribute. Craftsmen in general were most likely attached to estates. It seems unlikely that there were many free producers, due to an insecure income base they would prefer to work on an estate for a high

Concluding remarks

233

official or an institution. People living and working on the estates probably had a serf-like status. Therefore, estate managers were not only ‘overseers of the fields’ but also ‘overseers of livestock and people’. Despite this, the people on the Gebelein estates could act quite independently and could buy and sell houses. From other sources it is also clear that there were also local markets for obtaining goods not produced in the house units on estates. The overall structures of the state and of the society remain shrouded in mystery. With all caution it might be suggested that the province was left relatively untouched by government organisations till about the Fourth Dynasty. There was most likely a local governor, and it can be assumed that, once in a while, the province had to pay some form of tribute, best attested on the Palermo stone for the Second Dynasty onwards. How did the local governors relate to the local people that were not part of an estate? Did the locals have to pay dues to the governors? Or were they basically free, while the governors just had some estates of their own that supplied them with all their needs? These remain unanswered questions. At the end of the Old Kingdom administrative titles changed, indicating changes in society too. The local governors now have more fixed title strings, no longer focusing on running royal estates. Most of them were still head of the royal estates, but those titles are no longer the most important ones. Perhaps these governors became administrators of towns and provinces, and not only of royal estates. At several places local dynasties come into view. However, there is little sign that their power was based on owning land. Within the First Intermediate Period, Egypt disintegrated into smaller units. The royal court in the north was no longer able to extract all resources from the provinces. As soon as the power of the royal court in the north declined, the Wadjet province started to flourish. From about 2300–2000 BC burials of the wider population were better equipped than ever before or after. At first glance, it seems that more resources remained in the province. However, burial customs need to be considered too. More objects were placed into burials in this period. It seems that certain classes of people had more resources. Inscriptions from other regions shed light on another feature of the period; some stelae of people who do not belong to the ruling class no longer refer to the king, but to local governors, in contrast to the Old Kingdom. From the evidence of certain titles it might be assumed that most people still lived and worked on estates of officials or institutions and had a serf-like status. The material culture of the working population does not meet our expectations. While earlier studies emphasise that there was a local, distinguish, folkloristic culture in the provinces, it seems more likey that many of these folkloristic objects, mainly personal adornments, were products of non royal workshops that operated all around the country, including at the royal residence. There is nothing especially rural or working class about these objects. Nevertheless, the burials from about 2300–2000 BC provide one of the richest data sets on burial customs and life seen via burials in a provincial place in Egypt, far away from the political centre.

234

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Around 2000 BC Egypt again became a unified state, marking the start of the Middle Kingdom. All evidence shows that not much changed at the beginning of the period. With the move of the capital of Egypt from the south to the north things changed around 1950 BC. There is visible a stark move towards the king taking control of the whole of the country. The central government now seems to have intruded into many parts of life. Most importantly all parts of Egypt were now placed under state control. With the ‘great enclosure’ there was now an institution organising corvée. The few surviving texts relating to it paint a dark picture of suppression. However, it might be doubted whether life for the local farmer was a bigger burden than in the Old Kingdom. The structures of exploitation are just more visible. As in other periods, some private enterprise is visible on many social levels. However, that element never led to an economy where market forces were prominent. Most likely in the Middle Kingdom the country was still organised by estates. ‘Overseer of the estate’ (imy-r pr) is one of the most common titles of the period. Some estates were attached to offices, but others were privately owned, as the tomb inscription of the local governor Hapydjefa clearly says. He had an estate attached to his office, but also one coming from his parents. At the end of the Middle Kingdom appear the pan-grave burials in the archaeological record. These were perhaps nomads of the Eastern desert living and traveling in many parts of Egypt. Their appearance is somehow problematic. Were they including in the Egyptian bureaucracy? Did they have to do corvée work? In contrast to the earlier periods, the Middle Kingdom remains in the Wadjet province of the common people are not abundant. An exception are the big tombs of the governors, indicating that the local oligarchs managed to collect a high number of resources. The lack of poorer burials might relate to a new polarisation of resources in the Middle Kingdom. Burials of poorer people disappear from the archaeological record, perhaps as they were so badly equipped that they were of no interest to any archaeologist. The Middle Kingdom is also the period when the material culture was unified. In the Old Kingdom there was a court culture and a daily life culture. Now types and forms of the court culture take over all parts of daily life. Differences are now mainly visible in quality and not in different types of objects. Art produced not at the centre of power appears now often rather inferior in workmanship. If Ancient Egypt is an example of the tributary mode of production, the Egyptian version can be described in this way: power of officials is based on the relation to the king. Officials are creations of the king. This is also true for local governors. Their power is not based on owning land. The king also had unlimited access to people as a resource, especially in royal building projects. Against older models of the tributary mode of production, there is little sign that irrigation works played any major part in maintaining power or establishing rule. There is a long discussion in Egyptology about whether Ancient Egyptians had slaves. It might be argued that at this stage of development slaves were just not needed. All Egyptians were at the disposal of the king, and most likely also of higher officials. There is no question that there were

Concluding remarks

235

towns in Egypt at least from the Naqada Period onward. They were local centres for administration, cult, and craft production. However, they rarely played the same important role as those in the East, where there was a landscape of competing city states. Evidently the system changed over time. In the Old Kingdom control over parts of the country might have been quite loose. In the Middle Kingdom it seems much tighter. The Wadjet province clearly shows the potential of excavating the burials of common people. However, the survey also reveals the gaps in Egyptian archaeology. Settlement archaeology is evidently a problem. Brunton found some settlement remains and recorded them inadequately, without plans or precise locations. The provincial capital is evidently gone forever, but other places must still lie under modern villages. With techniques from urban rescue archaeology, and new investigations into the rural landscape and the course of the Nile, future archaeologists may be expected to deliver a more comprehensive social history.

Notes

1. Papyrus Reinhardt (Vleeming 1993). 2. Keenan 2008. 3. Bussmann 2011; Moreno García 2013a, 98. 4. Critical review of the word’s use: Tomkins 2018

Appendix List of people from the Wadjet province

Second or Third Dynasty

Hetep (or Nemtyhetep), ‘priest’ (or ‘priest of Nemty’) (Brunton 1927, pl. xviii, 10)

List of Old Kingdom people Men

Ankhi, ‘scribe’ (rock cut tomb A2). Shown in a row of officials before the tomb owner. He holds writing equipment in his hands (el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990, pl. 44). Dedu, son of Kaiaper, ‘scribe’ (rock cut tomb A2) Djefadjed, ‘overseer of ka priest’ (rock cut tomb A1, A2 and A3). In A2 he is shown as leading captain on a ship (el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990, pl. 44). Hepu (perhaps read Kepu) (rock cut tomb A2) Heqaib, ‘scribe of the house of sacred books’ (rock cut tomb A2) Hetep … (Brunton 1927, pl. xli, 18) Idi ‘overseer of carpenters’ (imy-r fnx) (rock cut tomb A3a) Ikau (rock cut tomb A2) Iufu, ‘ka servant’ (rock cut tomb A 3) Iunka, son of Kaikhenet (rock cut tomb A 3) Kaiaper, father of the ‘scribe’ Dedu (rock cut tomb A2)

Kaihersetef (?) ‘director of the food hall’ (rock cut tomb A 2) Kaikhenet, ‘scribe’ (rock cut tomb A 2) Kaikhenet, local governor (rock cut tomb A 2) Kaikhenet, local governor (rock cut tomb A 3) Kaikhenet, son of Kaikhenet (rock cut tomb A 3) Kaiemhezet, ‘acquaintance of the king’ (rock cut tomb A 2) Kaiemhezet, ‘scribe’ (rock cut tomb A2) Kaiemhezet ‘overseer of linen’ (rock cut tomb A2 and A3) Kaiemnefert, governor (rock cut tomb C4, mentioned in tomb C5) Kainebefui, ‘director of the food hall’ (rock cut tomb A 2) Kaires, son of Kakenet and Iufy, ‘scribe’ (rock cut tomb A 2) Mau (maw), ‘ka servant’ (rock cut tomb A 2) Meri, ‘overseer of ka priest’ (rock cut tomb A 2) Neferher, ‘director of the food hall’ (rock cut tomb A 2) Neferen (rock cut tomb A 2) Neferuka, ‘scribe’ (rock cut tomb A 2) Netji-tjenti (reading uncertain) (rock cut tomb A 2) Niankh-Userkaf (reading uncertain), son of Djefai-ded (rock cut tomb A1) Niankh-Userkaf (rock cut tomb A 3) These two people might be identical.

238

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Rahetep, son of Kakhenet and Iufy, ‘overseer of the king’s people’ (rock cut tomb A 2) Rahetep, the son of Kakhenet and Iufy might be identical with the later governor Rahetep, buried in tomb C5. Rahetep, ‘scribe’ (rock cut tomb A 2), not identical with the son of the tomb owner with the same name. Sekhemre, son of Kaikhenet (rock cut tomb A 3) Tjepu (rock cut tomb A 3) Tjenti, ‘ka servant’ (rock cut tomb A 3)

Women

Hekenhedjet, wife of Djefadjed; ‘priestess of Hathor’ (rock cut tomb A 1) Hetepheres, daughter of Kaikhenet (rock cut tomb A 3) Iufy, wife of Kaikhenet (rock cut tomb A 2) Iufy, daughter of Kaikhenet (rock cut tomb A 3) Khentikaues, wife of Kaikhenet (rock cut tomb A 3) Kheredet (rock cut tomb A 2) Kheredet, daughter of Kaikhenet (rock cut tomb A 2) Meresankh, daughter of Kaikhenet (rock cut tomb A 3) Neferetkau, daughter of Kakenet and Iufy (rock cut tomb A 2) Neferkeki ‘king’s acquaintance’ (rock cut tomb A 2). She is shown behind Iufy, the wife of the tomb owner (el-Khouli and Kanawati 1990, pl. 39). She was perhaps a servant or related to Iufy, but the connection is not stated in any caption. Otherwise, females with names and titles are rare in the Hemamieh tombs, unless they are the wives or daughters of the tomb owner. Djefa, daughter of Kakenet and Iufy (rock cut tomb A 2)

First Intermediate Period Men

Hetepu, son of Sen (Letter to Dead1) Inkhenmut (Letter to Dead2) Khentyemsaf3 Nakht4 Nauef (Letter to Dead5)

Shepsi, son of Iy (Letter to Dead6) Sher, son of Henu (Letter to Dead7) Sobekhetep (Letter to Dead8)

Women

Hesu, daughter of Redu (readings uncertain9) Iy, mother of Shepsi (Letter to Dead10)

List of Middle Kingdom people in the Wadjet nome Men

Ambudu, brother of Renefankh (CG 20753) Ameny, begotten of Khuy (GC 20112) (iri-aw) Ameny, brother of Henu (CG 20112) Ameny, sister of Henu (CG 220112) Ameny, store overseer, brother of Wahka (CG 20431) Ameny (man?), stela Abydos II, pl. xxxi Ameny, brother of Renefankh (CG 20753) Ankh, brother of Wahka (CG 20431) Ankhu, son of ‘trooper’ Sobekhetep (CG 20164) Ankhu, ‘keeper of the henu vessel’ (CG 20595) Bebi, ‘servant’ (wdpw) of the ‘treasurer’ Sobekhetep (CG 20342) Biu, son of Khuyt (CG 20313) Dedu, son of ‘trooper’ Sobekhetep (CG 20164) Dedu, begotten of Mut, brother of ‘trooper’ Sobekhetep (CG 20164) Dedusobek, son of Hetepuy (CG 20021) Dedusobek, ‘steward’, son of Tjetji (CG 20236) Dedusobek, son of ‘steward’ Ib… (CG 20298) Dedusobek, ‘steward’, son of ‘deputy governor’ Ibu (CG 20022) Dedusobek, his beautiful name is Iyib ‘overseer of meret-people’ (?), father of ‘governor’ Wahka (Turin 1547) Djerti, son of Hetepui, ‘overseer of sealers’ (CG 20681). Date: Thirteenth Dynasty.11 Hedju, begotten of Senankh (CG 20245) Henenta, ‘steward’ (CG 20580) Henneta, father of ‘deputy governor’ Ibu (CG 20022) Henu (overseer of the stable [mdjat]), begotten of Nakhti (CG 20112) Hepy, ‘overseer of the gateway’ (imy-r rwyt), canopic jars in the Louvre (E. 11257, 11258,

Appendix. List of people from the Wadjet province E 11259), jars might belong on iconographical grounds to Qau12 Hetep, ‘governor of Tjebu’, seal13 Hetep, ‘sealer’ (xtmw), begotten of Nakht (Stockholm MM 32004), date: Amenemhat III Hetepy, ‘governor’, ‘overseer of priests’, ‘of the Wadjet province’, seal14 Hetepuy, ‘overseer of shena’, father: Nemtynakht, mother Habu (CG 20021) Hetepuy, son of Senen (CG 20306) Hetepuy, ‘steward’, begotten of Basetnet (CG 20580; Stockholm NME 8215) Hor, brother of Khetu (CG 20303) Hor, mentioned in tomb of Wahka II; Steckeweh 1936, 51 Hor, son of Nemtyhetep (CG 20227) Hornakht, ‘overseer of sealers’ (Lyon H 1576). Date: Thirteenth Dynasty (or later) Ib…, ‘steward’, born of Senuankh (CG 20298) Ib-ankh, brother of ‘trooper’ Sobekhetep (CG 20164) Ibi, father of ‘trooper’ Sobekhetep (CG 20164) Ibi, ‘lector priest’, brother of Wahka (CG 20431) Ibi, ‘lector priest’, scribe of forms’, born of Hetepet (CG 20243) Ibi, son of ‘trooper’ Sobekhetep (CG 20164) Ibu, ‘governor’ and ‘overseer of priests’, born of Hetepwy, owner of tomb 816 Ibu, son of Wahka (II) shown is the tomb of the latter17 Ibu steward (CG 20298), his wife is called Senuankh; he was perhaps father of steward Ib… as the latter has a mother with the name Senuankh. Ibu, ‘steward’, begotten of Hetep (CG 20584; the same (?): Stockholm NME 8218) Ibu Iymeru, son of Khetu (CG 20303) Ibu, brother of Ib… (CG 20298) Ibu, brother of Neferrudj Seneb (BM 363) Ibu, father of Djerti (CG 20681) Ibu, father of treasurer Sobekhetep (CG 20342) Ibu, ‘follower’, son of the ‘deputy of the governor of Tjebu’, son of Hennut (CG 20022) Ibu, ‘overseer of washermen’ (CG 20588) Ibu, ‘scribe’, son of Iku (or Inebu), stela Abydos II, pl. xxxi Ibu, son of steward Kay (CG 20599) Ibu, ‘steward’, father of steward Kay (CG 20599) and later ‘deputy governor’, son of Henenet,

239

and Zatintef, wife is Wahka (CG 20022) (Franke, Doss. 59). CG 20599 is his own stela, CG 20022 belongs to his son Kay. Ibu-aa, brother of Ib… (CG 20298) Ibuankh, son of ‘steward’ Kay (CG 20599) Ibu-nedjes, brother of Ib… (CG 20298) Ibuseneb, son of ‘steward’ Kay (CG 20599) Iini, ‘keeper for things’, begotten of Mutuhetep (CG 20245) Inethenu, ‘butler’ (wbA) (CG 20022) Ini, ‘draughtsman’, brother of steward Wahka (CG 20549) Inpuhetep, brother of Henu (CG 220112) Int(ef)?, Steckeweh 1936, 50 Ipep, ‘governor’, son of ‘governor’ Nehy (Lyon H 1576) Ipep, ‘overseer of the house of clothing’(?) (Lyon H 1576) Ipep, ‘steward’ (Lyon H 1576) Ipepi, ‘keeper of clothing’ (Lyon H 1576) Ipu, son of Sobekhetep (CG 20193) Ipu, son of Khuyt (CG 20313) Irgemetef, ‘friend’ of ‘deputy treasurer’ Ibu (CG 20022) Ity, brother of Henu (CG 220112) Iufenef, son of Sobekaa (CG 20550) Iyemhetep, ‘steward’ (CG 20580) Iyw, brother of mother of ‘treasurer’ Sobekhetep (CG 20342) Kay, steward (CG 20599, CG 20022), father is steward and ‘deputy governor’ Ibu (Franke, Doss. 709). Stela CG 20599 is his own stela. CG 20022 is that of his father when the latter was appointed ‘deputy governor’. Kehketmety, ‘follower’, born of Sobekhetep (CG 20313) Kem, ‘trooper’ (?) (sky) (CG 20164), he appears on the same stela as the ‘trooper’ Sobekhetep Kemni, son of Zais (CG 20313) Khetu (CG 20549) Khetu, ‘butler’, begotten of Hetepet (CG 20303) Khety, son of Sobekaa (CG 20550) Megeg-wer, brother of Ib (CG 20298) Mersu, begotten of Ini (CG 20245) Mersu, brother of Iini, begotten of Nebit (CG 20245) Mersu, son of Iini (CG 20245) Minhetep, ‘follower’, son of ‘deputy governor’ Ibu (CG 20022)

240

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Minhetep, ‘servant’ (wdpw) (CG 20022) Minnefer, son of Hetepuy (CG 20021) Nakht, begotten of Ini (CG 20245) Nakht, begotten of Senankh (CG 20245) Nakht, son of Agnet (Rodin Co. 1305) Nakhti, ‘governor’ father of governor Wahka, Coffin lid (this person?); filiation of governor Wahka on offering table Nakhti, brother of Khetu (CG 20303) Nakhti, brother of Sobekhetep (CG 20193) Nakhti, father of Henu (CG 20112) Nakhti, ‘governor’, born of Nakhti (BM EA 143), known from a stela. His wife is a woman called Netnebw. Note that the Nakhti known from stela Chicago, Field Museum 31672 also has a wife with this name. An identification seems not likely; the style of both monuments is very different. Nakhti, ‘overseer of meret-people’, his wife is Netnebu (Chicago, Field Museum 31672) Nakhti, son of Nakhti (Chicago, Field Museum 31672) Neferiu, son of Nemtyhetep (CG 20227) Neferrudj Seneb, ‘overseer of the temple’ (BM 363), statue (Coll. priv. Wace 1999) Neferrudj, father of Ibu (CG 20681) Nehy, ‘governor’ and ‘overseer of priests’ (Lyon H 1576) Nemty…, ‘overseeer of singers’ (Rodin Co. 1305) Nemtyhetep, ‘overseer of fields’ (CG 20227) Nemtyhetep, son of Agnet (Rodin Co. 1305) Nemtynakht, ‘governor’, offering table19 Nemtynakht, father of Wahka (CG 20200) Nemtywy, ‘brother’ of ‘deputy governor’ Ibu (CG 20022) Nemtywyhetep, ‘overseer of sealers’ (CG 20206) Nemtywynakht, begotten of Bebi, friend (xnms) of Iini (CG 20245) Nemtywynakht, father of Hetepuy (CG 20021) Neni (man?), son of Khuyt (CG 20313) Rahetep, ‘chamberlain’ (iry at), brother of Wahka (CG 20431) Rahetepka, begotten of Ibi, overseer of chamber (CG 20431) Renefankh, brother of Neferrudj Seneb (BM 363) Renefankh, son of Gefet (CG 20753) Rensi, father of Senu20 Sehetepibre, ‘chamberlain’ (iry at), brother of Nakhti (Chicago, Field Museum 31672)

