A Stela of Seti I from the Region of Kurkur Oasis

John Coleman Darnell

  ‘You see this place. It’s the Oasis of Kurkur – a little quiet, I am afraid, but excellent air.
You are to get out there as quick as possible. You’ll find a company of the Ninth, and half a
squadron of cavalry. You will be in command.’
  Hilary Joyce looked at the name, printed at the intersection of two black lines without
another dot upon the map for several inches around it. ‘A village, sir?’
  ‘No, a well. Not very good water, I’m afraid, but you soon get accustomed to natron. It’s
an important post, as being at the junction of two caravan routes. All routes are closed now,
of course, but still you never know who might come along them.’
  ‘We are there, I presume, to prevent raiding?’
  ‘Well, between you and me, there’s really nothing to raid. You are there to intercept
messengers. They must call at the wells.’ …

A. Conan Doyle, ‘The Debut of Bimbashi Joyce’

The relatively recent patrols of the modern Egyptian military along the escarpment of the Sinn el-
Kaddab, in the region of Kurkur Oasis (fig. 1), have discovered two monuments relating to the activities
of much earlier, pharaonic Egyptian forces in that same area of the southwestern desert hinterland of
Aswan. One of these monuments – discovered in 1997 – is a small stela from the reign of Tutankhamun,
in the text on which the deputy commander of Wawat, Penniut, rebukes a tardy Medjay patrolman.
The other monument, discovered in 1992, is a well-made stela of Seti I. Although the text of the Seti I
Kurkur stela is not so unusual as the unique dialogue between the official and the Medjay on the Tut-
ankhamun Stela, Seti’s inscription is nevertheless potentially of significance for the history of his reign,
and for the chronology of New Kingdom Egyptian military activity in Nubia. Whereas the stela of the


  In McClure’s Magazine Illustrated Monthly 15 (May, 1900), 60–4.

  J. C. Darnell, ‘A Stela of the Reign of Tutankhamun from the Region of Kurkur Oasis’, SAK 31 (2003), 73–91. For a general
introduction to Kurkur and its antiquities, and the work of the Theban Desert Road Survey in that area, see Darnell, SAK 31,
primarily 73–5; J. C. Darnell, ‘The Route of Eleventh Dynasty Expansion into Nubia’, ZÄS 131 (2004), 23–37; D. Darnell (with
the assistance of J. C. Darnell), ‘Gravel of the Desert and Broken Pots in the Road: Ceramic Evidence from the Routes between
the Nile and Kharga Oasis’, in R. Friedman (ed.), Egypt and Nubia: Gifts of the Desert (London, 2002), 166–9.

  P. J. Brand, The Monuments of Seti I: Epigraphic, Historical and Art Historical Analysis (PdÄ 16; Leiden, 2000), 283, mentions
the stela.

  For permission and assistance in studying and publishing the Seti I Kurkur Stela, part of the work of the Theban Desert
Road Survey and Yale Toshka Desert Survey, I thank the Permanent Committee of the Supreme Council for Antiquities in
Egypt, General Secretary of the SCA Dr. Zahi Hawas, as well as the Aswan Inspectorate, General Director Mr. Ali el-Asfar,
Director of Nubian Antiquities Mr. Abd el-Hakim Haddad, the Director of the Aswan Museum (Elephantine Island), Director

127
John Coleman Darnell

Fig. 1. Nubia from the 5th to the 1st Cataract, showing major toponyms discussed.

reign of Tutankhamun from near Kurkur is primarily concerned with the Deputy Commander of Wawat,
Penniut, admonishing an unnamed Medjay patrolman, and the latter’s response, the stela of Seti I from
the region of Kurkur Oasis is a larger, relatively more massive monument concerned exclusively with the
pharaoh – the stela of Seti I is a formal, royal monument. Whereas the figures on the stela from the reign
of Tutankhamun are somewhat small and – although not inartistically rendered – somewhat summary
in their details, the figures of Seti and Khnum on the stela presented here are detailed and beautifully
executed images, in keeping with the generally high standards of art during the reign of the second ruler
of the Nineteenth Dynasty.

of Aswan Antiquities Mr. Mohy, and Inspector Adel Abd el-Sameh Kelany. As with the stela of the reign of Tutankhamun from
the Sinn el-Kaddab, Adel Abd el-Sameh Kelany, Abd el-Hakim Haddad and Deborah Darnell made excellent initial copies
and photographs; additional photographs and collations were made in December 2001 and June 2003, in the courtyard of the
Elephantine magazine. During the time when the epigraphic work was carried out in Egypt, the expedition was funded in part
by grants from the Marilyn M. and William K. Simpson Egyptology Endowment Fund of the Department of Near Eastern
Languages and Civilizations of Yale University, and the National Endowment for the Humanities (an independent federal
agency).

128
 A Stela of Seti I from the Region of the Kurkur Oasis

The Stela of Seti I

The sandstone stela of Seti I (figs 2–4) measures: height 72.5 cm; width 39.8 cm; maximum thick-
ness 12 cm (the back is slightly convex, with many pocks and chisel blows); thickness at the sides: 8.5 cm
to right, and 10 cm to left; the height of the text section is 25.5 cm, with the height of the lines of text
ranging between 3.4–3.8 cm. Except for the missing lower corners the well-carved stela exhibits no signifi-
cant damage, but no trace of any color survives. The lower corners appear in fact to have been intention-
ally removed; this feature, together with the many pocks at the bottom, suggests that the stela may have
been set within some base or platform. The excellent state of preservation suggests that the monument
was relatively well sheltered from the elements, particularly the sands of the prevailing northwesterly
breezes and the seasonal attacks of the khamsîn. As with the stela of Tutankhamun, this monument may
once have occupied a position in the shelter of the Sinn el-Kaddab, probably along the route from Aswan
to Kurkur, perhaps more specifically in the shadows of the limestone-capped Gebel Garra. A scene of the
pharaoh offering to the god Khnum occupies the greater portion of the stela; beneath the lunette field are
7 lines of horizontal, hieroglyphic inscription.

The lunette (fig. 2)

Seti stands to the right, bowing toward the left, holding out two nw-pots to the standing figure of
criocephalic Khnum. The king wears the khat-headdress with uraeus, broad collar, kilt with sporran
flanked by rearing uraei, and the bull’s tail. Although the area is somewhat marred by a hard inclusion
in the stone, the sporran appears to be augmented by ribbons on at least the right side. The royal ankles
and knees are subtly modeled, and the eye is sfumato. Before the king is a single offering stand, bearing
a spouted nms.t-vessel, a lotus bloom and blossom draped across the top. Faint lines to the left of the top
of the nms.t-vessel indicate a slight re-carving. The god Khnum faces right, wAs-scepter in this left hand,
anx-sign in his lowered, right hand. The god wears an archaic kilt, a broad collar of the same pattern as
that worn by the king, and a solar Atef crown, the horns of the deity appearing to be more an element of
the crown than integral elements of the deity’s ram head. The upper curve of the solar disk at the top of
Khnum’s crown merges with the curving line of the border near the edge of the lunette. Khnum stands
atop a mAa-socle. As with the figure of the king, the ankles and knees of the god are modeled. The interior,
raised relief elements of the two figures in the lunette are well-carved and rounded. Unlike the stela of
Tutankhamun from the same area, there is no boundary line separating the entire decorated surface from
the edge of the stela; such a line does exist for the offering scene in the lunette, but not for the lines of
inscription at the bottom of the stela.

Text above Seti I

1
NTr-nfr Mn-mAa.t-Ra  2%A-Ra %ty Mr-n-PtH  3di anx
1
The good god Menmaatre, 2the Son of Re Seti-Merneptah, 3given life.


