Morschauser - 1987 - Threat Formulae in Ancient Egypt

INFORMATION TO USERS
The most advanced technology has been used to photo

graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm
master. UMI films the original text directly from the copy
submitted. Thus, some dissertation copies are in typewriter
face, while others may be from a computer printer.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a
complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will
be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyrighted material had to
be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re
produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper
left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal
sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is available
as one exposure on a standard 35 mm slide or as a 17" x 23"
black and white photographic print for an additional charge.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been
reproduced xerographically in this copy. 35 mm slides or
6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for
any photographs or illustrations appearing- in this copy for
an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
Accessing the World's Information since 1938
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA

Order Number 8807453
Threat formulae m Ancient Egypt
Morschauser, Scott Neal, Ph.D.

The Johns Hopkins University, 1987
UMI
300 N. Zeeb Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
PLEASE NOTE:
In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy.
Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V .
1. Glossy photographs or pages
2. Colored illustrations, paper or print
3. Photographs with dark background
4. Illustrations are poor copy
5. Pages with black marks, not original copy
6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page
7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages
8. Print exceeds margin requirements
9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine
10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print
11. Page(s) 148 lacking when material received, and not available from school or
author.
12. Page(s) seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.
13. Two pages numbered . Text follows.
14. Curling and wrinkled pages
15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received ^
16. Other
UMI
Threat Formulae
in
Ancient Egypt
by
Scott Morschauser
Part One
A dissertation submitted to The Johns Hopkins University
in conformity with the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Baltimore, Maryland
1987
ABSTRACT
This dissertation proposes to examine the threat-formula
in Ancient Egypt, its structure, nature, and use. This study
concentrates upon those "threats" composed of a stipulation
and injunction, and which predominantly refer to juridical
situations. Chapter One deals with the form and structure
of the threat, with an analysis of the grammatical and lexical
characteristics of its stipulative and injunctive clauses.
Chapter two presents a history of the threat-formula, and its
primary use as a "legal" device. Chapter Three discusses the
threat in treaties and loyalty oaths, and compares Egyptian
evidence with what is known from other ancient Near Eastern
societies. Chapter Four analyzes Egyptian terms for the threat-
formula itself, and briefly examines those words or phrases
which are often translated as "curse". Conclusions reached
are: 1) In structure, the threat-formula is imitative of
indeed probably based on- "codified law" in Ancient Egypt.
2) The threat was used in cases where the delict concerned
an undetectable offense. 3) The threat-formula is predomin
antly an instrument of "private" law, and is particularly con
cerned with transgressions against personal property. 4) The
threat-formula is to be regarded as a type of oath, used to
sanction legal "acts" such as donations to religious cults,
or the deposition of a will. 5) The use of the threat-formula
was an attempt to cover the inadequacies of the Egyptian "legal
system", by guaranteeing that an offender would eventually be

brought to justice. Although to a certain extent a rhetorical
device, the threat should be considered as having validity among
the Ancient Egyptians.

ii
Dedicated to My Mother and Father

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
INTRODUCTION
NOTES TO INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I. THE FORM AND STRUCTURE OF THE THREAT IN ANCIENT

EGYPT
I. STIPULATION ("Protasis")
A. 0 s4mtt(y).f(y)
B. Noun + sdm.ty.fy
C. Sdm.ty.fy as Object
D. Ir + sdm.ty.fy
E. Ir + Noun + sdm.ty.fy
F. Stipulations with Perfective Active participle
G. JEr + Noun + nty (r) + Infinitive
H. Ir + nty r sdm
I. P3 nty iw.f (r) sdm
J. Ir p3 nty iw.f (r) sdm
K. Ir + Noun + nty iw.f (r) sdm
L. The Relative Clause as Object of the Stipulation
M. Temporal "Qualifications" in Stipulations of
Threats
N. The Subject of Stipulations in Threats
II.
A. Injunctions with Perfective (Prospective)

Sdm.f
B. Iw.f (r) sdm
C. K3 sdm.f
D. Sdm.k3.f
E. Imperative
F. Negative Threats
G. Threats with "Non-verbal" clauses
H. Subordinate Clauses in Threats
I. Temporal "Qualifications" in Injunctions
of Threats
III. TYPOLOGICAL AND LEXICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF

THE THREAT
A. The Stipulation
Damage to Property
iv:
Iri bt (dw) (m/r) "To do an (evil) thing (a-

gainst)11
Iri d3t r "To commit a violation a-

gainst"
Wdi nkn "To inflict damage"
Effacement
Ft "To erase; delete"

Nss "To obliterate"
Rwi "To remove; erase"
IJd "To damage; obliterate"
Zin "To erase"
Theft
It3 "To illegally seize (persons)

steal"
Iti "To illegally take; seize;
confiscate (illegally)"
Ssn "To tear out; break out"
£dl "To steal; rob"
I3i "To take; steal"
Embezzlement; Withholding or Suppression of

Funds
Isls "To hinder; withhold; hold

back"
Qb "To damage; deduct; diminish"
S' "To destroy; cut off"
Annulment or Suppression of a Claim
Mnmn "To move; disturb; annul"

Sfc3 "To drag off; remove; dis
turb"
Criminal Violation
Bsf "To oppose; violate"

Hnn "To interfere with; violate"
Sbi "To rebel; participate in a
crime"
Th3/thi "To transgress; trespass;
violate; interfere with"
Negligence
Wn "To neglect"
8m "Not to know; not to re
cognize"
Sb-hr "To ignore; to neglect;
be negligent towards"
Tm "Not to do (something)"
Failure to Protect Property

Failure to Prosecute or Report a Crime
Failure to Maintain a Cult
Failure to Demonstrate Piety, Respect
Failure to Maintain Borders
Crimes Involving Speech and Intent
'b' "To distort"

(Iri) pn'yt "To upset; overturn"
Mdw m "To speak against; to
dispute"
H3p "To conceal"
K3i "To plot; plan"
Dd irm "To dispute"
Dd bt dw "To speak an evil thing"
Sacral Violations
'k m/r "To enter into (a tomb in

an unclean state)"
(Iri) £?d~brw "To commit 'sacrilege'"
B. The Injunction
Threats Involving Litigation/Judgement
(Iri) iry-(n)-'h3 "To be an opponent for;

n to be a combattant"
(Iri) wp "To make a legal charge"
WSb "To prosecute"
Wd' (Mdw/') "To investigate (claims);
to litigate"
Sd' "To litigate; to arbitrate"
Wd' mdw "To litigate an oral com
plaint claim"
Wd' ' "To litigate a written com
plaint, claim"
M3't "'Justice'; exoneration"
Sjm "To hear (a plea/verdict)"
Terms Referring to Pursuit or Arrest

vl
l£i "To seize"

(Iri) m-s3 "To pursue"
Bbt "Prison"
Snb "To bind"
Kis "To bind"
Terms Referring to Condemnation/Criminality
Bwy/bwt "To abhore, be abominated;

an abhorrent one"
bbnty "Condemned, damned one;
a criminal"
Bdb "to hate; a hated one"
flfty "Enemey"
grwy "Enemy"
Hr(y) "To be under; one under
(a sentence)"
Sbi "Criminal"
Terms Referring to Sentencing/Punishment
Iri phw n "To condemn; to sentence

(someone) to death"
gsf "To punish} to expel
(someone from office)"
Terms for Killing/execution
Mwt "To die; death"

£d "To destroy"
gdb "To destroy"
Sk "To destroy"
Terms Referring to Premature Death
'h' "Lifetime"
gb "To but off (a lifetime)"
S'nd (*nd) "To shorten, lessen; (to
be shortened) (years)"
References to Death by Hunger, Thirst, or Disease
Terms Referring to "Physical" Punishment
Divine Wrath
B3w "Power; wrath (of a deity)"

B'r "To rage"
Dnd/,dndn "Fury; wrath"
Fire/flame
vii
3bt "(glowing) fire"

"Burning fire; conflagration"
'bw "(Glowing) fire (of a coal-basin)"
Wnm/wnmyt "To consume (by fire); devour
ing flame"
Bfabw "Flame; fire"
Pst "Burning; cooking"
Nbit "Flame"
Nsrt "Fiery flame"
Hh "Flame; glowing fire"
Snwb/snwfat "To burn up; conflagration"
Sdt "Fire; flame"
Smrn "Heat"
Tk3 "Flame, fire; to burn up"
Terms Referring to Knives, Blades, Cutting
'dt "Knife; blade"

Nmt "Slaughtering-block"
Hsk "To cut off; to behead"
TS'/s't "To cut off' to behead"
5'd/3'd(w) "Knife; to cut off; to
slaughter/one (who ought to be)
slaughtered"
Tfas "Slaughtered; killed"
Dm "Knife"
Dn "To cut off (a head)11
Ds "Knife; cutting"
Other terms frr Instruments of Punishment
'b "Horn"
?sr "Arrow; shaft"
Animals as Punishing Agents
'3 "Ass; donkey"

Bf3/hms "Serpent/crocdile"
Terms Referring to the Legal Status of the Criminal
I3t "Office"
Pr "House; estate"
Rn "Name"
Threats Referring to Rejection from Religious Lifge
(Bn) sms "(Not) serve"

(Nn) ssp "(Not) to accept, or receive
(an offering)"
viii
Threats Relating to the Mortuary Cult
(Nn) pri-fcrw "(Not) shall there be pri-hrw"

(Nn) s'm "(Not) to (be) sated; not to
partake of (food)"
Sb3 "Memory (of a person); to recall"
(Nn) sti-mw "(Not) to pour out water"
(Nn) ssp "(Not) to receive"
(Nn) fcbh mw "(Not) to libate"
Denial of a Ritual Burial
b3/fa3t "'Soul'/corpse"
(Nn) tcrs "(Not) be buried"
Threats Against the Family of the Transgressor
gmt "Wife"
S3/s3t "Son./daughter"
Tp(yJ -t3 "Survivors"
Threats Against the Family: Threats of a Sexual

Nature
Iti "Rape"
Nk "(Sexual) assault; violation"
JJ/ "Rape"
Threats to the Legal Status of Off-spring
Iw' "Heir"
M-s3 "(To follow) after; succeed"
Nst "Property"
St "Place; seat; office"
(Nn) ^sp "(Not) to succeed"
General Conclusions
C. Gods in Egyptian Threats
D. Threats Accompanied by Symbolic Acts
CHAPTER II. THE NATURE AND USE OF THE THREAT IN MCIENT EGYPT
The Old Kingdom

The First Intermediate Period
The Middle Kingdom-Second Intermediate Period
The New Kingdom
The Third Intermediate Period-Late Period
Notes to Chapter II
ix
CHAPTER III. THREATS AND THEIR USE IN TREATIES AND LOYALTY

OATHS
Notes to Chapter III
CHAPTER IV. EGYPTIAN CLASSIFICATION OF THE THREAT FORMULA
Notes to Chapter IV
CONCLUSIONS
Notes to Conclusion
TITLES CITED AND ABBREVIATIONS
VITA
X
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to thank my advisor, Dr. Hans Goedicke for the
time he devoted to discussion and criticism of my dissertation.
I cannot adequately express my gratitude for his invaluable
suggestions and contributions to this work, along with his
many words of encouragement and overall support. I would
also like to express my gratitude to Dr. David Lorton for
answering my many questions, as well as his useful comments
regarding law and legal practice in Ancient Egypt. Apprecia
tions are due to members of the faculty and students of the
Department of Near Eastern Studies for their interest and
help. Similarly, I acknowledge the constant encouragement,
humor and friendship of Mrs. Jane Dreyer, secretary of the
Department, and Ms. Ann Kort, during the long process of
writing this dissertation. Above all, I must mention the
steadfast support, love and devotion of my parents, Jean
and Neal Morschauser, my grandmothers, Ruth McGlaughlin and
Hazel Morschauser, and my fiancee, Loretta Ann Kerr. I thank
them all.
xi
INTRODUCTION
It has been long recognized by both historians and anthro
pologists that threats, or what are usually called "curses", are
a universal cultural phenomenon, and were used over a wide range,
both in geographical and chronological terms (1). This is hardly
surprising, since the "curse", wishing ill upon hostile persons or
actions, embodies a typical and natural human response. Throughout
the ancient world the "curse" was a common instrument of social,
political, and religious interaction (or the lack of it). The
importance of the "curse" in countering difficulties from both
human and extrahuman sources may be gauged by its consistent use
in a wide variety of literary contexts. The "curse", however, is
particularly well-attested among the peoples of the ancient Near
East. Thus, the Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Israelites,
Hittites, Canaanites, and Phoenicians, to name a few representative
groups all used "curses" to sanction law-codes, boundary stelae,
oaths, pledges, and other diverse texts (2). This is no less
valid for the ancient Egyptians. Indeed, the oft-used expression,
the "curse of the Pharaohs" is virtually axiomatic in popular
accounts of ancient Egypt (3). Despite the misconceptions surround
ing the use of the term, it does indicate a modern recognition of
and interest in, the use of the "curse" among the Egyptians.
Briefly, "curses" or "maledictions" appear in two sorts of
contexts in ancient Egyptian texts. The most familiar is the use
of the "curse" as an apotropaic device to ward off all manner of

xii
evil (4). This would include what are called "incantations" and
"spells", that is, statements that are grouped under the general
label of "magic". Statements of this type are often accompanied
by some physical act, such as the burning or trampling of an
image, representing the hostile person or force which is to be
denounced and brought under control (5). These practices were
common in all phases of Egyptian history, and appear in a variety
of religious, medical, and "magical" texts.
On the other hand, "curses" also appear in contexts which
might best be termed "juridical", and are almost entirely devoid
of "magical" associations. That is, they are attached to legal
documents such as wills, testaments, royal decrees, and records of
land transactions or donations of property. In these cases, the
"curse" is always part of a "conditional" clause delineating the
circumstances in which the "curse" may be put into effect. The
conditional clauses most often refer to "legal situations", and
as such have a clear link to the delicts of "codified law"(6).
Thus, the "curse" assumes a definite structure, being subordinate
to, and dependant upon, the accompanying "stipulation". It is this
use of the "curse" which is the focus of our discussion.
We have used the term "curse" above merely as a means of
identification and convenience. From a perusal of studies of
this type of statement it is evident that a precise expression or
term is difficult to find. Thus curse (7), malediction (8),
imprecation (9), threat (10), Fluch (11), Verfluchung (12),

xiii
Drohung (13), Strafandrohung (14), Verwilnschung (15), formula
d'Interdiction (16), formules imprecatives (17), are used inter-

«•
changeably. The Lexikon der Agyptologie employs the term
Drohformeln, which is used in our study (18). First, "curse"
carries with it an almost exclusive notion of divine "wrath";
the word itself is derived from Anglo-Saxon curs, which indeed
has this nuance (19). Although in ancient Egypt, gods were
considered as the primary means for effecting the punishment
specified in these clauses, this is not always true. During
certain periods the king is invoked just as often as divine
agents. Similarly, many of the punishments have a close relation
to what might be termed "legal sentences" and there is no underly
ing supernatual source. "Curse" too, has unfortunate connotations
with "magic", which is virtually absent in these formal literary
structures. Although "threat" is a less exotic, and more neutral
term, it accurately denotes the use of "punitive clauses" attached
to conditions. The punishment invoked would not take place unless
the stipulation was violated. Thus, "threat" better conveys the
"intentional" aspect of these statements. Indeed, the German
Drohformeln brings out the "structural" nature of these expressions
as they were used in ancient Egypt.
This study therefore is intended to discuss the structure,
nature and use of the threat-formula in ancient Egypt. Simply put,
the threat-formula was a bi-partite expression which contained a
stipulation and injunction. The stipulation defined some sort of
unacceptable act or behavior-often referring to property damage while

xiv
the injunction listed the possible penalties which could be
incurred as a result of such an act. Thus, the threat-formula
basically appeared as: If NN does X, then punishment (usually
of divine origin) shall result. The "codified" or"formulaic"
aspect of this type of statement was the--focus of comprehensive
studies by Moller (20), Sottas (21), and Edel (22). Similarly,
Simpson (23), Otto (24), and more recently Bakhry (25), have
written at various lengths on the subject.--
The present study is divided into four topics. The first
chapter deals with the form and structure of the threat-formula
in ancient Egypt. It is primarily an analysis of the grammatical
and lexical details of the stipulative and injunctive clauses of
the formula. Chapter 2 presents a history of the threat-formula,
and is particularly concerned with its use as a legal device.
Chapter 3 focuses upon the use of the threat in treaties and
loyalty oaths. Much has been done in this area concerning other
ancient Near Eastern societies, and it has had a major impact on
the field of Old Testament studies (26). Egypt, however, has been
virtually neglected, although as our study demonstrates, this is
to a great extent due to the evidence (of lack of it) which has
survived from the Nile Valley itself. Finally, Chapter 4 discusses
the possibility of whether the Egyptians themselves had any terms
or expressions for what we have called the "threat-formula".

XV
NOTES TO INTRODUCTION
1) For an older, but still useful survey see A.E. Crawley "Cursing
and Blessing" in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (ed. J.
Hastings) (New York) Vol. 4, 366-374.
2) See generally the material in W. Schottroff, Per altisraelitische

Fluchspruch (Neukirchner Verlag, 1969); S. Gevirtz, "West-Semitic
Curses and the Problem of the Origins of Hebrew Law", VT 11, 1961,
137 ff.; F.C. Fensham, "Malediction and Benediction in Ancient near
Eastern Vassal-Treaties and the OT", ZAW 74, 1962, 1 ff.; idem.,
"Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties and Kudurru-
Inscription Compared with Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah", ZAW
75, 1963, 155 ff.; S.A.B. Mercer, "The Malediction in Cuneiform
Inscriptions, JAOS 34, 1915, 282 ff.
3) So see K. Kitchen's characterization of the punitive clauses

in the Wadi Mia Decree of Seti I in Pharaoh Triumphant (Warminster,
1982) 35.
4) See J.F. Borghouts' remarks in Ancient Egyptian Magical Texts

(Leiden, 1978) ix-xi; F. Lexa, La Magie dans L'Egypte Antique de
L'Ancien Empire Jusqu'a L'Epogue Copte (Vol. I-II) (Paris, 1925)
46 ff.
5) See below in Chapter One, "Threats Accompanied by Symbolic

Acts"; Lexa, op. cit., 99 ff. See also G. Luck, Arcana Mundi:
Magic and the Occult in the Greek andRoman Worlds (Baltimore, 1985)
18, 90-91.
6) For a discussion of "codified law" in Ancient Egypt, see D.