Senankh, begotten of Kayt (CG 20245) Seneb, ‘friend’ (xnms) (CG 20313) Senebu, brother of Renefankh (CG 20753) Senebu, ‘steward’ (Chicago, Field Museum 31672) Senen, son of Hetepet (CG 20306) Senmut, begotten of Senankh (CG 20245) Senu, ‘warrior of Tjebu’, son of Rensi21 Senusret (?), unclear title, brother of Wahka (CG 20431) Senusret, ‘overseer of craftsmen’, brother of Wahka (CG 20431) Senusret, son of Senen (CG 20306) Senusret, ‘steward’, begotten of Akhes, (CG 20431) Senusret-ankh, son of Wahka II (?), mentioned in his tomb22 Sheru (reading very uncertain), ‘butler’, begotten of Rehuserausen (CG 20301) Sobekaa, ‘scribe’, brother of Wahka (CG 20431) Sobekaa, ‘steward’, wife: Sobekotep (CG 20550) Sobekemiu, brother of Nemtywyhetep (CG 20206) Sobekhat, brother of ‘carpenter’ Sobekhetep (CG 20268) Sobekhorhab, son of the ‘trooper’ Sobekhetep (CG 20164) Sobekhetep, ‘carpenter’, born of Ini, son of carpenter Wahka (CG 20268) Sobekhetep, son of Tanetini (CG 20681) Sobekhetep, son of Ty (CG 20193) Sobekhetep, ‘treasurer’ (CG 20268, 20342). The ‘treasurer’ (imy-r xtmt) Sobkehetep appears on two stelae. Stela CG 20342 is his family stela, naming his wife Ka, and his parents Ibu (father) and Hetepet (mother). Stela CG 20268 belongs to the ‘carpenter’ Sobekhetep. The relation of both men is not stated, but it seems that the carpenter might have worked under the command of the ‘treasurer’. Franke (1984, 351, Dossier no. 589) remarks that the identify of both people is not certain. Ilin-Tomich dates CG 20268 to the Twelfth23 and CG 20342 dates to the Thirteenth Dynasty.24 Sobekhetep, ‘trooper’ (?) (sky) (CG 20164). Sobekhetep appears on his stela CG 20164 together with a person called Kem and the same title. It seems possible that Sobekhetep and Kem

Appendix. List of people from the Wadjet province are the same person with two different names. The wife of Sobekhetep is Dedet, his father is called Ibi (or By), his mother Senankh. He dates to the Thirteenth Dynasty.25 Sobekhetep-ankh, son of Sobekaa (CG 20550) Sobeknakht, brother of Hetepuy (CG 20021) Sobeknakht, brother of Sobekhetep (CG 20193) Sobeknakht, son of Nemtyhetep (CG 20227) Tetu, brother of Iini (CG 20245) Wahka, born of Renesankh, ‘overseer of the shena’ (production place), his wife is Tanetyny (CG 20043) Wahka (mr hp) (CG 20549) Wahka Iyseneb, follower (CG 20549) Wahka, (iry aw xnms), son of Nakhti (CG 20180) Wahka, begotten of Kemu, friend (xnms) of Iini (CG 20245) Wahka, begotten of Sobekhetep, wife: Nefertu (Chicago, Field Museum 31672) Wahka, brother of carpenter Sobkhetep (CG 20268) Wahka, brother of Ib… (CG 20298) Wahka, brother of Neferrudj Seneb (BM 363) Wahka, brother of Sobkehetep (CG 20193) Wahka, brother of stela owner Wahka (CG 20180) Wahka, second brother of Wahka (CG 20180) Wahka, ‘carpenter’, and father of ‘carpenter’ Sobekhetep, born of Neferyt (CG 20268) Wahka, ‘ka-priest’, begotten of Idi-ta (Marseille  30) Wahka, ‘overseer of builders’, begotten of Wadjet, son of Nemtynakht (CG 20200) Wahka, ‘overseer of khaut’(?), CG 20431 Wahka, ‘overseer of meret-people’, begotten of Kemu (CG 20431) Wahka, ‘overseer of meret-people’, begotten of Nefert (CG 20431) Wahka, ‘overseer of physicians’, wife: Wahka (Chicago, Field Museum 31672) Wahka, ‘overseer of sealers’, known from two canopic jars (BM 58780; Petrie Museum UCL 16125), often assigned to one of the governors from Qau. However, the title is that of a lower official and does not fit to the titles string of a governor. If the jars come from Qau, they belong to a lower official.26 A provenance from another place should not be excluded.

241

Wahka (I), ‘governor’, owner of tomb 7; date: about Amenemhat II27 Wahka (II), ‘governor’, owner of tomb 18; date: about Amenemhat III28 Wahka, ‘governor’ and ‘overseer of priests’, son of Dedusobek and Neferhetep, wife is Dedetsobek (stela Turin 1547; Statue Turin Suppl. 4265) Wahka, ‘governor’ and ‘overseer of priests’, begotten of Nakht (Stockholm MM 32004) Dated under Amenemhat III; evidently governor under this king. Wahka, ‘governor’, ‘overseer of priests’, ‘of Wadjet’, seal29 Wahka, ‘reporter’ (whmw), (stela, 21822, Steckeweh 1936, 53–54, pl. 18) Wahka, ‘scribe’, begotten of Idi(?). stela Abydos II, pl. xxxi Wahka, son of ‘carpenter’ Sobekhetep (CG 20268) Wahka, son of Djerti (CG 20681) Wahka, son of Hat (CG 20595) Wahka, son of Hetep (CG 20303) Wahka, son of Khuyt (CG 20313) Wahka, son of Neferrudj Seneb (BM 363) Wahka, son of Seneb (CG 20681) Wahka, son of Sheru (CG 20301) Wahka, son of Wahka (Marseille 30) Wahka, ‘steward’, begotten of Hen (CG 20580) Wahka, ‘steward’, begotten of Hetepuy, son of Wahkaemweskhet (CG 20549) Wahka, ‘storeroom overseer’, steward, begotten of Hetepuy (CG 20431), Both (CG 20549 and CG 20431) are perhaps identical Wahka, ‘treasurer’, son of Muty (CG 20549); also attested on statue in Turin (S. 4280.) (Steckeweh 1936, 49)30 Wahka-aa, ‘keeper of clothing’ (iry Hbsw) (CG 20549) Wahka-ankh, ‘scribe’, son of his body of steward Wahka (CG 20549) Wahkaemweskhet, ‘follower’, husband of Hetepuy, son of Muty (CG 20549) Wahkaemweskhet, son of steward Wahka (CG 20549) Wahka-heryib, (statue, Turin); Steckeweh 1936, 49) Wahka-seneb, (stela, Berlin 21822, Steckeweh 1936, 53–54, pl. 18) Wahka-seneb, ‘keeper of cloth’, begotten of Hetepuy (CG 20431)

242

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Wahmen… ‘overseer of craftsmen’, brother of Wahka (CG 20431) Zaiu, brother of ‘treasurer’ Sobekhetep (CG 20342)

Women

Agnet (Rodin Co. 1305) Akhes, mother of his mother, of Wahka, mother of Senusret (CG 20431) Ameny, sister of Henu (CG 20112) Ankhetu, daughter (Chicago, Field Museum 31672) Ankhtysy, wife of Ipep (Lyon H 1576) Antef, daugther of Zatsobek (the latter is wife of carpenter Sobekhetep) (CG 20268) Antef, sister of Sobekhetep (CG 20193) Antef, ‘lady of the house’, wife of Hornakht (Lyon H 1576) Aset, ‘nurse’, appears on the stela of the ‘governor’ Nakhti (BM EA 143) Bebi, sister of ‘treasurer’ Sobekhetep (CG 20342) Bebi, mother of Nemtywynakht (CG 20245) Bebu, daughter of Wahka (CG 20043) Bed, mother of Dedet (CG 20164) Dedet, begotten of Bed, wife of the ‘trooper’ Sobekhetep (CG 20164) Dedet, mother of Senferu (CG 20588) Dedetsobek, ‘lady of the house’, begotten of Meryt Ini (20316) Dedetsobek, ‘lady of the house’, wife of ‘governor’ Wahka (Statue Turin Suppl. 4265.) Deduankhu, sister of Hetepuy (CG 20021) Dedusobek, ‘servant’(wbAt) (CG 20022) Fededet, daughter of Ibu (CG 20588) Fegfet, sister of Wahka (CG 20549) Gefet, mother of Renefankh (CG 20753) Habu, mother of Hetpuy (CG 20021) Hat, ‘lady of the house’, mother of Wahka (CG 20595) Hat, sister of Ankhu (CG 20595) Hebiu, daughter of Hetepmut (CG 20313) Henenta, wife of Nemtyhetep (CG 20227) Henenut, daughter of ‘deputy governor’ Ibu (CG 20022) Henib is known from the fragments of a burial chamber and from fragments of two coffins (Ciampini 2003, pl. 26). She does not bear any title on these monuments. Henu (CG 20549)

Henutem … (CG 20549) Hepi, wife of Sheru (CG 20301) Heqy, wife of Nemtywyhetep (CG 20206) Heri, Asiatic woman (CG 20549) Herisat (CG 20193) Hetep, daughter of Senen (CG 20306) Hetep, ‘lady of the house’, sister of Ibu (CG 20584) Hetep, mother of Hetep (CG 20584) Hetep, mother of Wahka (CG 20303) Hetepet, daughter of ‘steward’ Kay (CG 20599) Hetepet, mother of Ibi (CG 20243) Hetepet, mother of Khetu (CG 20303) Hetepet, mother of ‘treasurer’ Sobkhetep (CG 20342) Hetepet, ‘servant’ (Hmt), (CG 20227) Hetepet, sister of Khetu (2 ×) (CG 20303) Hetepi, daughter of Sobekaa (CG 20550) Hetepmut, daughter of Neni (CG 20313). The name is clearly written Hetepmut, the word ‘hetep’ before ‘Mut’. It must remain unknown whether it is a different name to Muthetep. Date: Thirteenth Dynasty.31 Hetepu, wife of Senen (CG 20306) Hetepuy, Asiatic woman (CG 20549) Hetepuy, daughter of Ibu (CG 20588) Hetepuy, female servant (Hmt) (CG 20549) Hetepuy, mother of Djerti, begotten of Ibu (CG 20681) Hetepuy, mother of ‘steward’ Wahka (CG 20549) Hetepuy, sister of ‘steward’ Wahka (CG 20549) Hetepuy, second sister of ‘steward’ Wahka (CG 20549) Hetepuy, sister of Wahka (CG 20431) Hetepuy, wife of Ibi (CG 20243) Hetepuy, wife of Khetu (CG 20303) Hetepuy, wife of Wahka (CG 20431) Hetepy, mother of Hetepwy (CG 20303) Hut, mother of Tjet (CG 20193) Ii, sister of Henu (CG 20112) Ib…, daughter of Ib… (CG 20298) Ibi, sister of Wahka-seneb (CG 20431) Ibi, mother of Rahetep (CG 20431) Ibu, mother of Hetepuy (CG 20681) Ibu-ankh, daughter of Ib… (CG 20298) Idi, mother of Wahka, stela Abydos II, pl. xxxi Idi-ta, sister of Ib… (CG 20298) Idi-ta, daughter of Nemtyhetep (CG 20227) Idi-ta, mother of Wahka (Marseille 30) Idi-ta, daughter of Wahka, Idi-ta (3×) (Marseille 30)

Appendix. List of people from the Wadjet province Iku, mother of Ibu stela Abydos II, pl. xxxi In, ‘lady of the house’, wife of ‘governor’ Nehy (Lyon H 1576) Ini, mother of ‘carpenter’ Sobekhetep (CG 20268) Imem, ‘wife of his son’ of the ‘steward’ Ib… (CG 20298) Imemi, mother of ‘deputy governor’ Ibu (CG 20022), same as Imen? Imemi, daughter of ‘deputy governor’ Ibu (CG 20022) Ini, daughter of Nemtywyhetep (CG 20206) Ini, mother of Nakht (CG 20245) Ipep, ‘lady of the house’, wife of Ipep (Lyon H 1576) Ipet, mother of Khuyt (CG 20313) Ipu, wife of Kemni, daughter of Reri (CG 20313) Iqeret, sister of Sobekhetep (CG 20193) Ita, two ‘Asiatic women’ (CG 20227) Itier, daughter of Wahka and Idi-ta (Marseille 30) Iu…, sister of Ib… (CG 20298) Iu, mother of Ankhu (CG 20595) Iuefsenebet, grandmother of Wahka (CG 20043) Iuseneb, daughter of Ibu (CG 20588) Ka, ‘lady of house’, wife of ‘treasurer’ Sobekhetep (CG 20342) Kayt, mother of Senankh (CG 20245) Kayt, begotten of Senankh (CG 20245) Kehenet, sister of Wahka (CG 20043) Kemu, wife of Wahka II, offering table32. The offering table of Kemu was found in the tomb of Wahka II. She was therefore most likely his wife. She is indeed called ‘his beloved wife’, although there is the option that the Wahka also named on the offering table was not Wahka II, the tomb owner. Kemu bears the title ‘foremost of action’ and ‘lady of the house’. She is one of the very few Middle Kingdom women with the high ranking title title ‘foremost of action’, indicating a special status. Kemu, sister of Hetepuy (CG 20021) Kemu, mother of Wahka (CG 20431) Kemu, mother of Wahka (CG 20245) identical with the one on CG 20431? Kemu, daughter of Hat (CG 20595) Keshtem, sister of Wahka (CG 20431) Khety, wife of iry-aw Imeny (CG 20112) Khety, daugther of ‘deputy governor’ Ibu (CG 20022) Khety, mother of Wadjet (CG 20200)

243

Khuy, mother of iry-aw Imeny (CG 20112) Khuyt, ‘lady of the house’ wife of Kehketmety (CG 20313) Maret, sister of Nakhti (Chicago, Field Museum 31672) Memi, daughter of Khuyt (CG 20313) Mereret, sister of Wahka (CG 20431) Meryt Ini, mother of Dedetsobek (20316) Mut, mother of Dedu (CG 20164) Mut, sister of ‘treasurer’ Sobekhetep (CG 20342) Mutdedet, sister of Hetepuy (CG 20021) Mutdedet, wife of Hetepuy (CG 20021) Muthetep, sister of Hetepuy (CG 20021) Muthetep, wife of Djerti, begotten of Neni (CG 20681) Mutu, daughter of Nemtyhetep (CG 20227) Mutuhetep, daughter of Iini (CG 20245) Mutuhetep, mother of Iini (CG 20245) Muty, (CG 20549) Muty, mother of ‘treasurer’ Wahka (CG 20549; Steckeweh 1936, 49) Muty, mother of Wahkaemweskhet (CG 20549) Nakhti, mother of the ‘governor’ Nakhti (BM EA143) Nakhti, sister of Wahka (CG 20431) Nakhti, daughter of ‘deputy treasurer’ Ibu (CG 20431) Nakhti, mother of Tya (CG 20245) Nebit, mother of Mersu (CG 20245) Neferhat, ‘his friend’ (Chicago, Field Museum 31672) Neferhetep, daughter of Ibu (CG 20588) Neferhetep, mother of ‘governor’ Wahka (Turin 1547) Neferiu, asiatic woman (CG 20227) Neferkhau, sister of Hetepuy (CG 20021) Nefert, mother of Wahka (CG 20431) Neferet, sister of Wahka (CG 20431) Neferyt, mother of ‘carpenter’ Wahka (CG 20268) Neferyt, daughter of Ib… (CG 20298) Neferyt, mother of Sobekhetep (CG 20200) Neferyt, daughter of Nemtyhetep (CG 20227) Neferttu, wife of Wahka (Chicago, Field Museum 31672) Nemtywyhetep, son of Nemtywyhetep (CG 20206) Nemtynakht, daughter of Wahka and Idi-ta (Marseille 30) Neni, born of Muthetep (CG 20681)

244

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Neny, daughter of Khuyt (CG 20313) Nethedjet, Asiatic woman (CG 20549) Netnebu, ‘lady of the house’, wife of the governor Nakhti (BM EA143) Netnebu, wife of Nakhti (Chicago, Field Museum 31672) Neni, daughter of Muthetep (CG 20681) Nun, wife of ‘steward’ Ib… (CG 20298) Ptahaat-defanebes, ‘Asiatic woman’ (CG 20164) Rehuankh, female servant (Hmt) (CG 20549) Rehuserausen, mother of Sheru (CG 20301) Renesankh, daughter of Sobekaa (CG 20550) Renesankh, daughter of the ‘steward’ Ib… (CG 20298) Renesankh, ‘lady of the house’, wife of the ‘steward’ Kay (CG 20599) Renesankh, mother of Wahka, ‘overseer of workplace’ (CG 20043) Renesankh, sister of Djerti, begotten of Seneb (CG 20681) Renesseneb, Asiatic woman (CG 20549) Reri, mother of Ipu (CG 20313) Senankh, mother of Nakht, Kayt, Senmut and Hedju (CG 20245) Senankh, mother of ‘trooper’ Sobekhetep (CG 20164) Seneb, mother of Renesankh (CG 20681) Senebet, wife (Chicago, Field Museum 31672). The woman appears in the lower register of the stela and is introduced as ‘his wife’. It remains unclear who her husband is. Senebtysy, begotten of Wahka, wife of Neferrudj Seneb (?) (BM 363) Senebtysy, daughter of Khuyt (CG 20313) Seneferu, daughter of Ibu (CG 20588) Seneferu, wife of Ibu (CG 20588) Senetmut, grandmother of the ‘carpenter’ Sobekhetep (CG 20268) Senu, ‘lady of the house’, wife of Wahka (Marseille 30) Senuankh, daughter of Ib… (CG 20298) Senuankh, wife of ‘steward’ Ibu, mother of steward Ib… (CG 20298) Shedu, daughter of Ib… (CG 20298) Shedu, ‘his sister’ (Chicago, Field Museum 31672) Shetpuy, sister of Wahka (Marseille 30) Sobekaa, daughter of ‘deputy governor’ Ibu (CG 20022) Sobekhetep, ‘Asian woman’ (CG 20550)

Sobekhetep, wife of Sobekaa (CG 20550) Sobekhetep, wife of Wahka, begotten of Neferyt (CG 20200) Sobeknakht Anktisi, ‘servant’ (CG 20022) Sobeknakht, sister of Henu (CG 20112) Sobekhetep, mother of Wahka (Chicago, Field Museum 31672) Tanetyni, ‘lady of the house’, wife of Wahka, daughter of Hetepuy (CG 20043) Tanetyni, mother of Sobekhetep, born of Hetepuy (CG 20681) Tetu, daughter of Neni (CG 20681) Tetu, daughter of Iini (CG 20245) Tjet, wife of Sobekhetep, daughter of Hut (CG 20193) Tjeti, female servant (Hmt) (CG 20549) Tjetji, mother of ‘steward’ Dedusobek (CG 20236) Ty, mother of Sobekhetep (CG 20193) Tya, wife of Iini (CG 20245) Wadjet, sister of Wahka (CG 20431) Wadjet, mother of Wahka, begotten of Khety (CG 20200) Wahka, daughter of Neferrudj Seneb(?), born of Senebtysy (BM 363) Wahka, sister of the ‘carpenter’ Sobekhetep (CG 20268) Wahka, ‘lady of house’, wife of deputy governor Ibu (CG 20022) Wahka, wife of ‘steward’ Dedusobek (CG 20236) Wahka, daughter of ‘steward’ Dedusobk (CG 20236) Wahka, Asiatic woman (CG 20549) Wahka, wife of Wahka (Chicago, Field Museum 31672) Wahka, ‘daughter of a governor’, ‘lady of the house’, mother of Neferrudj Seneb (BM 363) Zatabet, wife of the carpenter Sobekhetep (CG 20268) Zathebet, sister of Ib… (CG 20298) Zatiniheret, wife of ‘storeroom overseer’ Wahka (CG 20431) Zatintef, ‘lady of house’, mother of ‘steward’ Kay, wife of steward and ‘deputy governor’ Ibu (CG 20022, CG 20599) Zatintef, daughter of ‘deputy governor’ Ibu (CG 20022) Zais, daughter of Khuyt(?) (CG 20313) Zatiti, ‘female servant’ (Hmt) (CG 20549)

Appendix. List of people from the Wadjet province Zathathor (Rodin Co. 1305) Zatsobek, daughter of ‘carpenter’ Sobekhetep (CG 20268)

Notes

245

Zatsobek, wife of ‘carpenter’ Sobekhetep (CG 20268) Zatsobek, wife of Nemtywyhetep (CG 20206)