  See Darnell, SAK 31, 74–5; for the route from Aswan (Gebel Tingar) to Kurkur, see J. Ball, On the Topographical and Geologi-
cal Results of a Reconnaissance-Survey of Gebel Garra and the Oasis of Kurkur (Cairo, 1902), 18–19.

  Of the scene in the lunette Brand, Monuments of Seti I, 283, writes: ‘The vignette is the earliest dated example of a ritual scene
in which Seti is portrayed bowing piously before the deity. It also displays the fully Ramesside style of draftsmanship, including
distinctive facial features – large, aquiline nose and wedge-shaped lips – wider shoulders and a flat belly. The eye is, unusually,
sfumato.’

  Compare S. Bickel, ‘L’iconographie du dieu Khnoum’, BIFAO 91 (1991), 58.

129
John Coleman Darnell

Fig. 2. The stela of Seti I from the Sinn el-Kaddab.

130
 A Stela of Seti I from the Region of the Kurkur Oasis

Text above Khnum

mry  4$nmw  5nb imnt.t
5

Beloved of Khnum, lord of the West.

Text behind Seti I

6
sA anx HA÷f nb
6
the protection of all life surrounding him.

The epithet of Seti as beloved of Khnum is separated from the names of the king, reversed in order to
face in the direction of the deity himself, and positioned above the god – the text is thus part epithet of
the king, and at the same time the label to Khnum himself. Khnum is appropriate here not only as the
lord of the Cataract region, but also – as he is explicitly designated on the Tutankhamun stela – the chief
of Biggeh, nearby fortress from which some of the Kurkur patrols may have been provisioned.

Text on the thickness of the stela behind

Seti I (fig. 3)
1
Mn-mAa.t-Ra  2%ty Mr-n-PtH
1
Menmaatre, 2Seti-Merneptah

On the right thickness of the stela, es-

sentially behind the waist of the king, are
the prenomen and nomen of Seti I, with-
out further elaboration. The cartouches
face in towards each other, and appear to
correspond to the small oval containing
the prenomen of Tutankhamun, carved to
the right of the rear leg of the king on the
stela of Penniut.

Second register: hieroglyphic inscription

(fig. 4)
The second register of the stela consists
of seven horizontal lines of hieroglyphic
text. The bulk of this inscription, essen-
tially most of the first five and a half lines,
is a list of the king’s titulary, followed by
a tripartite ‘invocation’ of Seti. Finally
comes the short description of the event
of which the stela is the memorial.

Fig. 3. Cartouches of Seti I on the side of his stela

from the Sinn el-Kaddab.

  See the comments in Darnell, SAK 31, 77 and 86.




  Darnell, SAK 31, 78 (with detail photograph on pl. 3).

131
John Coleman Darnell

Fig. 4. Lower register of the stela of Seti I from the Sinn el-Kaddab.

Section 1: date and titulary

1
@sb.t 4 Abd 3 Pr.t sw 20 xr Hm n
@r KA-nxt xa m WAs.t sanx &A.wy
Nb.ty WHm ms.wt  1–2sxm  2xpS dr pD.t psD.t
@r-nbw WHm xa.w wsr pD.wt m tA.w nb.w
Nsw.t-bity nb &A.wy  3Mn-MAa.t-Ra ti.t-Ra
%A-Ra nb-xa.w %ty Mr-n-PtH di anx mi Ra D.t

1
Regnal Year 4, 3rd month of the Peret-season, day 20 under the majesty of:
Horus: Mighty bull, Appearing Gloriously in Thebes, Who Enlivens the Two Lands;
Two ladies: Repeater of Births, 1–2Mighty 2of Strong Arm, Who Drives Back the Nine Bows;
Horus of Gold: Repeater of Glorious Appearance, Strong of Bow Troops in All Lands;
King of Upper and Lower Egypt, lord of the Two Lands 3Menmaatre, image of Re;
Son of Re, lord of glorious appearances Seti Merneptah, given life like Re forever.

132
 A Stela of Seti I from the Region of the Kurkur Oasis

Section 2: invocation of the King

3
anx nTr-nfr ikm n HH.w a
3–4
sb.ty  4n Hfn.w b
sxm-ib
mA÷f aSA.t
  c
rSSw=f
sxAy÷tw  5aHA d

ity wr pH.ty e
iT HD.t
swD n÷f psS n  6Nb.wy mi it÷f Ra

Nsw.t-bity Mn-MAa.t-Ra ti.t-Ra

Live the good god: shield for millions,
3–4
wall 4for hundreds of thousands,
stout of heart
when he sees the throng (of the enemy) – 
that he rejoices
is when one recalls 5combat.

Sovereign: great of strength,

who takes up the White Crown,
to whom the portion of 6the Two Lords has been consigned as (is
done for) his father Re,

King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Menmaatre, image of Re.

Text notes to sections 1 and 2

  The description of the king as a shield, apparently somewhat less common than that of the ruler as
a

rampart,10 is manifest in the products of Kush delivered to Tutankhamun in the scenes from the tomb of
his Viceroy Huy.11 The god Amun himself is a shield as well, and the ruler as shield is probably an image
of the Amun-like ruler.12 Shields much like those in Huy’s presentation were present amongst the burial
goods of Tutankhamun,13 and may represent yet another Nubian expression of the deified pharaoh as a
manifestation of Amun.14
b
  The king as rampart apparently finds visual realization in wooden models of towers from Deir

  See N.-C. Grimal, Les termes de la propagande royale égyptienne: De la XIXe dynastie à la conquête d’Alexandre (Paris, 1986),
10

322–35; V. Rondot, La grande salle hypostyle de Karnak, les architraves (Paris, 1997), 50 n. e.
  N. de G. Davies and A. H. Gardiner, The Tomb of @uy, Viceroy of Nubia in the Reign of Tutaankhamūn (No.40) (TTS 4;
11

London, 1926), pls 24–5.

12
  In line 27 of Merneptah’s Karnak Libyan War inscription, Amun is with the Egyptian army ‘as shields’, probably a reference
to royal names and images of the Amunized ruler on the shields – see the comments of C. Manassa, The Great Karnak Inscription
of Merneptah: Grand Strategy in the 13th Century bc (YES 5; New Haven, 2003), 39.
13
  H. Carter, The Tomb of Tut-Ankh-Amen (New York, 1963), 3, pl. 47.
14
  For the celebration of the cult of the deified Egyptian ruler as a manifestation of Amun in Nubia, compare the comments of
L. Bell, ‘Aspects of the Cult of the Deified Tutankhamun’, in P. Posener-Kriéger (ed.), Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar (BdE 97;
Cairo, 1985), I, 31–59.

133
John Coleman Darnell

el-Medina,15 on certain of which are the labels nb tA.wy and bity. The Kurkur stela from the reign of Tut-
ankhamun refers to the ‘wall of pharaoh’, also called the ‘western wall’, apparently references to a system
of fortifications, as part of which the Kurkur patrols functioned.
c
  The orthography of rSw reveals the survival of terminal -w with false plural ending.16 The form here
appears to be somewhat of a hybrid, with Late Egyptian ending orthography, and Middle Egyptian gemi-
nation.17 The double strokes preceding the quail chick are more likely ‘filler strokes’18 than an example of
-wy reversed for graphic reasons. Also possible is an orthography of rSrS, with the third radical omitted,
or perhaps more accurately with the first radical haplographically representing the first and third radicals
at once. The phrase refers to the ruler’s joy at his own Kriegsruf, and alludes to the joyful outcome and
general acclaim resulting from the foregone, victorious conclusion to the conflict.19
d
  The sickle sword of the aHA-sign is extremely thin, and in keeping with a hybrid sickle sword/knife
sign prevalent during the Ramesside Period.20
e
  The epithet wr pHty appears for Seti I in the Colonnade Hall.21
After the date and the full titulary, the king is wished life, first as nTr-nfr with following epithets,
then as ity-sovereign, again with following epithets, and finally and most succinctly as King of Upper
and Lower Egypt. The epithets following nTr-nfr all relate to the ruler as warrior, protector of his people
and one who laughs at the thought of a horde of enemies. As ity the king is the powerful possessor of the
regalia and heritage of pharaonic rule.