Lorton, "The Treatment of Criminals in Ancient Egypt" JESHO 20,
1977, 60-61.
7) For example note J. Wilson, in ANET (3), 326; W.K. Simpson,

JNES 20, 1961, 30, "curse formulae".
8) Simpson, MDAIK 16, 1958, 306; A. Varille, Inscriptions Concernant

L'Architecte Amenhotep, Fils de Hapou (Cairo, 1968) 73.
9) R. Caminos, The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon (Rome, 1958) 72.
10) H. Goedicke, JNES 15, 1956, 28; A. Gardiner, JEA 48, 1962, 59.
11) G. Moller, SPAW 17, 1910, 940.
12) E. Edel, Die Inschriften der Grabfronten der Siut-Graber in

Mittelagypten aus der Herakleoploitenzeit (Opladen, 1984) 120.
xv i
13) Edel, Untersuchungen zur Phraseologie der agyptischen

Inschriften des Alten Reiches, MDAIK 13, 1944,9.
14) Edel, Siut-Graber, 48.
15) Moller, op. cit., 940.
16) H. Sottas, la Preservation de la Propriete Funeraire dans

l'Ancienne Egypte (Paris, 1913) 7.
17) Ibid., 116.
18) LA 1145-1147. Edel, Siut-Graber, 51 also uses the term.
19) See the Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, 1933) (Vol. II),
1273: The word curs, itself is of unknown origin; its earliest
attested uses refer to consigning a person to divine wrath. Webster's
New International Dictionary of the English Language (Springfield,
1958) (Vol. II) 648, compares Old Irish cursagim, "I objurgate".
Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary (New York, 1965) 448
suggests a derivation "Late A.S. curs, from Anglo-Fr. curuz, wrath,
and curcier, to call down wrath upon, from LL corruptiare to corrupt".
20) G. Moller, "Das Dekret des Amenophis des Sohnes des Hapu",
SPAW 17, 1910, 932-948.
21) La Preservation, esp. 119 ff.
22) Edel, Phraseologie, 3-19; also, Siut-Gr'aber, 25-37; 37-66;

.120-131; 188-194; Die Inschriften am Eingang des Grabes des "Tef-
Ib" in Abhandlunged fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes 34, 1970.
23) "A Hatnub Stela of the Early Twelfth Dynasty", MDAIK 16, 1958,
298-309.
>1
24) E. Otto, Die Biographischen Inschriften der Agyptischen
Spatzeit (Leiden, 1954) 53 ff.
25) "A Donation Stela from Busiris During the Reign of King Neko"
in Studi Classici e Orientali 20, 1971, 333-336.
26) See the basic study of D.R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old
Testament Prophets (Rome, 1964).
CHAPTER ONE
THE FORM AND STRUCTURE OF THE THREAT
IN ANCIENT EGYPT
In referring to the "threat" in Ancient Egypt, it is gener
ally to be understood as indicating expressions which were com
prised of a "conditional" clause, representing a "stipulation",
and accompanied by a punitive clause or "injunction" (1). The
latter technically comprised the "threat" or "penalty" itself, or
what is more commonly referred to as a "curse", "imprecation", or
"malediction". The threat was closely linked to the stipulation,
since it was used to designate a supposed penalty for the breach
of some juridical circumstance. Although a threat could conceiv
ably occur in a setting, or refer to a situation, that was not of
a "legal" nature-such as an expression of personal anger, despair,
or some other emotional state- the focus of this study is upon
those "threats" which assumed a formulaic or standardized pattern
(2). Thus, the threat in Ancient Egypt was primarily a type of ex
pression having both a stipulation and punitive clause or injunction.
Not surprisingly, there are other types of "literary" ex
pressions in ancient Egyptian texts which closely parallel the
above general definition of "threat formula". Briefly, proverbs
or admonitions often contain a condition or stipulation followed
by a result or "injunction" (3). Likewise, such diverse genres
as dream forecasts and interpretations (4), medical prognoses and

2
diagnoses (5), birth omina (6), and even literary glosses (7),
were similar to the formulation of the threat.
Threat formulae, however, have a close resemblance to "codi
fied law" in ancient Egypt (8). The development of the latter
easily provides the most appreciable parallels to the evolution of
the formal threat itself. The striking similarities between the
two types of expressions as regards both their grammatical and
syntactical structures, and their almost simultaneous "appearance"
or "use" in chronological terms in ancient Egyptian documentation,
suggests a parallel development. Indeed, "codified law" and the
"threat" are so close in form and function, that apart from differ
ences in agency for the enactment of "law" and the enforcement of
the "threat", they are conceptually identical. That the threat
is closely related to "codified law" is demonstrated by a number
of characteristics. Laws, whether collected into "codes" or pro
mulgated in royal decrees, were drawn up for the protection of
institutions, groups, or individuals. These documents contained
explicit penalties for civil or capital crimes, and defined spe
cific legal agencies or means to execute punishment. Likewise,
the "threat" or what is more commonly referred to as a "curse",
was also utilized to protect similar parties; however, the time
frame or chronological scheme in which the threat was considered
to have been effective, generally was defined as extending well
beyond the life-time of the person who had invoked it (9). In
contrast to the law, the penalties which comprised the threat it
self, however, were not generally specified beyond some "type" or
"form" of punishment. Likewise, the agency to enact punishment

3
was primarily supernatural, ie. deities, or non-human, such as
a force of nature. It should be noted that there were instances
where the king, the theoretical arbiter of justice in the society,
was invoked in a threat along with the more usual supra-human
agencies. On these occasions, however, the punishment by the
king is ill-defined, and quite general (ie. the "knife" of the
king). Thus, such penalties appear to be more figurative than
literal in nature. Despite these differences, however, it appears
that the Egyptians did not always maintain or consider a rigid
distinction between what is termed "law" and threat. This is
obvious in cases where "threats"-whose enactment was beyond the
capacity of existing legal institutions-appear in collections of
legal injunctions having defined and enforceable penalties. Thus,
in the Dmd-ib-t3wy Decree of the First Intermediate Period (10),
the Koptus Decree of Intef in the Second Intermediate Period (11),
and the Nauri Decree of Seti I from the New Kingdom (12), invoca
tions to deities to enforce penalties accompany existing "laws".
This is due in part to the nature of the crimes themselves, which
were primarily undetectable or virtually unenforceable by the
courts. Nevertheless, there is no apparent distinction between
the structure of the codified legal precepts and the threats
themselves. Therefore, as a convenient point of departure, we
shall note the general forms which "codifed law" assumed in an
cient Egypt prior to a discussion of the structure of the threat
itself.
Lorton (13), following an earlier suggestion of Lurje (14),
has demonstrated that "codified law" in ancient Egypt was for

4
mulated by a stipulation, expressed as a conditional sentence,
succeeded by an injunction.
The use of what may conveniently be called a "protasis" + "apodosis",
is aptly supported by the evidence cited by Lorton from Egyptian
legal documents.
Codified law in Ancient Egypt generally demonstrates the
following pattern from the Old Kingdom through the end of the
New Kingdom (15):
STIPULATION INJUNCTION
Ir ("as regards to", "as Verbal form with

for") + Noun + adj. form future reference
with future reference
1) OLD KINGDOM (16)
ir + noun + sdm.ty.fy Sdm.f (prospective)

("As for any man who shall
do X")
2) FIRST INTERMEDIATE PERIOD (17)
ir + noun + sdm.ty.fy Sjm.f (prospective)

(sdm.tw; passive sdm.f)
3) WILD KINGDOM (18)
*ir + noun + sdm.ty.fy Sdm.f (prospective)
4) SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD (19)
a) ir + nty + (noun) + r + inf. Sdm.f (prospective);

nn sdm.f
b) ir + noun + nty + r + inf.
5) NEW KINGDOM (20)
a) (far) ir + noun iw.tw r sdm ir.tw + h£ + m + inf.

("One shall enact the
law by X (specified
punishment)")
b) ir + noun + nty + r sdm ir.tw + noun + M + inf.

5
A similar pattern is also shown in the formation of juridical
oaths of the New Kingdom (21):
6) a) ir + sdm.f Prospective sdm.f
b) mtw.f sdm iw.f + (r) sdm
iw.f + adv. clause
Although the preceding outline is by no means exhaustive, it is
sufficient enough to demonstrate that there is a definite pattern
evident in the formation of laws in the periods noted (22).
Obviously there could be variations or expansions in the formula,
such as the use of intensifying particles, adverbial or adjectival
qualifications, or the use of relative clauses to specify a par
ticular legal condition. Thus, in an example quoted by Lorton
an oath is expanded through the use of a relative clause in antic
ipatory emphasis (23):
ir g3b n.i imy M3't-nfr(t) rdi(w).n.i r s [wnw] p3 4 n ihw . .
"As for the equivalent belonging to me (namely) M3't-nfr(t),

which I have given as the p[rice] of the 4 cattle";
followed by the actual oath introduced by ir sdm.f.
Likewise, in the Second Intermediate Period and the New Kingdom,
multiple protases or stipulations were expressed by means of the
conjunctive, either hn' + inf. or m-' + inf. (24).
As Lorton noted, although the stipulations express a "con
dition", they are not true conditional clauses (25). However,
as early as the Old Kingdom, there is a genuine conditional sen
tence with ir + sdm.f in a legal context (26):
ir it(i).f sn lr> k3t nbt "If he takes them ^for> any

work" (Urk. I 162.16-17)
6
The same construction occurs in oaths of the New Kingdom (6a
above), where the stipulation employs a conditional clause with
a verb (sdm.f) (27). This is undoubtedly due to the influence of
the vernacular; not unexpectedly such a characteristic is exhib
ited in "private" rather than "royal" documents (28).
A secondary pattern also emerges in legal injunctions, which
Lorton had briefly noted (29). These are non-verbal sentences
formulated with gw, denoting a verdict of guilt. Such statements
follow stipulations of Old Kingdom decrees and primarily consist
of the following expressions (30).
1) w3 m mdw sbit pw "It is participation in

criminal matter"
2) msddt nswt pw m3' m3' "It is what the king hates

truly!"
The structure of formal threats in ancient Egypt exhibits
a development similar to that of legal precepts. This is most
obvious in the threat's basic formulation as a conditional sen
tence, a feature which is retained for almost three millenia.
In contrast to codified laws, however, both the stipulation and
injunction of threats may exhibit a degree of variation. Thus,
it is not uncommon for the threat to be formulated in an inverted
pattern, where the threat or punitive clause precedes the stip
ulation or conditional element. Likewise, the use of the preposi
tion ir introducing a stipulation may occasionally be omitted in
threats, whereas it is a basic characteristic of law.

7
The grammatical structure of the threat shall be examined
below in a separate analysis of 1) the stipulation and 2) the
injunction. Because a fuller presentation of the various types of
protases and apodoses of the threat appears in a discussion of
lexical items, the following examples are cited merely to demon
strate the basic form which the stipulation/injunction assumed
during different periods of Egyptian history.
I. STIPULATION ("Protasis")
A. 0 sdm.t(y).f(y)
The use of the sdm.ty.fy form expressing a future active
participle is typical in legal formulae, and serves as a "con
ditional element in stipulations of threats. Its attestation in
actual or implied conditional clauses demonstrates that it was
often applied to "potential" rather than real or "factitive"
situations (31). The s^m.ty.fy form is typically used in proverbs,
magical formulae, and medical diagnoses as well: ie. statements
which are used as models (32). The pattern 0 sdm.ty.fy intro
ducing a stipulation occurs a number of times in threats from the
Old Kingdom:
1) ir.t(y).f(y) ht ir nw "He who shall do a thing

against this" (Urk. I 23.10)
2) ir.t(y).f(y) ht r nw "He who shall do a thing

against this" (Urk. I 226.13)
B. Noun + sdm.ty.fy
A variant of the preceding is the formation consisting of a
noun followed by a sdm.ty.fy. In this case, the participial form
functions as an adjective, defining the nominal antecedant (33).

8
1) z nb ir.t(y).f(y) fat jw r nwy "Any man who shall do an

evil thing against this"
(Urk. I 72.4)
In both instances where an implied condition of a threat is intro
duced by a 0 sdm.ty.fy, or by the fuller nominal form with future
participle, the noun itself is a vocative. Such clauses are
elements in the so-called "Address to the Living", a formula which
originated in Old Kingdom mortuary inscriptions (34). The con
struction noun + sdm.ty.fy in a threat is better attested in reli
gious texts such as the Old Kingdom Pyramid Texts, or the later
Coffin Texts from the Middle Kingdom:
2) 3b nb ntr nb d3.t(y).f(y) '.f m P pn "Any 'spirit', or

any god who shall
oppose this P" (PT)
3) fot nbt bpr.t(y),s(y) r.i "Anything which shall come about

against me" (CT)
The appearance of this form in religious texts may be due to
their use in rituals, and were primarily intended to be recited
or enacted, in contrast to a "codified" precept (35).
C. Sdm.ty.fy as Object
Occasionally a stipulation in a threat appears in inverted
form, that is, the conditional element functions as the direct
object in a threat. Thus, the punishment or punitive clause pre
cedes a stipulative element.
1) in ntr wd'-mdw.f hn' ir.t(y).f(y) bt r.s
"It is god who shall investigate his complaint with him

who shall do a thing against it" (Urk. I 226.6)
This type of threat is also attested in PT and CT:
2) hw nhfa n rdit(y).f(y) db'.f ir mr pn hwt tn P nt k3.f

9
"The flail shall be struck for him who shall place his
finger against this pyramid or this Chapel of P's k3"
(PT)
3) h'r w^'-mdw r hfty. f ipt.f sn.t(y).sn N pn ir.t(y).sn dwt

nbt r N pn
"He who investigates complaints shall rage against these

enemies of him (namely) they who plot against this N, or
they who commit any evil thing against this N" (CT)
D. 'Ir + sdm.ty.fy
As noted above, the construction consisting of the fronting
element 'ir, "as for, regarding" followed by a future participle
is characteristic of both codified law and formal threats (36).
1) ir i.ir.t(y).f(y) i.ht dw r nwy
"As for him who shall commit an evil act against this"
(Urk. I 225.15) (Old Kingdom) (37)
2) ir hfil.t(y).f(y) nn
"As for him who shall damage these"

(Hatnub, Gr. 33) (First Intermediate Period) (38)
3) ir grt hd»t(y).f(y) rn.i frr twt
"Moreover, as for him who shall damage my name on the

inscription"
(Hatnub, Gr. 49) (Middle Kingdom) (38a)
4) ir rwi.t(y).f(y) rn.i
"As for him who shall remove my name"

(Cairo 14/6/24/17) (New Kingdom) (39)
E. Ir + noun + sdm.ty.fy
This formulation is the most common means of expressing a
stipulation in threats into the New Kingdom,and is generally
parallel to the protases of codified laws. As early as the Second
Intermediate Period and New Kingdom, however, this form is super
seded by relative clauses, influenced by vernacular usage.

10
1) 1[r] z nb ir.t(y).f(y) ht r nw
"As [for] any man who shall do a thing against this"

(Urk. I 35.1) (Old Kingdom)
2) [i]r frm rm£ nb [ir].t(y).sn ht dw r nw ir.t(y).sn l}t nb

nbdt r nw [zi]n.t(y).sn ss im
"Assuredly, [as] for any person who shall [commit] an

evil thing against this, (or) who shall commit an
illegal act against this, (or) who shall [era]se this
inscription here"
(Urk. I 70.15-17)
3) ir sbi nb sbit(y).f(y) k3.t(y).f(y) m [ib].f irt sd-hrw

r iz pn fon' ntt im.f
"As for any rebel who shall rebel (or) who shall design
in his [heart] to commit 'sacrilege'• against this tomb
together with its contents"
(Siut III 65-66) (First Intermediate Period) (40)
4) ir rmt nbt ss nb rh ht nb nds nb tw3 nb ir.t(y).sn sd-hrw

m iz pn frd.t(y).sn ss.f nss.t(y).sn n frntiw.f
"As for any person, any scribe, any learned man, any commoner,
any low-born person who shall commit 'sacrilege' in this
tomb, (or) who shall erase its writing, (or) who shall
obliterate its images"
(Siut I 224) (Middle Kingdom) (41)
5) ir th3 r st.i hb.t(y).fy iz (.i) sd.t(y).fy t?3t.i
"As for the violator of my place who shall damage (my)

chamber, (or) who shall remove my corpse"
(Urk. IV 1491.9-11) (New Kingdom)
Examples 2-5 demonstrate that threats could often contain multiple
protases. In cases where a stipulation presented a variety of
contigencies leading to punishment, the preposition ir is not
applied to the secondary formulations. Likewise, the subject of
the condition in #5 is not a noun per se, but rather a nominally
used participle, th3, "trespassor/violator", modified by the sub
sequent sdm.ty.fy's. It is also worth noting that a subject such
as rmt nb, "any/every person" could be treated syntactically as a

11
singular or plural:
6) ir rmj; nb ir.t(y).f(y) ht r hrdw(.i)
"As for any person who shall do a thing against

(my) children." (Urk. I 150.9)
7) ir rm£ [nb] if.t(y).sn h3t tn m-'(.i)
"As for [every] person who shall take this brick

from (me)" (Urk. I 117.5)
Although the sdm.ty.fy gradually fell into disuse during
the New Kingdom, it is interesting to note its appearance in
a stipulative clause which dates from the reign of Necho 11(42):
8) ir ss nb srw nb s <nb> h3.t(y).s(n) r 3ht tn r iti m-'.w
"As for any scribe, any officials (or) <any> man who shall
come down to this field to take from them."
The actual violation is stated in the purpose clause expressed
by r + inf., rather than by the future participle itself. In
this case, the sdm.ty.fy functions as an attributive adjective,
qualifying the preceding nouns.
F. Stipulations with Perfective Active Participle
Some texts prefer the use of a perfective active participle
rather than the more common sdm.ty fy form in stipulative clauses(43).
A protasis may appear in the direct form <j) noun + participle, or
with introductory ir "as for" + participle, similar to the clauses
discussed above. Although the perfective active participle is
found in stipulations of the Late Period, its use is not restrict
ed to this time:
12
1) ir s nb mdw m rn n hmt.s
"As for any man who shall speak against the name of
her Majesty"
(Urk. IV 260.12 ) (Hatshepsut) (Dyn. 18)
2) ir hsf wdt tn
"As for he who shall oppose this decree"

(P. Rylands IX 23) (Psammetichus I) (Dyn. 26)(44)
3) ss nb sr <nb> s nb h3.s(n) nb <r> 3ht <r> iti n3

irw.i
"Any scribe, <any> official, (or) any man, (or) any who
shall come down <to> the field în order to> take these
things which I (?) have made"
(Chicago OIM 13943) (Necho II) (Dyn. 26) (45)
4) ir tm dd nn
"As for he who shall not say these (things)"

(El-Hasaya grave of gnsw-iri-di-sw) (Dyn.26)(46)
5) ir s nb n h3st h3swt nbt Nhsy Ks H3rw mnmn sft pn
"As for any foreigner of any foreign country, (namely)

Nubian, Kushite, (or) Syrian, who shall annul this
papyrus"
(Colophon, P. Brmner-Rhind) (Ptolemaic)(46)
G. Ir + Noun + nty(r) + Infinitive
As briefly noted, the use of the future participial form,
sdm.ty.fy, in stipulations of threats was gradually replaced by
the relative construction nty (r) + inf. under the influence of
the vernacular language (47). By the Ramesside Period, this
formation became the standard means for expressing a stipulation.
The earliest example of a relative clause in the protasis
of a threat is in the Decree of Intef dating to the Seventeenth
Dynasty. A stipulation addressed to future kings is formed by
ir + noun + nty r + infinitive: (48):

13
1) ir nswt nb shm-ir.f nb nty r t>tp n.f
"As for any king or any potentate who shall pardon him"
(Koptus Decree of Intf)(49)
H. Ir + nty r sflm
A variant is the use of the relative pronoun nty followed
by an infinitival clause r sjm expressing a future:
1) ir grt nt(y) nb r frflt twt pn
"Moreover, as for any one who shall damage this inscription"

(Hatnub, Gr. 51) (Hyksos)(50)
2) ir nty nb r th3t h3t.i m hrt-n£r nty r sdt twt.i m is.i
"As for any one who shall violate my corpse in the

Necropolis, (or) who shall remove my image from my
chamber"
(Urk. IV 1491.2-3) (Dyn. 18)
It is noteworthy that the secondary protasis of # 2 is also
expressed by the relative nty, although both introductory ir
and the attributive adjective nb have been ellided.
Relative clauses, like noun clauses of stipulations, may
be defined by the definite article £3. Thus, a variant of the
preceding type is the use of p3 nty, "the one who" followed
by an infinitive:
3) ir p3 nty nbt (sic) (r) mdt im.f
"As for every one who shall dispute it"

(KRI VI 351.15) (Dyn. 20)
I. P3 nty iw.f (r) sdm
Stipulations of threats from the Ramesside and Late Period
are routinely expressed by the common Late Egyptian construction

14
p3 nty iw.f (r) sdm. The direct form without introductory
ir appears as thus:
1) p3 nty iw.f (r) t3.w m-dit.f
"The one who shall take them from him"

(Brooklyn 67.118) (Dyn.22) (51)
2) p3 n ty iw.f th3 p3y 3hwt
"The one who shall trespass this field"

(New York Metropolitan Museum 55.144.6) (Dyn.25) (52)
3) p3 nty iw.f (r) mnmn.w
"The one who shall move them"

(BM 1655) (Dyn.26) (53)
J. Ir p3 nty iw.f (r) sdm
This is a more common variant of the preceding, the
stipulation being introduced by the fronting particle ir:
1) ir p3 nty nb iw.f r sh hr wdw pn
"As for everyone who shall be deaf to this decree"

(KRI I 70.3) (Dyn. 19)
2) iry (sic) p3 nty iw.f r th3. . . r t3 'h'
"As for the one who shall violate this stela"

(KRI III 130.9-10) (Dyn. 20)
3) ir p3 nty iw.f r mdt m t3y sb3yt
"As for the one who shall dispute this instruction"

(P. Sallier IV 21) (Dyn. 19) (54)
4) ir p3 [nty] iw.f (r) mnmn wdt tn
"As for the one who shall move this decree"

(Chronicle of Prince Osorkon) (Dyn. 22) (55)
5) ir p3 nty iw.f (r) mnmn.w

15
"As for the one who shall move them"

(Athens Stela) (Dyn. 24) (56)
Occasionally the infinitival construction employs the preposi
tion hr, rather than the usual r,to express a present/future
relative clause in a stipulation:
6) ir p3 nty iw.f hr mdw m p3y ssw
"As for the one who disputes this text"

(P. D'Orbiney 19,9) (Dyn. 19) (57)
7) ir p3 nty nb iw.f hr 's n3 ss mtw.f hr dd
"As for everyone who reads these writings and says"

(DB 11) (Dyn. 20) (58)
In # 7, the violation is expressed in the subsequent clause
introduced by the conjunctive mtw.f(59).
K. Ir + noun + nty iw.f (r) sdm
A noun defined by a relative clause occasionally intro
duces a stipulation of a threat:
1) [hr ir imy-r3 fatm nb n p3 W3d-Wr] nty iw.f r hpr

mtw.f sh hr t3y ipt
"[Now as for every commander of the W3d-Wr] who shall exist

and who is deaf to this Chapel"
(Bilgai Stela) (Dyn. 19) (60)
2) ir p3 imy-r3 ms' ss ms' nty iw.f (r) ii hr-s3.i

mtw.f gm hwt-k3 w3.ti r d3m hn' hmw hmwt ... mtw.f
it3 rmt im.s(n) r dit.f h3w nb n Pr-'3
"As for the General of the Army, or Scribe of the Army

who (shall) come after me and finds the Funerary Estate
fallen into ruin together with the male and remale ser
vants . . . and he takes people from among them to place
him <in> any business of Pharaoh"
(British Museum 138)(Dyn. 21) (61)
16
As the preceding examples show, the construction of ir +
noun follows J by a relative clause is normal in cases where
there is a second protasis employing the conjunctive mtw.
Thus, the initial clause introduced by ir usually specifies
some temporal aspect of the condition, followed by the actual
violation in the accompanying protasis. There are instances
however, where a violation is simply expressed by the construc
tion ir + noun + relative clause:
3) ir rmt nb nty iw.sn r mnmn m wdw pn
"As for every person who shall move this stela"

(Louvre C 108) (New Kingdom) (62)
4) ir rmt nb nty iw.f (r) rwi p3Y twt hr st.f
"As for every person who shall remove this stela from
its place"
(KRI VI 844.2) (Dyn. 20)
L. The Relative Clause as Object of the Stipulation
As noted above, a threat may be formed with the stipu
lation "inverted", ie. acting as a direct object, rather than
being in an anticipatory or "fronted" clause introduced by
ir (63). This is common in threats of the Third Intermediate
and Late Periods, and is often found in "oracular" addresses
where a deity is directly asked, or commanded, by a plaintiff
to punish a potential offender:
1) iw.k hdb. . . rmt nb nty iw.w hb n p3(y).f htp-ntr
"Will you kill. . . every person who shall diminish his

divine-endowment?11
(Cairo JE 66285) (Dyn. 21/22)(64)
17
2) mtw.k hdb nty iw.w th3.s
"And may you kill them who violate it"

(Cat. Gen. 42208) (Dyn. 22)
3) n(n)s3.f r st.f sh3.f hr-s3 nty iw.f th3 mnw pn

sfr hr.f
"Not shall his son be in his office or his memory after

him who shall violate this endowment (or) be deaf to it"
(ASAE 11, 1911,142) (Dyn.22)
4) s'.f <n>ty iw.f s'.f
"He shall cut off him who shall cut it off"

(Berlin 7780) (Dyn.26) (65)
M. Temporal "Qualifications" in Stipulations of Threats
It is clear that stipulations of threats were addressed
to potential or "possible" contingencies. As noted, the
concept of "futurity" was contained within the protasis itself
through the use of a future participial form, usually a
sdm.ty.fy, or else a future relative clause, nty (r) sjm.
Occasionally, however, an adverbial qualification was appended
to a stipulation which further defined the temporal circum
stances in which a cited violation could be incurred. In an
early example, an individual states that he had received a
ritual burial from the king. Subsequently, the tomb-owner
pronounces the conditions under which a violation of his
property might occur, thereby making the transgressor liable
to punishment(66):
"[I have made this (my) chamber] in provision

from the king: [As for] any people who shall enter
it while they are unclean, (or) who shall commit an
evil thing against it in spite of these (things)
18
which (I) have said: (My) plea shall be investigated

[wit]h [th]eirs in the [pi]ace wherein investigation
is held."
The adverbial clause m-ht nn dd.n.(i), lit. "after these
(things) which (I) have said" refers to the preceding stipu
lations which define the offenses against the mortuary prop
erty (67). Thus, the owner explicitly states that a "warning"
or admonition had been given to visitors to the tomb.
We find, however, that adverbial clauses often define
temporal conditions in which the stipulation is considered to
have continued validity. Not surprisingly, such qualifications
appear in documents which have been formulated so as to be
effective after the demise of the original donor or promulgator.
Thus, in a votive inscription of the Ramesside Period containing
an "Address to the Living", the donor beseeches future visi
tors:(68)
"0 officials, God's servants, priests, lay-people,

and all people who shall come after me in millions
of years"
The stipulation and injunction of the threat follow the
invocation. The groups addressed are not only those con
temporary to the deceased, or even belonging to a few
generations afterwards. Instead, the formula refers to
visitors in perpetuity, lit. "who come after me (hr-s3.i)
in millions of years (fotjw n rnpt)", ie. for countless
generations(69). Hence, a stipulation against effacing the
stela and replacing the donor's name with another's, was
likewise considered to be valid for the same length of time.