1. Gardiner and Sethe 1928, 17 2. Gardiner and Sethe 1928, 17 3. Brunton 1927, 68 4. Brunton 1927, xli, 6, 12 5. Gardiner and Sethe 1928, 17 6. Gardiner and Sethe 1928, 17 7. Gardiner and Sethe 1928, 17 8. Gardiner and Sethe 1928, 17 9. Brunton 1927, 68 10. Gardiner and Sethe 1928, 17 11. Ilin-Tomich 2017, 153 12. Münch 2008, 55 13. Martin 1917, 90, no. 1159 14. Martin 1917, 91, no. 1163 15. Peterson 1971, 4–8, figs 1–4 16. Fiore Marochetti 2016, 38–9 17. Petrie 1930, pl. xxv 18. Peterson 1971, 4–8, figs 1–4 19. Petrie 1930, 13, pl. xvii 20. Smither 1945, 8. 21. Smither 1945, 8. 22. Petrie 1930, pl. xxiii; Steckeweh 1936, 51 23. Ilin-Tomich 2017, 151 24. Ilin-Tomich 2017, 153 25. Ilin-Tomich 2017, 153 26. Münch 2008, 54 27. Fiore Marochetti 2016, 38 28. Fiore Marochetti 2016, 40–1 29. Martin 1917, 35, no 394 30. The title ‘overseer of city’ in Steckeweh is a misreading of imy-r xtmt (‘treasurer’). I am grateful to Simon Connor for checking this point. 31. Ilin-Tomich 2017, 153 32. Petrie 1930. 6, pls vii, x

Abbreviations and Bibliography Abbreviations ÄA ÄAT ÄF ASAE AV BASOR BES BIFAO BSFE

Ägyptologische Abhandlungen Ägypten und Altes Testament Ägyptologische Forschungen Annales du service des antiquités de l'Égypte Archäologische Veröffentlichungen Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar, New York Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale  Bulletin de la Société française d’Égyptologie; Réunions trimestrielles, Communications archéologiques (Paris). CdE Chronique d’Egypte CG Catalogue Générale, for numbers 20001 to 20780 see H.O. Lange and H. Schäfer, Grab- und Denksteine des Mittleren Reiches im Museum von Kairo, vol. 4, Berlin 1902. CRIPEL Cahiers de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Égyptologie de Lille EA Egyptian Archaeology EVO Egitto e Vicino Oriente FIFAO Fouilles de l’institut Français d’archéologie orientale GM Göttinger Miszellen GOF Göttinger Orientforschungen HÄB Hildesheimer ägyptologische Beiträge HÄS Hamburger ägyptologische Studien IBAES Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie JARCE Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology JEOL  Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux (Leiden) JSSEA Journal of the Society of the Study of Egyptian Antiquities MÄU Münchner Ägyptologische Untersuchungen MDAIK Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo (DAIK) MKS Middle Kingdom Studies OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta PMMAEE Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Egyptian Expedition)

248 RdE SAGA SASAE SAK SDAIK UC ZÄS

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt Revue d’Égyptologie (Paris) Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens (Heidelberg) Supplément aux ASAE Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur Sonderschriften des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abt. Kairo University College London (Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology) Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde

Bibliography

Abd el-Gelil, M., Saadani, A. and Raue, D. 1996. Some Inscriptions and Reliefs from Matariya. MDAIK 52, 143–156. Abd el-Razif, M., Castel, G., Tallet, P. and Fluzin, P. 2011. Ayn Soukhna II. Les ateliers métallurgiques du moyen empire. Cairo: FIFAO 66. Abdel-Raziq, A. 2016. An ointment tablet from Deir el-Gebrawi, ZÄS 143(2), 129–150. Adams, W.Y. 1977. Nubia, Corridor to Africa. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Afifi Badawi, F., Kuckertz, J., Rösing, F.W., Bergander, S. and Klung, S. 2016. Merimde – Benisalâme IV: die Bestattungen. Wiesbaden: AV 60. Agapov, S. 2015. Soziale Strukturen und wirtschaftliche Aktivitäten zur Zeit der 4.–5. Dynastie. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Egyptologists, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, 22–29 May 2008, eds P. Kousoulis and N. Lazaridis, 583–94. Leuven: OLA Aldred, C. 1971. Jewels of the Pharaohs: Egyptian Jewellery of the Dynastic Period. London: Thames & Hudson. Alexanian, N. 1999. Dahschur II: Das Grab des Prinzen Netjer-aperef. Die Mastaba II/I in Dahschur. Mainz: AV 56. Alexanian, N. 2016. Die provinziellen Mastabagräber und Friedhöfe im Alten Reich. Heidelberg (online: https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/20538/1/Band_I.pdf retrieved 20/06/2016) Allen, J.P. 2002. The Heqanakht Papyri. New York: PMMAEE XXVII. Allen, J.P. 2003. The High Officials of the Early Middle Kingdom. In: The Theban Necropolis, Past, Present and Future, eds N. Strudwick and J. Taylor, 14–28. London: British Museum Press. Allen, J.P. 2008. The historical inscription of Khnumhotep at Dahshur: preliminary report, BASOR 352 (November), 29–39. Allen, S. 1997. Spinning bowls: representation and reality. In: Ancient Egypt, The Aegean, and the Near East, Studies in Honour of Martha Rhoads Bell, ed. J. Phillips, 17–38. San Antonio TX: Van Sicken. Allen, S. 2017. Decoration and image on Middle Kingdom pottery, can fish dishes be read? In: Company of Images, Modelling the Imaginary World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000–1500 BC), eds G. Miniaci, M. Betrò and S. Quirke, 1–14. Leuven: OLA 262. Alston, R. 1999, The revolt of the Boukoloi: geography, history and myth. In: Organised Crime in the Ancient World, ed. K. Hopwood, 129–153. London: Duckworth. Altenmüller, H. 1995. Die Abgaben aus dem 2. Jahr des Userkaf. In: Gedenkschrift für Winfried Barta, eds D. Kessler and R. Schulz, 37–48. Munich: MÄU 4. Altenmüller, H. 2015. Zwei Annalenfragmente aus dem frühen Mittleren Reich. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. Altenmüller, H. and Moussa, A. 1991. Die Inschrift Amenemhets II. Aus dem Ptah-Tempel von Memphis, Ein Vorbericht. SAK 18, 1–48. Amin, S. 1976. Unequal Development: an essay on the social formations of peripheral capitalism. Hassocks: Harvester Press.

Abbreviations and Bibliography

249

Andelkovic, B. 2011. Political organization of Egypt in the Predynastic Period. In: Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization, ed. E. Teeter, 25–32. Chicago: Oriental Institute Museum Publications 33. Anderson, W. 1992. Badarian burials: evidence of social inequality in Middle Egypt during Early Predynastic Era. JARCE 29, 51–66. Andrássy, P. 2005. Die mrt-Leute, Überlegungen zur Sozialstruktur des Alten Reiches. In: Texte und Denkmäler des Altes Reiches, ed. S.J. Seidlmayer, 27–68. Berlin: Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae 3. Andrássy, P. 2008. Untersuchungen zum ägyptischen Staat des Alten Reiches und seinen Institutionen. Berlin/London: IBAES XI. Andreu, G. 1980. La stèle Louvre C. 249: un complément à la reconstitution d’une chapelle abydénienne. BIFAO 80, 139–147. Anonymous. 1972. Mandel, Eine Art Steckbrief. Spiegel 13.03.1972. (online: http://www.spiegel.de/ spiegel/print/d-43020096.html – viewed 02/02/2017) Arnold, Dieter. 1988. The Pyramid of Senwosret I. The South Cemeteries of Lisht. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition 1. Arnold, Dieter. 1999. The Temples of the Last Pharaohs. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. Arnold, Dorothea. 1988. ‘Pottery.’ In Arnold, Dieter 1988, 106–146. Arnold, Dorothea. 2015 Statue head of a Normarch, possibly Ibu. In: Ancient Egypt Transformed, The Middle Kingdom, eds A. Oppenheim, D. Arnold, D. Arnold and K. Yamamoto, 127. New York/New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Arnold, F. 1990. The Control Notes and Team Marks. The South Cemeteries of Lisht. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition 2. Assmann, J. 1996. The Mind of Egypt. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Assmann, J. 2005. Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt, trans. D. Lorton. New York: Cornell University Press. Aston, B., Harrell, J.A. and Shaw, I. 2000 Stone. In: Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, ed. P.T. Nicholson and I Shaw, 5–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. el-Aziz, Ashraf A. 2007. Gallery III.4 excavations. In: Giza Reports: the Giza Plateau Mapping Projects, project history, survey, ceramics, and the main street and gallery operations, eds M. Lehner and W. Wetterstrom, 185–192. Boston: AREA. Bader, B. 2012. Sedment. In: Handbook of the Pottery of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, vol. 2: The Regional Volume, eds R. Schiestl and A. Seiler, 209–235. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Baines, J. 2006. Display of magic in Old Kingdom Egypt. In: Through a Glass Darkly, Magic, Dreams and Prophecy in Ancient Egypt, ed. K. Szpakowska, 1–32. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Baines, J. 2007. Visual and Written Culture in Ancient Egypt. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Baines, J. 2009. Modelling the integration of elite and other social groups in Old Kingdom Egypt. In: Élites et pouvoir en Égypte ancienne, ed. J.C. Moreni García, 117–144. Lille: CRIPEL 29. Baines, J, and Lacovara, P. 2002. Burial and the dead in Ancient Egyptian society: respect, formalism, neglect. Journal of Social Archaeology 2, 5–36. Baines, J. and Yoffee, N. 2000. Order, legitimacy and wealth: setting the terms. In: Order, Legitimacy and Wealth in Ancient States, eds J. Richards and M. van Burden, 13–17. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bak–Pryc, G. 2016. Stone vessels from Tell el-Farkha, Season 2001–2011. In: Egypt at its Origin 4, ed. M.D. Adams, 3–20., Leuven: OLA 252. Bakir, A. el-Mohsen. 1952. Slavery in Pharaonic Egypt. Cairo: SASAE 18. Balandier, G. 1972. Political Anthropology. Harmondsworth: Vintage. Banaji, J. 2010. Theory as History. Leiden: Brill. Banard, H. and Duistermaat, K. 2012. The History of the Peoples of the Eastern Desert. Los Angeles CA: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.

250

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Bard, K.A. 2000. The emergence of the Egyptian State. In: The History of Ancient Egypt, ed. I. Shaw, 61–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press Bard, K.A. 2015. An Introduction to the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. Chichester: Blackwell. Bardoňová, M. and Nováková, V. 2016. Generous patrons, loyal clients? Some remarks on patronage of Middle Kingdom elites. In: Current Research in Egyptology 2015; Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Symposium, eds J. Chyla, J. Dębowska-Ludwin, K. Rosińska-Balik and C. Walsh, 74–89. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Barker, G. and Rasmussen, T. 2000. The Etruscans. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Barsanti, M. A. 1902. Rapport sur la fouille de Dahchour, ASAE 3, 198–205. Bárta, M. 2012. Equal in rank, different in the afterlife: Late Fifth and Late Sixth Dynasty burial chambers at Abusir South. In: Ancient Memphis ‘Enduring is the Perfection’, Proceedings of the International Conference held at Macquaroe University, Sydney on August 14–15, 2008, ed. L. Evans, 27–43. Leuven: OLA 214. Baud, M. 1999a. Famille royale et pouvoir sous l’Ancien Empire égyptien 1. Cairo: Bibliothèque d’Étude 126 (1). Baud, M. 1999b. Famille royale et pouvoir sous l’Ancien Empire égyptien 2. Cairo: Bibliothèque d’Étude 126 (2). Baud, M. 2010. The Old Kingdom. In: Companion to Ancient Egypt, ed. A.B. Lloyd, 63–80. Oxford: Blackwell. Beauvoir, S. de. 2009. The Second Sex (translation from 1949), New York (online: https://uberty. org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/1949_simone-de-beauvoir-the-second-sex.pdf accessed 26/02/2018) Beckerath, J. von. 1964. Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte der Zweiten Zwischenzeit in Ägypyten. Glückstadt: ÄF 23. Beckerath, J. von. 1971. Abriss der Geschichte des Alten Ägypten. Munich: Ouldenbourg. Bell, B. 1971. The dark ages in ancient history, I. The First Dark Age in Egypt. American Journal of Archaeology 75, 1–26. Bellaby, P. 2006. Can they carry on working? Later retirement, health, and social inequality in an aging population. International Journal of Health Services 36 (1), 23. Bender, B. 1978. Gatherer-hunter to farmer: a social perspective. World Archaeology 10, 204–222. Ben-Shlomo, D. 2012. The Azor Cemetery, Moshe Dothan’s Excavations, 1958 and 1960. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Ben-Tor, D. 2007. Scarabs, Chronology, and Interconnection: Egypt and Palestine in the Second Intermediate Period. Fribourg: Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 27. Berlev, O. 1969. Сокол, плывущий в ладье. Иероглиф и бог. Вестник древней истории 1, 3–30 Berlev, O. 1972. Трудовое население Египта в эпоху Среднего царства. Moscow: Nauka. Berlev, O. 1978. Общественные отношения в Египте эпохи Среднего царства. Moscow: Nauka. Berlin, Königliche Museen zu. 1904. Aegyptische Inschriften aus den königlichen Museen zu Berlin. III. Inschriften des Mittleren Reiches, Part 1. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Bernbeck, R. 1994. Die Auflösung der häuslichen Produktionsweise. Berlin: Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 14. Bestock, L.D. 2008. Finding the First Dynasty Royal Family. In: The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt: Essays in Honor of David B. O’Connor, eds Z.A. Hawass and J. Richards, 94–108. Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities Press. Bettinger, R.L. 1991. Hunter-Gatherers. New York: Springer, Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology. Bierbrier, M.L. 2012. Who Was Who in Egyptology (4th revised edition). London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Abbreviations and Bibliography

251

Bietak, M. 1966. Ausgrabungen in Sayala-Nubien 1961–1965. Denkmäler der C-Gruppe und der Pan-GräberKultur. Wien: H. Böhlaus. Blackman Aylward, M. 1924. The Rock Tombs of Meir, Volk. IV: The Tomb-chapel of Pepi’onkh the Middle Son of Sebkhotpe and Pekhernefert (D, no. 2). London: Egypt Exploration Fund. Blouin, K. 2011 La révolte des Boukoloi (delta du Nil, Égypte, ~166–172 de notre ère): regard socio-environnemental sur la violence. Phoenix 64 (3–4), 386–422. Boeser, P.A.A. 1909. Die Denkmäler der Zeit zwischen dem Alten und Mittleren Reich und des Mittleren Reiches. Erste Abteilung: Stelen. Leiden: Den Haag. Boessneck, J. 1988. Die Tierwelt des Alten Ägypten. Munich: Beck. Boessneck, J. 1999. Tierknochenfunde aus der frühen 12. Dynastie vom Tell el-Dab‛a im Nildelta. In: Tell el-Dab‛a IV. Eine Plansiedlung des frühen Mittleren Reiches 30, ed. E. Czerny 9–313. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Borrero, N.E. and Yeh, C.J. 2013. Social class and school counselling: a collaboraive, asset based approach. In: The Oxford Handbook of Social Class, ed. W.M. Liu, 303–315. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bourriau, J. 1981. Pottery from the Nile Valley before the Arab Conquest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourriau, J. 1981b. Nubians in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period: an interpretation based on the Egyptian ceramic evidence. In: Studien zur Altägyptischen Keramik, ed. D. Arnold, 25–41. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Bourriau, J. 1988. Pharaohs and Mortals: Egyptian art in the Middle Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourriau, J. 1991. Patterns of change in burial customs. In: Middle Kingdom Studies, ed. S. Quirke, 3–20. New Malden: Sia. Bourriau, J. 2001. Change of body position in Egyptian burials from the Mid XIIth Dynasty until the Early XVIIIth Dynasty. In: Social Aspects of Funerary Culture in the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Leiden University, 6–7 June, 1996, ed. H. Willems, 1–20. Leuven: Brill. Bourriau, J. 2010. The relative chronology of the Second Intermediate Period: problems in linking regional archaeological sequences. In: The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties), ed. M. Marée, 11–37. Leuven: OLA 192. Breasted, J.H. 1909. A History of Egypt from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Brentjes, B. 1968. Von Schanidar bis Akkad. Leipzig: Urania. Brovarski, E. 2018. Naga ed-Dêr in the First Intermediate Period. Atlanta GA: Lockwood Press. Brunner, H. 1957. Altägyptische Erziehung. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Brunton, G. 1927, with chapters by A. Gardiner and F. Petrie. Qau and Badari I. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt 44. Brunton, G. 1928. Qau and Badari II. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt 45. Brunton, G. 1930. Qau and Badari III. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt 50. Brunton, G. 1937. Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture. London: Bernard Quaritch. Brunton, G. and Caton-Thompson, G. 1928. The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains near Badari. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt 46. Budge, E.A. et al. 1902. Hieroglyphic Texts from the Stelae &c in the British Museum, Part 2. London: British Museum. Burkard, G. and Thissen, H.J. 2007. Einführung in die Altägyptische Literaturgeschichte. I. Altes und Mittleres Reich. Berlin: Einführungen und Quellentexte zur Ägyptologie 1. Burke, P. 1980. Sociology and History. London: Allen and Unwin.

252

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Bussmann, R. 2010. Die Provinztempel Ägyptens von der 0. bis zur 11. Dynastie: Archäologie und Geschichte einer gesellschaftlichen Institution zwischen Residenz und Provinz. Leiden: Brill Bussmann, R. 2011 Local traditions in early Egyptian temples. In: Egypt at its Origins 3: Proceedings of the Third International Conference: Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt, eds R. Friedman and P. Fiske, 747–762. Leuven: OLA 205. Bussmann, R. 2014 Scaling the State: Egypt in the third millennium BC. Archaeology International 17, 79–93. Butzer, K.W. 1976. Early Hydraulic Civilization in Egypt. Chicago/London: Chicago University Press. Callender, G. 2000. The Middle Kingdom renaissance (c. 2055–1650 BC). In: The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, ed. I. Shaw, 148–183. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Campagno, M. 2014. Patronage and other logics of social organization in Ancient Egypt during the IIIrd Millennium bce. Journal of Egyptian History 7, 1–33. Camps, G. 1969 Amekni: néolithique ancien du Hoggar. Paris: Mémoires du Centre de Recherches Anthropologiques, Préhistoriques et Ethnographiques 10. Carson, R.L. 1988. Comparative Economic Systems, Volume II: transition and capitalist alternatives. New York/ London: Routledge. Casson, L. 1965. Ancient Egypt. New York: Time. Castillos, J.J. 2000. The Predynastic cemeteries at Badari. RdE 51, 253–256. Castillos, J.J. 2003 The Predynastic cemeteries at Matmar, Mostagedda, and Badari.’ In: Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century: Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists, eds Z. Hawass and L. Pinch Brock, 112–116. Cairo: American University in Cairo. Ciampini, E.M. 2003. La sepoltura di Henib (Camera funeraria CGT 7001; pareti di sarcofago CGT 10201–10202). Torino: Catalogo Generale del Museo Egizio di Torino. Serie Prima – Monumenti e Testi XI. Cichowski, K. 2008. The brewery complex from Tell el-Farkha: archaeological aspects of the discovery. In: Egypt at its Origins 2. Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Origin of the State, Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt’, Toulouse (France), 5th–8th September 2005, eds B. Midant-Reynes and Y. Tristant, 33–40. Leuven: OLA 172. Chabân, M.E. 1907. Fouilles à Achmounéîn. ASAE 8, 211–223. Chassinat, É.M. 1901. Sur quelques textes provenant de Gau el-Kébir. BIFAO 1, 103–107. Chayanov, A.V. 1966. The Theory of Peasant Economy, eds D. Thorner, B. Kerblay and R.E.F. Smith. Homewood IL: University of Wisconsin Press Cherpion, N. 1989. Mastabas et hypogées d’Ancien Empire. Brussels: Connaissance de l’Egypte Ancienne Childe, V.G. 1936. Man Makes Himself. London: Collins. Childe, V.G. 1956. Man Makes Himself (revised edition). London: Collins. Chomsky, N. 1999. Profit over People: Neoliberalism and global order. New York: Seven Stories Press. Collier, M. and Quirke, S. 2002. The UCL Lahun Papyri: Letters. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S1083. Collier, M. and Quirke, S. 2004. The UCL Lahun Papyri: Religious, Literacy, Legal, Mathematical and Medical. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S1209. Collier, M. and Quirke, S. 2006. The UCL Lahun Papyri: Accounts. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S1471. Collier, P. 2013. Exodus: immigration and multiculturalism in the 21st century. London: Allen Lane. Connor, S. 2014. La statuaire privée. In: Sésostris III, Pharaon de Légende, eds F. Morfoisse and G. Andreu-Lanoë, 60–68. Ghent: Faton. Cortebeeck, K. 2016. Stamp seals in Ancient Egyptian tombs: a revision of the usages in quest of the sex of their owners. SAK 35, 105–123. Craib, I. 1997. Classical Social Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Czerny, E. 1999. Tell el-Dab‛a IX, Eine Plansiedlung des frühen Mittleren Reiches. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences.