Section 3: the event

m hrw pn a
istw b Hm=f ib=f Aw  7r grg tAS.w nyw &A-%ty c

it=f Ra grg tA.wy

sA=f mAa wHm sxr.w÷f D.t d

On this day:
(at the above designated time) when his majesty was happy7 to (re)found the borders of Nubia:

It is his father Re who (re)founds the Two Lands;

it is his true son who repeats his plans forever.

15
  See B. Bruyère, Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el Médineh (1927) (FIFAO 5/2; Cairo, 1928), 27 (fig. 18); identified as towers by
A. Badawy, A History of Egyptian Architecture, I: From the Earliest Times to the End of the Old Kingdom (Cairo, 1954), 48 – compare
A. Scharff, Altertümer der Vor- und Frühzeit (MÄSB 4–5; Berlin, 1929–31), II, 147–8 (pl. 33); A. J. Spencer, Catalogue of Egyptian
Antiquities in the British Museum, V: Early Dynastic Objects (London, 1980), 64 (pl. 47) = no. 457; H. Bonnet, Ein frühgeschicht-
liches Gräberfeld bei Abusir (VESE 4; Leipzig, 1928), 51 (fig. 18a).
16
  Compare K. Sethe, Das ägyptische Verbum in Altägyptischen, Neuaegyptischen und Koptischen (Leipzig, 1899–1902), I, 107
(§ 187) and 109 (§ 190); 2, 46 (§ 110).
17
  As the passage in question does not appear to contain a common epithet, the Seti stela appears to provide a late exam-
ple of relatively freely formed geminating morphology – compare J. Winand, Études de néo-égyptien, I: La morphologie verbale
(ÆgLeod 2; Liège, 1992), 264–5 (§ 418).
18
  See K. Jansen-Winkeln, Spätmittelägyptische Grammatik der Texte der 3. Zwischenzeit (ÄAT 34; Wiesbaden, 1996), 33–4
(§ 49).
19
  Compare the comments of A. J. Spalinger, Aspects of the Military Documents of the Ancient Egyptians (YNER 9; New Haven,
1982), 93–4 and 209–210.
20
  C. Desroches-Noblecourt and C. Kuentz, Le Petit temple d’Abou Simbel: Nofretari pour qui se lève le Dieu-Soleil (CEDEA
1–2; Cairo, 1968), I, 173 n. 202 (fig. 28-13).
  See Rondot, Les architraves, 20, n. a to no. 6 upper.
21

134
 A Stela of Seti I from the Region of the Kurkur Oasis

Text notes to section 3

  The use of m hrw pn links the date and titulary to the event that follows, and stresses the connection
a

of the event to the date.22 The particle isT following m hrw pn further reinforces this (see the following
note, and note d in Text notes to the Amara West/Sai stelae, below).
b
  In the Kurkur stela of Seti I, isT links the account of Seti’s boundary establishment with the date
and epithets above, an indication that the date of this stela is the date of the event, not the date of the
erection of the stela.23
c
  The orthography of grg is slightly peculiar, the ‘evil bird’ borrowed from the word grg, ‘falsehood’ (Wb.
V 189.2–190.4).24 The reference to establishing the borders of Nubia is a somewhat unexpected application
to the Nubian province of so-called ‘imperialist’ imagery usually reserved for Egypt proper. Whereas in the
text concerning the Nubian campaign of Amenhotep I, Ahmose Son of Ibana relates that he conveyed the
Egyptian ruler to Kush r swsx tAS.w Km.t, ‘in order to widen the borders of the Blackland’ (Urk. IV 7.2),
Nubia is now the possessor of its own borders.25 The reference in Seti’s Kurkur stela to the refounding of
Nubia’s borders appears to correspond to the emphasis on ‘embellishing (perhaps ‘properly establishing’)
the wall of pharaoh, l.p.h.’ (l. 8; the ‘wall of pharaoh’ also appears in ll. 6–7), apparently the same as the
‘western wall’ (ll. 5–6), in the text of the Kurkur stela from the reign of Tutankhamun.26 The happiness of
the king at refounding the Nubian borders further recalls the statement in the Ibrim stela of Seti I:27 irw tAS.
w÷f r Drw m bw nb mr÷f, ‘who makes the entirety of his borders in every place he prefers.’
d
  The concluding segment of the text is somewhat reminiscent of the epithet mnx sxr.w mi Hm n Ra of
Ramesses II from Karnak.28 The pairing of grg and wHm in the concluding section of the stela recalls the
phrase grg m wHm.29 References to Seti’s refounding and repeating of councils is particularly appropriate
in the light of Seti’s continuation of his immediate predecessors’ post-Amarna restoration.30

The date of the stela (fig. 5)

The combined use of hrw pn and isT indicate that the date of the stela is that of the event the stela
details. That event, grg tAS.w nyw &A-%ty, ‘(re)founding the borders of Nubia’, appears to be relatively
22
  See W. J. Murnane, The Road to Kadesh: A Historical Interpretation of the Battle Reliefs of King Sety I at Karnak (2nd rev. edn,
SAOC 42; Chicago, 1990), 76–7, and n. 6.
  For the use of isT here, and in Ramesside monumental texts in general, see Manassa, Great Karnak Inscription, 9.
23

  A. David, De l’infériorité à la perturbation: L’oiseau du ‘mal’ et la categorization en Égypte ancienne (GOF IV/38; Wiesbaden,
24

2000), 7.
25
  For the borders of an area in Egypt, such as Thebes, see J. Galán, Victory and Border: Terminology Related to Egyptian Impe-
rialism in the XVIIIth Dynasty (HÄB 40; Hildesheim, 1995), 117 (ex. II.2.C = Tombos inscription of Thutmosis I) and 118. Note
also that in the tomb of Khaemkhat, Amenhotep III receives the record of the harvest of the south and the north, the later being
said to extend to the tAS of Naharin (Urk. IV 1841.17). Galán’s discussion (Victory and Border, 121 n. 631, and 123–4) of r-xt in a
number of passages, suggesting delegation of authority over frontier administration to local rulers in some cases, is interesting
but not entirely convincing.
26
  Darnell, SAK 31, 76.
27
  R. A. Caminos, The Shrines and Rock-Inscriptions of Ibrim (ASE 32; London, 1968), pls 39 and 40, ll. 4 and 87.
28
  Rondot, La grande salle hypostyle, 32 n. c (no. 10 lower line), 8*, and pl. 5.
29
  See Grimal, Les termes de la propagande, 340, nn. 1118–9. For the sense of wHm in the present context, see the references
in M. Schade-Busch, Zur Königsideologie Amenophis’ III.: Analyse der Phraseologie historischer Texte der Voramarnazeit (HÄB 35;
Hildesheim, 1992), 286 (no. 206a).
30
  Compare the author in The Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Luxor Temple, II: The Façade, Portals, Upper Reg-
ister Scenes, Columns, Marginalia, and Statuary in the Colonnade Hall (OIP 116; Chicago, 1998), commentary 50–1, n. d to pl.
197B; for the titulary of Seti I, and the ruler’s emphasis on renewal, see R. Gundlach, ‘Sethos I. Und Ramesses II. Tradition und
Entwicklungsbruch in der frühramessidischen Königsiodeologie’, in R. Gundlach and U. Rössler-Köhler (eds), Das Königtum
der Ramessidenzeit: Voraussetzungen, Verwirklichung, Vermächtnis : Akten des 3. Symposiums zur ägyptischen Königsideologie in Bonn
7.–9.6.2001 (ÄAT 36/3 = BAK 1; Wisebaden, 2003), 17–53, especially 47–8.