19
In another Address to the living, also dating from the
Ramesside Period, citizens are similarly warned: (70)
"0 everybody, (namely) all citizens who shall

come after us (hr-s3.n) who speak against NN"
The adverbial clause merely refers to townspeople ('nfr niwt)
who outlive the owners of the stela.
In the initial stipulation contained in the Decree for
Amenophis son of Hapu, the supposed promulgator of the document,
Amenophis III, explicitly refers to future administrators of the
mortuary estate(71): "As for the general or scribe of the army
who comes after me". These were the parties responsible for
maintaining the deceased's property and who were liable to a
host of penalties in case of negligence. In the Introduction
to the text, the king also proclaims that the estate was to be
endowed "henceforth" or "ever after", lit. "after/throughout
eternity" (m-ht hh); and "as long as it is on earth", lit. "as
its time on earth" (m hrw.s hr-tp t3)(72). Elsewhere, Amenophis
III proclaims that the endowed property is to remain indivisible
within the familial line of the deceased "from son to son and
heir to heir" so as "to prevent men from violating (it) ever
after" (m-ht hh) (73).
Similar qualifications are primarily attested in wills
providing for the division of property solely within a familial
line, or mortuary deeds or testaments referring to the up-keep
of a cult following the demise of its originator. Thus, in
a funerary contract of an official, Amenhotep, dating to the

20
end of the Eighteenth Dynasty, royal stewards and religious
personnel in Memphis who live, lit. "exist" (fopr) "afterwards",
lit. "after these things" are warned not to embezzle the de
ceased's mortuary possessions(74). In the Wadi Mia Decree of
Seti I, the king explicitly threatens "any king who shall exist"
(nswt nb nty r hpr), ie. any future monarch who might ignore
Seti's provisions for his estate(75). Likewise, in the Bilgai
Stela of Twoseret, the Queen specifies that any future garrison
commanders (lit. "who shall exist", iw.f r fopr) are liable to
punishment for failure to maintain the cult of Amun of Ramesses
II within her endowed estate(76).
The Karnak wills made on behalf of the daughters of the
Twenty-First Dynasty king, Psusennes II, state that violations
committed against inherited property "tomorrow or after tomorrow"
(hr-s3 dw3) are to punished by Amun; Mut, and Khonsu(77). Within
the same group of documents, the distribution of property is to
be maintained within the family line of the original recipient
"down to eternity"(78). In the slightly later testament of
Iuwelot, or so-called Apanage Stela, the god Amun who is to
guarantee the transfer of property and familial office states
that the will is to be valid (lit. "confirmed") "throughout
eternity" (r-fat nhh)(79). Furthermore, the property is not to
be divided among other family members "in the future", lit.
"after tomorrow" (hr-s3 dw3)(80).
A stipulation in a Ramesside inscription from Aniba, con
tains a warning against trespassing a tomb "hereafter" lit.

21
"after tomorrow" fchr>-s3 dw3)(81). Moreover, in a threat
inscribed on a statue of Herihor, the High Priest admonishes
people who might remove the image "after many years" (m-ht rnpwt
knw)(82). Finally, in a Twenty-Second Dynasty threat, contained
in an address to an oracle, a priest refers to a god's vengeance
against parties who might violate a religious endowment "ever
after", lit. "to the limit of eternity, forever" (r-s3' hh dt)(83).
N. The Subject of Stipulations in Threats
The Subject of stipulative clauses of threats essentially
parallels those attested in legal protases. In Egyptian codi
fied law, persons subject to legal precepts are often designated
as z nb, "any/every man" or rmt nb, "any person/everybody"(84).
Hence the general designation, which is characteristic of a "law-
code", indicates that all persons within the society were under
the jurisdiction of that particular law. In some royal decrees,
however, a stipulation could be addressed to specific groups or
persons responsible for the protection of a royal estate or
religious institution to which they were attached. So in the
Decree of the king Intef, particular officials are specifically
designated for royal condemnation if they might dispute the
monarch's verdict recorded in the text(85). In the Decree of
Horemheb, several laws are to be applied exclusively to "soldiers"
guilty of theft, extortion, or usury(86). Wills, which dealt
with "private" legal business, also were explicit regarding par-
ties-usually other family members-who might dispute the provisions

22
of such a document(87).
The.protases of Egyptian threats generally follow a similar
pattern. Since the threat itself was primarily intended to
protect an individual's property from any possible infringement-
and by extention, from any person who might commit the violation-
the stipulations tend to be all-inclusive in formulation. In its
simplest form, the subject of the stipulation is a future parti
ciple or relative clause without an accompanying noun.
For example, transgressors are specified as: "He who shall
commit a thing against these" (ir.t(y).f(y) ir nw); "They who
shall commit an evil thing against these" (ir.ti.sn fet dw ir nw)
(88); "As for he who shall efface/damage these images" (ir hd.t(y).
f(y) nn hntyw)(89), "As for the one who shall drag it off" (ir p3
nty iw.f sf3.tw.f)(90). Moreover, as noted, a participial or
relative clause could be expanded through the use of the attrib
utive adjective nb, "any, every" to express inclusiveness or
totality: "As for everyone who shall ignore this decree" (ir p3
nty nb iw.f r sfr hr wdw pn)(91), "As for everyone who shall erase
the name" (ir p3 nty nb iw.w. ft p3 rn)(92).
Examples of Old Kingdom threats demonstrate, however, that
similar to legal protases, stipulations were often formulated
with "every man" (z nb) or "everybody/person" (rmt nb) as subject:
"Every man who shall do an evil thing against these" (z nb ir.t(y).
f(y) ht dw r nwy)(93); "As for every person who shall do a thing
against my children" (ir rmf nb ir.t(y) ht r hrdw.i)(94). Thus,
the stipulations by their very nature tend to be non-specific

23
since they were intended to encompass all possible transgres
sions.
We find, however, that as in the case of royal decrees, a
stipulation of a threat could be specific, ie. a particular
group or party is explicitly designated as liable for punishment.
In some of the threats from the Siut texts of the First Inter
mediate Period, stipulations appear to have been formulated
under the influence of contemporary events. Thus, "rebels"
(sbiw) and "dissidents" (h3kw-ib ) -probably referring to the
Theban enemies of the Herakleopolitan kings and their allies in
Suit- are condemned should the.y interfere with the mortuary
estate of the nomarch Tf-ibi, or damage the town necropolis(95).
Officials are often cited in the protases of Egyptian
threats. It appears that in some cases, these were parties who
were responsible for maintaining the deceased's property or
guaranteeing the provisions of a royal decree or endowment.
In the earlier inscription of the nomarch, Ankhtify of
Mo'alia, future administrators (hk3) are invoked to protect
the deceased's burial equipment and legal enactments under threat
of punishment by the indigenous deity, Hmn (96). In the decree
of Intef from the Seventeenth Dynasty, "any king" (nswt nb) or
"potentate" (shm-ir(w).f) who might rescind a specific criminal
sentence is threatened with the loss of the royal office(97).
Likewise, in the Decree of Seti I from the Wadi Mia, a king who
shall ignore Seti's counsel is to be judged by a divine tribunal
in Heliopolis(98). From the same text, officials who might

24
deceive a future king through false counsel to violate the terms
of Seti's endowment are also condemned(99).
The expansion of the stipulation to include parties other
than the non-specific "every man" or "every person" appears as
early as the Sixth Dynasty. In the tomb inscription of Nnki,
the owner refers to "every dignitary (s'h), every official, or
every person who shall tear out any stone or any brick from this
(my) tomb"(100). In another text from the inscriptions of
Tf-ibi of Siut, the entire community is considered responsible
for the protection of the deceased's property(101): "As for
every chief, every notable, [every] official, every commoner,
who shall not protect [th]is [cham]ber and its [c]ontehts."
Similarly, in the later inscription of Hp-df3, "every person,
every scribe, every learned person, every commoner, or every
'low born'" is threatened if they damage his tomb or its in
scriptions and statuary(102). In another Middle Kingdom text,
Khnum-hotep II of Beni-Hasan, threatens a "mortuary-priest"
(hm-k3) or "any person with expulsion from office and loss of
inheritance should they dispute the terms of his funerary cult(103).
The testament of Amenhotep, dating to the reign of Amenophis
III, refers to "any future royal steward in Memphis, any scribe,
any lay-person, or priest of the Estate, or the entire priestly
phyle, or any future person in this Estate" who might embezzle
from his funerary endowment(104). In the Nauri Decree of
Seti I, "[every person] [w]ho is in the entire land" who fails
to report a member of the estate of Osiris involved with fraud

25
or theft, is liable to divine punishment(105). Future "garrison-
commanders of the W3<j-Wr" are threatened by the Queen Twoseret in
the Bilgai Stela should they suppress her personal cult(106). Sim
ilarly, in the Twenty-first Dynasty decree for Amenophis the son of
Hapu, "generals and scribes of the army" who neglect the mortuary
estate, or misappropriate its personnel are condemned(107)Later
on in the same text, "viziers" and officials of the Necropolis
are specified as liable for not executing the provisions of the
decree(108). In the earlier "monumental ostracon" of Pakhemest,
dating to the end of Dynasty 19, a vizier is also threatened with
punishment by the god Amun(109).
A divine oracle of Amun denounces "the scribe of the House of
the God's Adorer of Anum" who might denty the descendants of
Hentowe, a daughter of Psusennes II, access to her will, or who
might alter its contents in fraud(llO). In the similar case of
Makare, another off-spring of the same king, death is invoked for
"any people of any sorts of the entire land, be they men or be they
women, who shall dispute" the legal provisions of a deed made on
her behalf(111). The record of an endowment made by Sheshonk I
for his father's funerary estate threatens "the chief of the army,
the sergeant, the scribe, the controller, any messenger, or anyone
sent on business to the country" who might steal the mortuary prop
erty of the deceased(112). Similarly, in a donation text dating
from the reign of Sheshonk IV, a stipulation refers to "[anyjbody,
or any scribe, who is dispatched on business to the district of
the town of Pr-Sbk , who shall damage this stela"(113).

26
II. INJUNCTION ("Apodosis")
The injunction of the Egyptian threat formula, ie. the
punitive clause, essentially parallels the grammatical patterns
used in codified law. Similar to the law, the temporal aspect
expressed by the threat obviously refers to the future, expressing
the possible consequences for a violation of the condition specified
in the stipulation. It had been noted above, that the injunction
of legal statutes contained some verbal form with future reference,
usually a prospective sdm.f; in the New Kingdom oath, however,
iw.f (r) sdm, sometimes appears.
The structure of the threat itself-in contrast to the "law"-
was usually non-specific in regard to the penalty invoked. For
example, the Egyptian legal statue contained a defined, or fixed,
sentence corresponding to a criminal transgression, such as beat-

\
ing by a prescribed amount of blows; specific compensation; reduc
tion in status; forced labor, etc.(114). The threat, or what is
popularly known as a "curse", usually was not formulated in this
manner. Misfortunes such as death by hunger, thirst, or disease-
conditions which normally could not be effected by human agencies-
could be invoked against a transgressor. Thus, the party respon
sible for enacting a penalty was usually a deity or supernatural
force. Even in those instances where the king is called upon to
mete out punishment - a fairly common feature of threats of the
Third Intermediate Period- the penalty itself is normally ill-
defined. Nevertheless, the Egyptian threat, or the maledictions
which formed the injunction, were to a great extent formulated as

27
parallel to criminal sentences expressed in codified law. This
is most obvious in those threats which invoke a reduction of
status, denial of property and inheritance rights, or loss of
ritual burial.
The apodoses of Egyptian threats or injunctions exhibit a
number of grammatical and syntactical patterns. It refers prin
cipally to the future and indicates penalties to be enacted towards
a transgressor. It is difficult, however, to ascertain the various
nuances, especially in terms of mood, which underlie these differ
ent patterns. Therefore, in the following discussion, we shall
note the grammatical features which the injunction of the Egyptian
threat formula assumed.
A. Injunctions with Perfective (Prospective) Sdm.f
As noted, the prospective sjm.f in its active and passive/
impersonal forms appears frequently in the injunctions of codified
law. Not surprisingly, the verbal clauses in apodoses of threats
are also formulated in this manner. Moreover, the prospective
s^m.f, a well-attested Middle Egyptian form, is used throughout
the long history of Egyptian threats, despite a tendency to replace
it with t±fi mate common iw.f (r) sdm for the future. The precise
distinction between the. two patterns is problematic, especially
in translation since the pseudo-verbal construction itself ex
presses a "simple" (or intentional) future;(115) therefore, the
sjm.f would appear to have a slightly different function.
Gardiner noted that the perfective sdm.f was a common form in

28
wishes or exhortations, and undoubtedly some threats were con
sidered to have been "wished'(116). This suggests that the sdm.f
when used thus, had either an "optatival" ("may") or subjunctive"
("shall") force. In a recent discussion of the verb in the
Pyramid Texts, Allen has noted that appart from morphological
features of the verb itself, there is little to distinguish an
optative or jussive clause from a factitive or indicative use of
the verb(117). This observation, though primarily addressed to
a limited corpus, is equally valid for other stages in the
Egyptian language. There are cases, however, where the sdm.f
in threat-apodoses exhibits morphological characteristics of the
prospective form, usually having an ending of final or -w
added to the verbal stem:(118)
1) bwy sw tknw.f
"His relatives may/shall abhore him"
2) g3bw.f ( )
"He may/shall grow weak"

(KRI VI 352.2)
3) ib[w].f ( )
"He may/shall thirst"

(DB 4051)(120)
4) 'g3w.w( )m W3d-Wr h3pw.f ) h3t.w
"They may/shall capsize in the Sea, (and) it shall/may

cover their corpse"
(British Museum 138)(121)
5) hkrw.w ( )
"They shall/may hunger"

(Ibid) (121a)
29
6) hskw.w(lP^c-5 )tp.f
"His head shall/may be cut off"

(Cairo JE 85647)(122)
7) [b]n s3y.f ( )hr m3't
"[N]ot shall he be satisfied with 'justice'"

(KRI IV 355.5-6)
In the Athens Stela of Tefnakhte (Dyn. 24), a verb of motion
is used prospectively with the ending -i before a suffix:(123)
8) smi.f (5?^ ) r hh n r3 n Slpit
"He shall/may go to the flame of the mouth of Sekhmet"
Two Ramesside examples, however, show an unusual infixed -_t to
the verbal stem:
9) irt ( ) n.f Imn r iry n 'h3
"Amun shall/may be an opponent for him"

(Turin Museum statue)(124)
10) hbt (@J % ) Imn 'h'.f hr tp-t3
"Amun shall/may cut off his life-time on earth"

(KRI VI 533.13)
Example #9 may be a scribal error, or an anomolous orthographic
variant, since contemporary threats of the same type write ir
( ).
Normally, however, the prospective sdm.f appears in its
basic form, followed by a nominal or pronominal subject:
11) frr.s[n] n dnd n Dhwty
"Th[ey] shall/may fall to the fury of Thoth"

(Siut I 224)(125)
30
12) hbd sw ntr pn
"This god shall/may hate him"

(Urk . IV 1800.4)
13) mwt.f n hk(r) n ib
"He shall/may die of hunger and of thirst"

(KIR VI 844.3-4)
14) b^ hrt.f tk3 r wpwt.w
"His uraeus shall/may spit fire at their brow"

15) hr.f n s't n Imn-R'
"He shall/may fall to the knife of Amun-Re"

(Chronicle of Price Osorkon) (127)
16) s'.f p(3) nty iw.f (r) s'.f
"He shall/ may cut off the one who shall cut it off"
(Berlin 2111) (128)
Similar to legal statutes, a threat is occasionally expressed
by the passive sdm.f or the variant s^m.tw:
17) ir.tw s'd.f
"On shall/may make his slaughter"

(DB 4051) (129)
18) i£.tw hmt.f r hft-hr.f
"On shall/may seize his wife in his presence"

(Cairo JE 31882) (130)
19) skmw h't.w
"Their limbs shall/may be consumed"

(British Museum 138) (131)
In the so-called "Coronation" inscription of Hatshepsut, a
subjunctive (sdm.f) follows an imperfective or geminate form
of the verb rdi/di (132):

31
20) dd ( ^ ) ntr mwt.f hr-'
"Immediately God shall cause his death (lit. that he

shall die)"
(Urk. IV 260.12)
In the Ramesside Period the common periphrastic construct
ion with ir (sdm.f) + adverbial clause is used in threat apodoses:
21) ir Wsir . . . m-s3.f
"Osiris . . . shall/may pursue him (lit. is after him)"

(KRI I 58.3)
22) ir hr nb Mi't m-[s3.f]
"Horus, Lord of Mi'at shall/may [pursue him]"

(KRI III 130.10)
The prospective sdm.f also accurs in the construction in +
noun + sdm.f (133). It appears primarily in threats from the
Hatnub quarries of the First Intermediate Period and Middle
Kingdom:
23) in Dhwty hd.f sw
"It is Thoth who shall destroy him"

(Hatnub, Gr.33) (134)
24) in ntrw nw Wnwt fosf.sn hrdw.f (?) m i3wt.f m-s3 mwt.f
"It is the gods of the Hare nome who shall oppose his
children in his office after his death"
(Hatnub, Gr.49) (135)
In a threat from Hatshepsut's Coronation inscription, the
contruction with independent pronoun followed by prospective
sdm.f occurs. The pronoun swt is an archaism (136):
25) swt mwt.f
"It is he who shall die"

(Urk. IV 257.15)
32
Another means of expressing a threat was with the
geminating s<|m.f of the verb wnn, "to be, exist" accompanied
by an infinitive or passive (impersonal) sflm.f. Both types
of construction are best attested in the Old Kingdom (137):
26) wnn wd' mdw(.i) hn'.f
"(My) plea will be investigated with his" (lit. "the

investigating of (my) plea will be with his")
(Urk. I 30.13)
Goedicke has shown that a variant of the preceding formula occurs
in the Sixth Dynasty construction wnn + inf. + Old Perfective (138):
27) wnn wd' '.k(wi) hn'.f in ntr '3
"My having a legal claim (_^) will be investigated with

his by the Great God"
(G. 7710)
Edel noted the use of the passive s^m.f after wnn (139):
28) wnn iri(w) mitt r ist.tn
"The like shall be done against your posessions"

(Urk. I 46.11-12)
The geminating form of the verb wnn itself expresses the notion
of the future: Gardiner noted that the form particularly refers
to customary or prescribed acts, such as those designated in
contracts (140):
B. 'Iw.f (r) sdm
The pseudo-verbal construction with r + infinitive is one
of the most common ways of expressing a threat in Egyptian.
Whereas the perfective (prospective) sdm.f probably indicates

33
the notion of an optative or subjunctive mood, and the
construction with wnn a durative or indicative future ("will"),
the iw.f (r) sdm expresses an "intentional" or volative future:
"He will (lit. is about to/going to) do" (141). Examples of
the iw.f(r) sjm in an apodosis occur in all phases of the
language:
1) iw(.i) r ityt ts.f mi 3pdw
"(I) will seize his neck like a bird's"

(Urk. I 260.16)
2) iw(.i) <r> dr tpw.sn t3 'rrwt.wn tp-t3
"(I) will suppress their survivors and their

surviving landed property"
(Urk. I 218.1)
3) iw(.i)^ r>sht tz.f mi 3pd
"(I) will strike his neck like a bird's"

(Cairo 1651) (142)
4) iw.k (r) s'd rn.w n p3 t3 (r) drw.f
"Will you cut out their names from the entire land?"
(Cairo JE 45327) (143)
5) iw.i r mddt ssr.i hr imy-st-'^.f>
"I will plunge my arrow deep into ^his> assistant"

(Cairo JE 31882) (144)
C. K3 sdm.f
The k3 sdm.f often expresses a future result or injunc
tion (145). It occurs only once in the formulation of a threat
and appears in the Twenty-Second Dynasty will of Nht-mwt.f. In
this context, however, the k3 sdm.f has an optatival force,
and is used in a wish:

34
1) k3 'h3.k r 'l]3(w) r.sn
"May you contend against him who contends against them"

(Cairo 42208)
D. Sdm.k3.f
Gardiner has stated that the s4m.k3.f refers to a future
act and is dependant upon a previously stated clause (146).
He further noted that it is confined to religious texts and
temple inscriptions. Allen also remarked upon its use in apodoses
of conditional sentences in the Pyramid Texts (147). Insofar
as the constuction appears only in those threats directed towards
deities, it is tempting to view the tense as expressing the
apodoses of an "unreal" or "contrary to fact" condition. Hence
the mood of the construction would seem to be an optative rather
than relative or subjunctive (148).
1) ("Assuredly, as for delaying, erring, or impeding the

granting of his father to this NN, or releasing to
him of his mother, or assembling for this NN his
family . . . who might perfom rites on behalf of
this NN- . . . ")
nhm.k3.t(w) stp(w)t hr h3wt ntrw
"The choicest offerings might be confiscated from the

altars of the gods"
(CT II 190a)
The spell seems to refer to an "impossible" or "impermissible"
situation, and the threat represents an "unthinkable" conse
quence: ie. if ever the deceased would be denied access to his
family, then even the "gods" themselves might suffer (149).