Abbreviations and Bibliography

253

Czerny, E. 2015a. Tell el-Dab‛a XXII, ‘Der Mund der beiden Wege’: Die Siedlung und der Tempelbezirk des Mittleren Reiches von Ezbet Ruschdi, vol. 1. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Czerny, E. 2015b. Tell el-Dab‛a XXII, ‘Der Mund der beiden Wege’: Die Siedlung und der Tempelbezirk des Mittleren Reiches von Ezbet Ruschdi, vol. 2. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. D’Amicone, E. 1988. La tombe rupestri dei governatori di Gau el Kebir: Uahkha I, Uahkha II e Ibu. In: Civiltà degli Egizi: Le credenze religiose, ed. A.M. Donadoni Roveri, 114–127. Milan: Electa Spa. D’Amicone, E. 1999. Qau el-Kebir (Antaeopolis), Dynastic sites. In: Encyclopaedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. K.A. Bard, 358–362. London/New York: Routledge. Daoud, K. 2012. Necropoles Memphiticae: Inscriptions from the Herakleopolitan Period. Alexandria: Bibliotheca Alexandria, Calligraphy Center. Davey, C.J. 1985. Crucibles in the Petrie Collection and hieroglyphic iedograms for metal, JEA 71, 142–148. David, R. 2007. The Two Brothers, Death and the Afterlife in Middle Kingdom Egypt. Bolton: Rutherford Press. Davies, N. de Garis. 1913. Five Theban Tombs. London: Archaeological Survey of Egypt 21. Davies, V. 2003. Kush in Egypt: a new historical inscription. Sudan & Nubia: Sudan Archaeological Research Society Bulletin 7, 52–54. Davis, M. 2002. Late Victorian Holocausts. London/New York: Verso. Davis, W. 1983. Artists and patrons in predynastic and early Dynastic Egypt. SAK 10, 119–139. Dawson W.R. and Uphill, E.P. 1995. Who Was Who in Egyptology. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Dee, M., Wengrow, D., Shortland. A., Stevenson, A., Brock, F., Girdland, F.L. and Bronk Ramsey, C. 2013. An absolute chronology for early Egypt using radiocarbon dating and Bayesian statistical modelling. Proceedings of the Royal Society A (469: 20130395. http://dx. 0395 – retrived 20-10-2019) Dementjeva, V.V. 2005. Welskopfs “Produktionsverhältnisse im alten Orient und in der griechisch-römischen Antike” als Gegenstand der historiographie: Der Einfluss ihrer Vorgänger. In: Elisabeth Charlotte Welskopf und die alte Geschichte in der DDR, ed. I. Stark, 157–169. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Demidchik, A. 2013. On the use of some social terms in Ancient Egyptian Twelfth Dynasty writing. Vestik Novosibirsk State University. Series: History and Philology 12 (8), 23–27 [in Russian, with an English summary]. Dennison, T. 2011. The Institutional Framework of Russian Serfdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Description de l’Égypte ou Recueil des observations et des recherches qui ont été faites en Égypte pendant l’expédition de l’armée française, 5 vols, Paris 1809–1822. Deveaux, M. and Panitch, V. (eds). 2017. Exploitation From Practice to Theory. London: Rowman and Littlefield. Diakonoff, I. M. with Koh, P.L. (eds). 1991. Early Antiquity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Di Teodoro, M. 2018. Labour Organisations in Middle Kingdom Egypt. London: MKS 7. Donadoni Roveri, A.M. 1969. I sarcofagi egizi dalle origini alla fine dell’ antico regno. Rome: Universita di Roma, serie archeologica 1. Dorman, P.F. 1988. The Monuments of Senenmut. London/New York: Keegan Paul International. Dorn, A. 2015. Kisten und Schreine, Hinweise auf postume Kulte für hohe Beamte aus einem Depot von Kultund anderen Gegenständen des ausgehenden 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Elephantine XXXI. Wiesbaden: AV 117. Dothan, T. 1963. Spinning-bowls, Israel Exploration Journal 13 (2), 97–112 Dreyer, G. 1992. Horus Krokodil, ein Gegenkönig der Dynastie 0. In: The Followers of Horus, Studies Dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman, 1949–1990, eds R. Friedman and B. Adams, 259–263. Oxford: Egyptian Studies Association Publication 2.

254

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Dreyer, G. 1999. Umm el-Qaab 1. Das prädynastische Königsgrab U-j und seine frühen Schriftzeugnisse. Mainz: Harrassowitz. Dubiel, U. 2008. Amulette, Siegel und Perlen: Studien zu Typologie und Tragesitte im Alten und Mittleren Reich. Fribourg OBO 229. Dubiel, U. 2010. “Dude looks like a lady …”: Der zurechtgemachte Mann. In: Sozialisationen: Individuum – Gruppe – Gesellschaft, Beiträge des ersten Münchner Arbeitskreises Junge Aegyptologie (MAJA 1) 3. bis 5.12.2010, eds G. Neunert, K. Gabler and A. Verbovsek, 61–78. Wiesbaden: Göttinger Orientforschungen iv, Reihe Ägypten 51. Dubliková, V., Odler, M., Březinová, H. and Havelková, P. 2015. A burial with a stamp seal depicting a Bes-like figure from Abusir. Prague Egyptological Studies XV, 69–75. Elias, N. 1969. Die höfische Gesellschaft: Untersuchungen zur Soziologie des Königtums und der höfischen Aristokratie. Neuwied: Suhrkamp. Emery, W.B. 1954. Great Tombs of the First Dynasty II. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Emery, W.B. 1958. Great Tombs of the First Dynasty III, London: Egypt Exploration Society. Emery, W.B. 1961. Archaic Egypt. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Endesfelder, E. 1979. Zur Frage der Bewässerung im pharaonischen Ägypten. ZÄS 106, 37–51. Endesfelder, E. 1990 Noch einmal zum Feudalismus in Ägypten. Klio 72, 188–194. Endesfelder, E. 2011. Beobachtungen zur Entstehung des altägyptischen Staates. Berlin/London: IBAES XIV. Endesfelder, E. 2018. Die Arbeiter der thebanischen Nekropole im Neuen Reich. Berlin, London: IBAES 21. Engel, E.M. 2006. Die Entwicklung des Systems der ägyptischen Nomoi in der Frühzeit. MDAIK 62, 151–160. Engel, E.M. 2008 The Royal Tombs at Umm el-Qa’ab. Archeo-Nil 18, 30–41. Engel, E.M. 2013. The organisation of a nascent state: Egypt until the beginning of the 4th Dynasty. In: Ancient Egyptian Administration, ed. J.C. Morena García, 19–40. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Engelbach, R. 1915. Riqqeh and Memphis VI. London: Egyptian Research Account. Engelbach, R. 1923. Harageh. London: Egyptian Research Account. Engels, F. 1892. Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigentums und des Staats (4th edition). Stuttgart: Dietz. Enmarch, R 2008. A World Upturned: commentary and analysis of the Dialogue of Ipuer and the Lord of All. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Erman, A. 1894. Life in Ancient Egypt. London/New York: Kessinger. Eschenbrenner-Diemer, G. 2017. From the workshop to the grave: the case of wooden funerary models. In: Company of Images, Modelling the Imaginary World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000–1500 BC), eds G. Miniaci, M. Betrò and S. Quirke, 133–191 Leuven: Peeters. Eyre, C. 1994. Feudal tenure and absentee landlords. In: Grund und Boden in Altägypten, ed. S. Allam, 107–133. Tübingen: Selbstverlag des Herausgebers. Eyre, C. 1999. The village economy in Pharaonic Egypt. In: Agriculture in Egypt: From Pharaonic to Modern Times 96, eds A. Bowman and E. Rogan, 33–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Eyre, C. 2005. How relevant was personal status to the functioning of the rural economy in Pharaonic Egypt? In: La dépendance rurale dans l’Antiquité égyptienne et proche-orientale, ed. B. Menu, 157–186. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Eyre, C. 2010. The economy: Pharaonic. In: Companion to Ancient Egypt, ed. A.B. Lloyd, 291–308. Oxford: Blackwell. Fakhry, A. 1961. The Valley Temple. Part II. The Finds – The Monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur. Cairo: General Organization for Government Printing Offices. Favry, N. 2004. Le nomarque sous le règne de Sésostris Ier. Paris: Les institutions dans l’Égypte ancienne 1.

Abbreviations and Bibliography

255

Favry, N. 2009. Sésostris Ier et le début del la XIIe dynastie. Paris: Pygmalion. Fay, B. 1996. The Louvre Sphinx and Royal Sculpture from the Reign of Amenemhat II. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Feucht, E. 1995. Das Kind im Alten Ägypten: die Stellung des Kindes in Familie und Gesellschaft nach altägyptischen Texten und Darstellungen. Frankfurt/New York: Campus. Feucht, E. 2005. Kinderarbeit und Erziehung im Alten Ägypten. In: “Schaffe mir Kinder”: Beiträge zur Kindheit im Alten Israel und in seinen Nachbarkulturen, eds A. Kunz-Lübcke and R. Lux, 89–117. Leipzig: Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 21. Festugière, A.-J. 1987. Freedom and Civilization Among the Greeks. Eugene, OR: Princeton Theological Monographs. Fiore Marochetti, E. 2016. Some aspects of the decorative and cult program of Twelfth Dynasty tombs at Qaw el-Kebir. In: Change and Innovation in Middle Kingdom Art, eds L. Hudáková, P. Jánosi and A. Kahlbacher, 37–46. London: Golden House. Fischer, H.G. 1964. Inscriptions from the Coptite Nome, Dynasties VI–XI. Rome: Analecta Orientalia 40. Fischer, H.G. 1968. Dendera in the Third Millennium BC. Down to the Theban Domination of Upper Egypt. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Fischer, H. 1977. The Orientation of Hieroglyphs. Part 1, Reversals. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Fischer, H. 2000. Egyptian Women of the Old Kingdom and of the Heracleopolitan Period. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Fitzenreiter, M. (ed.). 2007. Das Heilige und die Ware: Zum Spannungsfeld von Religion und Ökonomie. Berlin/London: IBAES VII. Florath, B. 2005. Zur Diskussion um die asiatische Produktionsweise. In: Elisabeth Charlotte Welskopf und die Alte Geschichte in der DDR, ed. I. Stark, 184–200. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Franke, D. 1973. Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion über die asiatische Produktionsweise. GM 5, 63–72 Franke, D. 1984. Personendaten aus dem Mittleren Reich (20.–16. Jahrhundert v. Chr.). Dossires 1–796. Wiesbaden: ÄA 41. Franke, D. 1984b. Probleme der Arbeit mit altägyptischen Titlen des Mittleren Reiches. GM 83, 103–124. Franke, D. 1988. Zur Chronologie des Mittleren Reiches. Teil II: Die sogennante ‘Zweite Zwischenzeit’ Altägyptens, Orientalia 57, 245–274. Franke, D. 1991. The career of Khumhotep III of Beni Hasan and the co-called “Decline of the Nomarchs”.’ In: Middle Kingdom Studies, ed. S. Quirke, 51–67. Whitstable: SIA. Franke, D. 1994. Das Heiligtum des Heqaib auf Elephantine. Heidelberg: SAGA 9. Franke, D. 1998. Qrh.t – Geschöpf des “Ersten Tages”, Eine Assoziatonstechnik zur Statuserhöhung in der 10. und 11. Dynastie. GM 164, 63–70. Franke, D. 1998b. Kleiner Mann (nḏs) – was bist Du? GM 167, 33–48. Franke, D. 2006. Fürsorge und Patronat in der Ersten Zwischenzeit und im Mittleren Reich. SAK 34, 159–185 Franke, D. 2006b. Arme und Geringe im Alten Reich Altägyptens: “Ich gab Speise dem Hungernden, Kleider dem Nackten”. ZÄS 133, 104–120. Franke, D. 2013. Egyptian Stelae in the British Museum from the 13th to 17th Dynasties, vol. I, fascicule 1: Descriptions, ed. M. Marée. London: British Museum. Freed, R.E. 2002. Egypt in the age of the pyramids. In: Egypt in the Age of the Pyramids, eds Y.J. Markowitz, J.L. Haynes and R.E. Freed, 17–30. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. Friedman, R. 1999. Badari Grave Group 569. In: Studies in Egyptian Antiquities: A Tribute to T.G.H. James, ed. W.V. Davies, 1–11. London: British Museum. Gale, R., Gasson, P., Hepper, N. and Killen, G. 2000. Wood. In: Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, eds P.T. Nicholson and I. Shaw, 334–371. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

256

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Gardiner, A.H. 1961. Egypt of the Pharaohs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gardiner, A.H. and Peet, T.E. 1955. The Inscriptions of Sinai, Part II, Translations and Commentary. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Gardiner, A.H and Sethe, K. 1928. Egyptian Letters to the Dead. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Garstang, J. 1903. Mahasna and Bet Khallaf. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account 7 Garstang, J. 1904. Tombs of the Third Dynasty at Reqâqnah and Bêt Khallâf. London: Constable Garstang, J. 1907. The Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt, as illustrated by tombs of the Middle Kingdom, being a report of Excavations made in the Necropolis of Beni Hassan 1902-3-4. London: Constable. Gee, J. 2015. Did the Old Kingdom collapse? A new view of the First Intermediate Period. In: Towards a New History for the Egyptian Old Kingdom, ed. P. Der Manuelian and T. Schneider, 60–75. Leiden/ Boston: Brill. Gestermann, L. 1987. Kontinuität und Wandel in Politik und Verwaltung des frühen Mittleren Reiches in Ägypten. Wiesbaden: GOF IV.18. Gestermann, L. 1995. Der politische und kulturelle Wandel unter Sesostris - Ein Entwurf III. In: Per aspera ad astra: Wolfgang Schenkel zum neunundfünfzigsten Geburtstag, eds L. Gestermann and H. Sternberg-el Hotabi, 31–50. Kassel: Gestermann. Gillam, R.A. 2011 Review of Baines 2007, Chronique d’Égypte LXXXVI, fasc. 171–72, 109–116 Gilens, M. and Page, B.I. 2014. Testing theories of American politics: elites, interest groups, and average citizens’ perspectives on politics, 12/3 September 2014, 564–581 (online journal: https:// doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714001595 – retrieved on 11/02/2017) Goedicke, H. 1967. Königliche Dokumente aus dem Alten Reich. Wiesbaden: Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 14. Goedicke, H. 1968. Four hieratic ostraca of the Old Kingdom. JEA 54, 23–30. Gomaà, F. 1979. Ägypten während der ersten Zwischenzeit. Wiesbaden: Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe B, Geisteswissenschaften 27. Gomaà, F. 1986. Die Besiedlung Ägyptens während des Mittleren Reiches, I. Oberägypten und das Fayyum. Wiesbaden: Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe B, Geisteswissenschaften 66 (1). Gomaà, F. 1987. Die Besiedlung Ägyptens während des Mittleren Reiches, II. Unterägypten und die angrenzenden Gebiete. Wiesbaden: Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe B, Geisteswissenschaften 66 (2). Goodman, D.S.G. and Chen, M. 2013. Middle Class China: Identity and Behaviour. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Gnirs, A.M. 2000. Reading the eloquent peasant. Lingua Aegyptia 8, 127. Gnirs, A.M. and Loprieno, A. 2009. Krieg und Literatur. In: Militärgschichte des pharaonischen Ägypten, Altägypten und seine Nachbarkulturen im Spiegel aktueller Forschung eds R. Gundlach and C. Vogel, 243–308. Paderborn: Krieg in der Geschichte 34. Grajetzki, W. 1997. Bemerkungen zu den Bürgermeistern (HAtj-a) von Qaw el-Kebir im Mittleren Reich. Göttinger Miszellen 156, 55–62. Grajetzki, W. 2000. Die höchsten Beamten der ägyptischen Zentralverwaltung zur Zeit des Mittleren Reiches. Berlin: Schriften zur Ägyptologie A2. Grajetzki, W. 2001a. Two Treasurers of the late Middle Kingdom. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S1007. Grajetzki, W. 2001b. Der Gebrauch von Rangtiteln in der Provinzialverwaltung der 1. Zwischenzeit und des frühen Mittleren Reiches. In: Begegnungen: Antike Kulturen im Niltal Festgabe für Erika Endesfelder, Karl-Heinz Priese, Walter Friedrich Reineke, Steffen Wenig, eds C.-B. Arnst, I. Hafemann and A. Lohwssser, 161–170. Leipzig: Wodtke und Stegbauer. Grajetzki, W. 2003. Burial Customs in Ancient Egypt: Life in Death for Rich and Poor. London: Duckworth.

Abbreviations and Bibliography

257

Grajetzki, W. 2005a. Zwei Fallbeispiele für Genealogien im Mittleren Reich. In: Genealogie, Realität und Fiktion von Identität, ed. Martin Fitzenreiter, 57–68. London: IBAES V. Grajetzki, W. 2005b. Zu einigen Titeln in literarischen Werken des Mittleren Reiches. CdÉ LXXX, 36–65. Grajetzki, W. 2006. The Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt. London: Bloomsbury. Grajetzki, W. 2009a. Urkunden aus einem Pyramidenbaubüro des Mittleren Reiches. Sokar 19, 46–51. Grajetzki, W. 2009b. Court Officials of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom. London: Duckworth. Grajetzki, W. 2010a. Class and society, position and possesions. In: Egyptian Archaeology, ed. W. Wendrich, 180–199. Chichester: Blackwell. Grajetzki, W. 2010b. Notes on the Administration in the Second Intermediate Period. In: The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties), ed. M. Marée, 305–312. Leuven: OLA 192. Grajetzki, W. 2013. Setting a state anew: the central administration from the end of the Old Kingdom to the end of the Middle Kingdom. In: Ancient Egyptian Administration, ed. J.C. Moreno García, 215–258. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Grajetzki, W. 2016. Places of coffin production in the early and late Middle Kingdom, EVO XXXIX, 25–44 Grajetzki, W. 2017a. Sinuhe, Senusret I and the centralisation of Egypt. In: Ägypten begreifen Erika Endesfelder in memoriam, eds F. Feder, G. Spereslage and F. Steinborn, 155–162. London/Berlin: Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie 19. Grajetzki, W. 2017b. A zoo en-miniature: the impact of the central government on the rise and fall of animal/zoomorphic amulets’ production during the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom. In: Company of Images: Modelling the Imaginary World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000–1500 BC), eds G. Miniaci, M. Betrò and S. Quirke, 193–212. Leuven: OLA 262. Grandet, P. 1994. Le Papyrus Harris I (BM 9999), vol. I. Cairo : Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire, Bibliothèque d’Étude CIX/I.. Gregory, C. 2014. The Son Also Rises: Surnames and the History of Social Mobility. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. Gresky, J., Roumelic, N., Kozak, A. and Schultz, M. 2013. “Folter” im Alten Reich? In: The First Cataract of the Nile, eds D. Raue, S. Seidlmayer and P. Speiser, 77–89. Cairo: SDAIK 36. Griffith, F.L. 1889. The Inscriptions of Siut and Dêr Rîfeh. London: Trübner & Co. Grimal, N. 1992. A History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Blackwell. Grünert, H. (ed.). 1989. Geschichte der Urgesellschaft (2nd edition). Berlin: Deutsche Verlag. Guglielmi, W. 1973. Reden, Rufe und Lieder auf altägyptischen Darstellungen der Landwirtschaft, Viehzucht, des Fisch- und Vogelfangs vom Mittleren Reich biz zur Spätzeit. Bonn: Tübinger ägyptologische Beiträge 1. Gundlach, R. 1994. Die Zwangsumsiedlung auswärtiger Bevölkerung als Mittel ägyptischer Politik bis zum Ende des Mittleren Reiches. Stuttgart: Forschungen zur Antiken Sklaverei 26. Gunn, B. 1929. A Middle Kingdom stela from Edfu. ASAE 29, 5–14. Habachi, L. 1977. Tavole d’offerta are e bacilli da libagione, n. 22001–22067. Turin: Catalogo del Museo Egizio di Torino II, Edizioni d’arte Fratelli Pozzo. Haffner, A. 1989. Das Gräberfeld von Wederath-Belginum vom 4. Jahrhundert vor bis zum 4. Jahrhundert nach Christi Geburt. In: Gräber: Spiegel des Lebens, ed. A. Haffner, 37–128. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Hansen, M.H. 2010. Democratic freedom and the concept of freedom in Plato and Aristotle. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 50, 1–27. Harman, C. 1986. Base and superstructure. International Socialism 2 (32), 3–44. Harris, W.V. 2011. Rome’s Imperial Economy: Twelve Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press Hartmann, R. 2016. Umm el-Qaab IV: Die Keramik der ältesten und mittleren Naqadakultor aus dem prädynastischen Friedhof U in Abydos (Umm el-Qaab). Wiesbaden: AV 98.