135
John Coleman Darnell

imprecise, but the very emphasis on the date of this event suggests that the occurrence was something
real, and the date of the stela from the region of Kurkur may relate to the Irem campaign of Seti I. The
regnal year 4 date does not correspond to the only surviving year date recorded on the two surviving
copies of the Nubian War text of Seti I – the Amara West and Sai Stelae. The difference in dates is not,
however, the problem one might first perceive for linking the Kurkur Stela with the Nubian War.
The date of the Kurkur Stela – III Pr.t 20 – is seven days later than the date when the Egyptian forces
joined battle with Irem, as the Amara West and Sai stelae record that date. Following the account of the
Egyptian preparations, the stelae record:31
spr ir.n mSa n Hm÷f r mnnw %g[A…]
{m} Abd ⌈3⌉ Pr.t sw 13
i ⌈w=t⌉w Hr Ts r÷sn
pA xpS n Pr-aA r-HA.t÷sn mi hh n nsr
Hr ptpt Dw.w
xpr dwAw n 7 hrw.w
iw in÷sn pA xpS n Mn-MAa.t-Ra

Arrival which the army of his majesty made a at the fortress ⌈Hilltop⌉[…]b
(Amara West:) on III c Pr.t 13.

(Sai:) III c Pr.t 13:d

One drew up/went up against them, e
the mighty arm of pharaoh before them like a blasting flame,
trampling the mountains.
When the dawn of the seventh day came,
the strong arm of Menmaatre took them.

Text notes to Amara West/Sai stelae

  The rock inscription of Khusobek from Amada contains a similar variant of the sDm pw ir.n=f form:
a

wDA ir.n=f, ‘journey which he made.’32 The form is similar to that appearing in a number of Ramesside
documents, in which the infinitive is part of a formula ‘the day of the action which someone did.’33
b
  %grH-&A.wy 34 does not appear possible, as Murnane35 and Vercoutter36 have remarked; Murnane
has suggested reading a name beginning with sgr, ‘to make quiet’ (Wb. IV 323.8–9), while Vercoutter
has compared the word in Wb. IV 324.6. The latter suggestion is the more likely, the fortress’ name
compounded with the initial element for a fortified hill emplacement.37 Such a ‘hill fort’ need not have
  KRI VII, 10.5–10. On the stelae see also C. Maderna-Sieben, ‘Ausgewählte Beispiele ramessidischer Königseulogien’, in
31

Gundlach and Rössler-Köhler (eds), Das Königtum der Ramessidenzeit, 83–6.

32
  The text appears in A. E. P . Weigall, A Report on the Antiquities of Lower Nubia (the First Cataract to the Sudan Frontier) and
their Condition in 1906–7 (Oxford, 1907), pl. 75; the interpretation of J. Wegner, ‘Regional Control in Middle Kingdom Lower
Nubia: The Function and History of the Site of Areika’, JARCE 32 (1995), 150 and n. 69 is thus to be corrected.
33
  See Winand, Études de néo-égyptien, 187.
  KRI VII, 10.5–6; K. A. Kitchen, ‘Historical Observations on Ramesside Nubia’, in E. Endesfelder, K.-H. Priese, W.-F. Reineke
34

and S. Wenig (eds), Ägypten und Kusch: Fritz Hintze zum 60. Geburtstag gewidmet (SGKAO 13; Berlin, 1977), 217; RITANC I, 85.
35
  Road to Kadesh, 101 and n. 15.
36
  ‘Le pays d’Irem et la première pénétration égyptienne en Afrique (stèle de Saï S. 579)’, in Livre du Centenaire IFAO,
1880–1980 (MIFAO 104; Cairo, 1980), 162 and n. 2, 166 n. 1.
37
  For the term sgA, meaning fortress or perhaps better ‘hill fort’, see the references in A. Gasse, Données nouvelles adminis-
tratives et sacerdotales sur l’organisation du domaine d’Amon, XXe–XXIe dynasties: À la lumière des papyrus Prachov, Reinhardt et

136
 A Stela of Seti I from the Region of the Kurkur Oasis

been of commanding size or appearance, and the apparent Medjay outpost in the region of Dunqul38
may give some idea of the appearance of such a modest but integral element of the Egyptian border
defences.39
Table 1 Dates on the Amara West and Sai stelae

Introductory Date Internal Date

    
 
  
 
 


Amara West  
 
Kitchen/Darnell Kitchen Darnell

 
   
   
 
    
Sai
Not Extant
 
Vercoutter 2/
Kitchen Vercoutter 1
Darnell

  The month date is not well preserved on either stela; the assumed holes-as-strokes on the Amara
c

West Stela (cf. RITANC I, 84) are with certainty holes at best. The date on the Sai Stela can be 3 or 4,
and the spacing is not so certainly indicative of 4 (contra RITANC I, 85); in fact, the positioning of the
leftmost of the two surviving strokes over the pr-sign of Pr.t supports a reading 3.
d
  As Kitchen questioningly suggested in KRI I, 103 n. 10a–a, and so copied in KRI VII, 10.7, an m
appears before the date in the Amara West version. The Sai version has no m, and a date with follow-
ing iw÷tw Hr Ts is proper Day Book style, suggesting the date is initial in that version.40 The m in the
Amara West version, however, may serve to make of the date in that version an adjunct to the preceding
sentence (compare Urk. IV 836.2), therefore recording the date of the army’s arrival at the fortress.41 The
day of the arrival at the fortress may have occurred on the same day as that on which the Egyptian army
subsequently drew up against the enemy. Perhaps the Iremites were threatening the fortress, or had even

Grundbuch (avec édition princeps des papyrus Louvre AF 6345 et 6346–7) (BdE 104; Cairo, 1988), I, 30 n. 36; R. Hannig, Ägyptisches
Wörterbuch, I: Altes Reich und Erste Zwischenzeit (KAW 98 = HL 4; Mainz, 2003), 1252; R. Hannig, Ägyptisches Wörterbuch, II:
Mittleres Reich und Zweite Zwischenzeit (KAW 112 = HL 5; Mainz, 2006), 2373; L. H. Lesko, A Dictionary of Late Egyptian (Provi-
dence, 1987), 3, 110–11. J. E. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (Princeton,
1994), 270 (followed by E. F. Morris, The Architecture of Imperialism: Military Bases and the Evolution of Foreign policy in Egypt’s
New Kingdom (PdÄ 22; Leiden, 2005), 422) proceeds from the erroneous assumption that the term first appears during the New
Kingdom, assumes it to be a late loan word into Egyptian, and suggests that the term is originally Sumerian, when it is most
likely an early Semitic loan word into Sumerian (I thank Prof. Benjamin Foster for discussing this with me) - see A. Salonen, Die
Türen des alten Mesopotamien: eine lexikalische und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung (AASF 124; Helsinki, 1961), 86. Foster sug-
gests that the Sumerian SI.GAR may be an ‘artful’ writing of a Semitic term in Sumerian - see W. Hallo, ‘Choice in Sumerian’,
JANES 5 (1973), 168–9. Foster further notes that the Akkadian ¡igaru nevers refers to a fortress, but rather denotes a long piece of
wood employed as a restraint, either around the necks of prisoners or as the bolt of a door. A connection between the Egyptian
sgr/sgA and the Akkadian ¡igaru/SI.GAR is not likely.
  J. J. Hester and P. M. Hobler, Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Libyan Desert, (University of Utah Anthropological
38

Papers 92, Nubian Series 4; Salt Lake City, 1969), 60–2.