35
E. Imperative
The imperative is confined to threats which appear in
the context of an oracular address. A speaker directly appeals
to a god to exact punishment against a possible transgressor.
Thus, in the confirmation of the will of Makare, a daughter of
Psusennes II, a priest addresses Amun-Re, Mut, and Khonsu (150):
1) "Kill (fadb) any people of any sorts. . . who shall

dispute about any things. . . which Makare. . .
bought by purchase of the South Country."
Subsequently, the deities, who act as guarantors of Makare's
property, affirm the request: "We will kill (iw.n (r) fadb) any
people of any sorts. . . (151)"
The Late Egyptian conjunctive form mtw.f stjm is used to
express a command following the imperative (152). In the will
of Nfrt-mwt.f, a request is made to the god Amun:
2) "Protect (n]j) our daughter Ps-n-Ist. Cause (imi) her

to inherit your property, and kill (mwt.k fadb) them
who transgresses -" (Cairo 42208)
F. Negative Threats
Egyptian threats are often formed as negative clauses
ostensibly to express the "denial" or "rejection" of a trans
gressor from some privilege or office. Negated verbal clauses
appear as Middle Egyptian nn sdm.f (153), or Late Egyptian
bn sdm.f, indicating a future tense (154). However, a threat
is often formed with nn wn to express non-existence. When this

36
construction occurs in the apodoses of threat, it is clear
that a negated future is intended as well. Occasionally,
n sdm.f is used for nn sdm.f in an injunction (155).
nn sdm.f
1) nn wn rn[.f tp-t3]
"Not shall [his] name exist [on earth]"

(Suit IV 80) (First Intermediate Period)(156)
2) nn ssp ntr.f t-hdt.f
"Not shall his god accept his white-bread

offering"
(Siut I 225 ) (Middle Kingdom) (157)
3) nn m3.f kmt
"Not shall he see success"

(JNES 20, 1961, 29) . ( Middle Kingdom) (158)
4) nn wn hsb(w) (?) m pr. f
"Not shall the person (?) in his house exist"

(Hatnub, Gr. 52) (Hyksos) (159)
5) nn wn iw'w.f
"Not shall his heirs exist"

(Semhah Graffito of Thutmosis I) (New Kingdom) (160)
6) nn sw3d.f ht.f n hrdw.f r nhh
"Not shall he ever bequeath his property to his

children"
(Urk. IV 1491.6) (New Kingdom)
7) nn dd.tw s3.s[n] r st.sn
"Not shall the[ir] son be appointed to their office"

(Bristish Museum 138) (Third Intermediate Period)(161)
8) nn sh3.tw rn.sn tp-t3 r-3w.f
"Not shall their name be remembered in the entire

land"
(Colophon,P. Bremmer - Rhind) (Ptolemaic)(162)
37
n(n) sdm.f
9) n(n) pri(w) hrw nbw n.f m W3g nb hb ng [nfr n Zmt]
"Not shall there be the delivery of any funerary

offering for him on any W3g (feast) or any [proper]
festival [of the Necropolis]"
(Siut III 70) (First Intermediate Period) (163)
10) n(n) sw3d.f ht.f n msw.f
"Not shall be bequeath his property to his children"

(Urk. IV 1491.13) (New Kingdom)
11) n(n) s'm.w p(3) t nt krtyw
"Not shall he partake of the bread of/for those

who are enshrined"
(British Museum 138) (Third Intermediate Period)(164)
12) n(n) jipr s3.f s3t.f hr tp-t3
"Not shall his son or daughter live on earth"

(Chicago OIM 13943) (Late Period) (165)
13) n(n) ssp.sn ntr.sn hd.sn
"Not shall their god accept their white-bread

offering"
(Berlin 19400) (Late Period) (166)
bn sdm.f
bn 'h' s3.f r st.f
"Not shall his son stand in his office"

(Bilgai Stela) (New Kingdom) (167)
15) bn sms. f Imn m hbw.f nbw
"Not shall he serve Amun in any of his festivals"

(KRI IV 359.5-6) (New Kingdom)
16) [b]n [ir.]f[13][y.w] i3wt hm-ntr tpy in Imn
"[No]t[shall] he [exercise] these offices of'

High Priest of Amun"
(KRI VI 533.1-2) (New Kingdom)
38
17) bn hpr rn.f m p3 t3 n Kmt
"Not shall his name exist in the land of Egypt"

(KRI VI 844.3) (New Kingdom)
18) b[n] i[mn] s3.[f] for st.f
"No[t] shall [his] son be [established] in his

office"
(Cairo 85647) (Third Intermediate Period)(168)
G. Threats with "Non-verbal" clauses
Many Egyptian threats are composed as sentences with adverb
ial predicates, and to a lesser degree, with nominal predicates
(see below). Although no tense is indicated in threats of this
type, the appearance of the construction in apodictic statements
makes it certain that such nonverbal clauses also have a future
reference. Again, differentiation in "mood" is difficult to
ascertain. Threats formed with adverbial predicate generally
appear in the following patterns:
1) iw.f r + Noun (punishment); Noun r + Noun
2) iw.f n + Noun; Noun n + Noun
3) iw.f m + Noun
4) Noun + adverbial element
# 3 is simply a clause of "identification" with the m of predica
tion, ie. "He (is/shall be) as" X (169). Similarly, some threats
formed with iw.f r + Noun, lit. "He (is/shall be) to/as" X, are
closely related to this type (170). The difference between #1
and #2, however, are not readily apparent. Threats formed in

39
this manner, conceptually, appear to be virtually identical
with one another with little difference in use or meaning.
Indeed, in threats from the Third Intermediate -Late Periods,
the prepositional element r/n is frequently ellided. Gener
ally, the preposition r has a "locative" use, "to/towards",
and may have a sense of futurity: "He is (bound) to" X (171).
On the other hand, the construction with iw.f n + Noun, and its
counterpart with nominal subject, are in origin, clauses express
ing possession (172). The preposition n is datival, having a
notion of disadvantage (173). Thus, iw.f r + Noun, lit. "He
is to" + noun connotes a probable future, ie. a person is "bound
to" or "liable to" punishment. Iw.f n Noun, lit. "He belongs
to", ie. "He has" + object, expresses a more concrete result of
"actually" being under punishment.
iw.f r Noun
1) iw.f r pf[st]
"He (shall be) to bur[ning]"

(Siut IV 80) (First Intermediate Period) (174)
2) iw.f r s' n nswt
"He (shall be) to the knife of the king"

(New York Metropolitan Museum 55.144.6) (Third
Intermediate Period) (175)
Noun r Noun
3) [fr']w.[s]n r tk
"[The]ir [lim]bs (shall be) to conflagration"

iw.f n Noun
4) iw.sn n 3dt
40
"They (shall) belong to the knife-"

(Siut I 224 ) (First Intermediate Period) (177)
5) iw.f n nsrt
"He (shall) belong to the fiery flame"

(KRI I 69.10) (New Kingdom)
6) iw.w n dm
"They (shall) belong to the knife-"

(British Museum 138) (Third Intermediate Period) (178)
Noun fl Noun
7) hwt.f n snsnt
"His estate (shall) belong to conflagration"

Noun + adverbial clause
8) hh.s m-s3.f
"Her flame (shall be) after him"

(Cairo wb. 524) (Third Intermediate Period) (180)
Nominal Clauses
Occasionally, apodoses of threat-formulae contain sentences
with nominal predicates, usually formed with the deomonstrative
pronoun £w, similar to the Coptic preterite TTE 181. The construc
tion itself is especially common in "glosses", and indeed, is
attested as a secondary pattern in legal injunctions denoting a
sentence of guilt (see above)(182). The appearance of such
clauses in the injunctions of the Egyptian threat-formula,
likewise indicates the denunciation of some action or the
perpetrator of a transgression. The use of nominal clauses in
this manner is clearly parallel to their application in

41
juridical language.
9) wh3 pw w3ww r fr.sf ddwt.i
"A fool is he who is in the process of opposing

what I have said"
(Cairo JE 31882) (Third Intermediate Period)(183)
10) sbi pw n ntr '3
"A rebel to the Great God is he"

(Donation stela of Necho II) (Late Period) (184)
11) bwt ntr nb ntr(t) nbt mnmn wd n 3ht
"The 'abomination' of every god and goddess is

the removal of a stela of a field"
(Cairo 85647) (Third Intermediate Period) (185)
12) st hrwy n Wsir Nbt 3bdw
"He shall be one whom Osiris, Lord of Abydos

shall overthrow"
(Ash. 1894.107 B) (Third Intermediate Period) (186)
H. Subordinate Clauses in Threats
As in any other type of Egyptian "literature", an apodosis
may contain subordinate clauses which define, or act as paren
thetical or explanatory statements, to the main threats in an
injunction. Dependent clauses may be formed in a number of
ways: relative clauses; participial phrases; or subordinate
verbal clauses.
Relative Clauses
1) "He [shall be] an enemy [to/for] the 3hw(ie.

ritually buried dead)-"
hm.n Nb [Zm]t
V"" •
"(namely) (one) whom the Lord of the [Ne]cropolis

does not recognize"
42
2) "He shall be to the burn[in]g [w]i[th] the damned-"
hwi.[n] ntr sdb r.sn
"(namely) whom God [has] punished,"

(Siut IV 80) (First Intermediate Period) (188)
3) "He shall fall to the knife of Amun-Re-"
sh[m].n nbit im.f n Mwt
"(namely) (he) whom the flame of Mut has overwhelmed"

(Chronicle of Prince Osorkon) (Third Intermediate
Period) (189)
Participial Clauses
4) "[th]eir [lim]bs (shall) be to the conflagr[ation]

[wi]th the damned-"
ir(w) m tm-[w]nn
"(namely) who have been made into non-[ex]istant ones"

5) d[y] [r st-wd'wt]
"He who shall be delivered [to the Place of

Litigation]" ("[His local deity shall abhore him]")
(Siut III 70 (First Intermediate Period) (191)
Subordinate Verbal Clauses
6) "He (shall) be to the Eye of Horus-"
shm.s im.f
"which shall overpower him" (lit."it shall overpower

him") (sdm.f)
(Cairo JE 31882) (Third Intermediate Period) (192)
7) "His wife (shall) be seized in his presence-"
h't.f nbt 3bh(w)m hr(y)'b
"(while) his entire body has been consigned (lit.

43
joined with) with:;the 'criminal'" (Old Perfective)

(Cairo JE 31882) (Third Intermediate Period) (193)
8) "His head shall be cut off-"
hfr(w) <m> is.f
"and sought for <in> his tomb" (lit. being searched

for") (Old Perfective)
(Cairo 85647 (Third Intermediate Period) (194)
Circumstantial clauses introduced by iw are also subordinate
to primary threats:
9) "He (shall) be to the [kn]ife of the Victorious

King-"
iw.f hrw n p3 nmt n Shmt
"while being fallen to the Slaughter-block of

Sekhmet" (iw.f + Old Perfective)
(TR 15, 1893, 175) (Third Intermediate Period)
10) "N[ot] shall his son be [established] in his office-"
iw.f hbd(w) n Pr Imn . . .
"(while) he is abhorred to the House of Amun. . ."

(iw.f + Old Perfective)
(Cairo 85647) (Third Intermediate Period) (196)
11) "Osiris, Lord of Eternity. . . shall pursue him-"
iw flvt-Hr nb<t> Dsrt m-s3 hmwt.f
"(while) Hathor, Mistress of the Sanctuary, (is)

after his wives" (Non-verbal clause with adverbial
predicate)
(DB 3 ) (New Kingdom) (197)
I. Temporal "Qualifications" in Injunctions of Threats
The function or purpose of the injunction, or punitive
clause of the threat formula, was to express the notion of
possible harm or punishment which could result from the

44
violation of some condition specified in the accompanying
stipulation. The concept of "futurity" of course, was con
tained within the verbal clause of the apodosis itself, or
to a lesser degree, by the specified object of the threat.
Thus, the latter would involve those cases wherein a trans
gressor's children or surviving line are implicated in a male
diction rather than only the "criminal". Similar to the
formation of stipulations to the threat, however, an injunc
tion could be modified by some qualification, usually an
adverbial adjunct, thereby indicating the viability of the
threat itself. For example, in the deposition of a will
made on behalf of Makare, the daughter of Psusenness II, the
divine guardians of her property vow that their condemnation
of a disputant with death could never be revoked. (198) Thus
there was no hope of pardon for the guilty party, a sentence
that had eschatological implications, apart from physical
punishment.
Sometimes, however, a threat could be quite specific as
to "when" or "how long" it would be in effect. A Middle
Kingdom graffito from Hatnub (Gr 11) notes that local deities
will reject a criminal's heirs from their hereditary office
"after his death" (199). Similarly, the author of a New
Kingdom threat from Deir-el-Bahari (Gr 3) states that punish
ment shall come about "when my face and eye are shrouded", ie
when he is buried (200). Elsewhere in the same inscription,
Osiris is invoked to pursue a violator and afflict him with

45
disease "in a latter day" (m-s3 hrw)(201). Chronological
indicators are particularly distinct in threats which have
both an immediate and eschatological efficacy. An official
of the Eighteenth Dynasty condemns those parties which might
desecrate his tomb and corpse with a parallel threat: "Not
shall his heart be restful in life" and "His b3 shall be
destroyed forever"(202).
The specter of swift retribution by a god is quite evi
dent in a threat against conspirators against Hathsepsut:
"Immediately (hr-') God shall cause his death"(203). From
an inscription of the same monarch's advisor, Senmut, there
is a malign wish for trespassers against his mortuary property:
"Not shall his lifetime on earth (tp-t3) exist" (204). A
similar threat occurs in the biographical inscription of the
High-Priest, Amunhotep, from the end of the Twentieth Dynasty.
In this case, however, the agent for destruction is specified:
"Amun shall cut off his lifetime on earth" (205). In the
Athens stela of Tefnakhte, a warning is given that the wrath
of the goddess Neith shall be manifested against a criminal
"forever" (r nhh), ie. punishment was to the corporeal exist
ence, and in the Afterlife (206).
Threats against the "memory" (sfo3 ) of a transgressor
naturally imply that the desecration of the guilty party is
to last beyond his mere physical existence. Thus, in the
Twenty-Second Dynasty "Chronical of Prince Osorkon", the
prince invokes a malediction against parties who might inter

46
fere with donations to the cults of Thebes (207): "One shall
spit after he is remembered". A contemporary donation stela
from Saft-el-Hennah specifies that the memory of persons
violating or ignoring an endowment shall not survive (lit.
"be after" (hr-s3)) their lifetime (208). Related threats
against the "name" or "reputation" of a person have similar
implications. In P. Rylands, dating to the reign of
Psammetichus I, it states (209): "Not shall his name exist
among the living ones for eternity (r dt)". In a Late
Period tomb from el-Hasaya, people who fail to bless the
deceased are threatened (210): "Not shall his name be
pronounced on earth throughout.eternity (hr nhh)".
Again, maledictions directed against the criminal's
survivors, by their very nature, have a future reference.
We have seen above, however, that threats may contain the
qualification "forever" (r nhh; r dt) "always", or in negated
clauses "never". For example, in an Eighteenth Dynasty will,
there is the specification that a violator's line of inheritance
is to be henceforth dissolved (211): "Not shall he bequeath his
property to his children forever (r nhh)". Similarly, in a
Twenty-Sixth Dynasty donation text the malefactor and his off
spring are condemned in perpetuity (212): "Not shall his son
ever (dt) succeed him".

47
III. TYPOLOGICAL AND LEXICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE THREAT
We have suggested that "codified law" and its use of
defined legal "statutes" served as the conceptual basis for
the formulation of the threat in ancient Egypt. This can be
generally observed in the structural similarities of both
legal stipulations and those of the threat through the use
of conditional clauses. Likewise, the injunctions of the
respective types primarily appear as apodictic statements.
Indeed, as noted, the threat was designed to address "jurid
ical" circumstances, overwhemingly the prevention of damage
to private property. A peculiar characteristic of the threat,
however, was that there was often no temporal constraint
regarding either a violation as defined in the stipulation,
or the efficacy of the punishment itself, as stated in the
injunction. It has been stressed, that as a result of the
"perpetual" nature of the threat, the physical or practical
means of executing the punitive clause were no longer dependant
upon existing legal institutions, but rather were relegated to
divine auspices. Nevertheless, the close link between the use
of legal concepts as the model for the threat can best be
demonstrated by an examination of the typological and lexical
characteristics of the violations listed in the stipulative
clauses of the threat, and the various punishments invoked in
its punitive clauses.

48
A. The Stipulation
It is the stipulative clauses of threat formulae that
the greatest overlap with legal vocabulary and juridical con
cepts occur. That the Egyptians employed terminology attested
in "formal" legal documents in the stipulations of threats
is not surprising; most of the situations to which threats
were addressed were clearly "juridical" in nature. Indeed,
the later Ramesside accounts referring to tomb violations
demonstrate that misdeeds against mortuary property were
prosecuted as capital offenses by the Egyptian courts. There
is little doubt that similar legal considerations prevailed
througout Egyptian history. However, it would be ill-
founded to infer that every stipulation in a threat corre
sponded to some legal statute. For example, whereas the
embezzlement of material designated for a funerary endowment
was likely considered a criminal offense, the same probably
cannot be said about the effacement of graffito. Moreover,
some threats refer to violations regarding evil speech or
throughts, or the proper demonstration of piety- situations
notoriously difficult to detect or prove. The same holds
true in stipulations concerning "negligence": how could such
a charge be prosecuted? This, of course, is one of the. primary
reasons that punishment for such violations was reserved for
divine powers rather than the courts; crimes of conscience were
known only to the offender himself and his gods.

49
The following section will present common lexical items
found in the stipulations of threats. To facilitate our study,
the terminology shall be divided into sub-sections by typology
of violation. Such an arrangement, however, is for conve
nience's sake, rather than as a reflection of Egyptian
jurisprudence. For example, at times it is extremely diffi
cult to separate purely "civil" offenses -ie. primarily
"property" damage- from criminal cases (213). Moreover,
the majority of threats deal with property somehow under
the control of, or at least associated with a religious
institution. Thus, would the transgression be considered
a "civil" or "criminal" charge - or a "sacral" offense (214)?
Nevertheless, the following shall demonstrate that there were
standard "crimes" covered in the stipulations of threats,
expressed by a common vocabulary.
Damage to Property
Iri ht (dw) (m/r): "to do an (evil) thing (against)."
The term is used in reference to any malignant act against
mortuary property in its Old Kingdom attestations (215). By
the Sixth Dynasty, however, specific violations are cited,
usually referring to effacement, or seizure of building mat
erial.
1)
i[r] z nb ir.t(y).f(y) ht r nw
"A[s for] any man who shall do a thing against this."

(Urk. I 35.1)
50
i[r ir.t(y).tn] r nw
"A[s for you who shall act] against this"

(Urk. I 46.11)
ir.t(y).sn ht dw r.f m-ht nn dd.n(.i)
"They who shall do an evil thing against it in spite

of these (things) which (I) have said."
(Urk. I 49.9-10)
4)
ir.ti.sn ht dw ir nw
"They who shall do an evil thing against this."

(Urk. I 50.16-17)
5)
ir z nb ir.t(y).f(y) kt dw [r nw]
"As for any man who shall do an evil thing [against this]."
(Urk. I 58.5)
[i]r hm rm£ nb [ir].t(y).sn ht dw r nw
"Assuredly, [as] for anybody who shall [do] an evil thing

against this."
(Urk. I 70.15-16)
7)
z nb ir.t(y).f(y) fat dw r nwy
"Any man who shall do an evil thing against this."