258

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Hartung, U., Köhler, E. C., Müller, V, and Ownby, M.F. 2015. Imported pottery from Abydos: a new petrographic perspective. Ägypten und Levante 25, 295–333. Harvey, D. 2005. A Brief Hstory of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hassan, F. 1997. Nile floods and political disorder in early Egypt. In: Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse, eds H. Nüzhet Dalfes, G. Kukla and H. Weiss, 1–23. Berlin/ Heidelberg: Springer. Hassan, F. 2007. Droughts, famine and the collapse of the Old Kingdom: re-reading Ipuwer. In: The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt: Essays in Honor of David B. O’Conno, eds Z. Hawass and J. Richards, 357–377. Cairo: American University of Cairo Press. Hawkins, S. 2013. ‘Would that I accompany him, this excellent marshman!’: an analysis of the Marshman (sxty) in Middle Egyptian Literature. In: Current Research in Egyptology 13: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium, eds L. McGarrity, C. Graves, E. Millward, M. Sfakianou Bealby and G. Heffernan, 84–93. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Hayes, W.C. 1947. Ḥoremkha’uef of Nekhen and His Trip to It-Towe. JEA 33, 3–11. Hayes, W.C. 1949. Career of the Great Steward Henenu under Nebhepetre Mentuhotep. JEA 35, 43–49. Hayes, W.C. 1951. Inscriptions from the Palace of Amenhotep III. JNES 10 (2), 82–112. Hayes, W.C. 1955. A Papyrus of the Late Middle Kingdom in the Brooklyn Museum. Brooklyn NY: Brooklyn Museum. Helck, W. 1954. Untersuchungen zu den Beamtentiteln des ägyptischen Alten Reiches. Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin. Helck, W. 1958. Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reiches. Leiden/Köln: Brill. Helck, W. 1974a. Die altägyptischen Gaue. Wiesbaden: Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe B, Geisteswissenschaften 5. Helck, W. 1974b. Die Bedeutung der Inschriften J. Lopez, Inscripciones rupestres Nr.  27 und 28, SAK 1, 215–225. Helck, W. 1983. Historisch-Biographische Texte der 2. Zwischenzeit und neue Texte der 18. Dynastie, 2nd edition. Wiesbaden: Kleine Ägyptische Text. Helck, W. 1985. Wahrheit und Wirklichkeit. In: Nofret – Die Schöne, Die Frau im Alten Ägypten, Wahrheit und Wirklichkeit, ed. B. Schmitz, 9–12. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Hendrickx, S. 1994. Elkab V – The Naqada III Cemetery. Brussels: Musées royaux d’art et d’histoire. Herb, M. 2001. Der Wettkampf in den Marschen: quellenkritische, naturkundliche und sporthistorische Untersuchungen zu einem altägyptischen Szenentyp. Hildesheim: Nikephoros Beihefte Band 5. Hikade, T. 2015. The Lithic Industries, Wiesbaden. Elephantine XXXV, AV 121. Hindess, B. and Hirst, P.Q. 1975. Pre-Capitalist Modes of Production. London: Routledge & Keegan Paul. Hobsbawn, E.J. 1964. Introduction. In: K. Marx, Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations, 9–65. New York: International Publishers Hodjash, S. and Berlev, O. 1982. The Egyptian Reliefs and Stelae in the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow. Leningrad: Aurora Art Publishers. Hofmann, T. 2005. Zur sozialen Bedeutung zweier Begriffe für “Diener”: b3k und ḥm. Basel: Ægyptiaca Helvetica 18. Hofstede, G. 1984. The Cultural relativity of the quality of life concept. Academy of Management Review 9 (3), 389–398. Holdaway, S.J. and Wendrich, W. (eds). 2017. The Desert Fayum Reinvestigated: The Early to Mid-Holocene Landscape Archaeology of the Fayum North Shore, Egypt. Los Angeles CA: UCLA Costen Institute of Archaeology. Holmes, D.L and Friedman, R.F. 1994. Survey and test excavations in the Badari Region, Egypt. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60, 105–142. Horst, J., Doll, M., Dominicus, B. and Rutishauser, W. 2001. Der Totentempel des Merenptah in Qurna. 5. Grabungsbericht. MDAIK 57, 141–170.

Abbreviations and Bibliography

259

Hruška, B. 1988. Überlegungen zum Pflug und Ackerbau in der Altsumerischen Zeit. Archiv Orientální, 137–156. Huyge, D. 2003. An enigmatic Third Dynasty mastaba at Elkab, Egyptian Archaeology 22, 29–30. Ikram, S. 2009. Ancient Egypt: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ilin-Tomich, A. 2011. Памятники жителей Антеополя в Абидосе конца XII – XIII династии: признаки и общие черты. In Петербургские египтологические чтения 2009–2010: Памяти С. И. Ходжаш. Памяти А. С. Четверухина. Доклады, ed. A. O. Bolshakov, 92–102. Saint Petersburg: State Hermitage Publishing. Ilin-Tomich, A. 2015. Theban administration in the Late Middle Kingdom. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 142, 120–153. Ilin-Tomich, A. 2016. Second Intermediate Period. UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 1(1). https:// escholarship.org/uc/item/72q561r2 (retrieved 09/03/2018) Ilin-Tomich, A. 2017. From Workshop to Sanctuary, The Production of Middle Kingdom Memorial Stelae. London: Middle Kingdom Studies 6. Ilin-Tomich, A. 2018. Ikonografische Datierungskriterien für Privatopfertafeln der 12. Dynastie. SAK 47, 57–87. Isaacs, J B. 2016. International comparisons of economic mobility (online: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/02_economic_mobility_sawhill_ch3.pdf – viewed 07/06/2017) Jäger, S. 2004. Altägyptische Berufstyplogien. Göttingen: Lingua Aegyptia, Studia Monographica 4. James, T.G.H. 1953. The Mastaba of Khentika called Ikhekh. London: Egypt Exploration Society. James, T.G.H. 1974. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Inscriptions in the Brooklyn Museum, I. From Dynasty I to the End of Dynasty XVIII. Brooklyn NY: Brooklyn Museum. Jansen-Winkeln, K. 2010. Der Untergang des Alten Reiches. Orientalia Nova Series 79, 273–303. Janssen, J.J. 1975. Prolegomena to the study of Egypt’s economic history during the New Kingdom. SAK 3, 127–185. Janssen, R.M. and Janssen, J.J. 1990. Growing up in Ancient Egypt. London: Rubicon. Jaritz, H., Dollm M., Dominicus, B., Rutishauser, W. 2001. Der Totentempel des Merenptah in Qurna. 5. Grabungsbericht. MDAIK 57, 2001, 141–170, pls 21–26. Jéquier, G. 1929. Tombeaux de particuliers contemporains de Pepi II. Cairo: Institut français d'Archéologie Orientale. Jeuthe, C. 2012. Ein Werkstattkomplex im Palast der 1. Zwischenzeit in Ayn Asil. Cairo: FIFAO 71. Jeuthe, C. 2018. The Governor’s Palaces at Ayn Asil/Balat (Dakla Oasis/Western Desert). In: Ancient Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Palaces I, eds M. Bietak and S. Prell, 125–140. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Jones, D. 2000. An Index of Ancient Egyptian Titles, Epithets and Phrases of the Old Kingdom. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S866. Jones, J. 2008. Pre- and Early Dynastic textile technology, specialisation and administration during the process of state formation. In: Egypt at its Origins 2, eds B. Midant-Reynes and Y. Tristant, 99–132. Leuven/Paris: OLA 172. Jones, O. 2012. Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class. London/New York: Verso. Jun, L. 1995. In defence of the Asiatic Mode of Production. History of European Ideas 21, 335–352. Junge, F. 2000. Die Rahmenerzählung des beredten Bauern, Innenansicht einer Gesellschaft. Lingua Aegyptica 8, 157–181. Junker, H. 1929. Giza I, Die Mastabas der IV. Dynastie auf dem Westfriedhof. Vienna/Leipzig: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Junker, H. 1938. Giza III. Vienna/Leipzig: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Kagan, D. 1991. Pericles of Athens and the Birth of Democracy. New York: Free Press. Kaiser, W. 1957. Zur Inneren Chronologie der Naqadakultur. Archaeologica Geographica 6, 69–77.

260

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Kaiser, W. and Dreyer, G. 1982. Umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof. 2. Vorbericht. MDAIK 38, 211–269. Kamal, A. 1912. Fouilles à Dara et à Qoceir el-Amarna. ASAE 12, 128–142. Kanawati, N. 1991. The Governors of the wADt-nome in the Old Kingdom. Göttinger Miszellen 121, 57–67. Kanawati, N. 1992. Akhmim in the Old Kingdom. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Kanawati, N. 2002. Tombs at Giza, vol. II: Seshathetep/Heti (G5150), Nesutnefer (G4970) and Seshemnefer II (G5080). Warminster: Australian Centre for Egyptology Report 18. Katary, S.L.D. 1989. Land Tenure in the Ramesside Period. London: Routledge. Katary, S.L.D. 2013. The administration of institutional agriculture in the New Kingdom. In: Ancient Egyptian Administration, ed. C. Moreno García, 719–783. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Keenan, J.G. 2008. Tormented voices”, P. Cair. Masp. I 67002. In : Les archives de Dioscore d’Aphrodité cent ans après leur découverte, eds J.-L. Fournet and C. Magdelaine, 171–180. Paris: de Boccard. Kemp, B.J. 1975. Dating Pharaonic cemeteries: Part I: non-mechanical approaches to seriation. MDAIK 31, 259–291. Kemp, B.J. 1977. The early development of towns in Egypt Antiquity 51, 185–200. Kemp, B.J. 1989. Ancient Egypt, Anatomy of a Civilization. London/New York: Routledge Kemp, B.J. 2006. Ancient Egypt, Anatomy of a Civilization, 2nd edition. London/New York: Routledge. el-Khouli, A. and Kanawati, N. 1990. The Old Kingdom Tombs of El-Hammamiya. Sydney: Australian Centre for Egyptology 2. Kirbey, C. 1992. Preliminary report of the fisrt seasons of work at Gebel el Haridi, 1991–92. JEA 78, 19–27. Kirbey, C. and Ikram, S. 1992. Land of the plumed serpent. EA 2, 35–36. Kirbey, C. and Ikram, S. 1994. Haridi’s high society. EA 4, 32–33. Kirbey, C. and Monkhouse, W. 1999. Filling in the gaps at Gebel el-Haridi. EA 14, 10–12. Kitchen, K.A. 1996. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 BC), 3rd edition. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Klebs, L. 1915. Die Reliefs des alten Reiches (2980–2475 v. Chr.): Material zur ägyptischen Kulturgeschichte. Heidelberg: G. Olms. Klotz, D. 2010. Emhab versus the tmrhtn: Monomachy and the Expulsion of the Hyksos. SAK 39, 211–241, pls 20–22. Knörnschild, L. 1993. Zur Geschichte der Nilwassernutzung in der ägyptischen Landwirtschaft von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. Frankfurt am Main: Leipziger Beträge zur Orientforschung 1. Knoblauch, C. 2016. A new group of Middle Kingdom embalming deposits? Another look at pottery dumps and repositories for building materials in Middle Kingdom cemeteries. Ägypten und Levante XXVI, 329–356. Kobusiewicz, M. 2016. The Production, Use and Importance of Flint Tools in the Archaic Period and the Old Kingdom in Egypt. Oxford: Archaeopress Egyptology 12. Kochelmann, H. 2008. Untersuchungen zu den späten Totenbuch-Handschriften auf Mumienbinden, vol. II: Handbuch zu den Mumienbinden und Leinenamuletten. Wiesbaden: Studien zum Altägyptischen Totenbuch 12. Kochelmann, H. 2017. Der Herr der Seen, Sümpfe und Flußläufe: Untersuchungen zum Gott Sobek und den ägyptischen Krokodilgötter-Kulten von den Anfängen bis zur Römmerzeit, Part 2: Kulttopographie und rituelle Wirklichkeit. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Köhler, E.C. 2008. Early Dynastic society in Memphis. In: Zeichen aus dem Sand, eds E.-M. Engel, V. Müller and U. Hartung, 381–399. Wiesbaden: Menes: Studien zur Kultur und Sprache der ägyptischen Frühzeit und des Alten Reiches 5. Köhler, E.C. 2009. Helwan II, The Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom Funerary Relief Slabs. Rahden/Westfalen: SAGA 25.

Abbreviations and Bibliography

261

Köhler, E.C. 2010. Theories of state formation. In: Egyptian Archaeology, ed. W. Wendrich, 36–54. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Köhler, E.C. and Jones, J. 2009. Helwan II, The Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom Funerary Relief Slabs, Rahden/Westfalen: SAGA 25, Köhler, E.C. and Smythe, J. 2004. Early Dynastic pottery from Helwan – establishing a ceramic corpus of the Naqada III Period. Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 7, 123–144. Kopp, P. 2006. Die Siedlung der Naqadazeit, Elephantine XXXII. Cairo: AV 118. Kóthay, K.A. 2011. Feudalisms of Egyptology. In: From Illahun to Djeme, Papers Presented in Honour of Ulrich Luft, eds E. Bechthold, A. Gulyás and A. Hasznos, 121–135. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S2311. Kóthay, K.A. 2013 Categorisation, classification, and social reality: administrative control and interaction with the population. In: Ancient Egyptian Administration, ed. J.C. Morena García, 479–520. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Kowalska A. and Radomska, M. 2008. Catalogue of burials. In: Saqqara III: The Upper Necropolis, ed. K. Myśliwiec, 29–381. Warsaw: Neriton. Krauspe, R. 1974. Eine heute verlorene Stele der leipziger Sammlung (Ägyptisches Museum der KarlMarx-Universität Leipzig 5128). In: Festschrift zum 150 jährigen Bestehen des Berliner Ägyptischen Museums, eds G. Poethke, U. Luft and S. Wenig, 159–161. Berlin: Mitteilungen aus der Ägyptischen Sammlung 8. Krzyazniak, L 1977. Early Farming Cultures on the Lower Nile: The Predynastic Period in Egypt. Warsaw: Editions scientifiques de Pologne. Kubisch, S. 2008. Lebensbilder der 2. Zwischenzeit: Biographische Inschriften der 13.–17. Dynastie. Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter. Lacau, P. 1939. Une stèle juridique de Karnak. Cairo : Supplément aus Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte Cahier 13. Lacau, P. and Chevrier, H. 1956. Une Chapelle de Sésostris Ier à Karnak. Cairo: Institute Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Lacher-Raschdorff, C.M. 2014. Das Grab des Königs Ninetjer in Saqqara. Architektonische Entwicklung frühzeitlicher Grabanlagen in Ägypten. Wiesbaden: AV 125. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. Lange, E. 2015. The so-called Governors’ cemetery at Bubastis and provincial elite tombs in the Nile Delta: state and perspectives of research. In The World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000–1550 BC), eds G. Miniaci and W. Grajetzki, 187–203. London: MKS I. Lapp, G. 1985. Särge des Mittleren Reiches aus der ehemailgen Sammlung Khasba. Wiesbaden: ÄA 43. Laurence, R. 1997. Writing the Roman metropolis. In: Roman Urbanism: Beyond the Consumer City, ed. H.M. Parkins, 1–20. London/New York: Routledge. Leclant, J. 1999. A brief history of the Old Kingdom. In: Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids, eds D. Arnold, C. Ziegler and K. Grzymski, 3–11. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Lehner, M. 2000. Fractal House of Pharaoh: Ancient Egypt as a complex adaptive system, a trial formulation. In: Understanding Small-scale Societies through Agent-based Modeling: dynamics in human and primate societies, eds T.A. Kohler and G.J. Gumerman, 275–354. New York: Oxford University Press. Lehner, M. 2008. The Complete Pyramids. London: Thames & Hudson. Leitz, C. 2002a. Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen 3. Leuven: OLA 112. Leitz, C. 2002b. Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen 4. Leuven: OLA 113. Leitz, C. 2006. Die Größe Ägyptens nach dem Sesostris-Kiosk in Karnak. In: jn.t dr.w: Festschrift für Friedrich Junge, eds G. Moers, H. Behlmer, K. Demuß and K. Widmaier, 409–427. Göttingen: Lingua Aegyptia.