39
  The Yale Toshka Desert Survey is recording similar hilltop emplacements in Kurkur Oasis.
40
  See Spalinger, Aspects of the Military Documents, 174; D. B. Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books (Missis-
sauga, 1986), 97–126.
41
  J. C. Darnell, ‘Irem and the Ghost of Kerma’, GM 94 (1986), 22 n. 18, translated according to the Sai version; others have
translated on the basis of the Amara West version – Vercoutter, in Livre du Centenaire, 158; Kitchen, in Endesfelder et al. (eds),
Ägypten und Kusch, 217; K. A. Kitchen, Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life and Times of Ramesses II, King of Egypt (Warminster, 1982),
31; RITA, 86; Murnane, The Road to Kadesh, 86 (with n. 53) and 101.

137
John Coleman Darnell

captured the outpost. The Amara West and Sai versions may not be so different, however, when one
considers the initial use of m hrw pn on the Seti Kurkur Stela itself, and elsewhere - compare the Annals
of Thutmose III, first section, line 94:42 m hrw pn ist wr.w ny.w xAs.t tn..., ‘On this day, while the chief
of this foreign land...’. For the day date, Vercoutter’s initial transcription and translation of the Sai stela
read ‘day 21’ instead of ‘day 13’; in his later publication, Vercoutter also transcribed and translated ‘day
21’, but the drawing shows 13.43 The photograph in the second publication is not clear, but that in the
first appears to agree with a reading ‘day 13’. Kitchen has most recently believed 21 to be clear; Murnane
reads 13.44 In my own examination of this internal date on the Amara West stela, 5 strokes were clear,
with damage to the upper portions thereof; readings 20 + 1 or 10 + 3 appeared possible, and the spacing
of the strokes favors 10 + 3, the reading adopted here.45 The above discussion reveals the desirability of a
carefully prepared epigraphic copy of the Amara West stela, which the author hopes to undertake in the
near future. Revisions and comments on the basis of photographs are particularly difficult for the Amara
West stela, given its rather appalling state of preservation.46 The opening date of the Amara West stela
appears to be III Pr.t ⌈24⌉ ;47 the Amara West stela being a commemorative monument, this date is most
likely the anniversary of the successful return of the military force (see below, the discussion of the date
of Merneptah’s Nubian conflict).
e
  Following the interpretation of Ts by Vercoutter, in Livre du Centenaire, 163, this would be the Ts of
marshalling troops; but see also the discussion in RITANC I, 86, who suggests the possible reading of ‘to
go up’, appropriate to a campaign ascending to the high desert plateau. The orthography of the word on
the Amara West stela suits the verb ‘to go up’, a reference to ascending the escarpment.48 The iw÷tw Hr
sDm probably interprets an infinitival account from the Day Book.49
According to the texts of the Amara West and Sai stelae of Seti I, both the arrival of the Egyptian
forces at the assembly point, apparently a fortified hillock on the fringe of pharaonic territory, and the
commencement of combat occurred on the same day – III Pr.t 13. The date of the final day of conflict
during the Irem campaign, seven days after the battle was joined, was thus III Pr.t 20, the same month
and day date as that appearing on the Kurkur stela of Seti I. Similarly the month date at the opening of the
Amara West stela may have been in month III, certainly in the season Pr.t, and the day is probably 24.

42
  D. B. Redford, The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 16; Leiden,
2003), fig. 4. Redford, ibid. 33-4, breaks the passage between m hrw pn and ist.
  Earlier publication: J. Vercoutter, ‘Une campagne militaire de Séti I en Haute Nubie: Stèle de Saï S. 579’, RdE 24 (1972),
43

201–8; later publication: Vercoutter, in Livre du Centenaire, 158 (transcription and translation), 159 (fig. 1.6), pl. 21.
44
  For these opinions see respectively KRI VII, 10 n. 8a, and RITANC I, 86; and Murnane, Road to Kadesh, 86 n. 53. Note that
in KRI I, 103.10, Kitchen copied the strokes as a ten with three less than upright vertical strokes following, and in Kitchen, in
Endesfelder et al. (eds), Ägypten und Kusch, 217, he translated ‘Day 13.’
45
  Contra Kitchen, RITANC I, 86, who believes that ‘Day 21 is assured on both monuments’.
46
  Compare the remarks of E. F. Wente, ‘A New Look at the Viceroy Setau’s Autobiographical Inscription’, in Posener-Kriéger
(ed.), Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar (BdE 97; Cairo, 1985), II, 347, concerning the difficulties in collating that inscription on
the basis of photographs.
47
  So KRI VII, 9 n. 2b, and RITANC I, 84. My examination of the Amara West stela at the Brooklyn Museum suggested that
the upper curve of each of the two 10’s – though that of the second is faint – might be present on the stela. Murnane, Road to
Kadesh, 86, read day 20 as well, adding ‘It would be tempting to read the opening dateline as [III] Prt 20, making it the climactic
final day of the war, but this is quite uncertain’. See also the photograph in D. Welsby and J. Anderson (eds), Sudan: Ancient
Treasures, an Exhibition of Recent Discoveries from the Sudan National Museum (London, 2004), 108 (fig. 80); though somewhat
pixilated in extreme magnification, the well-lit photograph appears to show the upper curves of the two 10’s. Reading day 20,
however, presents the problem of what stood above the two 10’s.
48
  See the discussion in Darnell, SAK 31, 82–3, n. d; Spalinger, Aspects of the Military Documents, 81, interprets Ts on the two
stelae as ‘to make contact.’
49
  Compare Spalinger, Aspects of the Military Documents, 144 (referring to Urk. IV 1308.5).

138
 A Stela of Seti I from the Region of the Kurkur Oasis

Most who have commented on the Irem campaign of Seti I appear to have assumed that the regnal
year date imperfectly preserved at the beginning of the first line of the Amara West stela of Seti I is the
date of the Irem campaign.50 Four vertical lines are visible at the bottom of a damaged area; rather than
the bottoms of four tall strokes, the lines appear to represent four complete, small strokes, probably part
of a Regnal Year 8 date.51 Is the apparent year 8 of the Amara Stela the date of the event, however, or is
regnal year 8 rather the date of the dedication of the Amara stela itself? A comparison of the Amara West
and Sai stelae suggests that the regnal year 8 date refers to the dedication of the Amara Stela.
The opening portions of the Amara West and Sai stelae are similar, but one difference is significant.
On the Amara West stela, opening with a Regnal Year 8 date in some month of Pr.t, on day 24(?), the
iw÷tw formulation follows immediately upon the end of the royal titulary (KRI VII, 9.5 and 9.9). The
text of the Sai stela, with date lost, inserts a clause beginning with the particle istw between the end of the
royal titulary and the beginning of the iw÷tw report (KRI VII, 9.10). The particle istw does not simply
introduce a setting phrase and separate eulogy from historical content,52 but rather serves to link the time
of the setting to a previously established date or other temporal specification.53 The Sai stela has such
a linking particle ist, indicating that the now missing date on the Sai stela may well have recorded the
date of the actual Irem campaign, probably Regnal Year 4. The Amara stela, though its date is partially
preserved, has no isT-phrase; the apparent Regnal Year 8 date of the Amara stela is thus more likely to be
the date of the monument itself, not the date of the campaign it records:

Amara West Sai

Regnal Year ⌈8⌉ , Pr.t [III], Day ⌈24⌉ [Date lost – Regnal Year 4?]
Titulary Titulary
istw Hm÷f m dmi n WAs.t …
iw÷tw r Dd n Hm÷f iw÷tw r Dd n Hm÷f

For a stela dated to the time of the erection of the monument, not to the time of the event it records,
one may compare the Amara West Stela version of Merneptah’s Nubian Victory text (KRI IV, 33.6),
which opens with the date Regnal Year 6, I Ax.t 1, the date of the monument itself. Within the text of
Merneptah’s Amara West stela – as in that of the Amada and Wadi es-Sebua versions of the Nubian
Victory text – the actual date of the events appears as Regnal Year 5, third month of ^mw, day one
(KRI IV, 5–7).54 The Kom el-Ahmar stela and the Victory Stela of Merneptah, on the other hand, make
use of the date of the conclusion(?) of the actual battle – Year 5, third month of ^mw, day three. Interest-

50
  A non-exhaustive list could include Murnane, Road to Kadesh, 100; C. Vandersleyen, L’Égypte et la vallée du Nil, II: De la fin
de l’Ancien Empire à la fin du Nouvel Empire (Paris, 1995), 503–4; Kitchen, Pharaoh Triumphant, 30; Kitchen, in Endesfelder et al.
(eds), Ägypten und Kusch, 214–15; A. J. Peden, The Graffiti of Pharaonic Egypt: Scope and Roles of Informal Writings (c. 3100–332 b.c.)
(PdÄ 17; Leiden, 2001), 111 n. 316, 113.
51
  Kitchen, in Endesfelder et al. (eds), Ägypten und Kusch, 215; KRI VII, 9.2, and n. 2a; RITANC I, 84, concludes that the four
strokes are complete, short strokes, and that ‘Year 8 is nearly certain’. My examination of the stela, with the assistance of Edward
Bleiberg, has convinced me that the surviving strokes are indeed complete, and that Year 8 is written. Murnane, The Road to
Kadesh, 100 n. 12, also came to this conclusion (followed by Brand, Monuments of Seti I, 291 n. 713). See also Vercoutter, in Livre
du Centenaire, 177 n. 2.
52
  See Spalinger, Aspects of the Military Documents, 104–7; A. J. Spalinger, ‘New Kingdom Eulogies of Power: A Preliminary
Analysis’, in N. Kloth, K. Martin and E. Pardey (eds), Es werde niederlegt als Schriftstück: Festschrift für Hartwig Altenmüller zum
65. Geburtstag (BSAK 9; Hamburg, 2003), 415 and n. 2 (in n. 2 he cites ‘Assmann, LÄ II, esp. 45 n. 32’, and says: ‘But one must
be wary about overinterpreting the date and location of the event via the ist: see S. Schott, Kanais, der Tempel Sethos I. im Wadi
Mia, NAWG phil.-hist. Klasse 1961/6, 1961, 163’); he does not, however, recognize the full significance of the use of isT.
53
  See the recent discussion by Manassa, Great Karnak Inscription, 136–8.
54
  See Vandersleyen, L’Égypte et la vallée du Nil II, 560; Manassa, Great Karnak Inscription, 44.

139
John Coleman Darnell

ingly, if the Kurkur stela records the date of the conclusion of the major conflict of the Irem campaign,
III Pr.t 20, then the month and day date of the Amara West stela of Seti I, though erected probably four
years after the Kurkur stela, records the anniversary of that event.55 A day 24 reading of the Amara West
introductory date for Seti’s Nubian campaign does not then present an obstacle to relating the Kurkur
Stela to that southern war.
The battle reliefs of Seti I on the exterior north wall of the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak provide no clear
indication of the date of Seti’s Nubian activity. The scenes and inscriptions do not appear to allude to
Nubian campaigning, nor would one expect a reference to a southern war on the north wall of a temple,
in company with battles against northern foes.56 The recut name rings accompanying the triumphal
scenes flanking the doorway dividing the major portions of the battle reliefs reveal simply an alteration of
some earlier African toponyms – themselves deriving from earlier monuments – to Asiatic toponyms, in
the company of other Asiatic toponyms.57 The Karnak name rings do not associate Nubian campaigning
with the later years of Seti I;58 if anything they might even suggest that the later Asiatic campaigns over-
shadowed at some point an earlier, modest Nubian campaign, not important enough to warrant more
than the copying of earlier Nubian toponyms, themselves no doubt somewhat more grandiose than the
probably obscure and perhaps unassuming toponymy of the Irem campaign.

The location and nature of the campaign

If the Kurkur stela alludes to the Irem campaign of Seti I, then one should seek Irem west of the area of
Kerma,59 perhaps extending ultimately as far as Kordofan or even Darfur. Amara and Sai, the locations of
the Nubian War stelae of Seti I, are just south of Sagiet el-Abd, where a road from the northeastern desert
is balanced to the west by a route to Selima Oasis.60 Routes through Kurkur are associated with the Darb
Gallaba, ultimately leading to Sheb, Selima, and the Darb el-Arbain,61 as well as the region of Aneiba.
The routes of the Western Desert therefore provide a direct link between the locations of the two major

  For the celebration of the anniversary of a military victory, compare the celebration of the victory of Ramesses III over the
55

Meshwesh – KRI V 173.13–176.5, apparently several days after the victory itself; see also the discussion in P. Grandet, Le Papyrus
Harris I (BM 9999) (BdE 109; Cairo, 1994), II, 248–9.
56
  The exact nature of the battle scenes in the now virtually destroyed third register of Seti’s Karnak battle reliefs remains un-
certain; according to Murnane, Road to Kadesh, 43, scenes of the Nubian war might once have found a place in that third register.
However, for the southern placement of southern battle scenes, and the northern placement of northern battle scenes (as in the
surviving scenes in the Seti battle reliefs at Karnak), compare the discussion in S. C. Heinz, Die Feldzugsdarstellungen des Neuen
Reiches: Eine Bildanalyse (DGÖAW 18 = UZK 17; Vienna, 2001), 199–202.
57
For the name rings see The Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak, IV: The Battle Reliefs of King Sety I (OIP 107;
Chicago, 1986), 48–65; Murnane, Road to Kadesh, 44–5. As noted in Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak IV, 47, 49–50, 56, 59, and
65, references to re-cutting of Asiatic names as Nubian names (compare Kitchen, in Endesfelder et al. (eds), Ägypten und Kusch,
215) are thus to be corrected (as Kitchen did later in RITANC I, 29).
58
  For the assumption that the Irem campaign occurred during the later years of Seti’s reign, compare A. J. Spalinger, War in
Ancient Egypt: The New Kingdom (Oxford, 2005), 207 n. 24, with reference to earlier works by that author. Peden, Graffiti, 111
n. 316, suggests that the inscriptions of Seti’s Nubian viceroy Amenemope on the track from Syene to Philae may have been as-
sociated with the campaign against Irem, but this is far from certain. Other rock inscriptions of the reign of Seti I from Nubia
(Peden, Graffiti, 113) also provide no help in dating the campaign. A date in Seti’s fourth regnal year makes even less likely any
attempt to equate the Irem campaign of Seti I with the Nubian campaign of Ramesses II depicted at Beit el-Wali (compare the
remarks of Vandersleyen, L’Égypte et la vallée du Nil II, 523, pace Heinz, Feldzugsdarstellungen, 41 and n. 106).
59
  As Kitchen, in Endesfelder et al. (eds), Ägypten und Kusch, 217–218, suggested. For the area of wells he mentions, see Lt.-
Col. Count Gleichen (ed.), The Anglo-Egyptian Sudan: A Compendium Prepared by Officers of the Sudan Government (London,
1905), I, 204–6, and note that there are indeed more than six wells in that area, and although Gleichen, The Anglo-Egyptian
Sudan, I, 205, refers to six wells in a wooded area of acacia between Bir el-Ain and el-Sawani, these are simply a small group in a
relatively well watered area. For a summary of discussions of the possible location of Irem, see RITANC I, 87–90.
60
  Gleichen, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, I, 26 and 202–3, and H. Hodgson, in Gleichen, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, II, 167.
61
  J. Thiry, Le Sahara libyen dans l’Afrique du nord médievale (OLA 72; Leuven, 1995), 404.