(Urk. I 72.4)
8) <!<=>$ <=7
ir z nb ir.t(y).f(y) ht ir nw
"As for any man who shall do a thing against this."

(Urk. I 73.4)
51
9) Slf
ir.t(y).f(y) ht ir nw
"He who shall do a thing against this."

(Urk. I 23.14)
i.o) <)•=» =!!<=>£t
ir rm£ nb ir.t(y).f(y) ht r hrdw(.i)
"As for anybody who shall do a thing against (my)

children."
(Urk. I 150.9)
id
ir ht nb ir.t(y).tn r iz(.i) pn frrt-nfcr
"As for anything which you shall do against this (my)

tomb of the Necropolis."
(Urk. I 202.1)
12)
ir i.ir.t(y).f(y) i.tit jw r nwy
"As for he who shall do an evil thing against this."

(Urk. I 225.16)
13) f <=>P
ir.t(y).f(y) ht r.s
"He who shall do a thing against it."
14)
ir.t(y).f(y) fat r nw
"He who shall do a thing against this."

(Urk. I 226.13)
15)
ir ir.t(y)«f(y) ht <r> nw
"As for he who shall do a thing against this."

(UC 14445) (216)
52
In the later tomb inscription of Ankhtify of Moalla from the
First Intermediate Period, there is a slight modification of
the formula with iri ht (dw) being replaced by iri ' dw, "to
commit an evil act" (217):
ir hk3 nb hk3.t(y).f(y) m Hf3t ir.t(y).f(y) ' dw b(i)n

r dnit(.i) tn
"As for any administrator who shall govern in Mo'alia,

who shall commit an evil or bad act against this (my)
coffin."
(Ankhtify 8.3) (218)
The phrase iri ht, "to do a thing" also occurs in a stipulation
from a donation stela of Necho II (219):
17) "(As for any scribe, any officials < any > man who shall
come down to this field to seize from them-"
r ir ht sp snw im.f hr-tp t3
"-(or) to do a a thing !- therein on earth."

(Donation Stela of Necho II)
The term iri ht in this last example seems to refer to "theft"
or "damage" to landed property (220).
Iri J3t r: "to commit a violation against."
P3t is rather ambiguous, having the general meaning of
"crime, violation, damage" (221). Middle Kingdom stipulations
in which the term occurs, however, would seem to refer to
damage against private funerary property.
i) ()<=>%
ir grt ir.t(y).sn d3t r htp pn

53
"Moreover, as for they who shall commit a violation

against this offering-table."
(Sethe, Lesestucke 87.12-13) (222)
ir grt z nb ir.t(y).fy d3t r 'h'.i pn
"Moreover, as for any man who shall commit a violation

against this my stela."
(Cairo 20458) (223)
Wdi nkn: "To inflict damage."
Literally, "to place, put evil", the term occurs in the
tomb of Senmut and refers to harm to his cult-image (224). In
this limited context, nkn indicates some sort of "sacrilege",,
probably the physical destruction of the statue itself.
ir z nb wd.t(y).f(y) nkn r twt(.i)
"As for any man who shall inflict damage to (my) image."
(Urk. IV 401.16)
Effacement
Ft: "to erase; delete".
The term is used in the boundary stelae of Amenophis IV
in the sense of "obliterating" an inscription (225). Ft,
however, is especially common in Rameeside graffiti form
Deir-el-Bahari referring to the "erasure" of a person's name
from an inscription.
ir p3 nty iw.f ft rn.i r rdit rn.f

54
"As for the one who shall erase my name in order

to place his name."
(DB 50) (226)
ir p3 nty nb iw.w ft p3 (y.i) rn
"As for everyone who shall erase (my) name."

(DB 51) (227)
ir p3 nty nb iw .f r ft r[n.i]
"Âs for everyone who^ shall erase [my] na[ame]."

(DB 65)(228)
y
ir p3 nty [nb] iw.f r ft n3w ssw
"As for [every]one who shall erase these writings."

(DB 67) (229)
[ir p3] nty iw.f ft rn.i
"[As for the] one who shall erase my name."

(DB 68) (230)
6)
mtw.f ft ssw in.s
"And he erases writings therein it"

(Maspero, Momies Royales, 705)
Nss: "to obliterate'."1
The verb nss occurs in the stipulations of threats of
Tf-ib.i and Hp-Df3 of Siut, and refers to damage to the cult
images of the deceased (231). The example from the tomb of
Puyemre is an Eighteenth Dynasty copy of the Hp-Df3 text.
[n]ss.t(y).f(y)n hnti[w] m [i]zw [nw]tpw-' m zmt nt Z[3]wt

55
"-he who shall [obliterate the images in the [t]ombs

[of] the ancestors in the Necropolis of S[i]ut."
(Siut III 66) (232)
2)
nss.t(y).sn n bntiw.f
"-they who shall obliterate its images."

(Siut I 224) (233)
3)
nss.t(y).sn n hntiw.f
"-they who shall obliterate its images."

(Puyemre, PI.20 ) (234)
Rwi: "remove; erase."
The basic meaning of the verb is "to set aside" "to remove"
"to disperse", and is used in this manner in reference to the
illegal displacement of a statue (#2) (235). It acquires a
sense of "theft" (#4,5), denoting the "removal" of private
property. In # 1 and 2, however, it is virtually synonymous
with ft, "remove" a name, ie. "erase" (236).
i)
ir rwi.t(y).fy rn.i r dit rn.f
"As for he who shall remove my name to place his name."

(Cairo 14/6/24/17 ) (237)
ir p3 nty iw.f rwi [rn] [.i] r dit rn.f
"As for the one who shall remove [my] [nam]e in order
to place his name."
(KRI VI 533.12)
56
ir rmf nb nty iw.f rwi p3y twt for st.f m-ht rnpwt knw
"As for anybody who shall remove this image from its
place after many years."
(KRI VI 844.2-3)
ir i.p3 nty iw.f rwi.t(w).w
"As for the one who shall remove them."

(P. Turin 248.10) (238)
5> Pl—l
rwi.f s(t) hn'.i
"-who shall remove it from me."

(Colophon, P. Bremner-Rhind) (239)
Hd: "to damage; obliterate."
Hd has the general meaning of "to destroy" (240). It is
used in the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom however,
in reference to "damaging" or "obliterating" an inscription,
whether the formal text in a tomb, or private graffiti left
by mining parties to Hatnub (241). In #12 hd has the extended
meaning of "disobeying" ie. "violating" a divine ordinance.
» rÊiLWH]
hd.t(y).f(y)[ss]
"-he who shall damage (its)[writing]."

(Siut III 66) (242)
2)
hd.t(y).sn ss.f
"-They who shall damage its writing."

(Siut I 223) (243)
57
[ir frd.t(y).f(y) nn] hntyw
"[As for he who shall damage these] images."

(Hatnub, Gr. 16) (244)
ir fcd-t(y).f(y) nn hntyw
"As for he who shall damage these images."

(Hatnub, Gr. 19) (245)
ir hd«t(y).f(y) nn
"As for he who shall damage these."

(Hatnub, Gr. 33) (246)
ir hj.t(y).f(y) nn bntyw
"As for he who shall damage these images."

(Hatnub, Gr. 35) (247)
iHtC-U
ir fod.t(y) .f(y) nn
"As for he who shall damage these."

(Hatnub, Gr. 42) (248)
:>1L
[ir grt] hd.t(y).f(y) twt pn
"[Moreover, as for] he who shall damage this image."

(JNES 2Q, 29).(249)
PH£-rs\:>n
[ir] grt frd.t(y) <,fy> twt pn
"Moreover, [as for] <he> who shall damage this image.

(JEA 54,1968,PI.IXA)
58
io) 9-^°]
ir grt frd.t(y) .f(y) rn.i hr twt
"Moreover, as for he who shall erase my name from

the image."
(Hatnub, Gr. 49) (250)
id
ir grt nt(y) nb r frd.t twt pn
"Moreover, as for everyone who shall erase this image."

(Hatnub, Gr. 52) (251)
12) ("I shall offer him up as sacrificial meat-")
n hd ddwt.i
"-for destroying those things which I have said."

(Cairo JE 31882) (252)
hd.sn ss.f
"-They (who) shall damage its writing."

(Cairo 22151) (253)
Zin: "to erase."
Originally meaning "to smear, rub out", zin acquires the
meaning of "erase" and inscription (254). In the Michaelides
example(#2) zin is used in parallel with faj. (see above).
[z] ri"* n.t(y).sn ss im
"-They who shall [era]se this writing here."

(Urk. I 70.17)
sin.t(y).f(y) wd pn
59
"-He who shall erase this inscription."

(JNES 20, 1961, 29)
Theft
If3: "to illegally seize (people); steal."
l£3 is used as a term for "stealing", referring to the
"theft" of private property (255). It also has a meaning of
"to seize" persons by force, hence "abduct"(256). The latter
meaning is attested in mortuary testaments and royal foundations
referring to the illegal removal of cult personnel for other
nitQi HPQG
mtw.f [if3 r]mt im.s r dit.f r ky h3w iw bn sw m

n3 shnw n ipt
"-And he [seizes pejople from it to place him at

another business which is not among the tasks of
the Chapel-"
(Bilgai Stela) (257)
»a : — ' c i i b
c^ i
s
mt(w).f i£3 rmt im.s(n) r dit.f <r> h3w nb n Pr-'3 «/.w-
-hn' sfrn nb s3wy m h'w.f
"-And he seizes people from them to place him în>

any business of Pharaoh- or on any personal tasks
of his own."
Iti: "to illegally take; steal; confiscate (illegally)."
Iti may indicate "theft", such as the removal of tomb

60
property, or else the confiscation of goods as the result
of an illegal claim (259).
i)
[ir zw nb] iji.t(y).sn s(y) m-' '.s-n.k tn
"[As for any men] who shall take it from this

'.s-n.k."
(Urk. I 116.5)
ir zw [nb] iti.t(y).sn h3t tn m-' Ci)
"As for [any] men who shall take this graveshaft

cover from (me)."
(Urk. I 117.5)
[irJ'V* nb iti.t(y).f(y) in(r) m iz (.i) pn
"[As for] any rmari1 who shall seize a stone from

this (my) tomb."
(Urk. I 250.5)
4) —
ir rmt nb iti.t(y).sn ist (,i) nb m 'h3
"As for anybody who shall seize any of (my) property

by force."
(Urk. I 263.9)
h(3).s<n> nb 4r> 3ht <r>iti n3 irw.i h(r)-s3(.i)

im.f hr-tp t3
"-Any who should come down ^to> (this) field în order
to>take these things which I have made therein, after
me, on earth."
(OIM 139443) (260)
h3.s(n) r 3ht tn r iti m-'.w

"-They who shall come down to this field to steal
from them."
(Donation Stela of Necho II) (261) .
61
7) 7?i=s£?i
ifi fat im.f
"Who shall steal property from it"

QJrk. II 21.14)
Ssn: "to tear out; break out."
The term is used as a synonym for i£i, "take, steal" (262).
It has the added implication of damaging property, rather than
simple theft.
ir z nb ssn.t(y).f(y) ht nb m iz(.i) pn
"As for any man who. shall tear out anything from
this (my) tomb."
(Urk. I 219.4)
« ^^ jl_*| °
ir s'h nb sr nb rmt nb ssn.t(y).f(y) in(r) nb dbt nb m
iz(.i) pn
"As for any dignitary, any official, or anybody who shall

tear out any stone or any brick from this (my) tomb."
(Urk. I 260.11-12
3) [Q ^ P I ••
n
[ir z nb ssn.t(y).f(y)] [dbt] m iz(.i)pn
"[As for any man who shall tear out] a [brick] from
this (my) tomb."
(Urk. I 261.6)
ir z nb iti.t(y).f(y) ssn.t(y).f(y) in(r) dbt m iz(.i) pn
"As for any man who shall take or tear out a stone or brick
from this (my) tomb."
(G.2001) (263)
Sdi: "to steal; rob."
The term is used in an Eighteenth Dynasty threat referring

62
to the theft of a cult statue from a tomb (264). The reference
to sdi b3t, lit. "taking away a corpse", probably does not in
dicate the stealing of an embalmed mummy, but rather the pil
ferage of burial equipment wrapped with the corpse (265).
i)
V . .
nty r sdt twt.i m IS.I
"-Who shall steal my image from my tomb."

(Urk. IV 1491.3)
2) —
sd.t(y).f(y) h3t.i
"-He who shall rob my corpse."

(Urk. IV 1491.11)
T3i: "to take; steal."
This is a variant of iti and if3, and is simply used as a
term for stealing property (266).
ir p3 ntyiw.f fc3y n3y inrw i.ir.w wpt.i
"As for the one who shall steal these stones which my
commission has carried out."
(RT 25, 1903, 198)
nty iw.w r t3 nkwt n p3y fant(y)(?) n Wsir
"-They who shall steal the goods belonging to this statue

(?) of the Osirian."
(Cairo 66285) (267)
p3 nty iw t3w.w m-dit.f
"-The one who shall steal them from him."

(Brooklyn 67.118) (268)
63
Embezzlement; Withholding or Suppression (of Funds)
'Isk: "to hinder; withhold; hold back."
The term is used in a testament detailing the provisions
for a mortuary cult. It refers to the "withholding" of goods
designated by the donor for the future maintenance of the
cult (269).
i)
nty
— iw.f r0
isk ht3w.i
"-He who shall hinder my offerings." (Urk. IV 1799.19)
Hb: "to damage; deduct; diminish."
Although the term is used in the sense of physically damaging
a tomb, there may be an implication of the lessening of support
for the care of the cult, rather than merely harm to the physical
structure (270).
i)
hb.t(y),f(y) is(.i)
V
"-He who shall 'damage' (my) tomb."

(Urk. IV 1491.10)
2> nqv©
nty iw.w (r) hb n p3(y).f htp-ntr
"-They who shall diminish his divine endowment."

(Cairo 66285) (271)
3)
p3 nty iw.f (r) hb n p3y hnk Nt
"-The one who shall diminish this offering for Neith."

(Athens Stela) (272)
64
v
S': "to destroy; cut off."
y
The terra.sj_ is used in the Late Period in reference to the
"cutting off" or "destruction" of an endowment (273). It prob
ably has a technical meaning of "dissolving" or "revoking" a
donation to a cult, and is antonymic to mn ("establish, secure")
and its variants (274).
1)
1 J a wi — o
iw p(3) nty s'.f
"-(But) the one who cuts it off."

(Stela from the Mandel Collection) (ex-collection Bailey)(275)
2)
p(3) nty iw.f s'.w
"-The one who shall cut them off."

(UC 14536)(276)
in}ty iw.f s'.f
"-He <w>ho cuts it off."

(Berlin 7780)(277)
4)
4*'
E 1—0
p(3) nty iw.f s'.f
"-The one who cuts it off."

(Berlin 2111)(278)
5)
i(w).f s' s' dt
"-He who ever cuts it off."

(RT 15, 1893, 86)
i(w).f s' s' dt

65
"-He who ever cuts it off."

(Berlin 14998) (279)
Annulment or Suppression of a Claim
Mnmn: "to move; disturb; annul."
The term originally refers to the physical "removal" of/or
"disturbance" to a stela, from which a secondary application
referring to "annulment" of a legal claim arose (280).
ir rmt nb nty iw.sn r mnmn m wd pn
"As for anybody who shall move this stela."

(Louvre C 108) (281)
ir p3 t3ty nty iw.f r [mnmn wd pn] [hr st][.f[
"As for the vizier who shall [move this stela] [from]
(KRI IV 359.5-6)
ac=Lfai
ir p3 nty iw.f mnmn nn ssw m sfn m t3(?) [p]n • •
"As for theone who shall illegally (re)move these

writings from [th]is land (?)."
iw ir p3 nty iw.f mnmn wdt tn
"-But as for the one who shall move this stela."

(Cairo JE 31882 (282)
ir p3 [nty] iw.f mnmn wdt tn ir(t).n.i
"As for the one [who] shall move this stela which I
have made."
(Chronicle of Prince Osorkon) (283)
« [1
[ir p3 nty nb (?)]w mnmn wdt tn
66
"[As for everyone (?)] [who] shall move this stela."

(RT 16,1894,125)
p3 nty iw .f mnmn.f (?)
"-The one who shall move it (?)"

(Kemi 27, 1971, fig 1-2
ir p3 nty iw.f mnmn.w
"As for the one who shall disturb them."

p3 nty iw.f mnmn.w
"-The one who shall disturb them."

(BM 1655) (285)
io) /I — £ 3 a—®c23 °
I I 2 o a i t M * * 1 1 ^ 1 -A X" !• a i J
ir s nbt h3st . . . mnmn sft pn
"As for any foreigner . . . who shall remove this

papyrus."
(Colophon, P. Bremner-Rhind 33-34) (286)
i d — - ^ x
nty (iw).f r mnmn.f
"-He who shall move it."

(Urk II 21.13)
St3: "to drag off; remove; disturb."
The term is synonomous with mnmn. In the Smaller Dakhleh
Stela, it acquires the connotation of "disregarding" or
"annulling" the provisions of a donation (287).
ir p3 nty iw.f st3.f

67
"As for the one who shall drag it off."

(Ash. Mus. 1894.107 b)(288)
Criminal Violation
Hsf: "to oppose; violate."
The term is used in reference to "opposing", ie. "violating"
a decree(289).
w3ww r ksf ddwt.i
"-Who opposes those things which I have said."

(Cairo JE 31882)(289a)
2>
ir hsf w^t tn
"As for he who shall oppose this decree."

(P. Rylands IX, 23)(290)
Hnn: "To interfere with; violate."
The term is used in reference to disputing or violating
the provisions of a mortuary cult(291).
1)
ir z nb hnn.t(y).f(y)
"As for any man who shall interfere(with it)."

(Urk. 130.12)
ir grt hm-k3 rmt nb j}nn.t(y).sn st
"Moreover, as for the mortuary priest or anybody who

shall interfere (with) it."
(Urk. VII 30.2)
In the later Wadi Mia decree of Seti I, hnn is replaced with

68
shnn, "to tear down", ie. "interfere, upset, violate"(292).
ir nswt nb nty r frpr shnn.t(y).f(y) sforw.i nb
"As for any king who shall exist who shall violate any
of my plans."
(KRI I 69.2)
Sbi; "to rebel; participate in a crime."
The term occurs in the inscription of Tf-ib.i (Siut III)
and would seem to have reference to political enemies of the
nomarch who might provoke hostilities in Siut.
1)
ir sbi nb sbi.t(y).f(y)
"As for every rebel who shall rebel-"

(Siut III 65)(293)
Th3/thi; "To transgress; trespass; violate;interfere with."
The term has a wide range of meanings referring to criminal
"violation", and is largely dependant on context(294). It
certainly refers to the commission of some criminal act or moral
wrong(295). Thi is very common in stipulations of threats in the
Third Intermediate Period, and is used in reference to violations
or interference with donations, endowments, and wills.
ir nfrsw nb thi.t(y).fy wd rdi.n n.i it(.i) Imn
"As for any Nubian who shall trespass the stela

which (my) father Amun has given to me."
(Semnah Inscription of Thutmosis I)(296)
ir p3 nty nb r tht h3t.i m hrt-nfr

69
"As for anyone who shall violate my corpse in the

Necropolis.11
(Urk. IV 1491.2)
» 1<=»ra£A<=»j|n$
ir thi r st.i
"As for he who trespasses against my place."

(Urk. IV 1491.10)
ir p3 nty nb iw.f r thi rm£ im.sn
"As for everyone who shall interfere with the people

therein."
(KRI I 69.15)
5) itiXrr. i e — ? ^ f X ^ ^ " 6 •* j °
ir p3 nty iw.f r th3 r t3 'h' s3 dw3
"As for the one who shall violate th(is) tomb-shaft in

the future."
(KRI III 130.9-10)
[ir p3] nty nb i w.f r tht r [. • .]
"[As for] [e]veryone who shall violate [. . .]

(KRI III 341.5)
7)
br ir rmf nb nty iw.f r thi w^t [pn](?)
"And as for anyone who shall damage [this] stela."

(DB 4051)(297)
»
thi k3.i
"-Him who trangresses (what) I plan-"

(Cairo JE 31882)(298)
w3ww r thi wjjt tn hn tp.i im.s

70
"-The one who plots to violate this decree to

which I have approved."
(Cairo JE 31882)(299)
10)
nty iw.w thi.s hr-s3 dw3
"-They who shall violate it in the future."

(Cairo 42208 )
u) rtqy'mf—
nty iw.w thi.s
"-They who shall violate it."

(Cairo 42208 )
»>
p(3) nty iw.f thi p(3)y wd hr st.f
"The one who shall interfere with this stela in its

place."
(RT 15, 1893, 175)
13) û 1 iz! S*—

v
nty iw.w thi.f m-di.f r s3' hfr
"-They who shall contest it from him ever."

(Cairo JE 45327)(300)
[ir sr] nb rm£ nb thi.f htp-ntr [n hnfct n hmt B3st] nb[t]

B3stt
"[As for] any [official] or anybody who shall violate

the divine endowment [of beer on behalf of the majesty
of Bastet] Mistres[s] of Bubastis."
(ASAE 15, 1915, 144)
15)
ir p3 nty iw.f thi [. . .]
"As for the one who shall violate [. . .]"

(RT 35, 1913, 42)
71
ntyiw.w thl.w
"-They who violates them."

(RT 18, 1896, 52-53)
») ixxwtm)
ir p3 th3 [. . .]
"As for (?) the one who violates [. . .]"

(RT 25, 1903, 196)
p3 nty iw.f [r] th3 p3y wd
"The one who [shall] violate this stela."