262

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Leospo, E. 1988. Coperchio del sarcofago di Nakhti, testa do sarcofago antropoide, cassetta per canopi di Uahkha. In: Passato e futuro del Museo Egizio di Torino (Archivi di Archeologia), ed. A.M. Donadoni Roveri. nos 2–4, 42–46. Turin: Umberto Allemandi. Lichtheim, M. 1975. Ancient Egyptian Literature: vol. I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms. Berkeley, Los Angeles CA/London: University of Los Angeles Press. Lippert, S. 2008. Einführung in die altägyptische Rechtsgeschichte. Berlin: Einführungen und Quellentexte zur Ägyptologie 5. Lippert, S. 2013. Inheritance. In UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, eds E. Frood and W. Wendrich. Los Angeles. http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz002hg0w1 (retrieved 02/02/2018) Liverani, M. 2016. Imagining Babylon: the modern story of an ancient City. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter. Loprieno, A. 1988. Topos und Mimesis: Zum Ausländer in der ägyptischen Literatur. Wiesbaden: Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 48. Loprieno, A. 1996. Linguistic variety and Egyptian literature. In: Ancient Egyptian Literature, History and Forms, ed. A. Loprieno, 515–553. Leiden/New York: Brill. Lorand, D. 2011. Arts et politique sous Sésostris Ier: littérature, sculpture et architecture dans leur contexte historique. Turnhout: Monumenta Aegyptiaca 13. Luft, U. 1992. Das Archiv von Illahun I, Briefe 1. Berlin: Hieratische Papyri aus den staatlichen Museen zu Berlin – Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Luft, U. 2006. Urkunden zur Chronologie der späten 12. Dynastie: Briefe aus Illahun. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences . Lurje, I.M. 1971. Studien zum altägyptischen Recht. Weimar: Bölar. Luschan, F. von. 1908. Anhang 2. Über vier Schädel aus Abusir. In: Priestergräber und andere Grabfunde vom Ende des Alten Reiches bis zur griechischen Zeit vom Totentempel des Ne-user-rê, ed. H. Schäfer, 146–151. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichsʼsche Buchhandlung. MacCoull, L.S.B. 1988. Dioscorus of Aphrodito: His Work and His World. Berkeley, Los Angelos CA/London: University of California Press. Mackay, E. 1915. IVth to VIth Dynasty burials. In: Heliopolis, Kafr Ammar and Shurafa, ed. W.M. Flinders Petrie, 8–9. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Mackay, E., Harding, L. and Flinders Petrie, W.M. 1929. Bahrain and Hemamieh. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Magdalino, P. 2009. Court society and aristocraty. In: A Social History of Byzantium, ed. J. Haldon, 212–23. Chichester: Wiley. Mahfouz, E.-S.A.M. 2013. Late Middle Kingdom stelae from Assiut. In: Middle Kingdom Studies in Memory of Detlef Franke, ed. H.W. Fischer-Elfred and R.B. Parkinson, 161–200. Wiesbaden: Philippika, Marburger alterumskundliche Abhandlungen 41. Mann, E.G. 1989. On the accuray of sexing of skeletons in archaeological reports. JEA 75, 246–249. Mann, M. 1986. The Sources of Social Power, vol. I: A History of Power from the Beginning to AD 1760. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Manuelian, P. der. 2002. Slab Stelae of the Giza Necropolis. New Haven CO: Publications of the Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition to Egypt. Marchand, S. and Soukiassian, G. 2010. Balat VIII, un habitat de la XIIIe dynastie – 2e Période Intermédiaire à Ayn Asil. Cairo: Institute Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Marée, M. 2009. Edfu under the Twelfth to Seventeenth Dynasties: the monuments in the National Museum of Warsaw. British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 12, 31–92. Marée, M. 2010. A sculpture workshop at Abydos from the Late Sixteenth or Early Seventeenth Dynasty. In: The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects, ed. M. Marée, 241–282. Leuven: Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192. Marée, M. 2012–13. Comments on two Tell el-Dab‛a sealings. Ägypten und Levante 22/23, 75–77

Abbreviations and Bibliography

263

Martellière, M.-D. 2008. Les tombes monumentales des gouverneurs du Moyen Empire à Qau elKebir. Égypte, Afrique & Orient 50, 23–46. Martin, G.T. 1971. Egyptian Administrative and Private-Name Seals, Principally of the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period. Oxford: Griffith Institute. Martin, G.T. 2005. Stelae from Egypt and Nubia in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, c. 3000 BC–AD 1150. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Martinet, É. 2011. Le Nomarque sous l’Ancien Empire. Paris: Sorbonne. Marx, K. 1853. The British rule in India. New-York Daily Tribune, 25, June 1853. Marx, K. 1859. Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Berlin: Franz Duncker. Marx, K. 1983. Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Berlin: Marx-Engels-Werkausgabe 42, 19–875. Marx, K. and Engels, F. 1960. Der achtzehnte Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte. Werke 8, 194–207. Berlin: Dietz. Marx, K. and Engels, F. 1976. The German Ideology. Moscow: Publisher. Maspero, G. 1870. La grande inscription de Béni-Hassan. Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes: pour servir de bulletin à la Mission Française du Caire 1, 160–181. Massoulard, É. 1949. Préhistoire et protohistoire d’Égypte. Paris: Institut d’Ethnologie. Math, N.C. 2014. Die Badarikultur. Unpublished MA Dissertaition, University of Vienna (http://othes. univie.ac.at/33556/ – retrieved 19/05/17) Math, N.C. 2015. “…Widerstand ist zwecklos – sie werden assimiliert…” – zum Übergang Badari – Naqada. Ägypten und Levante 25, 383–420. McDowell, A. 2000. Teachers and students at Deir el-Medina. In: Deir el-Medina in the Third Millenium AD: A Tribute to Jac J. Janssen, eds R.J. Demarée and A. Egberts, 217–233. Leiden : Egyptologische Uitgraven 14. McGuire, H.R. 1992. A Marxist Archaeology. San Diego/London: Academic Press. Melandri, I. 2011. Nuove considerazioni su una statua da Qaw el-Kebir al Museo delle Antichità Egizie di Torino. Vicino & Medio Oriente XV, 249–270. Merrillees, R.S. 1974. Trade and Transcendence in the Bronze Age Levant. Göteborg: Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology XXXIX. Meskell, L. 1999. Archaeologies of Social Life, Age, Sex, Class Etcetera in Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Messiha, K. and Messiha H. 1964. A new concept about the implements found in the excavations at Gîza. Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 58, 209–225. Meurer, G. 1996. Nubier in Ägypten bis zum Beginn des Neuen Reiches. Zur Bedeutung der Stele Berlin 14753. Berlin: ADAIK 13. Meyer, C. 1982. Senenmut: eine prospographische Untersuchung Hamburg: HÄS 2. Meyer, E. 1909. Geschichte des Altertums 1(1), 2nd edition. Stuttgart/Berlin: J.G. Cotta. Meyer, E. 1913. Geschichte des Altertums 1 (2), 3rd edition. Stuttgart/Berlin: Meyer & Jessen. Midant-Reynes, B. 1992. From the First Egyptians to the First Pharaohs. Oxford: Blackwell. Midant-Reynes, B. 2000. The Prehistory of Egypt: from the first Egyptians to the first Pharaohs, trans. I. Shaw. Oxford: Blackwell. Midant-Reynes, B. 2014. Prehistoric regional cultures. In UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, eds W. Grajetzki and W. Wendrich. http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz002hkz51 (retrieved 30/04/2018) Midant-Reynes, B. and Buchez, N. 2002. Adaïma: 1. Économie et habitat. Cairo: FIFAO 45. Mieroop, M. van de. 2011. A History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Blackwell. Mills, C.W. 1956. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press. Miniaci, G. 2016. Reuniting philology and archaeology: the “emic” and “etic” in the Letter of the Dead Qau bowl UC16163 and its context’, ZÄS 143, 88–105.

264

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Mitchell, T. 1990. The invention and reinvention of the Egyptian peasant.’ International Journal of Middle East Studies 22, (2), 129–150. Mizoguchi, K. 2015. A future of archaeology. Antiquity 89, 2–22. Moeller, N. 2004. Evidence for urban walling in the third millennium BC. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14 (2), 261–265. Moeller, N. 2005. The First Intermediate Period: a time of famine and climate change?, Ägypten und Levante 15, 153–167. Moeller, N. 2016. The Archaeology of Urbanism in Ancient Egypt: from the Predynastic period to the end of the Middle Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mogensen, M. 1919. Stèles égyptiennes au Musée National de Stockholm. Copenhagen: Höst and Sons. Moran, W.L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Moreno García, J.C. 1998. La population mrt: une approche du problème de la servitude dans l’Egypte du IIIe millénaire (I). JEA 84, 71–83. Moreno García, J.C. 1999. H. wt et le milieu rural égyptien du IIIe millénaire. Paris : Champion. Moreno García, J.C. 2005. Deux familles de potentats provinciaux et les assises de leur pouvoir: Elkab et El-Hawawish sous la VIe dynastie. RdE 56, 95–128. Moreno García, J.C. 2008–09. Quelques observations sur l’emploi de l’araire en Égypte ancienne. Grafma Newsletter. Bulletin du Groupe de Recherche Archéologique Française et Internationale sur les Métiers depuis l’Antiquité, 9–10, 53–60. Moreno García, J.C. 2009, From Dracula to Rostovtzeff or: the misadventures of economic history in early Egyptology. In: Das Ereignis, Geschichtsschreibung zwischen Vorfall und Befund, ed. M. Fitzenreiter, 175–198. London: IBAES 10. Moreno García, J.C. 2013a. The territorial administration of the Kingdom in the 3rd Millennium. In: Ancient Egyptian Administration, ed. J.C. Moreno García, 85–151. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Moreno García, J.C. 2013b. The study of Ancient Egyptian administration. In: Ancient Egyptian Administration, ed. J.C. Morena García, 1–17. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Moreno García, J.C. 2013c. The “Other” administration: patronage, factions, and informal networks of power in Ancient Egypt. In: Ancient Egyptian Administration, ed J.C. Moreno García, 1029–1065. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Moreno García, J.C. 2014. Ancient states and Pharaonic Egypt: an agenda for future research. Journal of Egyptian History 7, 203–240. Moreno García, J.C. 2015. ‘Climatic Change or Sociopolitical Transformation? Reassessing Late 3rd Millennium Egypt.’ In 2200 BC—A Climatic Breakdown as a Cause for the Collapse of the Old World?, ed. H. Meller, H.W. Arz, R. Jung, R. Risch, 79–94. Halle. Moreno García, J.C. 2020. The State in Ancient Egypt. London: Bloomsbury. Morenz, L. 2012. Hungersnöte im Bild. Zur Inszenierung von Topoi im Alten Ägypten. In: Disaster and Relief Management. Katastrophen und ihre Bewältigung, ed. A. Berlejung, 382–389. Tübingen: Mohr Siedbeck. Moret, A. 1926. Le Nil et la civilisation égyptienne. Paris: Hachette Livre. Morgan, L.H. 1877. Ancient Society. London. Mostafa, M. M.F. 2014. The Mastaba of Šm3j at Nag’Kom El-Koffar, Qift, vol. 1: Autobiogaphies and Related Scenes and Texts. Cairo: Ministry of Antiquities and Heritage. Mourad, A.-L. 2015. Rise of the Hyksos: Egypt and the Levant from the Middle Kingdom to the Early Second Intermediate Period. Oxford: Archaeopress Egyptology 11. Moussa A.M. and Altenmüller, H. 1977. Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. Mainz: Philip von Zabern. Muhs, B.P. 2016 The Ancient Egyptian Economy, 3000–30 BCE. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Müller, C. 1997. Das Kalksteinfragment E.6783 aus den Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire in Brüssel und verwandte Frontaldarstellungen – eine Analyse. GM 160, 69–83.

Abbreviations and Bibliography

265

Müller, M. 2015a. New approaches to the study of households in Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period Egypt. In: The World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000–1550 BC) I, eds G. Miniaci and W. Grajetzki, 237–255. London: MKS I. Müller, M. 2015b. Late Middle Kingdom neighborhood of Tell el-Dab‛a/Avaris. In: Household Studies in Complex Societies, ed. M. Müller, 339–370. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Müller-Wollermann, R. 1986. Krisenfaktoren im ägyptischen Staat des ausgehenden Alten Reichs. Unpublished Dissertation, Tübingen University. Müller-Wollermann, R. 1988. Das ägyptische Alte Reich als Beispiel einer weberischen Patriomonialbürokratiee. BES 9, 25–40 Müller-Wollermann, R. 2012. Review of Petra Andrássy, Untersuchungen zum ägyptischen Staat des Alten Reiches (London 2008). JEA 98, 334–336. Müller-Wollermann, R. 2014. End of the Old Kingdom. In: UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles, eds W. Grajetzki and W. Wendrich http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem. do?ark=21198/zz002hzfs1 (retrieved 02-04-2016) Münch, H.-H. 2008. Zu den Kanopen mit Armen und Göttersymbolen im Mittleren Reich. In: Miscellanea in Honorem Wolfhart Westendorf, ed. C. Peust, 53–57. Göttingen: Göttinger Miszellen Supplement 3. Murnane, W.J. 1982. Opetfest. In: Lexikon der Ägyptologie IV, eds W. Helck and E. Otto, 574–579. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Murnane, W.J. 1983. The Penguin Guide to Ancient Egypt. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Murray, M.A. 2000. Cereal production and processing. In: Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, eds P.T. Nicholson and I. Shaw, 505–536. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Näser, C. 2012. Nomads at the Nile: Towards an archaeology of interaction. In: The History of the Peoples of the Eastern Desert, eds H. Banard and K. Duistermaat, 81–89. Los Angeles CA: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. Nath Sen, S. 1999. Ancient Indian History and Civilization, 2nd edition. New Dehli: New Age International. Naville, E. 1908. The Temple of Deir el Bahari (VI): The Lower Terrace, Additions and Plans. London: Egyptian Exploration Society. Nelson-Hurst, M.G. 2015. The (social) house of Khnumhotep. In: The World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000–1550 BC) I, eds G. Miniaci, and W. Grajetzki. London: MKS I. Newberry, P.E. 1893. Beni Hasan I. London. Newberry, P.E. 1893b. Beni Hasan II. London. Nimas, C. F. 1952 Another geographical list from Medīnet Habu. JEA 38, 34–45. Nippel, W. 2005. Wiedergelesen, Welskopfs “Produktionsverhältnisse im alten Orient und in der griechisch-römischen Antike”. In: Elisabeth Charlotte Welskopf und die Alte Geschichte in der DDR, ed. I. Stark, 170–183. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. North, D.C. 1981. Structure and Change in Economic History, New York: Norton. Nutz, R. 2014. Ägyptens wirtschaftliche Grundlage in der Mittleren Bronzezeit. Oxford: Archaeopress Egyptology 4. Oates, D and Oates, J. 1976. Early irrigation agriculture in Mesopotamia. In: Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology, eds L.G. de G. Sieveking, I.H. Longworth and K.E. Wilson, 109–135. London: Duckworth. O’Connor, D. 1972. A regional population in Egypt to circa 600 BC. In: Population Growth: Anthropological Implications, ed. B. Spooner, 78–100. Cambridge MA/ London: MIT Press. O’Connor, D. 1974. Political systems and archaeological data in Egypt, 2600–1780 BC. World Archaeology 6 (1), 15–38. O’Connor, D. 2000. Society and Individual in early Egypt. In: Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient States, eds J. Richards and M. Van Buren, 21–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

266

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

O’Connor, D. 2014. The Old Kingdom Town at Buhen. London: Egypt Exploration Society Excavation Memoir 106. Obsomer, C. 1995. Sésostris Ier. Étude chronologique et historique du règne, Brusssls: Connaissance de l’Égypte Ancienne. Odler, M. 2016. Old Kingdom Copper Tools and Model Tools. Oxford: Archaeopress Egyptology 14. Ogden, J. 2000. Metal. In: Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, eds P.T. Nicholson and I. Shaw, 148–176. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oras, E. 2013. Importance of terms: what is a wealth deposit? Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 22, 61–82. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/pia.403 (retrieved 03/05/2018) Oshinsky, D.M. 1997. Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal of Jim Crow Justice. New York: Simon & Shuster. Overy, R.J. 1994. War and Economy in the Third Reich. Oxford: Clarendon. Papazian, H. 2012. Domain of Pharaoh: The Structure and Components of the Economy of Old Kingdom Egypt. Hildesheim: Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge 52. Parker Pearson, M. 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Stroud: Tempus. Parkinson, R. 1996. Individual and Society in Middle Kingdom Literature. In: Ancient Egyptian Literature, History and Forms, ed. A. Loprieno, 137–155. Leiden: Brill. Parkinson, R. 2009. Reading Ancient Egyptian Poetry: Among Other Histories. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Patch, D.C. 2005. Jewelry in the Early Eighteenth Dynasty. In: Hatshepsut, from Queen to Pharaoh, ed. C.H. Roehrig, 191–195. New Haven/ London: Metropolitan Museum of Art series. Pateman, R. and El-Hamamsy, S. 2003. Cultures of the World: Egypt. New York: Benchmark Books. Patterson, T.C. 2007. Social archaeology and Marxist social thought. In: A Companion to Social Archaeology, eds L. Meskell and R.W. Preucel, 66–81. Oxford: Blackwell. Pätznick, J.-P. 2005. Die Siegelabrollungen und Rollsiegel der Stadt Elephantine im 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Spurensicherung eines archäologischen Artefaktes. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S1339. Peck, W.H. 2013. The Material World of Ancient Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peppercorn, I.G and Taffin, C. 2013. Rental Housing: Lessons from International Experience and Policies for Emerging Markets. Washington DC: World Bank. Pérez-Accino, J.-R. 2003. Were the Pyramids built by slaves? In: The Seventy Great Mysteries of Ancient Egypt, ed. B. Manley, 54–56. London: Thames & Hudson. Perry, D. 2017. Requisition economics in provincial centres and Abusir in the Old Kingdom. In: Abusir and Saqqara in the year 2015, eds M. Bárta, F. Coppens and J. Krejčí, 331–343. Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology. Peterson, B.J. 1971. Ausgewählte aegyptische Personennamen nebts prosopographischen Notizen aus Stockholmer Sammlungen. Orientalia Suecanan 19–20, 3–22. Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1898. Dendereh. London: Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund 17. Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1900. The Royal Tombs of the First Dynasty, Part I. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1901. Diospolis Parva: The Cemeteries of Abadiyeh and Hu, 1898–9. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1903. Abydos II. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1907. Gizeh and Rifeh. London: Quaritch. Petrie, W.M. Flinders. 1930. Antaeopolis: The Tombs of Qau. London: British School of Archeology in Egypt 51. Petrie, W.M. Flinders, Wainwright, G.A.A. and Gardiner, A.H. 1913. Tarkhan I and Memphis V. London: Quaritch. Philip-Stéphan, A. 2008. Dire le droit en Égypte pharaonique. Brussels: Connaissance de l’Égypte Ancienne 9. Pilgrim, C. von. 1996. Elephantine XVIII: Untersuchungen in der Stadt des Mittleren Reiches und der Zweiten Zwischenzeit. Mainz: AV 91.

Abbreviations and Bibliography

267

Pirenne, J. 1961. Histoire de la civilisation de l’Égypte ancienne. Neuchâtel: La Baconnière. Podzorski, P.V. 2008. The Early Dynastic mastabas of Naga ed-Deir. Archeo-Nil 18, 89–102. Polanyi, K. 1957. The economy as instituted process. In: Trade and Market in the Early Empires, Economies in History and Theory, eds K. Polanyi, C.M. Arensberg and H.W. Pearson, 243–270. Chicago: Henry Regnery. Porter, B. and Moss, R.L.B. 1937. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings V: Upper Egypt: Sites. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Posener, G. 1962. A Dictionary of Egyptian Civilization. London: Methuen. Posener-Kriéger, P. 2004. I papiri di Gebelein – Scavi G. Farina 1935. Turin: Ministero per i Beni a le Attività Culturali. Postel, L. and Régen, I. 2005. Annales héliopolitaines et fragments de Sésostris Ier réemployés dans la porte de Bâb al-Tawfiq au Caire. BIFAO 105, 229–293. Pot, J.H.J. van der. 1999. Sinndeutung und Periodisierung der Geschichte: eine systematische Übersicht der Theorien und Auffassungen. London/Boston/Cologne: Brill. Preminger, A. 1965. Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Princeton NJ: Princeton Univeraity Press. Quibell, J.E. 1900. Hierakonpolis I. London: Egyptian research Account 4. Quibell, J.E. 1923. Excavations at Saqqara (1912–1914), Archaic mastabas. Cairo: Institut Français d’ Archéologie Orientale. Quirke, S. 1988. State and labour in the Middle Kingdom, a reconsideration of the term ḫnrt.’ RdE 39, 83–106. Quirke, S. 1990 The Administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom. New Malden: Sia. Quirke, S. 1996. Horn, feather and scale, and ships: on titles in the Middle Kingdom. In: Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson, ed. P. Der Manuelian Vol. 2, 665–677. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. Quirke, S. 1999. Women in Ancient Egypt: temple titles and funerary papyri. In: Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honout of H.S. Smith, eds A. Leahy and J. Tait, 227–235. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Quirke, S. 2000. Six hieroglyphic inscriptions in University College Dublin. RdE 51, 223–242. Quirke, S. 2004a. Titles and bureaux of Egypt 1850–1700 BC. London: Golden House Publications. Quirke, S. 2004b. Identifying the officials of the Fifteenth Dynasty. In: Scarabs of the Second Millennium BC from Egypt, Nubia, Crete and the Levant: chronological and historical implications, eds M. Bietak and E. Czerny, 171–193. Vienna: Vienna Academy of Sciences. Quirke, S. 2005. Lahun, A Town in Egypt 1800 BC, and the History of its Landscape. London: Golden House Publications. Quirke, S. 2006 In the name of the King: on Late Middle Kingdom cylinders. In: Timelines – Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, eds E.E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman and A. Schwab, 263–274. Leuven/Paris: OLA 149 (1), Quirke, S. 2009 Provincialising elites: defining regions as social relations. In: Élites et pouvoir en Égypte ancienne, ed. J.C. Moreno García, 51–66. Lille: Cahier de Recherche de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Egyptologie de Lille 28. Quirke, S. 2016. Birth Tusks: The Armoury of Health in Context – Egypt 1800 BC. London: Middle Kingdom Studies 3. Radford, J. 1998 Gender and Choice in Education and Occupation. London/New York: Routledge. Raedler, C. 2004. Die Wesire Ramses’ II: Netzwerke der Macht.’ In: Das ägyptische Königtum im Spannungsfeld zwischen Innen- und Außenpolitik im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., eds R. Gundlach and A. Klug, 277–416. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Raedler, C. 2009. Rank and favor at the early Ramesside court. In: Egyptian Royal Residences, eds R. Gundlach and J.H. Taylor, 131–151. Wiesbaden: Hassarrowitz. Ranke, H. 1935. Die ägyptischen Personennamen I. Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin.