140
 A Stela of Seti I from the Region of the Kurkur Oasis

Nubian war stelae of Seti I and the region of Kurkur Oasis, and both of those Nilotic locations – Sai and
Amara – are more specifically linked with Selima Oasis. Indeed the oasis of Selima may itself have formed
one of the major elements of Irem. A 1903 report estimated that the oasis possessed approximately 2,000
date palms, and Gleichen declared that: ‘It is perhaps the most important oasis in the western desert of
the Sudan, as not only most caravans using the Arbain route almost necessarily stop here for water, but
its dates and salt are probably of considerable value from a commercial point of view.’62
The two large Nubian war stelae from Sai and Amara record that Seti did not immediately dispatch
forces to deal with the threat from Irem, but decided to gather more information before he launched his
counterstrike.63 Seti gave the enemy time, ultimately the rope with which they would hang themselves
(KRI I, 103.1–2):

aHa.n wAH.n Hm÷f sp r÷sn

r sDm sxr.w÷sn Drw
Then his majesty gave them time,
in order to become thoroughly cognizant of their plans.

Although the passage has been translated to say that the king ‘put the matter against them aside’,64
Kitchen’s ‘bided his time’ 65 is closer to the sense of the text. The stelae state specifically that the king gave
the Iremites time – the idiom wAH sp r÷sn, corresponds to the Coptic ⲁⲩⲱ ⲥⲉⲩⲉⲝ ⲭⲣⲟⲛⲟⲥ ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ,
‘and they give themselves time’.66 Certainly the passage aHa.n wAH.n Hm÷f sp r÷sn amounts to the king
delaying, but what he actively did was give time to Irem – he gave them time to reveal the full nature of
their plans, and to develop those plans to such a degree that they would likely be unwilling or even unable
to revise them.
A comparison with a late nineteenth century campaign in the Nubian Western Desert reveals why
Seti’s immediate action was not so much inaction, as a calculated desire that the forces of Irem continue
their advance, probably a desire that the force should grow in size, and mass in the marginal area just
beyond Egypt’s Nubian border. In 1889, the Mahdi having wrested control of the Sudan from the
Egyptian government, Gordon having been killed in the seizure of Khartoum, and the Mahdi himself
having subsequently died, the Mahdi’s successor, the Khalifa Abdullahi, decided to proceed with plans to
invade Egypt.67 In 1885 the Mahdi himself had dispatched an army against Wolsey’s ultimately failed relief
expedition, sent to extricate Gordon from Khartoum, and the Sudanese army had remained at Metemma.
In 1886 this northern mahdist force, by then clearly intended for the invasion of Egypt, took up station
at el-Urdi, under the command of Wad Nejumi. Personal struggles for control of the northern force and
the Khalifa’s mistrust of Wad Nejumi caused delays, however, and when in 1888 the northern force began
to move against Anglo-Egyptian forces under the Sirdar Grenfell, the Khalifa recalled it because of those

62
  Gleichen, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, I, 202–3.
  Compare the advice in the anonymous Byzantine treatise in G. T. Dennis, Three Byzantine Military Treatises (Dumbarton
63

Oaks Papers 9; Washington d.c., 1985), 102–5 (and note also 204–5).
64
  Translation of Murnane, Road to Kadesh, 100.
  So Kitchen, Pharaoh Triumphant, 30; Kitchen, in Endesfelder et al. (eds), Ägypten und Kusch, he offered the similar ‘Then
65

His Majesty bided (his) time concerning them’. In RITA I, 86, Kitchen read ‘Then His Majesty held back (from) action against
them’. Vercoutter, in Livre du Centenaire, 158, read ‘Sa Majesté retarda (lit. mit de côté) l’action à entreprendre contre eux’.
66
  For the passage in context see C. Schmidt, ‘Der Osterfestbrief des Athanasius vom J. 367’, in Nachrichten von der königl.
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, philologisch-historische Klasse 1898 (Göttingen, 1898), 175.
67
  For the northern expeditionary force of the mahdist army, its invasion of Egypt under Wad Nejumi in 1889, and its anni-
hilation at the Battle of Toshka, see the excellent and succinct overview in P. M. Holt, The Mahdist State in the Sudan, 1881–1898:
A Study of its Origins, Development and Overthrow (Oxford, 1970), 175–83.

141
John Coleman Darnell

personal conflicts amongst the northern chiefs. The force was not properly supplied, and finally advanced
north in 1889 more because it could no longer maintain itself in the northern lands of the Mahdiya than
through an excess of mahdist ardor or decisive military planning. Grenfell and the Anglo-Egyptian forces
did great mischief against the northern Sudanese army by letting internecine strife, the Khalifa’s paranoia,
and the underdeveloped commissariat of the mahdist army all debilitate the southern enemy. When in
1889 the mahdist force finally advanced, it traveled through the Western Desert, avoiding enemy outposts
and possible informants along the Nile, and at the same time avoiding its best opportunities to acquire
additional food and water.
Grenfell and his forces indeed gave the mahdists time, learned of the mahdists’ plans, and made the
playing out of those plans inevitable. Just as the Anglo-Egyptian military was far better able to supply
its forces than was the mahdist state, so was Seti’s pharaonic realm almost certainly far better equipped
to maintain a large force in the field than were his Nubian foes. The more recent Sudanese under Wad
Nejumi, like their predecessors under the leaders of the Irem invasion, probably could not afford a long
wait before the conclusion of hostilities. Both the ancient Nubians and the more recent mahdist forces
were excellent irregular troops, and the long tradition of Nubian scouts in the Egyptian military attests
to the ability of the southern troops to operate effectively in a harsh environment. In large numbers,
however, attempting to meet the massed military of a complex state, abandoning the element of surprise
and the speed of movement on which that initiative relied, the southern forces were at an organizational
disadvantage. The longer Grenfell waited, and no doubt the longer Seti waited, the more certain the
Egyptian forces would be of the Nubians’ plans, and the hungrier and thirstier the Nubians would be. In
the end, near Toshka, the Anglo-Egyptian force annihilated the by then desperate and debilitated mah-
dists, and ended any real threat to Egypt for the remaining days of the doomed Mahdiya – Seti may well
have accomplished the same against Irem.
An initial delay for the purpose of gathering intelligence and luring the enemy into showing his
intentions would benefit the Egyptians, not the Nubians. In his Small Wars, Colonel Callwell forcefully
expressed his belief that, although a technologically superior force should always take the initiative against
less organized and well supplied foes, the superior force must not waver in its actions once it has launched
an offensive: ‘The great point to aim at is not so much that there should be no delay in getting into motion,
as that when once in motion there should be no check. An ephemeral triumph is dearly purchased at the
cost of a subsequent period of discreditable inaction.’ 68 As Callwell notes, whereas irregular troops may not
take advantage of a regular force’s delay in launching an attack, ‘the history of small wars offers many strik-
ing examples of the evil which results when a miscalculation of supply and transport requirements brings
the operations of the regular army to a standstill in the middle of a campaign, or when circumstances arise
in the course of military events which demand action on its part for which it was not organized.’69
Wells are a feature of Seti’s Irem campaign; wells also figure in the earlier Nubian war of Akhena-
ton. During his twelfth regnal year, Akhenaton dispatched the Viceroy of Nubia, Djehutymose, on a
campaign against the rebellious Akuyati tribe.70 If the Akuyati, as their name might suggest, occupied
68
  C. E. Callwell, Small Wars: Their Principles and Practice (3rd edn, Lincoln ne, 1996), 72. Note also Callwell, Small Wars, 73:
‘That being so, it is essential that the campaign should not be commenced till there are sufficient forces on the spot to prosecute
the work with vigour, and till these are thoroughly organized and equipped for the task which they have in hand, whatever it
may be.’
69
  Callwell, Small Wars, 74.
70
  H. S. Smith, The Fortress of Buhen: The Inscriptions (EES EM 48; London, 1976), 124–9 (no. 1595), pls 29 and 75; W. Helck,
’Ein ‘Feldzug’ unter Amenophis IV. gegen Nubien’ SAK 8 (1980), 117–26; A. R. Schulman, ‘The Nubian War of Akhenaton’,
L’Égyptologie en 1979: Axes prioritaires de recherches (Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique 595;
Paris, 1982), II, 299–316; W. J. Murnane, Texts from the Amarna Period in Egypt (WAW 5; Atlanta, 1995), 101–3. For the Amada
Stela (Cairo 41806), see M. Sandman, Texts from the Time of Akhenaton (BAe 8; Brussels, 1938), 146.