(Ibid.)
iw in rm£ nb nty iw.w thi.f
"Shall every person who violates it-"

(ASAE 11, 1911, 142)
19a) nty iw.f thi mnw pn
"-He who violates this endowment"

(Ibid.)
20)
nty tw r th3 wdt tn
"-Who violates this decree."

(Cairo JE 30972)(301)
[p3 nty] i(w) thi wd
"[The one who] shall transgress the inscription."

(Cairo JE 45530)(302)
p3 nty iw.f thi p3y 3frt

72
"The one who shall trespass this field."

(New York-Metropolitan Museum 55.144.6)(303)
ir p3 nty iw. f tht wdt tn
"As for the one who violates this decree."

(ASAE 17, 1917, 43)
[ir] p3 nty iw. f [t]h[3] [. . .1
"[As for] the one who shall [t]rans[gress] [. . .]

(IFAO 3886)(304)
iw p3 nty iw.f th3 t3y wd(t)
"-As for the one who shall damage this stela."

(JE 36861)(305)
26) o n sI off
p(3) nt(y) ti p(3) s'nh n3 '3 Wsir
"-The one who shall interfere with the preservation

of the 'doors' of the Osirian."
(Louvve E 10572 = C 297)(306)
Negligence
Wn: "to neglect."
Wn literally means to "hurry, hasten"(307). The term ac
quires the nuance of "to pass by quickly (ie. carelessly)", from
which the meaning "to neglect" derives. In the Will of Hentowe,
wn is used in reference to "neglecting" the codicil of a legal
agreement(308).
iw ir p3 nty iw.f wn [. . .]
73
"As for the one who shall neglect [. . .]"

(Maspero, Momies Royales, 706) (Hentowe, 21)
Bm; "Not to know; not to recognize."
The term literally means "not know" "be ignorant"; it has,
however, a secondary, juridical meaning of "not recognize" the
status or claim of a party(309). In the autobiographical inscrip
tion of the High Priest Amenhotep, it is used in reference to
people who might intentionally neglect or ignore the priest's
achievements made during his lifetime.
1)
mtwf hm irw.i
VI .•••••
"And he does not recognize what I have done."

(KRI VI 533.1)
Sh-hr: "to ignore; to neglect; to be negligent towards."
The primary meaning of the term is "to be deaf to (lit. on
account of)"(310). It is used in reference to criminal negli
gence concerning a legal provision, endowment, or maintennance
of some institution(311).
1)
ir p3 nty nb iw.f sh-hr wdt tn
"As for everyone who shall neglect this decree."

(KRI I 70.3)
2)
mtw.f sh-hr r t3y ipt
"-And he is negligent towards this Chapel-"

(Bilgai Stela)(312)
3)
(nty iw.f) sh-hr.f

74
"(And who is) negligent towards it."

(ASAE 11, 1911,142)
Tm: "'Not to1 (do something)."
Included under the category of "negligence" are those
stipulations formed with negative tm followed by a verbal
complement (313). In such cases, the condition refers to
some violation to which the party is either not an actual par
ticipant, or to some action for which the subject is held
responsible. Such cases are addressed to matters of
conscience and personal integrity.
Protection of Property
Tm mk: "Not protect."
The compound is used in reference to the protection of a
tomb from vandalism or desecration.
1) 1][in]
ir hry-tp nb s3-s nb s'h [nb] nds nb tm.t(y).f(y)
mk [i]zp[n] tin' ntt i[m].f
"As for any official, any citizan, [any] dignitary,

any commoner, who shall fail to protect th[is] [cham-]
ber and its con[tents]."
(Suit III 62-63) (314)
2)
tm.sn mk s£w.f
"-(And) who fail to protect its writings."

(Berlin 19400) (315)
Failure to Prosecute or Report a Crime
In the Nauri decree of Seti I, and the later endowment
made on behalf of Amenophis son of Hapu, are stipulations

75
concerning persons who are aware of violations against an
estate, but either fail to report it or instigate legal proceed
ings against the criminal.
mtw.sn tm p3y hr hrw.f r dit in.tw p3(y).f iry-n-wp

3s r wp.tw.f
"-And they fail to fly on accountof his plea, in order

that his adversary be apprehended quickly, in order that
he be judged."
(KRI I 58.4-5)
2>
mtw.f tm wsb hr.w
"-And he fails to answer on his behalf."

Failure to Maintain a Cult
In the Bilgai stela of Twoseret, there is a reference
to an official's failure to maintain a cult through negligence.
Likewise, in the later decree for Amenophis son of Hapu, parties
failing to tend to the mortuary cult or allowing appropriations
for its festivals are threatened.
r tm dit htp Imn n Wsr-m3't-R'.Stp-n-R' im.s r tnw

fa".f m wpw nb
"-So as to prevent Amun of Userma'atre-Setepenre from

resting therein whenever he appears in any festival."
2> =r£L"ra°—
mtw.w tm nhp hr t3y.f hwt-k3
"-And do not care for his mortuary estate."

76
3)
bn iw.w htm p3y.i m3wd
"-Who does not approve (lit. seal) my appropriations

(ie. support)."
Failure to Demonstrate Piety, Respect
Some texts refer to an individual's failure to invoke
a proper prayer or utter a blessing on behalf of the party
who wrote a graffito or owner of a tomb.
- x nn; i H us-nis-Prr,
•v y
ir [p]3 nty nb iw.f r s n3w ss mtw.f tm dd n
n3 ntrw nbw dsrt fost [n] [i].ir.sn
"As for every[one] who shall read the writings and fails
to say to the gods, the lords of the sanctuary-"Blessings!"-
(db 377.8-12)
[to the one who] made them."
3; joy: iv (320)
2, q o ' g & r . M ' — £ . 5 *

ir p3 nty nb iw.f hr 's n3 ss mtw.f hr dd imm' mry
n p3 ir n3 ss
"As for everyone who reads the writing, and he says-

'^Do noty grant the wish of the one who made the
writings'."
(BD 11) (321)
3) —
ir tm dd nn
"As for the one who shall not say these things (ie. the
offering formula)."
(El-Hasaya inscription of Hnsw-iri-di-sw) (322)
V
Failure to Maintain Borders

77
In the Semnah-Uronarti stelae of Sesostris III, there is
a stipulation directed to future monarchs referring to their
responsibility to defend the southern boundaries of Egyptian
territory.
1)
tm.t(y).f(y) 'h3 hr.f
"He who fails to defend it."

(Setle, Lesestucke, 84.15-16) (323)
Crimes Involving Speech and Intent
Some stipulations refer to violations of a non-physical
nature, such as "perjury" "slander", or intent (conspiracy)
rather than the actual commission of a crime.
'b': "to distort."
Literally meaning "to exaggerate, boast (foolishly)" the
term 'b' is used in reference to the distortion of a person's
claims following his death (324).
hr ir p3 nty iw.f 'b' n3 md[wt] i.dd.i
"And as for the one who shall distort these claims which
I have made (lit. words which I have said)."
(KRI VI 532.16-533.1)
(Iri) pn'yt: "to upset, overturn."
The expression means "to make an overturning; to capsize",
and refers to acts of slander against the reputation of the
deceased. (325)
78
ir swt sbi nb h3k-ib nb ir.t(y).f(y) pny[t] m-[ht]

nn sjlm.n.f
"Indeed, as for any rebel or any disaffected one who

shall make an overturning (ie. slander) in [spite] of
these things which he has heard."
(Siut IV 79) (326)
Mdw m : "to speak against; to dispute."
In the Coronation Inscription of Hatshepsut, the term
is used in reference to "conspiracy" or "plots" against the
king. Elsewhere it has a connotation of "to speak (evilly)
with", ie. "dispute" a person's authority or ownership (327).
i) i ?p]
[mdw.t(y).f(y) m rn n hmt.s]
"[He who shall speak against the name of her

Majesty]."
(Urk. IV 217.16)
ir z nb mdw rn n hmt.s
"As for any man who shall speak against the name of
her Majesty."
(Urk. IV 260.11)
3,
ir p3 nty iw.f hr mdw m p3y ss
"As for the one who disputes this writing."

(P. D'Orbiney 19, 9) (328)
ir p3 nty iw.f r mdt m t3y sb3yt n ss Imn-H'w
"As for the one who shall dispute this instruction of

79
the scribe, Imn-B'w."

(P. Sallier IV 21) (329)
» » f ® is
i rmt nb'nfa niwt nb ntyiw hr-s3.n iw.sn hr mdt m

Imn-m-Ipt mn
"0 every body, every citizen who shall come after us,
who shall speak against a certain Amenemopet."
(Turin Museum Statue) (330)
» •lis.
ir p3 nty nb mdt im.f
"As for everyone who shall dispute it."

(KRI VI 351.15)
ir rmt nb nty iw.f mdt m -di.s
"As for everybody who shall dispute wi th her."

(Cairo Wb.524) (331)
a) sn2,&*yy^s. *.&-<!*"sAOr-E:i.• -iv

H ?* S * r t " . S U 3
rmt nbt n wndw nb n p3 t3 dr.f iw.w n 'h3wt iw.w n hmwt
nty iw.w md nkt nbt n wndw nb i.in.n M3't-k3-R'
"-any people of any sorts of the entire land, be

they men or be they women, who shall dispute' about
any things of any sorts which Ma'kare. . .bought."
(Maspero, Momies Royales, 695) (Ma'kare)
H3p: "to conceal."
The term h3p means "to cover, hide" (332). It is used in
the will of Hentowe in reference to scribes who might conceal
or withhold the testament from the descendants of the deceased (333).
« 7.<=»v't.^§=
ir p3 ss n pr dw3t-n£r n Imn nty iw.f fr3pt t3y wd
r n3w hrdw n fardw n hnt-t3wy
"As for the scribe of the Estate of the Divine

80
Phyle of Amun who shall conceal this decree from

the children of the children of Hentowe."
(Maspero, Momies Royales (706) (Hentowe, 26-27)
K3i: "to plot; to plan."
The term is used in reference to criminal intent, rather
than the commission of a crime itself (334).
1)
k3.t(y).f(y) m [ib].f irt sd-farw [r] i[z] [pn] fan'

ntt im.f
"-(And) who shall plot in his [heart] to commit

'sacrilege' [against] [this] t[omb] and its con
tents."
(Siut III 65) (335)
Dd irm: "to dispute."
Literally "to speak with", (id irm means to "dispute", partic
ularly in the context of illegal litigation. It is used similar
to mdw m (336).
1)
ir rm£ nb nty iw.w dd irm Hnt-t3wy [. . .]
"As for everyone who shall dispute with Hentowe [. . .]."

(Maspero, Momies Royales 705) (Hentowe 12)
Dd fat dw: "to speak an evil thing."
The idiom is used in the Coronation Inscription of
Hatshepsut and has the meaning of "to plot (rebellion)"
"to speak (treason)" (337).
1)
dd.t(y).f(y) ht dw m w3 hmt.s
81
"He who shall speak an evil thing inplotting against

her Majesty."
(Urk. IV 257.5)
Sacral Violations
'k m/r: "to enter into (a tomb in an unclean state)."
This is a common stipulation in threats from the Old
Kingdom (338). It refers to the observation of purity rites
upon visiting the cult of the deceased.
1)
[ir] rmt nb 'k-t(y).sn im.f m 'bw.sn
"[As for] everybody who shall enter into it, in their

uncleaness."
(Urk. I 49.8)
2> 0
ir rm£ nb 'k.ti.sn ir iz(.i) pw m 'b.sn
"As for everybody who shall enter into this (my) tomb in
their uncleaness."
(Urk. I 50.16)
[ir z nb 'k.t(y).f(y) r iz(.i) pn] wnm.n.f bwt
"[As for any man who shall enter into this (my) tomb]
after he has eaten what is forbidden."
(Urk. I 58.7-8)
[ir rm£ nb 'k.t(y).f(y) r iz pn] [m] 'b.f
"[As for everybody who shall enter into this (my)

tomb] [in] his uncleaness."
(Urk. I 90.2)
ir z nb 'k.t(y).f(y) r iz (.i) [pn m 'bw.f]

82
"As for any man who shall enter into [this] (my)
tomb [in his uncleaness]
(Urk. I 122.14)
6) [V^]4jP~
ir rmt nb *k.t(y).sn r iz(.i) pn [m ']b.sn
"As for everybody who shall enter into this (my)

tomb [in] their [unc]leaness."
(Urk. I 142.15-16)
[ir rmt nb 'k.t(y).sn r iz(.i) pn m 'b].sn wnm.n.sn bwt
"[As for everybody who shall enter into this (my) tomb
in] their [uncleaness] after they have eaten what is
forbidden."
(Urk. I 173.10-11)
[ir z nb 'jc.t(y).f(y) r iz (.i) p]n n w'b.n.f [mi w'b.f

n 3h ikr]
[As for any man who shall enter into th]is [(my) tomb]
although he has not purified himself [as he ought to
be purified on behalf of an excellent 3h]."
(Urk. I 195.15-16)
y * 4 P ~ H f . . .
[ir rmt] nb 'k.ti.sn r iz(.i) pn m 'b.sn wnm.sn bwt

. . . n w'b.sn mi w'b.sn n 3b ikr
"[As for] every[body] who shall enter into this (my)

tomb after they have eaten what is forbidden. . .
(and) have not purified (themselves) as they ought
to be purified on behalf of an excellent 3h."
(Urk. I 202.3-5)
io,
ir z nb 'k.t(y).f(y) im zb m-ht nn
"As for any man who shall enter therein being impure(?)
in spite of these things."
(Urk. I 218.12)
83
ii)
*li:.t(y).f(y) ny w'b.n.f
"-And who shall enter into it although he has not

purified himself."
(Urk. I 250.6)
12) 4<=> i^P-fc$ P-J 4®

ir rmt nb 'lj:.t(y).sn r iz(.i) [pn n hrt-ntr m 'bw.sn
wnm.n.sn bwt] ipt. f
"As for everybody who shall enter into [this] (my) tomb
[of the necropolis in their uncleaness, after they have
eaten] those [things which are forbidden]."
(Khentika, B 4-5) (339)
(Iri) sd-hrw; "to commit 'sacrilege'."
Wb. IV 566,3 translates the term sd-fcrw as "Unfug", or
"Unfug stiften (ir)". In his recent treatments of the
Siut texts, Edel has translated iri sd-brw as "feindselige
Akte/Feindseligkeit begehen" (340). He suggested that the
expression is a general term for the committing of a crime
against a tomb, which is subsequently specified in Siut III
66 as erasing or obliterating the inscriptions and statuary
in the chamber itself. The use of the term sd-brw certainly
refers to some sort of misdeed against mortuary property.
Otto, however discussing its later uses, translated it as
"die Stimme erheben", and linked it to faulty moral character-
ization (341). He noted that the epithet sd-t)rw, "the trouble
maker; the loud" was often applied to Seth (342). Te Velde,
likewise commented on the epithet, and emphasized its associa
tion with Seth and his chaotic nature (343).

84
The use of the term sd-hrw as a moral quality, however,
seems to be a secondary development over a considerable period
of time during which the original connection with an offence
against a mortuary cult was lost or muted. As Edel has shown,
the term is elsewhere determined in the Siut texts with ^ ,
implying some sort of "violent" act involving "seizure" or
"assault"(344). By its appearance, sd-hrw is undoubtedly a com
pound. Again, the use of the determinative ^8 suggests
some relation to the verb sd, "take away, remove" with implica
tions of "robbery" or "theft"(395). The second element of the
phrase hrw is in a direct genitive formation, ie. the "theft
of hrw." Although hrw literally means "voice", the stealing
of a person's "voice", especially in a funerary context, does
not make sense(346). Hrw, rather, has an association with the
funerary cult, particularly the "goods" presented on behalf of
the deceased(347). This is best illustrated by the compound
pri-hrw, ie. "coming forth of the hrw", which refers to the
"delivery of necessities" for the deceased's cult(348). The
term sd-hrw would thus seem to be antonymic to pri-hrw, and
indicates the robbery of goods which had been presented to the
dead, most likely the victuals and ointments(349).
i)
irt sd-hrw [r] i[z] [pn] hn' ntt im.f
"-commit sd-forw [against] [this] tomb and its

contents."
(Siut III 65-66)(350)
85
2)
ir.t(y).sn sd-hrw m iz pn
"-Who shall commit sd-hrw in this tomb."

(Siut I 224)(357) "
ir.t(y).sn sd-hrw m is pn
"-Who shall commit sd-hrw in this tomb."

(Puyemre PI.20)(352) °
B. The Injunction
As noted, the injunction of the threat formula contained
the possible consequence of violating the conditions specified
in the preceding stipulation. Therefore, the injunction was
theoretically equivalent to the punitive clause of a legal
statute. Generally, the "threat" invoked, approximated the
legal arrangements regarding prosecution and punishment of
criminals in mundane courts. The dependence upon divine agencies
for effecting the punishment, however, was a significant depar
ture. Indeed, as time progressed, the connection with "juridical"
practices diminished, and the threat became in some instances
more lurid in its imagery. Nevertheless, legal concepts remained
the primary model for the language used in the formulation of
the injunction of the threat in ancient Egypt.
Similar to the treatment of the stipulative clauses above,
the focus of the following discussion is upon the typological
and lexical characteristics of the threat itself. Again, for
convenience sake, the various kinds of punishments are presented
in categories representing the nature of the penalties invoked.

86
Threats Involving Litigation/Judgement
(Iri) iry-(n)-'h3 n: "to be an opponent for; to be a combattant."
Iry-(n)-'h3 lit. means "One involved with battle/conflict",
and refers generally to "one who will contend", ie. a legal
opponent or litigant(353). The use of the term in threats is
confined to the Ramesside Period, and is applied to divine
rather than human parties(354).
ir n.f n3 ntrw n£rwt nbw frwt.i r iry-n-'fr3
"The gods and goddesses, the lords of my Estate,

shall be an opponent to him."
(KRI I 69.15-16)
2)
ir n.f gfrwty iry-'h3wty
"Thoth shall be an opponent to him."

(P. D'Orbiney 19, 10)(355)
ir n.f Dfrwty r iry-'h3wty m-r' n mwt
"Thoth shall be an opponent to him to the limit of

death."
(P. Sallier IV 21)(356)
irt n.f Imn r iry-n-'h3 m snw rmj: nb niwt.f
"Amun shall be an opponent to him as ally of

all the citizens of his city."
(Turin Museum Statue)(357)
5) ° tf%!\ra i*
ir n.f Pth m iry-n-'h3

87
"Ptah shall be an opponent to him."

(DB 50) (358)
ir n.f Imn iry-'h3
"Amun shall be an opponent to him."

(DB 51)(359)
ir n.f. Imn r iry-n-'b3
"Amun shall be an opponent to him."

(DB 67)(360)
(Iri) wp; "(to make) a legal charge."
Although W£ is often translated as "judgement", the term
refers to the formal "division" of claims, or the decision
rendered over conflicting charges(361). Originally applied
to the resolution or determination of claims to inherited
property, w£ is used in a New Kingdom threat in the sense of
"levying" or "making (an opposing) charge"(362).
^ .t a P 7T*I i —
m n3 srw nbw T3-Dsr ir.s(n) wpw.sn frn'.f
"It is all the officials of the T3-Dsr (cemetary)

who shall make their charge with him."
(KRI I 70.4)
Wsb: "to prosecute."
Wsb literally means "to answer" and specifically refers
to the formal arraignment or "prosecution" of a criminal(363).
pr. i: <••??,>!
mk tw.[t]w r w%b. f m Iwmw mntsn d3d3t [. . .]
88
ir.sn wsb hr frt.w
"Behold he shall be prosecuted in Heliopolis.

(For) they are the Tribunal [. . .] (and) they
shall prosecute on behalf of their property."
(KRI I 69.3-4)
Wd' (mdw/'): "to investigate (claims); to litigate."
As Goedicke has demonstrated the term wd' refers not
to "judgement" per se, but rather the judicial process by
which conflicting claims were investigated(364). Thus, compounds
with wd' indicate: the "separating" of complaints, and refer
to "litigation" or "arbitration"(365). Corresponding to
Egyptian legal practices, threats invoking wd' may be divided
into two categories: 1) those involving oral complaints or
pleas (mdw); and 2) the formal depostion of a written claim
or document (_]_)(366)
Wd': "to litigate; to arbitrate."
in nfcr wd'«f
"It is God who shall litigate him."

(Urk. I 23.16)
» q-iunT-f-p
in ntr wd'.f hn' ir.t(y).f(y) fat
"It is God who shall litigate him with the one

who shall do a thing against it."
(Urk. I 226.6)
Wd' mdw: "to litigate an oral complaint,claim."
[wnn wd'-mdw(.i) hn'.sn m bw] wd'-mdw im

89
"[(My) claim shall be litigated with theirs in the

place] wherein litigation is held."
(Urk. I 14.10)
wnn wd'-mdw(.i) hn'.f m bw nt wd'-mdw im
"(My) claim shall be litigated with his in the

place wherein litigation is held."
(Urk. I 34.3)
wnn wfl'-mdw(.i) hn'.f m bw nt wd'-mdw im
"(My) claim shall be litigated with his in the

(Urk. I 49.3)
wnn [wtj']-mdw(.i) [fr][n]'.[s]n m [b] w wd'-mdw im
"(My) claim shall be [liti]gated [witjh [thjeirs in

the [pi]ace wherein litigation is held."
(Urk. I 49.9)
[wnn wd_>.mdw(.i) hn'.f] m bw nt wd'-mdw [im]
"[(My) claim shall be litigated with his] in the

(Urk. I 58.10)
» kAliz:—
wnn wd'-mdw(.i) hn'.f
"(My) claim shall be litigated with his."