268

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Redding, R. 2007. Gallery III.4, faunal remains. In: Giza Reports, The Giza Plateau Mapping Projects, Project History, Survey, Ceramics, and the Main Street and Gallery Operations, eds M. Lehner and W. Wetterstrom, 263–269. Boston: AREA. Reeves, N. 2015. Shabti of Senebimi (?). In: Ancient Egypt Transformed: The Middle Kingdom, eds A. Oppenheim, D. Arnold, D. Arnold and K. Yamamoto, 236–237. New York/New Haven/London: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Regner, C. 1996. Schminkpaletten. Wiesbaden: Bonner Sammlung von Aegyptiaca 2. Regulski, I. 2008. Scribes in Early Dynastic Egypt. In: Zeichen aus dem Sand: Streiflichter aus Ägyptens Geschichte zu Ehren von Günter Dreyer, eds E.M. Engel, V. Müller and U. Hartung, 581–612. Wiesbaden: MENES 5. Reisner, G.A. 1908. The Early Dynastic Cemeteries of Naga-ed-Dêr, Part I, Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. Reisner, G.A. 1932. A Provincial Cemetery of the Pyramid Age. Naga-ed-Der. Part III. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reynolds, A. 2009. Anglo-Saxon Deviant Burial Customs. New York: Oxford Univeraity Press. Richards, J. 2000. Modified order, responsive legitimacy, redistributed wealth: Egypt, 2260–2040 BC. In: Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient States, eds J. Richards and M. Van Buren, 36–45. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press. Richards, J. 2005. Society and Death in Ancient Egypt: Mortuary Landscape of the Middle Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, L. 2004. Masters of Chaos: The Secret History of the Special Forces. New York: PublicAffairs. Roccati, A. 1986. La stele di un falegname. Atti Lincei 40 (5–6), 225–226, pl. II. Rogge, E. 1988. Face from a mummy mask. In: Mummies and Magic: the funerary arts of Ancient Egypt, eds S. D’Auria, P. Lacovara and C.H. Roehrig, 132–133, no. 66. Boston MA : Northeastern University Press. Roset, J.-P. 1982. Tagalagal: un site à céramique au Xe millénaire avant nos jours dans l’Aïr (Niger). Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 126 (3), 565–570. Rösing, F.W. 1987. Wirtschaftliche und gesellschaftliche Entwicklung im Übergang vom Alten zum Mittleren Reich: Über den Menschen selbst als Geschichtsquelle. In: Problems and Priorities in Egyptian Archaeology, eds J. Assmann, G. Burkard and V. Davies, 141–147. London/ New York: KPI. Roth, A.M 1991. Egyptian Phyles in the Old Kingdom. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Roth, S. 2001. Die Königsmütter des Alten Ägypten, von der Frühzeit bis zum Ende der 12. Dynastie. Wiesbaden: ÄAT. Ruffini, G. 2008. Factions and social distance in sixth-century Aphrodito. In : Les archives de Dioscore d’Aphrodité cent ans après leur découverte, eds J.-L. Fournet and C. Magdelaine, 157–170. Paris: de Boccard. Ryholt, K.S.B. 1997. The Political Situaton in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, c. 1800–1550 BC. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen. Rzeuska, T. 2006. Saqqara II. Pottery of the Late Old Kingdom: Funerary Pottery and Burial Customs. Warsaw: Neriton. Said, E. 1978. Orientalism, New York: Vintage. Salvador, C. 2015. Modello di casa o ‘casa dell anima’. In: Egitto: La collezione di Leiden a Bologna, eds P. Giovetti and D. Picchi, 519–518, no. III.28. Rome/Bologna/Milan: SKIRA. Saretta, P. 2016. Asiatics in Middle Kingdom Egypt: perceptions and reality. London: Bloomsbury. Sarris, P. 2009. Social relations and the land: the Early Period. In: A Social History of Byzantium, ed. J. Haldon, 92–111. Oxford: Blackwell. Saunders, D. B. 2010. Higher education in the United States Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 8 (1) (http://www.jceps.com/archives/626 (retrieved 08/05/2017) Säve-Söderbergh, T. 1949. A Buhen stela from the Second Intermediate Period. JEA 35, 57–58.

Abbreviations and Bibliography

269

Schäfer, H. 1902. Ein Bruchstück altägyptischer Annalen. Berlin: Verlag der Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Schenkel, W. 1978. Die Bewässerungsrevolution im Alten Ägypten. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Schneider, T. 2003. Ausländer in Ägypten während des Mittleren Reiches und der Hyksoszeit II: Die ausländische Bevölkerung. Wiesbaden: ÄAT 42. Schuhmacher, F.-J. 1989. Eine römische Kriegerbestattung mit Schildbuckel. In: Gräber: Spiegel des Lebens, ed. A. Haffner, 255–274. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Schulman, A.R. 1979. Beyond the fringe: sources for Old Kingdom foreign affairs.’ JSSEA 9 (2), 79–14. Schweinfurth, G. 1906. Ein alter Staudamm aus der Pyramidenzeit. Berlin. Scott-Moncrieff, P.D. and Hall, H.R. 1912. Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, &c., in the British Museum, Part 2. London: British Museum. Seidlmayer, S.J. 1987. Wirtschaftliche und Gesellschaftliche Entwicklung im Übergang vom Alten zum Mittleren Reich, ein Beitrag zur Archäologie der Gräberfelder der Region Qau-Matmar in der Ersten Zwischenzeit. In: Problems and Priorities in Egyptian Archaeology, eds J. Assmann, G. Burkard and V. Davies, 175–217. London: Kegan Paul International. Seidlmayer, S.J. 1990. Gräberfelder aus dem Übergang vom Alten zum Mittleren Reich. Heidelberg: SAGA 1. Seidlmayer, S.J. 1996. Town and state in the Early Old Kingdom: a view from Elephantine. In: Aspects of Early Egypt, ed. J. Spencer, 108–127. London: British Museum. Seidlmayer, S.J. 2001. Die Ikonographie des Todes. In: Social Aspects of Funerary Culture in the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Leiden University, 6–7 June, 1996, ed. H. Willems, 205–252. Louvain: OLA 103. Seidlmayer, S.J. 2006. Der Beitrag der Gräberfelder zur Siedlungsarchäologie Ägyptens. In: Timelines: studies in honour of Manfred Bietak, eds E. E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman and A. Schwab, 309–316. Leuven: OLA 149 (1). Seidlmayer, S.J. 2007a. Gaben und Abgaben im Ägypten des Alten Reiches. In: Geschenke und Steuern, Zölle und Tribute, Antike Abgabeformen in Anspruch und Wirklichkeit, eds H. Klinkot, S. Kubish and R. Müller-Wollermann, 31–63. Leiden/Boston: Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 29. Seidlmayer, S.J. 2007b. People at Beni Hassan: contributions to a model of Ancient Egyptian rural society’. In: The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt: essays in honor of David B. O’Connor, vol. 2, eds Z.A. Hawass and J. Richards, 351–368. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Seidlmayer, S.J. 2012. Zwischen Staatswirtschaft und Massenkonsum: zu Technologie und Ökonomie in Ägypten vom Alten zum Mittleren Reich http://edoc.bbaw.de/volltexte/2012/2213 (retrieved 18/03/2016) Sethe, K.H. 1930. Urgeschichte und älteste Religion der Aegypter. Leipzig: Brockhaus. Sethe, K.H. 1933. Urkunden des Alten Reiches, vol. 1. Leipzig: Brockhaus. Seyfried, K.-J. 1981. Beiträge zu den Expeditionen des Mittleren Reiches in die Ostwüste. Hildesheim: HÄB 15. Seyfried, K.-J. 1984. ‘Zu einer Darstellung des Gottes αναιοс. SAK 11, 461–472. Shedid, A.G. 1988. Stil der Grabmalereien in der Zeit Amenophis’ II: untersucht an den thebanischen Gräbern Nr. 104 und Nr. 80. Mainz: AV 66. Shedid, A.G. 1994. Die Felsgräber von Beni Hassan in Mittelägypten. Mainz: Zaberns Bildbände zur Archäologie 16. Shepherd, J. 2010. Arts degrees become the preserve of the wealthy. Guardian 26 September 2010. (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/sep/26/arts-degrees-wealthy-humanities-university retrieved 09/06/17) Shortland, A.J. 2009. The fish’s tale: a foreign glassworker at Amarna? In: From Mine to Microscope: advances in the study of ancient technology, eds A.J. Shortland, I. C. Freestone and T. Rehren, 109–114. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Simpson, W.K. 1969. The Records of a Building Project in the Early Twelfth Dynasty, Papyrus Reisner III. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts.

270

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Simpson, W.K. 1974. The Terrace of the Great God at Abydos: The Offering Chapels of Dynasties 12 and 13. New Haven: Peabody Museum of Natural History/University Museum of the University of Pennsylavania. Simpson, W.K. 2001. Studies in the Twelfth Egyptian Dynasty III: year 25 in the era of the Oryx Nome and the famine years in Early Dynasty 12. JARCE 38, 7–8. Simpson, W.K. 2003. The Literature of Ancient Egypt, with translations by R.K. Rinter, W.K. Simpson, Vinceni A. Tobin. E.F. Wente (Third edition), New Haven/ London: Yale University Press Six-Hohenbalken, M. 2009. Felix von Luschans Beiträge zur Ethnologie – Zwischen liberalen Imperialismus und den Anfängen des Sozialdarwinismus. In: Felix von Luschan (1854–1924): Leben und Wirken eines Universalgelehrten, eds P. Ruggendorfer and H.D. Szemethy, 165–93. Vienna: Böhlau. Smith, M. 2005. Papyrus Harkness (MMA 31.9.7). Oxford: Griffith Institute. Smith, S.T. 1990. Administration at the Egyptian Middle Kingdom frontier: sealings from Uronarti and Askut. In: Aegean Seals, Sealings and Administration, ed. T.G. Palaima, 197–219. Liège: Aegaeum 5. Smith, W.S, 1948. A History of Egyptian Sculpture and Painting in the Old Kingdom (2nd edition), London: Hacker Art. Smith, W. S. 1981. The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt, revised with additions by W.K. Simpson. Harmondsmith: Penguin. Smither, P.C. 1945. The Semnah Despatches JEA 31, 3–10, pls II–VII. de Souza, A. 2013. The Egyptianisation of the Pan-Grave Culture: a new look at an old idea, Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology 24, 109–126. Sowada, K.N. 2009. Egypt in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Old Kingdom. Fribourg: OBO 237. Spalinger, A.J. 1980. Remarks on the family of Queen xa.s.nbw and the problem of kingship in Dynasty XIII. RdE 32, 95–116, pl. 8. Spalinger, A. J. 1985. A redistributive pattern at Assiut. Journal of American Oriental Society 105 (1), 7–20. Sparks, R.T. 2013. Publicising Petrie: financing fieldwork in British Mandate Palestine (1926–1938). Present Pasts 5(1), 2, 1–15. Spencer, H. 1896. The Study of Sociology. New York: Appleton. Stanworth, P. 2006. Elites. In: Social Divisions, 2nd edition, ed. G. Payne, 173–193. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Stauder, A. 2018. Staging restricted knowledge: the sculptor Irtysen’s self-presentation (ca. 2000 BC). In: The Arts of Making in Ancient Egypt, eds G. Minaci, J.C. Moreno García, S. Quirke and A. Stauder, 239–271. Leiden: Sidestone. Steckeweh, H. 1936. Die Fürstengräber von Qâw. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.. Stefanović, D. 2006. The Holders of Regular Military Titles in the Period of the Middle Kingdom: Dossiers. London: Golden House Publication Egyptology 4. Stefanović, D. 2008. The Non-royal Regular Feminine Titles of the Middle Kindgomn and Second Intermediate Period: dossiers. London: Golden House Publication Egyptology 11. Stefanović, D. 2015. Varia Epigraphica II – the Middle Kingdom/Second Intermediate Period. GM 244, 113–126. Stefanović, D. and Satzinger, H. 2014. An Early 12th Dynasty “Appeal to the Living” (Stela Musée Rodin Inv. no. Co 1305). Chronique d’Égypte 89, fascicule. 177, 28–33. Ste Croix, G.E.M. de. 1981. The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World. London: Duckworth. Stevens, A. 2017. Akhenaten’s workforce. Horizon 18 (Autumn), 6–8. Stevenson, A. 2009a. Social relationships In predynastic burials. JEA 95, 175–192. Stevenson, A, 2009b, Palettes. In: UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, ed. W. Wendrich http://digital2. library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz001nf6c0 (retrived 20/09/2019) Stewart, H.M. 1979. Egyptian Stelae, Reliefs and Paintings. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

Abbreviations and Bibliography

271

Stone, G.D. 1991. Agricultural territories in a dispersed settlement system. Current Anthropology 32 (3), 343–352. Strouhal, E. and Klír, P. 2006. The Anthropological examination of two queens from the pyramid of Amenemhat III at Dahshur. In: Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2005, eds M. Bárta, F. Coppens and J. Krejčí, 133–146. Prague: Czech Institute of Archaeology. Strudwick, H. and Stevenson, A. 2006, Review of Janet Richards, A Class Act? Society and Death in Ancient Egypt: Mortuary Landscapes of the Middle Kingdom (2005). 2005, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 16 (3), 354–356. Strudwick, N. 1985. The Administration of Egypt in the Old Kingdom: the highest titles and their holders. London/Boston: Routledge & Keegan Paul. Strudwick, N. 2005. Texts from the Pyramid Age, Leiden/Boston: Brill. Struwe, W.W. 1959. Geschichte der Alten Welt, Chrestomathie, vol. 1: Volk und Wissen. Berlin: Wolkeigener. Stünkel, I. 2015. Notes on Khenemet-nefer-hedjet Weret II. In: The Art and Culture of Ancient Egypt: studies in honor of Dorothea Arnold, eds A. Oppenheim and O. Goelet, 631–640. New York: Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 19. Stutje, J.W. 2009. Ernest Mandel: a rebel’s dream deferred, trans. C. Beck and P. Drucker. London/New York: Verso. Sullivan, A., Parsons, S., Wiggins, R., Heath, A. and Green, F. 2014. Social origins, school type and higher education destinations. Oxford Review of Education 40 (6), 739–763. Sweeney, D. 2007. Women growing older in Deir el-Medine. In: Living and Writing in Deir el-Medine: socio-historical embodiment of Deir el-Medine texts, eds A. Dorn and T. Hofmann, 135–153. Basel: Aegyptiaca Helvetica 19. Swinton, J. 2014, The dating of the tombs of officials of the Old Kingdom of Egypt. Oxford: Archaeopress Egyptology 2. Szpakowska, K. 2008. Daily Life in Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Tassie, G.J. 2014. Prehistoric Egypt: Socioecomic Transformations in North-east Africa from the Last Glacial Maximum to the Neolithic 24,00 to 6,000 cal BP. London: Golden House. Tallet, P. 2005. Sésostris III et la fin de la XIie Dynastie. Paris: Pygmalion. Tawadros, E. 2011. Geology of North Africa. Boca Raton FL: CRC Press. Thornton, B. 2000. Greek Ways: How the Greeks Created Western Civilization. San Francisco CA: Encounter Books. Tomkins, J. 2018. The Misnomer of Nomarchs Οἱ νομάρχαι and provincial administrators of the Old-Middle Kingdom, ZÄS 145, 95–104. Trigger, B.G. 1983. The rise of Egyptian civilization. In: Ancient Egypt, A Social History, eds B.G. Trigger, B.J. Kemp, D. O’Connor and A.B. Lloyd, 1–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Trigger, B.G. 1998. Sociocultural Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell. Trigger, B.G. 2003. Understanding Early Civilization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tunzelmann, A. von. 2008. The Ten Commandments: an interesting insight into the Cold War. Guardian, Thursday 18 December. (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2008/dec/18/ten-commandments-demille-mccarthy retrieved 02 April 2017) Tylor, J.J. 1896. The Tomb of Sekeknekht. London. Ucko, P.J. 1968. Anthropomorphic Figurines. London: Andrew Szmidla. Valbelle, D. 1998. Histoire de l’Etat pharaonique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Vandier, J. 1936. La famine dans l’Égypte anciene. Cairo: Institute Francais d’Archéologie Orientale. Van Heel, K.D. 2014. Mrs Tsenhor: A Female Entrepreneur in Ancient Egypt. Cairo: Institute Francais d’Archéologie Orientale. Vasiljević, V. 1995. Untersuchungen zum Gefolge des Grabherrn in den Gräbern des Alten Reiches. Belgrade: Universität Belgrad.