142
 A Stela of Seti I from the Region of the Kurkur Oasis

the gold-rich region of Akuta, they probably were centered on the Wadi Allaqi.71 As the closely parallel
texts of Akhenaton’s stelae from Buhen and Amada record, the Akuyati retreated beyond the wells of the
mining region, perhaps intending to lure the Egyptian forces into their own desert territory, where they
might hope to exploit their familiarity with the region and ability to operate in small groups independ-
ent of an elaborate baggage train. In the end their gambit failed, but the campaign may well have been a
close run thing, for Akhenaton’s punishment of some of the survivors – impalement – suggests an unusual
desire to make examples of the fomenters of the unrest. Perhaps learning from Akhenaton’s campaign,
Seti chose to be more circumspect before launching his own counterstrike in Nubia.
The Kurkur stela of Tutankhamun may relate to the scene of Nubian warfare carved under Horemhab
in the main speos of Gebel Silsila. The Silsila speos depicts an Egyptian campaign in Nubia that may in
fact have occurred under the reign of Tutankhamun; by virtue of its location, and on the basis of textual
and visual parallels, the Sisila Nubian war scene of Horemhab (and Tutankhamun?) probably depicts an
event geographically similar to that appearing in the scene of the Irem campaign of Ramesses II at Beit el-
Wali.72 The fact that Seti I also erected a stela in the Kurkur region may suggest some association between
the possible Irem campaign of Tutankhamun/Horemhab and the known Irem campaign of Seti I. A con-
voluted argument, with possibility depending on possibility; nevertheless, the chain of evidence suggests
that the Darb Gallaba/Darb Bitân, passing through or near Kurkur, may have led to the land of Irem.
The battle against Irem may not have been incredibly significant in terms of direct threat, or territory
permanently occupied. But the campaign, like the other ‘small wars’ of the ancient Egyptians, demon-
strated that the pin-prick of a Lilliputian opponent might bring forth the Brobdingnagian wrath of the
pharaonic state. In publicizing such perhaps modest exploits, Seti demonstrated his understanding that
‘the regular army must force its way into the enemy’s country and seek him out. It must be ready to fight
him wherever he may be found. It must play to win and not for safety.’73
In homage to the work of the doyen of Ramesside inscriptions, the present article presents a well-
executed stela of Seti I from the northwestern fringe of Ramesside Nubia. In the present day the chief
importance of the stela may be its revelation of the interest Seti showed in a modest and marginal outer
region of his Nubian possessions, and the speculation it fuels on the date, place, and nature of Seti’s military
activity in Nubia. Once, however, when it was new, perhaps set up near the small stela of Tutankhamun,
standing in the relatively bleak surroundings of the Sinn el-Kaddab plateau, the Kurkur stela of Seti I – in
spite of its relatively small size – would have cautioned any desert tribesman that he or she was crossing the
invisible border of the formidable and expanding colonial state that was Ramesside Nubia.

Excursus: The statement of the Nubians in the Derr battle scene of Ramesses II
In the upper right portion of the Nubian battle scene of Ramesses II at the temple of Derr, the
Nubians make a pronouncement that has an excellent partial parallel in the Nubian battle scene of

71
  According to the Kuban stela of Ramesses II, Akuta contained ‘much gold;’ as Kuban is the Nile terminus of the main desert
road leading to the gold mining region in the Wadi Allaqi, and in light of the further content of the stela, Kuban stela, Akuta
appears to refer to the Wadi Allaqi itself – K. Zibelius-Chen, ‘Die Kubanstele Ramses’ II. und die nubischen Goldregionen’, in
C. Berger, G. Clerc and N. Grimal (eds), Hommages à Jean Leclant, II: Nubie, Soudan, Éthiopie (BdE 106/2; Cairo, 1994), 411–18.
72
  See the remarks in Darnell, SAK 31, 84–6. The tumbling Nubian, falling down the mound of Nubian foemen, is similar
in both the Beit el-Wali scene and the earlier Gebel Silsila scene; although a minor point, the detail connects the two scenes,
and just possibly the two events. The scene of Ramesses’ Nubian war depicted in the Derr temple includes a statement of the
Nubians that is roughly parallel to the conclusion of the pronouncement of the Nubians in the Gebel Silisla speos, again a
parallel between the campaigns of Horemhab and Ramesses II (see excursus). The Beit el-Wali scene is thus not necessarily a
‘generic tableau, devoid of specific time or place’, as D. B. Redford, From Slave to Pharaoh: The Black Experience of Ancient Egypt
(Baltimore, 2004), 40, suggests.
  Callwell, Small Wars, 75.
73

143
John Coleman Darnell

Horemhab at Gebel Silsila. In a hilly landscape showing a tree and water source, with cattle, Nubians
returning in chagrin from the battle declare:74

Dd [xfty(?)] nb Every [enemy(?)] says:

m-ir pr.t Do not go out – 
pA mAi […] tA in.t … for the lion is [in] the valley …

This statement is parallel to the end of the statement of a Nubian in the Silsila speos:
m-ir pr Do not go out,
pA mAiw aq(w) r K(A)S
for the lion has already entered into Kush.

Earlier translations of the Silsila text have missed the Derr parallel.75 Unfortunately in.t, ‘valley’, is a
standard designation of the Nubian enemy’s homeland, and does not help localize the event.76

74
  Heinz, Feldzugsdarstellungen, 263, with references.
75
  So my own rendering in SAK 31, 89–91 (although I pointed out that one might read m-ir pr as a vetitive, ‘Do not go forth,
oh lion who has entered against Kush’, without the Derr parallel, with its clear use of the infinitive as the negatival complement
to m-ir, I missed the more obvious and correct reading; see Darnell, SAK, 89–90 for previous renderings of the Silsila passage).
The solution offered there (m-ir pr pA mAiw / aq(w) r K(A)S, ‘Nay, the lion will come, / having already entered into Kush.’) is pos-
sible, but less likely in the light of the Derr parallel.
76
  Spalinger, Aspects of the Military Documents, 52–5.

144