(Urk. I 30.13)
9)
wnn wcj'-mdw(.i) hn'.sn hr.s
"(My) claim shall be litigated with his on account of it."

(Urk. I 87.15)
90
10)
wnn wd'-mdw(.i) jm'.s<ri>hr.s in ntr '3
"(My) claim shall be litigated with theirs on account

of it by the Great God."
(Urk. I 51.1)
u)
wnn wd' -mdw(.i) frn'.f in ntr '3
"(My) claim shall be litigated with his by the Great

God."
(Urk. I 72.5)
12) 1)
wnn wd'-mdw(.i) frn'.f in ntr '3
"(My) claim shall be litigted with his by the Great

God."
(Urk. I 73.5)
13) feil-JC-4-1
wnn wd'-mdw(i) hn'.f in n£r
"(My) claim shall be litigated with his by God."

(Urk. I 225.17)
[w]nn wd'-mdw(.i) hn' .sn frr.s in n£r '3 nb wd'-mdw m bw

nt wd' -mdw im
"(My) case [sh]all be litigated with theirs on account of

it by the Great God, the Lord of Litigation, in the place
wherein litigation is held."
(Urk. I 71.1-2)
Wd'-'; "to litigate a written complaint, claim."
i5>
iw r wd'-'(.i) frn'.sn in n£r '3
"(My) claim shall be litigated with theirs by the

91
Great God."
(Urk. I 117.6)
i6> [4-11]
iw r wd'-'(.i) tin'.f [in n£r. '3]
"(My) claim shall be litigated [by the great god]."

(Urk. I 198.7)
iw r wd'-'(.i) hn'.f in n£r '3
"(My) claim shall be litigated with his by the Great

God."
(Urk. I 218.12)
is)
iw r wd'-'(-i) hn'.s<n>in n£r '3
"(My) claim shall be litigated with th<eirs>by the

Great God."
(Urk. I 219.5)
19) 4~1t
iw r wd'-'(.i) hn'.f in nfr '3
"(My) claim shall be litigated with his by the

Great God."
(Urk. I 260.14)
20)
iw wfl'-'(.i) frn' [.f in ntr '3]
"(My) claim shall be litigated with [his by the Great

God]."
(Urk. I 261.6)
21)
iw r wd'~'(<l) hn'.sn in ntr '3 nb pt

92
"(My) claim shall be litigated with theirs by the

Great God, the Lord of heaven."
(Urk. I 116.6)
22 >
iw ^r) wd'-'(.i) hn'.sn in ntr '3
"(My) claim shall be litigated with theirs by the Great

God."
(Urk. I 117.6)
[iw r wd'-'(.i) hn'f. m d3d3t] nt ntr '3
"[(My) claim shall be litigated with his in the

Tribunal] of the Great God."
(Urk. I 196.1)
iw r wd'-'(.i) hn'.sn in n£r '3 nb Imnt[t] m bw nt

m3' im
"(My) case shall be litigated with theirs by the Great

God in the place wherein justice is."
(Urk. I 256.3-4)
i w < r > wd'-'(.i) hn'.sn in ntr ' 3 m hrt-ntr s k m

Imntt
"(My) claim <shall> be litigated with theirs by the Great

God in the Necropolis; indeed (it is) in the West."
(Urk. I 263.10)
It
iw.f r wd'-'(.i) hi;s. in ntr '3
"He shall litigate (my) claim on account of it, (namely)

by the Great God."
(Urk. I 122.16)
A variant to the term wd'-' is the compound with the rare verb
'y, "to have legal title to" (something):(367)

93
27) 18
wnn wd'-'(y).k(wi) frn'.f in n£r '3
"My having legal right shall be litigated with his

by the Great God."
(G. 7710 B)(368)
-a££:--v5vijit
wd'-'(y).k(wi) frn'.f m d3d3t nfcr '3
"My having legal right shall be litigated with his by

the Great God."
(Unas Causeway)(369)
In a threat from the Siut texts of the First Intermediate
Period, the criminal is described as:
29)
dy [r st-wd'wtj
"(One) who is given [in] [to the Place of Litigation]."

(Siut III 70)(370)
M3't: "'Justice'; exoneration."
M3't is usually translated as "Justice."(371) In New
Kingdom texts describing juridical situations, it has the
nuance of to be "(Legally) right"(372). Thus a party granted
m3't was considered "exonerated" or awarded a favorable verdict
in court. Some threats from ancient Egypt invoke the loss of
m3't against a violator. Therefore, such a malediction refers to
the pronouncement of "guilt" upon a criminal.
1)
n(n) 'fr'.f m-b3h Dbwty n(n) tz M3't

94
"Not shall he stand before Thoth: Not shall

there be a verdict of 'Exoneration'."
(Louvre C 108)(373)
[b]n s3y.f hr M3't
"[N]ot shall he be satisfied with M3't."

(KRI IV 359.5-6)
Sdm: "to hear (a plea/verdict)."
Several threats allude to the condemnation of a transgressor,
either by his "hearing" an unfavorable verdict of condemnation,
or by the refusal of a god to "hear" his plea.
n(n) sdm. w wdwt-nswt m wnwt frnn
"Not shall they hear the decision of the king in an

hour of joy."
nn sjm.n.i w3ww r th(i) wdt tn hn tp.i im.s
"Never shall I hear him who plots to violate this

decree to which I have assented."
(Cairo JE 31882)(375)
Terms Referring to Pursuit or Arrest
l£i: "to seize."
I£i means "to grip, seize" often with a connotation of
force(376). It thus acquires the meaning of "to arrest"(377).
It is used in threats from the Old Kingdom which are personal

95
in nature. The wronged party threats "to seize" the criminal's
neck "like a bird's", ie. "by force"(378).
1)
iw(.i) r i£[t £z.f mi 3pd . . .]
"(I) shall seize [his neck like a bird's. . .]"

(Urk. I 90.4)
iw(.i) r ifct[£z].sn mi 3pd
"(I) shall seize their [neck] like a bird's."

(Urk. I 116.7)
[iw.(i) r ifct tzj.f mi 3pd
"[(I) shall seize] his [neck] like a bird's."

(Urk. I 122.15)
[iw(.i)] r itt t[z.sn] mi 3pd
"[(I)] shall seize [their] ne[ck] like a bird's."

(Urk. I 142.17)
» ivl
[iw(.i) r i£t tz.f mi 3pd]
"[(I) shall seize his neck like a bird's]."

(Urk. I 195.17)
[iw(.i) r i£]t.f mi 3pd
"[(I) shall seize] him like a bird."

(Urk. I 202.6)(379)
7) IV
iw(.i) ^r^ i£t j z . f mi 3pd
96
"(I) shall seize his neck like a bird's."

(Urk. I 260.16)
[igr iw(.i) r i£]t £z.f mi [3]pd
"[Further, (I) shall seize] his neck like a [b]ird's."

(Khentika, PI. V(B))(380)
9)
iw(i) r itt [fczj.sn mi 3pd
"(I) shall seize their [neck] like a bird's."

(PSBA 13, 1890, 123)
(Iri) m-s3: "to pursue."
Literally, "to be after", iri m-s3 is used in reference
to divine pursuit of a criminal and his family(381). In a
graffito from Deir el Bahari, the god Osiris is invoked to
pursue the guilty party with "disease".
ir Wsir . . . m-s3.f m-s3 frmt.f m s3 fardw.f
"Osiris. . . shall be after him, after his wife, and

after his children."
(KRI I 58.3)
ir Wsir m-s3.f iw St m-s3 hmt.f iw Hr m-s3 fardw.f
"Osiris shall be after him, while Isis is after his

wife, and Horus is after his children."
(KRI I 70.3-4)
ir Hr nb Mi't m-[s3.f]
97
"Horus, Lord of Miat, shall pur[sue him]."

(KRI III 130.10)
ir Imii-R' nswt ntr(w) m-s3 _40r s3.f ir Mwt m-s3

hmt.f îr^ flnsw m-s3 hrd.f
"Amun-Re, King of the god(s) shall be after him to

repel him, Mut shall be after his wife, and Khonsu
shall be after his child."
(KRI VI 352.1-2)
•=Ml o V^ î5 ra'='<:-0
flc 1(I! 4>>£* S 2_ k i M t: 'ZSfit:

Wsir nb hfr nswt t3wy m s3.f mi(sic) twnw m-s3 hrw
iw Hwt-Hr nb(t) Dsrt m-s3 Iimwt.f iw Ims-grt t3 hnt
Imntt m-s3 hrdw.f
"Osiris, the Lord of Eternity, the King of the Two

Lands, shall pursue him with swellings the day after
tomorrow, while Hathor, Mistress of the Sanctuary,
shall pursue his wives, and Meresgeret, the Mistress
of the West, shall pursue his children."
(DB 3) (382).
fit
4«- i S t *«, •«—

iw Shmt m-s3 hmwt.f iw T3-wrt ^m^ -s3 hrdw.f
"Sekhmet shall be after his wives, and Taweret after

his children."
(DB 50) (383)
iw Mwt m-s3 hmt.f iw Rnsw m-s3 hrdw.f
"Mut shall be after his wife, and Khonsu after his

children."
(DB 67) (384)
98
8) 4^® ,*>->
iw Shmt m-s3 hmwt Nfr-tm m-s3 hrdw
"Sekhmet shall be after ^his*> wives, and Nefertem

after ^.hisV children."
(Cairo JE 45327)(385)
Hbt: "prison."
gbt indicates a place of detention where the criminal is
to be confined pending execution of sentence(386). In
Egyptian threats it has an eschatological reference, and in
dicates a locale in the Netherworld where the condemned await
final annilihation(387).
i)
r rdi.tw.f r bbt dw3t
"-While he is given to the Prison of the Netherworld."

(KRI I 69.5-6)
« A +J
rt[hw(?)] m bbt I3btt m-m fabntyw
"-(While) being conffined] in the Prison of the East

among the Damned."
(RT 16, 1984, 125)
3) c . ©J i n V 0 3
iw.f r bbt n Pwt-Hr
"He shall be to the Prison of Hathor-"

(Cairo 22151)(388)
Snh: "to bind."
In the Decree of Dmd-ib-t3wy , criminals are threatened

99
with "binding" (perf. passive participle snfryw)(389) and
"fettering" (nttyw), as a result of royal and divine condem
nation.
wnn.sn snfry(w) nfty(w) m hrw mdw nw nswt Wsir nw nfr.sn

niwty
"They shall be bound and fettered as under the com

plaint of the King, Osiris, and their local god."
(Urk.I 305.18)
Kis: "to bind."
In the Satrap stela, parties guilty of disturbing an
endowment are threatened with "binding" by the indigenous
gods of Pe(390).
1)
iw.f m kis n imyw-P
"He shall belong to the binding of Those-who-are-in-Pe."

(Urk. II 21.15)
Terms Referring to Condemnation/Criminality
Bwy/bwt: "to abhore, be abominated: abhorrent one."
The verb bwy indicates an expression of "approbation" or
"condemnation" towards a moral outrage(391). It is used in
threats in reference to persons guilty of tomb violation. The
nominal derivative bwt, "abomination" indicates a person or
thing "condemned" or abhorred", usually in a context of a
sacral offense(392).
100
i) [j^hwvig-]
[bwy sw ntr niwty.f]
"[His local god shall abhore him]."

(Siut III 70)(393)
bwy sw tknw.f
"His (own) relatives shall abhore him."

(Siut III 71)(394)
3)
bw sw ntr niwt[y.f]
"[His] loc[al] god shall abhore him."

(Siut IV 80)(395)
[bw] s[w] niwt[(y)w].f
"His (own) townsm[en] shall [abhore] h[im]."

(Siut IV 80)(396)
5) x—
bw.n n£r th(i) rmfc.f
"It is a transgression against his people which God

has abhorred."
(KRI I 69.12)
bwt ntr nb ntr(t) nbt mnmn wd n 3ht
"The abomination of every god and goddess is the

removal of a stela of a field."
(Cairo JE 85647)(397)
gbnty: " condemned, damned one: a criminal."
Hbnty(w) designates persons given a guilty verdict, ie.
have been declared a criminal(398). In threats, the term

101
primarily refers to those condemned to the damnation in the
Afterlife (399).
1) "(He shall be to burning)-
[h]n['] h.bntyw
"[w]i[th] the damned-"

(Siut IV 80) (400)
2) "(They shall be. . .)- Merrill
m-m fonbtyw
"among the damned."

(RT 16, 1894, 125)
3>
hbnt(y) pw sd-hrw
"Damned is he who is 'sacrilegious'."

(Cairo 646)
4) ("He shall be to the conflagration)^'
[h]n' fobntyw
"-[w]ith the damned."

(El-Hasaya inscription of flnsw-iri-di-sw) (401)
gbd: "to hate; a hated one."
Bbd means "to hate", and is derived from older bbfl, "to
be hateful (of character)" (402). The term foM is used in
threats to express divine condemnation, and refers to the
expression of a "guilty" verdict.
i)
wnn.f m kbd n R'
"He shall be a hated one to Re."

(Urk. IV 1491.4)
102
2)
bbd sw k3 n R'
"The k3 of Re shall hate him."

(Urk. IV 1491.12)
3)
bbd sw n£r pn
"This god shall hate him."

(Urk. IV 1800.4)
« v - v \Tn •: v x&t;
iw.f m hbd n n3 ntrw n t3 pt n3 n£rw n p3 t3
"He shall be a hated one to the gods of heaven and

the gods of earth."
iw.f bbd n Pr-Imn Pr-R' Pth Pr n p3 Hk3
"rWhile he is a hated one to the House of Amun, the

House of Re, (and) Ptah, and the House of the Ruler."
(Cairo JE 85647) (404)
flfty: "enemy."
gfty refers to an "opponent", and possible indicates an
"enemy" of equal juridical status (405). The use of the term
in a threat from the Siut inscriptions refers to a person denied
a ritual burial among his peers.
» MKjSiK—ili-l'"
[i(w)].f [r] bfty [n] 3frw
"He [shall be] an enemy [to/for] the 3hw (ritually buried

dead)."
(Siut III 68) (406)
103
flrwy: "enemy."
Hrwy literally means "one who ought to fall", being a
perfective participle of the verb £r, "to fall" (407). The
latter has a juridical meaning of "to fall (to condemnation)(408).
It is used in this sense in threats referring to capital punish
ment:
a) far.sn n dsw n Hr imy S3twt
"They shall fall to the knives of Horus who is in S3fwt."(409)
b) for. s[n] n dnd n Qliwty
"Th[ey] shall fall to the fury of Thoth-" (410).
c) iw.f fcrw n p(3) nmt n Sfamt
"(While) he is fallen to the Slaughtering-block of

Sekhment " (411).
The derived participle is used in a similar manner in a threat
expressing condemnation by the god Osiris in the Afterlife:
st frrwy n Wsir nb 3bd(w) fcn' s3 n s3.f hfr jt
"He and the son of his son forever, eternally, shall be

an enemy to Osiris, Lord of Abydos (lit. one whom
Osiris. . . shall overthrow)."
(Ash. Mus. 1894.107 b) (412)
Hr(y): "to be under; one under (a sentence)."
The prepostion ]jr lit. "under" has a juridical usage
referring to "being under" a punishment, ie. sentenced (413).
In threats the nisbe hr(y) is used in a compound, "one under"
(something), denoting a criminal sentence.

104
o*
» feK. ©'
wnn.sn. . . m hrw mdw nw nswt Wsir nw nfr.sn niwty
"They shall be. . .as one under the complaint of the

king and Osiris and their local deity."
(Urk. I 305.18-306.1)
2>
ti't.f nbt 3bb m t?r(y) 'b
"(While) all his limbs are joined with one under

condemnation."
(Cairo JE 31882) (414)
bpr.f m frr(y) jww
"He shall become as one under wrongdoing."

(Cairo JE 31882) (415)
« 4-pc2]®»—
ksf p[w] br.f
"A violator i[s] under it (ie. punishment by fire)."

(RT 16, 1894, 125)
Sbi: "criminal."
Sbi refers to persons who have participated in criminal
activity, and seems to have a particular reference to "treasonous"
activities (416). It use in a threat from the Twenty-Sixty
Dynasty simply denotes a "criminal". The specification of the
term as n ntr '3, "(criminal) to/for the Great God" suggests
some link to a sacral offence.
1)
sbi pw n ntr '3

105
"He is a criminal to the Great God."

(Donation Stela of Necho II) (417)
Terms Referring to Sentencing/Punishment
Iri phw n: "to condemn, to sentence (someone) to death."
As Goedicke has shown, the term iri phw n means "to
make an end to" someone (418). In an Old Kingdom text cited
by Goedicke, the expression follows a description of litigation
before a divine tribunal, thereby denoting the sentence reached
by the court (419). He therefore suggested that iri phw n
meant something like "to pass a death sentence upon" a
guilty party.
1)
ir n.f pjiw hr.s
"An end shall be made for him on account of it."

(G. 2001) (420)
Bsf; "to punish; to expel (someone from office)."
Bsf primarily means "to oppose" "drive off" or "expel" (421).
The latter meaning is attested in a threat from Hatnub refer
ring to the expulsion of heirs from their "office" or position
(422). The idiomatic expression j^sf_n, "to punish" is well attest
ed in the Hatnub texts, denoting divine condemnation (423).
1)
in n£rw nw Wnwt [hsf.sn n.f]
"It is the gods of the Hare nome [who shall punish

him]."
(Hatnub Gr. 16) (424)
106
in njrw nw Wnwt bsf.sn [n.f]
"It is the gods of the Hare nome who shall punish

[him]."
(Hatnub Gr. 19) (425)
3)
in n£rw nw Wnwt bsf.sn n.f
"It is the gods of the Hare nome who shall punish him.
(Hatnub Gr. 35) (426)
4)
in Dhwty bs[f] [n.f]
"It is Thoth who shall puni[sh] [him]."

(Hatnub Gr. 42) (427)
» M.:.: b
in ntrw nw Wnwt fasf.sn hrdw.f (?) m i3t.f m-s3 mwt.f
"It is the gods of the Hare nome who shall expel his
children (?) from his office after his death."
(Hatnub Gr. 49) (428)
i[n] [Bfrwty nb] gmnw i[n] 'nty nb [Trty hs£» sn n.f]
"I[t] is [Thoth, lord of] Hermopolis and i[t] is 'Anty

lord of [Tjerty who shall punish him]."
(JNES 20, 1961, !29 )(429)
We also have the following variant from Hatnub in which frsf
"to punish" is replaced with hd, "destroy":
in Dhwty hd.f sw
"It is Thoth who shall destroy him."

(Hatnub Gr. 33) (430)
107
Terms for Killing/Execution
Mwt: "to die; death."
In the Coronation Inscription of Hatshepsut, conspirators
against the queen are threatend with death.
1)
swt mwt.f
"It is he who shall (surely) die."

(Urk. IV 257.15)
2)
dd ntr mwt.f hr-'
"Immediately, God shall cause his death."

(Urk. IV 260.12)
(See also below under "Death by Hunger and Thirst")
Hd: "to destroy."
See above under bsf.
Hdb: "to kill."
gdb originally refers to killing or "cutting down" an
enemy in battle (431). It acquires, however, the general sense
of "to kill" (a person), with a particular reference to
"execution", ie. "(legally) killing" a criminal. The word
is very common in threats of the Third Intermediate Period,
especially those delivered by a deity during oracular
"consultation".
1)
iw.k ffo.f iw.k hdb.f

108
"Will you destroy him, will you kill him?"

(Louvre (256) (432)
[ijw.tn hdb.w
"You shall kill them."

iw.n fadbw rmf nbt 11 wn^w nbt n p3 t dr.f
"We shall kill any people [of] any sorts of the entire
land."
(Maspero, Momies Royales, 695) (Ma'kare, 7)
p3(y.i) nb nfr iw.k hbd p3 '3 n ms'w
"0 my Good Lord, will you kill the chief of they army-?"
(Cairo JE 66285) (433)
mtw.k hdb nty iw.w th(i).s
"And kill them who violate it."

(Cairo 42208)
6,
p3y.i n nb nft iw.k hdb rmt nbt dw nb n p3 t3 sjr.f
"0 my Good Lord, will you kill every evil man of the
entire land-?"
(Cairo JE 45327) (434)
iw.n fadb 'h3 nb st-hmt nb
"We shall kill every male and every female-"

(Turin Museum 3 (1985) Recto 63-64) (435)
109
Sk: "to destroy."
The verb sk simply means "to destroy" and is used in
threats referring to the destruction of transgressors by
the gods.
iw ntr r db3 n.f m skt hnt (y).f tp-t3
"God shall repay him by destroying his image one

earth."
(Cairo 14/6/24/17) (436)
sk s(w) B3st '3(t) nb(t) B3st(t) dt frfr
"Bastet, the Great, Mistress of Bubastis, shall destroy

him forever, eternally."
(Berlin 8439) (437)
Terms Referring to Premature Death
'h'; "lifetime."
Some injunctions simply refer to the denial of a criminal's
"lifetime", denoting his" span of years."
nn fepr 'h'.f hr-tp t3
"Not shall his lifetime on earth come about."

(Urk. IV 402.2)
2>
irw.w 'h'.f tm-wnw
"His lifetime shall be made non-existent."

(Cairo JE 85647 ) (438)
Bb: "to cut off (a lifetime)."

110
Hb means to "diminish" (see above) and is used in threats
with the sense of "shortening" a person's lifetime. In such
cases, the cause of premature death is ascribed to divine
intervention.
i)
hbt Imn 'h'.f hr-tp t3
"Amun shall cut off his lifetime on earth."