272

The People of the Cobra Province in Egypt

Vaudou, É. 2008. Les sépultures subsidiaires des grandes tombs de la Ire dynastie égyptienne. Archéo-Nil 18, 148–181. Velde, H. te. 1982. Mut. In: Lexikon der Ägyptologie IV, eds W. Helck and W. Westendorf, 246–248. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Verma, S. 2014. Cultural Expression in the Old Kingdom Elite Tomb. Oxford: Archaeopress Egyptology 1. Verner, M. 2014. Sons of the Sun: Rise and Decline of the Fifth Dynasty. Prague: Charles University. Vernus, P. 1970. Quelques exemples du type “parvenu” dans l’Égypte ancienne. BSFE 59, 31–47. Vernus, P. 1986. Le surnom au Moyen Empire. Rome: Studia Pohl 13. Vinogradov, I.V. 1991. The Middle Kingdom of Egypt and the Hyksos Invasion. In: Early Antiquity, ed. I.M. Diakonoff, 158–171. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Vischak, D. 2015. Community and Identity in Ancient Egypt, The Old Kingdom Cemetery at Qubbet el-Hawa. New York: Cambridge University Press Vleeming, S.P. 1993. Papyrus Reinhardt, An Egyptian Land List from the Tenth Century BC. Berlin: Hieratische Papyri aus den Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, II. Vymazalova, H. 2013. The administration of the royal funerary complexes. In: Ancient Egyptian Administration, ed. J.C. Moreno García, 177–195. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Warburton, D.A. 1997. State and Economy in Ancient Egypt. Fiscal Vocabulary of the New Kingdom. Fribourg: OBO 151. Warburton, D.A. 2000. Before The IMF: the economic implications of unintentional structural adjustment in Ancient Egypt’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 43 (2), 65–131 Ward, W.A. 1982. Index of Egyptian Administrative and Religious Titles of the Middle Kingdom. Beirut: American University of Beirut. Warden, L.A. 2014. Pottery and Economy in Old Kingdom Egypt. Leiden/Boston: Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 65. Warden, L.A. 2015. Centralized taxation during the Old Kimgdom. In: Towards a New History for the Egyptian Old Kingdom, eds P. Der Manuelian and T. Schneider, 470–495. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Weber, M. 1968. Economy and Society. Berkeley, Los Angeles CA/London: University of California Press. Weber, M. 1976. The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations, trans. R.I. Franke (original published 1909). London: New Left Books. Wegner, J. 2001. The town of Wah-sut at South Abydos: 1999 excavations. MDAIK 57, 281–308. Wegner, J. 2010. External connections of the community of Wah-Sut during the Late Middle Kingdom. In: Perspectives on Ancient Egypt: studies in honor of Edward Brovarski, eds Z. Hawass, P. Der Manuelian and R. Hussein, 437–458. Cairo: Supplément aux Annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte 40. Wegner, J. 2017. Raise yourself up: mortuary imagery in the tomb of Woseribre Seneb-kay. In: Company of Images: modelling the imaginary world of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000–1500 BC), eds G. Miniaci, M. Betrò and S. Quirke, 479–511. Leuven: OLA 262. Welskopf, E.C. 1957. Die Produktionsverhältnisse im alten Orient und in der griechisch-römischen Antike. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Welvaert, E. 2002. The fossils of Qau el Kebir and their role in the mythology of the 10th Nome of Upper Egypt. ZÄS 129, 166–183. Wendorf, F., Schild, R., Baker, P., Gautier, A., Longo, L. and Mohamed, A. 1997. A Late Paleolithic Kill-Butchery-Camp in Upper Egypt. Warsaw: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology. Wendrich, W.Z. 2000. Basketry. In: Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, eds P.T. Nicholson and I. Shaw, 254–267. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wengrow, D. 2006. The Archaeology of Early Egypt: Social Transformations in North-East Africa, 10,000 to 2650 BC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wengrow, D.. 2015. Cities Before the state in early Eurasia. Annual Jack Goody Lecture. (https:// www.eth.mpg.de/4091237/Goody_Lecture_2015.pdf retrieved 30/11/2018) Wenke, R.J. 2009. The Ancient Egyptian State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Abbreviations and Bibliography

273

Wente, E.F. 1990. Letters from Ancient Egypt. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Wetterstrom, W. 1993. Foraging and farming in Egypt: the transition from hunting and gathering to horticulture in the Nile Valley.’ In: The Archaeology of Africa: foods, metals and towns, eds T. Shaw, P. Sinclair, B. Andah and A. Okpodo, 165–226. London/New York: Routledge. Widmaier, K. 2009. Landschaften und ihre Bilder in ägyptischen Texten des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr. Wiesbaden: Göttinger Orientforschungen IV, Reihe Ägypten 47. Widmaier, K. 2013. Die Lehre des Cheti und ihre Kontexte. In: Dating Egyptian Literary Texts, eds G. Moers, K. Widmauer, A. Giewekemeyer, A. Lümers and R. Ernst, 483–557. Hamburg: Lingua Aegyptia, Studia Monographica 11. Wiese. A.B. 1996. Die Anfänge der ägyptischen Stempel-Amulette. Freiburg: Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 12. Wilcox, G. 1999. Agrarian change and the beginnings of cultivation in the Near East: evidence from wild progenitors, experimantal cultivation and archaeobotanical data. In: The Prehistory of Food: appetites for change, eds C. Gosden and J. Hather, 468–498. London: Routledge. Wildung, D. 1984. Sesostris und Amenemhat, Ägypten im Mittleren Reich. Munich: Hirmer. Wilkinson, T. 1999. Early Dynastic Egypt. London/New York: Routledge. Wilkinson, T. 2000. Royal Annals of Ancient Egypt. London/New York: Routledge. Willems, H. 1985. The Nomarchs of the Hare Nome and Early Middle Kingdom history. JEOL 28, 80–102. Willems, H. 1988. Chests of Life. Leiden: Ex Oriente Lux 25. Willems, H. 2008. Les Textes des sarcophages et la démocratie. Paris: Cybèle. Wilems, H. 2010. The First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom. In: A Companion to Ancient Egypt, Volume I, ed. A.B. Lloyd, 81–100. Oxford: Blackwell. Willems, H. 2013. Nomarchs and local potentates: the provincial administration in the Middle Kingdom. In: Ancient Egyptian Administration, ed. J.C. Moreno García, 341–392. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Willems, H. 2014. Historical and Archaeological Aspects of Egyptian Funerary Culture: religious ideas and ritual practice in Middle Kingdom Elite Cemeteries. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Wilson, J.A. 1951. The Burden of Egypt. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wilson, J.A. 1960. Egypt through the New Kingdom: civilization without cities. In: City Invincible: a symposium on urbanisation and cultural development in the Ancient Near East, eds C.H. Kraelig and R.M. Adams, 124–164. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wittfogel, A.K. 1957. Oriental Despotism: a comparative study of total power. New Haven CO: Yale University Press. Wodzińska, A. 2009. A Manual of Egyptian Pottery, vol. 2: Naqada III – Middle Kingdom. Boston: Ancient Egypt Research Associates. Wolf, E.R. 1966. Peasants. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall. Wolf, W. 1957. Die Kunst Aegyptens, Gestalt und Geschichte. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Wolf, W. 1977. Kulturgeschichte des Alten Ägypten. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Wright, M.J. 2003. Moses in America: the cultural uses of Biblical narrative. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zaccagnini, C. 1989. Asiatic Mode of Production and Ancient Near East: notes towards a discussion.’ In: Production and Consumption, ed. E. Zaccagnini, 1–126. Budapest: University of Budapest. Zandee, J. 1960. Death as an Enemy According to Ancient Egyptian Conceptions. Leiden: Brill. Zecchi, M. 2010. Sobek of Shedet: the Crocodile God in the Fayyum in the Dynastic Period. Todi: Tau. Ziermann, M. 2003. Elephantine XXVIII: Die Baustrukturen der älteren Stadt (Frühzeit und Altes Reichs), Grabungen in der Nordstadt (11.-16. Kampagne) 1982–1986. Mainz: AV 108. Zillhardt, R. 2009. Kinderbestattungen und die soziale Stellung des Kindes im Alten Ägypten: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Ostfriedhofes von Deir el-Medine. Göttingen: Göttinger Miszellen Supplement 6. Zingarelli, A. 2016. Asiatic Mode of Production: considerations on Ancient Egypt. In: Studies on Pre-Capitalist Modes of Production, eds L. da Graca and A. Zingarelli, 27–76. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Zitman, M. 2010. The Necropolis of Assiut: a case study of local Egyptian funerary culture from the Old Kingdom to the end of the Middle Kingdom, vol. 1. Leuven: OLA 180.

Index (names and places; the names in the appendix are not listed, the very common place names Badari and Qau (el-Kebir) are also not listed) ‘Ain Ghazal 51 Abadiya 193 Abu Matar 56, 57 Abu Roash 77 Abutig 43 Abydos 11, 45, 66, 67, 68, 74, 77, 95, 113, 154, 157, 171, 177, 187, 189, 190, 191, 215, 222, 223, 226 Adaima 72 Afghanistan 109, 142 Aïr mountains 51 Akhmim 30, 95, 179 al Muwaylihi, Muhammad 90 Algeria 51 Amarna 8 Amekni 51 Amenemhat 179 Amenemhat I 155, 179, 198, 199 Amenemhat II 171, 198 Amenemhat III 171, 173, 176, 178, 181, 183, 185, 192, 198, 199, 201, 204, 209, 211 Amenemhat IV 173 Amenemhat-Itj-tauy 151, 222, 225 Ameny 201 Amin, Samir 15 Ankhi 99, 102 Ankhnes-Pepy 129, 128 Ankhtyfy 156 Ankhu 176, 199, 201 Antef 158, 173, 200 Antef II (Wah-ankh) 153 Antef III 153 Anu 155 Anubis 42 Aphrodite 42 Aphrodito 34, 42 Armant 177 Asiatics 3, 4, 206 Aswan 113 Asyut 1, 8, 34, 41, 153, 155, 158, 179, 186, 222, 223

Atfet 31 Avaris, see Tell el-Dab‘a Awibre Hor 222 Aya 199 Aya Merneferre 222 Ayn Asil (see also Balat) 112, 116 Badakhshan 109 Badawi, Ahmad Mohamed 6 Bakir, Abd el-Mohsen 3 Balat (see also Ayn Asil) 152, 224 Banaji, Jairus 16, 118, 119 Bebi 205, 227 Beni Hasan 34, 105, 155, 158, 170, 177, 179, 181, 186, 189, 200, 201, 203, 205, 222 Bet Khallaf 77, 78 Breasted, James 12 Brentjes, Burchard 90, 152 Brunton, Guy 31, 35, 36, 40, 41, 52, 54, 58, 59, 60, 64, 69, 85, 88, 126, 129, 132, 137, 138, 141, 160, 165, 168, 231, 232, 235 Buhen 96, 114, 119 Butzer, Karl 15, 33 Byblos 53 Cananite 225 Childe, Gordon 27, 65 China 78 Crocodile (king) 68, 69 Dahshur 38, 74, 91, 92, 96. 222 Dakhleh Oasis 112, 119, 133, 142, 152, 224 Dara 155 de Beauvoir, Simone 109 de Ste. Croix, G.E.M. 17 Dedetmut 44 Dedetsobek 190 Dedu 99 Dedusobek 186 Deir el-Bersheh 34, 155, 158, 181

Index Deir el-Medineh 135 Deir Tasa 59 Den 74 Diakonoff, Igor M. 4, 19, 20, 65 Dioskoros 34, 42, 231 Dishna recession 52 Djar 174, 200 Djefaded 98, 104, 105, 107 Djenet 111 Duauf 149 Edfu 46, 113, 156, 206, 223 el-Bersheh (see Deir el-Bersheh) Elephantine 33, 38, 39, 46, 72, 74, 95, 96, 102, 112, 113, 118. 133, 143, 170, 171, 177, 179, 187, 197, 198, 209, 226 Elias, Norbert 77 Elkab 34, 52, 77, 113, 205, 222, 223, 226, 227, 228 el-Tarif 52 Emery, Walter B. 36 Esna 72 Ethiopia 63 Etmanieh 31, 41 Ezbet Rushdi 170, 194 Fayum 34, 52, 68, 170, 172, 175, 204, 207 Fekri, Hassan 152 Gebel as-Sheikh al-Haridi 42, 126 Gebelein 89, 111, 112, 116, 179, 232, 233 Giza 12, 77, 78, 91–94, 106, 109, 142, 172 god’s house of Snofru 112 Hapydjefau (I) 8, 17, 155, 222 Har 206, 218 Harageh 11, 203 Hathor 42, 44, 45, 103, 104, 106, 132, 238 Hatnub 18 Hedjethekenu 104, 106 Helwan 83 Hemamieh 34–37, 44, 45, 55, 69, 71, 74, 87, 89, 92, 96, 97, 102, 104, 106, 108, 110, 128, 132, 135, 137, 165, 182, 102, 238 Henenu 154, 159 Henu 148, 185 Henutpu 202 Heqa-andju jabet (province) 93 Heqaib 46, 99, 171, 187 Heqanakht 178, 179, 200 Hequ 102

Herakleopolis 151, 152, 154, 172 Herodotus 90, 207 Hesu 148, 149 Hetep 44, 69, 70, 74, 88, 179, 186 Hetepet 179, 200 Hetepheres 98, 106 Hetepkhnum 179 Hetepsekhemui 72, 74, 88, 105 Hetepsenusret 204 Hetepu 147 Hetepuy 183, 186, 190, 192 Hierakonpolis 33, 52, 66, 156 Hindess, Barry 16 Hippodamus of Miletus 6 Hirst, Paul 16 Hormeni 206 Hornakht 223 Horus 43, 72, 75, 76, 127, 172 Hu 193, 226 Hur 207 Hutihyt 182 Hutwaret (see also Tell el-Dabʿa) 195 Iaru 111 Ibi 189 Ibres 44 Ibu (II) 186 Ibu 46, 182, 183, 185, 189, 190 Idi 104 Iienkhenmut 147 Iku 102 Indi 156 Inerty-Inpu 111 Ini 189 Ipep 223 Ipepi 223 Ipi 200 Iq 182 Iqery 179 Isi 46 It 182 Itakayet 198 Itj-tauy (see Amenemhat- Itj-tauy) Iufi 98, 103 Iufu 98 Iunka 98, 106 Iy 148 Iymeru 199, 201 Jericho 51, 53 Jones, Owen 11

275

276 Kaemheset 98, 99 Kaemnofret 98, 103 Kafr Ammar 86 Kainebefwi 99 Kaiser, Werner 60 Kakhenet (I) 40, 98, 104, 107 Kakhenet (II) 98–104, 107 Kakhenet 92, 97 Kamose stela 223 Karnak 29, 176 Kees, Hermann 24 Kerma 222, 225 Khabausbet 91 Khaneferre Sobekhetep 222 Khartoum Neolithic 51 Khasekhem 75 Khasekhemre, see Neferhetep I Khasekhemui 74 Khendjer 222 Khenemu 18 Khenmes 95, 202 Khenmetneferhedjet 198 Khenmetptah 83 Khentikai 101 Khentikaues 98, 106 Khentikhetyemsaf 149 Kheredet 98 Khesef-Mediau 192 Khety 149, 200 Khnum 45, 129 Khnumhetep (I) 155 Khnumhetep (II) 105, 181, 189, 201, 203 Khnumhetep (IV) 181 Khnumhetep 181, 201 Khnumnakht 201 Khontimentiu 95 Khozam 156 Khufu 85 Khui 155 Kom Ishqau 41 Koptic province 156 Koptos 95, 97–99, 151, 153, 156 Krzyzaniak, Lech 16, 53 Kush 206 Lahun 40, 170, 171, 173, 175, 204 Levant 57, 59, 157, 219 Libya 193 Lieblein, Jens Daniel Carolus 7 Lisht 151, 172, 173

Index Mackay, Ernest 86, 97 Malawi 43 Mandel, Ernest 10 Manetho 153 Marx, Karl 13, 17, 21 Maspero, Gaston 21 Matmar 30, 52, 127, 142 Meir 34, 119, 155, 158, 181, 186, 201 Meketre 200 Memphis 74, 79, 86, 96, 118, 125, 128, 142, 143, 151, 155, 171, 197 Mendes 152 Menes 68 Mentuhetep 157, 177 Mentuhetep II 125, 151, 154, 169, 174, 199 Menu (Min) province 30 Meresankh 98, 106 Meretneith 74 Meri 99, 106 Merimde Beni Salama 52 Merka 77 Meryt Ini 190 Mesehti 155 Mesheikh 153, 154 Meskell, Lynn 10 Mesopotamia 13 Metjen 97, 118, 157 Meydum 96 Meyer, Eduard 21, 74 Min province 154 Minemhat 157 Minet 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 223 Moalla 156 Mostagedda 30, 59, 142 Mouth of the lake of Sobek 175 Müller, Christiane 18 Müller, Miriam 10 Mut (personal name) 44 Mut 43, 44, 151 Muthotep 44 Mutsenet 44 Muty 189 Naga ed-Deir 77, 78, 153, 156, 168, 189 Nakht 149, 185, 189, 211 Nakhty 157 Naqada 59, 60, 66, 68, 156 Narmer 69 Neb 95 Nebankh 199, 202

Index Nedjemib 175 Neferethenut 198 Neferher 99 Neferhetep 186 Neferhetep I 222 Neferkare 128 Neferkauhor 153 Neferkeki 99 Neferu 198 Neferukai 99 Neferukayt 153, 159 Neferyt 190 Nefret (goddess) 43, 44, 45 Nefrusi 223 Neheri (I) 18 Nehy 189, 201, 211, 223 Neith 77, 103 Nemty 43, 44, 45, 48, 69, 70, 74, 88, 223 Nemtyhetep 70 Nemtynakht 186 Nemtywy (personal name) 43 Nemtywy 41, 43, 45, 48 Nemtywy-nakht 43 Neoliberalism 9 Nerita shell 193 Nesheqet 83 Nesmonth 180 Netjeraperef 91 Netnub 185 Nevalı Çori 51 Newaef 147 Niankh-Userkaf 97, 98 Niger 51 Nineter 76 Nisutnefer 93, 94, 96 Nubia (Nubians) 59, 91, 113, 114, 119, 169, 170, 182, 187, 192, 193, 203, 206, 207, 219, 225, 227 Nubkhaes 199 Onuris 156 Osiris 157, 187 Palestine 68, 171, 173, 225 Pasheni 45 Patterson, Thomas 10 Pepy 149 Pepy I 38 Pepy II 128, 151 Pepy-ankh 119

Peribsen 76 Per-Wadjet 34, 41, 44 Petrie, Flinders 42, 59, 63, 182, 193 Ptahwer 206 Ptolemy VI Philopator 41 Qasr el Sagha 172 qenbet 101 Qubbet el-Hawa 34 Qus 156 Rahetep (governor) 37, 98, 103 Rahetep 99, 106 Red Sea 56, 193 Redu 148, 149 Reisner, George 89 Rekhet 172 Rensi 192 Reqaqnah 77 Resseneb 201 Rifeh 30, 34, 128, 201, 217 Riqqeh 11, 178, 203 Rudikhnum 153, 159 Sabef 77 Sahaba-Darau 52 Samonth 174, 201 Saqqara 77, 78, 95, 106, 109, 126, 142, 147 Sarenput I 170, 171 Sasatet 182 Satba/Satkhnum 83 Schack-Schackenburg, Hans 7 Schiaparelli, Ernest 34, 182 Sedment 3, 168, 171, 178 Sekhem-Amenemhat 171 Sekhemre 98, 106 Sekhemresewadjtawy Sobekhetep 222 Sekhet-Hemat 172 Sekhet-Hor 172 Semna 193 Semna stela 193 Sen 147 Senbim 149 Senebhenas 202 Senebi 202 Senebkay 226, 227 Senebsimai 199 Senmut 44 Senu 192

277

278 Senusret I 29, 45, 155, 169, 171, 172, 173, 177, 178, 180, 183, 198 Senusret II 170, 183, 190, 204 Senusret III 166, 171, 173, 178, 180, 181, 183, 192, 193, 195, 198, 199, 203 Senusret-ankh 183, 201 Senuy 8, 222 Sepui 149 Serra-East 192 Sesh 45, 129 Seshemnefer 115 Seth 43, 45, 76 Sethe, Kurt 74 Sha 30, 31 Shashotep 30, 45 Shau 149 shell 58, 62, 63, 64, 71, 87, 107, 108, 129, 143, 167, 193, 194, 216, 217 Shemai 153 Sher 148 silver 61, 88, 193, 194 Sinai 56, 136, 173 Snofru 38, 74, 85, 91, 106 Sobek 43, 45, 48, 68, 223 Sobekaa 111, 175 Sobekemsaf 199 Sobekhetep 148, 182, 183, 186, 190 Sobekhetep IV 176, see also Khaneferre Sobekhetep Sobeknakht II 226, 227 Stalin 14 Steckeweh, Hans 35, 181 Steindorff, Georg 35 Struwe, Wasili Waseilevitch 20 Sudan 51, 53 Syria 68, 109, 225 Tagalagal 51 Tarkhan 68, 69, 77, 78, 86 Ta-wer 153, 154, 156 Tehna 98 Tell el-Dab‘a (Avaris) 4, 38, 39, 170, 195, 202 Tell el-Farkha 67 Teti 127, 223

Index Thebes 29, 34, 153, 156, 159, 222, 223, 225, 226 Thinis 68, 154 Tjenti 98 Tjepu 98 Tjeti-iqer 157 Tod 178 Ukhhotep 201 Ukhhotep IV 183 Unas 147 Uni 157 Upuautemsaf 222 Upuauthetep 202 Uruk 40 User 99 Userkaf 97 von Luschan, Felix 8 Wadi an-Natrun 172, 173 Wadi Dara 136 Wadi el-Hudi 173 Wahibre Ibiau 222 Wahka 46, 181, 189–191, 201, 211 Wahka I 182, 183, 185 Wahka II 182–185, 189 Wahka III 186, 189 Wahkaaa 190 Wahkaankh 46 Wahka-em-weskhet 46, 190, 192 Wahsut 171, 189 wall of the rulers 197 Weber, Max 90, 115 Welskopf, Elisabeth Charlotte 14, 15 Wenenefer 95 Western oasis 53 Wilcox, George 33 Wilson, John A. 15, 17 Wittfogel, Karl 2, 15, 207 Wolf, Walther 8, 90 Yemen 63 Zaraby (el-Zaraby) 31, 35, 42, 128