(KRI VI 533.13)
wnn.f m |)b n Imn nb nswt t3wy
"He shall be as one cut off by Amun, Lord of the

Thrones of the Two lands."
3) —SsQP-—4SE
bb.w n3y.f itw
"They shall cut off his moments."

iw Hr-Mrty hb pt.f hb 'h'.f hmt.f hrdw.f
"Hr-Mrty shall cut off his 'heaven', his lifetime, his

wife and his children."
(Louvre E 10572 = C297) (441)
S'nd ('nd): "to shorten, lessen; (to be shortened) (years)."
Parallel to threats with the verb fcb are maledictions
employing the verb s'nd, "to make less, shorten" (442), and
the simplex 'nd, "be less(ened)." (443) The term is used with
rnpt "years" as object, and refers to the termination of a
natural lifespan.
Ill
Wsir ntr '3 hr s'nd rnpwt
"Osiris, the Great God is shortening the years-"

(RT 16, 1894, 125)
a s((l
'nd rnpwt ^.f ^
His^years shall be shortened."

(Cairo 646)
Reference to Death by Hunger, Thirst, or Disease
In the Ramesside and Third Intermediate Periods, trans
gressors are threatened with death by hunger (hlcr), thirst
(ib), or disease/affliction (i3dt) (444).
hfcr.f ibf g3b.f i3dt.f
"He shall hunger, thirst, grow weak, and be afflicted."

(KRI VI 352.2)
2) ^ ^
mwt.f n frfcr n ib
"He shall die of hunger of thirst."

(KRI VI 884.3-4)
ib[w].f. . . wn [m 3]dt rmt nb
"He shall thirst . . . being [as an a]fficted one to

all people."
(DB 4051) (445)
till 01 i i VK^ i i i
hfcrw.w n(n) t mwt h't.sn
112
"They shall hunger without bread, and their limbs shall

die."
In the Apanage stela, violators of the will are condemned to
death by affliction and disease:
5)
iw.f m 'k n dt
"He shall be as one perishing in body."

(Cairo JE 31882) (447)
6)
iw.f ^mV tp r t3 hr st-''wy.i
"He shall be as head to the ground under my influence."

(Cairo JE 31882) (448)
The expression tp r t3 in #6, refers to a person "contorted"
(with illness), and indicates someone in the "throes of death".
Terms Referring to "Physical" Punishment
Divine Wrath
B3w: "power; wrath (of a deity)."
B3w indicates a god's wrath, and refers to a manifestation
of divine "power" (449).
b3w.k r.f n£r (r)-mitt
"Your wrath be against him, 0 god, likewise."

(P. Berlin 9010) (450)
2)
iw.f m b3w n Imn n Wsr-M3't-R'-Stp-n-R'

113
"He shall belong to the wrath of Amun of Wsr-M3't-R'-

Stp-n-R'."
— = '%•—332
iw.f m b3w Imn Mwt Hnsw
"He shall belong to the wrath of Amun, Mut, and Khonsu."

(KRI VI 844.3)
hisp
iw.tn ir.tn (?) b3w dns r.w
"Shall you exercise great impressive wrath against them-?"

iw.n ir n3y.n b3w '3w dns mnw r.w
"We (sic) shall exercise our(sic) great impressive wrath

against them."
(Maspero, Momies Royales 695) (Ma'kare, 6;8)
iw.w [m b3w p3y ntr '3] Mwt [Hnsw]
"They shall [belong to the wrath of this Great God(?)] Mut,

[and Khonsu]."
(Maspero, Momies Royales 695) (Ma'kare, 8 )
wn.f nm wfod.f b3w n dd.i
"Who shall endure the wrath of my giving?"

(Cairo JE 31882) (452)
b3w Nt bpr r.f r nhfr dt
"The wrath of Neith shall be manifested against him

forever eternally."
(Athens stela) (453)
114
fl'r: "to rage."
B'r indicates a show of "fury, rage." (454)
iw. i r fr'r hr-' r th(i) k3.i
"I shall rage immediately against him who violates what

I have planned-"
(Cairo JE 31882) (455)
Dnd/Dndn: "Fury, wrath."
The terms dnd (dnd) and its later reduplicated form, dndn,
refer to divine "wrath" or "fury". (456)
i) %%
far.sfn] n dnd n Dhwty
"Th[ey] shall fall to the fury of Thoth-"

(Siut I 224) (457)
2> ^rr, ^
hr.sn n d[n]d n Qhwty
"They shall fall thef[u]ry of Thoth-"

(Puyemre PI.20) (458)
3)
d3.n Imn-(m)-Ipt '.f r.sn m irw.f n dnd
"(Those) against whom Amun-(em)-Opet has extended his

hand in his form of the Raging One-"
(RT 16, 1894,125)
4) CS»
iw.f ln> dndn n ntr.f niwt
"He shall belong to the fury of his town god."

(El Hasaya inscription of flnsw-iri-di-sw) (459)
115
5) ^=22^1*ISTSI
iw.f m dndn n imyw Dp
"He shall belong to the fury of Those-who-are-in-Dep."

(Urk. II 21.16)
Fire, Flame
A common punishment invoked in Egyptian threats is the
utter destruction of the criminal by fire. Fire, likewise, is
a common metaphor for "fury" or "retribution" (460). Listed
below are some of the more common terms used in Egyptian threats
associated with the concept of "fire" or "burning".
3j?t: "(glowing) fire." (461)
i)
n 3 ht wnm.s 't.f
"-For the (glowing) fire shall surely consume his limbs."

(KRI I 69.11)
swn n hh n 3fat
"-Being afflicted with the (glowing) fiery flame-11

(ASAE 11, 1911, 142)
'3y "burning fire; conflagration."
'3y is derived from ^_3, "great", and indicates a "confla
gration" (462).
di.f st m '3y n nswt n hrw sknd.f
"He shall place them in the conflagration of the King

on the day of his destructive wrath."
116
'fow: "(glowing) fire (of a coal basin); furnace."
'bw represents a structure such as a "coal-basin", perhaps
a "furnace" in which the condemned are consumed (464).
1)
iw.f n 'b(w) n Wsir
"He shall belong to the fiery furnace of Sekhmet."

(P. Rylands, IX 23) (465)
Wnm/wnmyt; "to consume (by fire); devouring flame."
wnm, literally means "to eat", "consume", and is used to
describe the destruction of a corpse by fire (466). Likewise,
wnmyt indicates the "devouring, (all)-consuming flame." (467)
1)
pr.f n wnmwt
"His house shall be to the devouring flame."

(Siut III 71) (468)
2)
skm iwf.w wnm.s h't.w
"Their flesh shall be consumed, and it (fire) shall

devour their limbs."
3)
krs.tw.f m wnmyt
"He shall be buried in the devouring flame."

(Cairo JE 85647) (470)
(See also above under 3fjt,#l)
Bhfaw: "flame; fire."
Bfofrw describes a "flame"; it is often used in reference

117
to the hell-fire of the Netherworld (471)•
i)
st m bhk(w) tp sp.f
"He belongs to the flame on his lips."

(RT 16, 1894, 125)
Pst: "burning; cooking."
Pst refers to "cooking", and is often a term for "baking"
foods in an oven (472).
1) 1' 1
iw.f r pf[s]t[fr]n['] hbntyw
"He shall be to the bur[ning] [w]it[h] the damned."

(Siut IV 80) (473)
Nbit: "flame."
Nbit is used in threats in reference to "fire" "flame" of
divine origin. The term itself may be derived from nbi, "to
smelt", thus indicating an extremely hot flame by which ore is
processed.
1) •s1—
sh[m].n nbit im.f n Mwt
"-He whom the flame of Mut has overwhe[lm]ed."

'g.n.f st m nbit [n Mwt (?)]
"(After) he has roasted them in the flame [of Mut(?)]."

(RT 16, 1984, 125)
118
Nsrt: "fiery flame."
Nsrt denotes a flame or fire, sometimes of divine origin
(475).
1)
iw.f n nsrt
"He shall belong to the fiery flame-"

(KRI I 69.10)
Hh; "flame; glowing fire."
Hh refers to a flame that has been intensified by the
breath; perhaps a "scorching flame" heated up by bellows (476).
hh.s m-s3.f
"Her flame shall pursue him."

(Cairo Wb.524) (477)
iw.f hh Sfomt
"He shall belong to the flame of Sekhmet."

(Ash. Mus. 1894.107b) (478)
3)
iw.f n hh Sbmt

(ASAE 17, 1917, 43)
4,
v
smi.f r hh n r3 n Sbmt
"He shall go to the flame of the mouth of Sekhmet."

119
5) rara^«
iw.f n hh n Sfamt

(Urk. Ill 107.2-3) (480)
6)
Iw.f hh Shim(t)
"He shall<belong to>the flame of Sekhmet."

(P. Turin 248-10) (481)
7)
iw.f [n] hh Shmt
"He shall [belong to] the flame of Sekhmet."

(Louvre E. 22036) (482)
s) rara^>-^f
iw.f hh n Shmt smm n B3stt
"He shall belong to the flame of Sekhmet and the heat

of Bastet."
(BM 1655) (483)
9) = r a r a ^¥J&lsS
r iw.f m hh Wp-t3wy hrw nsn.s
"He shall belong to the flame of Wep-tawy on her day

of raging-"
(Urk. II 21.17)
(See also above under 3fot.)
Snwh/snwht: "to burn up"; "conflagration."
Snwfa is used in reference to burning up "fats" and "resins",
for medicinal purposes (484).
i) ^"'SÂrF.r^TF.
snwfa.sn h'w.sn
120
"They shall burn up their limbs."

(KRI I 69.4)
V
Sw . . . hr nhd.s r h'w»f snwfat
"(while) Shu ... is dispersing it against all his

limbs, (namely) a conflagration-"
(Cairo JE 31882) (485)
Sdt: "fire; flame."
Sdt refers to a "fire" possibly a "coal-fire"; it is the
most common term for "hell-fire" (486).

Jit
dsr.sn mi bs(i) n sflt
"They shall be red like the fiery flame."

(KRI I 69.4)
a 4V—
iw.f n sdt n Wr[t]-ff[k3w]
"He shall belong to the burning of the Grea[t]-of-M[agic]."

(Cairo JE 45530) (487)
Sfflm: "heat."
Smm refers to "heat" from various sources, such as the
"sun's heat"; the "heat of summer" (488). It also refers to
the heat from smelting, and is very common as a description
of "fever" (489).
(See above under hh,#8.)
Tk3: "flame, fire; to burn up."

121
Tk3 indicates a flame from a torch or taper (490).
[h']w[.s]n r tk[3] [fr]n' bbntyw
[Thjeir [limjbs shall be to the fir[e] [w]ith the

damned."
(Siut III 65) (491)
tk(3).s h'w.f
"It (flame) shall burn up his limbs."

(KRI I 69.11 )
bs hrt.f tk(3) r wpwt.w
"His uraeus shall spit fire at their brow."

(British Museum 138 ) (492)
iw.f t[k(3)] [h]n' hbntyw
"He shall be £to> the f[ire] [w]ith the damned."

(El Hasaya inscription of gnsw-iri-di-sw) (493)
Terms Referring to Knives, Blades, Cutting
Another common type of threat is the invocation of the
"knife" or "blade", of some authority, usually the king or a
deity, in order to execute a criminal.
'dt: "knife; blade."
'dt refers to a "blade" by which an enemy is sacrificed (494).
As Zandee has noted, the term refers to an especially "bloody
punishment" (495).
122
iw.sn n 'dt nt sr3 w hmw bit(y) imyw hwt-wrwt
"They shall belong to the knife of the judges and

servants of the bit(y) who are in the Courts."
(Siut I 224 )(496)
iw.sn n 'dt nt sr3w hmw bit(y) imyw hwt-wrwt
"They shall belong to the knife of the judges and

servants of the bit(y) who are in the Courts."
(Puyemre, PI.20) (497)
Nmt: "slaughtering-block."
The nmt is the block on which an animal was sacrificed (498).
In mortuary literature, it is used to describe a place of execu
tion for the damned (499).
» (4.V.
(iw.sn. . . ) n nmt n Sfamt
("They...shall belong...) to the slaughtering-block of

Sekhmet."
(Cairo JE 31653) (500)
iw.f farw n p(3) nmt n Sfamt
"(while) he is fallen to the slaughtering-block of

Sekhmet."
(RT 15, 1893, 175 )
n fr3t.sn r nmt shmt
"-of those (whose) corpse shall be to the slaughtering-

block of Sekhmet."
(RT 16, 1894, 125)
123
flsk: "to cut off; to behead."
Hsjc is a term used for "beheading", a method of execution
designated for foreign enemies of the king (501). This suggests
that the punishment was used for persons who had no legal status
within society. Indeed, mortuary texts portray beheading as a
punishment reserved for the most despicable criminals, ie. those
destined for total annihilation (502). Thus, the threat of
beheading probably carried an implicit warning of a loss of
ritual burial as a result of mutilating the body.
hslji.w tp.f hh <m> is.f
"His head shall be cut off, being searched for in

his tomb."
(Cairo JE 85647 ) (503)
2) ("The Ram of Mendes. . . shall slaughter him-")
m hskt tp.f
"-by cutting off his head."

(Brooklyn 67.118) (504)
* >>
S'/S'(t): "to cut off; slaughter"/"knife; blade."
v
S^_ is a common term for "cutting off" a criminal (505);
of else the instrument, "cutting-knife" by which the object
of the threat is to be killed (506).
iw.w n [s']t n Nb t3wy

124
"They shall be to the [knif]e of the Lord of

the Two Lands."
(Cairo JE 31653) (507)
2)
frr. f n s't n Imn-R'
"He shall fall to the knife of Amun-Re."

iw B3-nb-Ddt ntr '3 nb 'nfo H3t-mhyt Hr-p3-hrd s'.f
"Banebdjed, the Great God, the Lord of Life, H3t-mhyt,

and Harpocrates shall slaughter him-"
(Brooklyn 67.118) (509)
V
iw.f n [s]' n nswt nfct
"He shall be to the [knif]e of the mighty king."

(RT 15, 1893, 175)
5) [^5?£U—
[iw.f] sin n s3' s' nswt
"[He shall] go to the knife of the king."

(IFAO 3886) (510)
« 2
iw.f r s' n nswt
"He shall be to the knife of the King."

(New York-Metropolitan Museum 55.144.6) (511)
7)
[i]rw1.f s' n Pth-Skr
"He [shall be] to the knife of Ptah-Sokar."

(Cairo JE 36861) (512)
Imn-R' bnty hwt-ntr[w] hr (?) sw

125
"Amun-Re, the Resident of the Divine Estates is

slaughtering him."
(Cairo JE 36861) (513)
iw.f n s'yw m d3d3t '3t
"He shall belong to the 'destruction' (lit. those

who have been slaughtered) in the Great Tribunal-"
(P. Rylands IX 23) (514)
10)
iw.f n s't Imn-r' Ptfr
"He shall be to the knife of Amun, Re, and Ptah."

(P. Turin 248.10) (515)
u)
iw.f s' n B3stt
"He shall be to the knife of Bastet."

(Louvre E 22036) (516)
12i ^ Ac. ^
I—0 i —t D —
s'.f <n>ty iw.f s'.f
"He shall slaughter him <w>ho shall cut it off."

(Berlin 7780) (517)
is)
s'.f p(3) nty iw.f s'f
"He shall slaughter the one who shall cut it off."

(Berlin 2111) (518)
14)
s'.k [p(3) nty (?)]iw.f s'.f

126
"You shall slaughter [the one (?)] who shall cut it off."
(Cairo JE 72038) (519)
15)
s'.k i(w).f s' s(3)' dt
"You shall slaughter [the one] who shall cut (it) off
forever."
(RT 15, 1893, 86)
16)
s'.k i(w).f s' s(3)' dt
"You shall slaughter (the one) who shall cut (it) off
forever."
(Berlin 14998) (520)
17, [4*1—
[iw.]f s' p(3) nty iw.f r s'.f s3' jt
"He [shall] slaughter the one who shall cut it off

forever."
(Moscow 18479) (521)
S'd/S'd(w): "knife; to cut off; to slaughter"/One (who ought
to be) slaughtered.11
Both nominal and verbal (participial) forms of the word

V V
s d appear in Egyptian threats. S'd itself is synonomous with
s'(t) (522). Indeed, the terms are virtually identical, with
simply an interchange of the dentals t/d in the orthography.

V V
Besides indicating a "physical" execution, s'(t)/s'd also
expresses a concept of "terror" or "fright", which is the
psychological reaction to a manifestation of divine or royal
power (523).
,L v <s>s O cSV „
) o. c.
ir.tw s'd.f
127
"One shall make his slaughter."

(DB 4051) (524)
2)
iw.fc s'd rn.w n p3 t3 drw.f
"Shall you cut out their names from the entire land?"
(Cairo JE 45327) (525)
iH
fapr.w r s'd n Hwt-Hr
"They shall be to the knife of Hathor."

(Cairo JE 30972) (526)
fapr.f m s'd nswt
"He shall become as one (ought to be) slaughtered

by the king."
(Cairo JE 85647 ) (527)
5>
iw.f^n) ils'd Imn-R'
"He shall(,belong to)the knife of Amun-Re."

(ASAE 17, 1917, 43)
iw.ffrps'd n Imn-R'
"He shall^belong to)the knife of Amun-re."

(Ash. Mus. 1874, 1076) (528)
7) 3iS;-ee
iw.f n s'd n Imn-R'
"He shall belong to the knife of Amun-Re."

(Urk. Ill 107.2-3) (529)
8)
s'd s3.f s3t.f hr-tp t3

128
"His son and his daughter shall be cut off on earth."

(Donation stela of Necho II) (530)
Ths: "slaughtered; killed."
In a threat from a Twenty-Sixth Dynasty tomb from El-Hasaya,
the term tfas replaces the more usual s'(t)/s'd. Tfos is a late
word, used primarily in reference to the slaughtering of animals
in ritual sacrifice (531). It also is employed to describe the
killing of Seth, in his role as agent of chaos (532).
i)
(iw.f [n]). . . tbsw nt nswt
"(He shall [belong to]). . . the slaughtered ones of

the king."
(El-Hasaya inscription of flnsw-iri-di-sw) (533)
Dm: "knife."
Dm indicates an extremely "sharp" or "honed" knife used
in sacrificial killings (534). The use of the term in a threat
from the decree for Amenophis son of Hapu refers to the annihi
lation of the condemned in the Afterlife.
1)
iw.w n dm hrw skyw
"They shall belong to the knife on the day of

destruction."
(British Museum 138 ) (535)
Dn: "to cut off (a head)."
Dn is synonomous with frsk (see above). The term is used

129
to describe the "beheading" of enemies of the king or gods (536).
It is used on a "boundary-stone" of Thutmosis I in a threat
against Nubians who might trespass the border.
i. * <—D
dn tp[.f]
"[his] head shall be cut off-"

(Semnah Graffito of Thutmosis I) (537)
Ds: "knife; cutting."
Ds refers to an instrument of torture, and often appears
in an eschatological context in connection with demons who
might way-lay the dead as he travels through the Netherworld (538).
iw.f n ds n hnbw
"He shall belong to the knife of the slaughterers."

Other Terms for Instruments of Punishment
>_b: "horn."
The invocation of the '_b_, "horn" of a god as a weapon employs
the iconographic features of divinities. Thus, Hathor and Amun
who are depicted, respectively, as a cow and ram, are called
to rend open their victims with their sharp horns.
1)
di.s 'bw.s st im.f

130
"She shall place her horn in him."

(Cairo Wb. 529) (540)
n(n) sfh 'b.k im.w n dt iw.f n . . . nty iw.w th(i).s
"May your horn never be .loosed from them. It shall

belong to . . .them who violate it."
(Cairo 42208)
V
Ssr: "arrow; shaft."
v
Ssr, "arrow" or some weapon having a long "shaft",
appears in threats of the Twenty-Second Dynasty (541). The
term is most likely a metaphor for "destruction" or "death".
iw.i r mddt ssr.i far imy-st-' ^.f^
"I shall plunge my arrow deep into £his> assistant."

(Cairo JE 31882) (542)
m-fat wd.k ssr.k sdb.k r.sn r sk 'nfa.sn
"After you put your penetrating arrow into them in

order to destroy their life."
(Cairo 42208)
s3 Wsir m faps.f l<:n mdd n(3)y.f [ssrw r.sn (?)]
"The son of Osiris with his valiant arm shall plunge

his [arrows into them (?)-]"
(RT 16, 1894, 125-126) (543)
Animals as Punishing Agents
'3: "ass; donkey."

131
The ass is well-known as the Sethian animal, and therefore
represents "chaos" (544). Janssen posited a similar role for
the animal in maledictions (545). Bakir, however, suggested
that the coarse imagery of sexual assualt by the beast was
used to stress the severity of punishment (546). The latter
explanation seems more likely, and there is no need to see
some oblique reference to Seth and his cult, in such threats.
The maledictions in which an ass is invoked, primarily refer
to the destruction of the family through the most vile method
imaginable. This is especially evident in the later variants
from the Twenty-Second through Twenty-Fourth Dynasties, where
the initial reference to assault by the animal is accompanied
by a wife's molestation of her children.
1)
nk sw '3 nk '3 bmwt ^.f y
"An ass shall assault him, and an ass shall molest

his wives."
(DB 11) (547)
^^C
^ ^C381®^ P,2
nk sw '3 nk '3 hmt.f
"An ass shall assault him, and an ass shall molest

his wife."
(RT 25, 1903, 198)
3)
nk sw '3 nk '3 bmwt.f
"An ass shall assault him, and an ass shall assault

his wife."
(KRI VI 738.1-2)
132
4) ^ rt
nk '3 hbs.f
"An ass shall assault his concubine-"

(Strassburg 1379) (548)
5) .. • $... £ JPAIjj*—
. . . nk sw '3 . . . nk '3 frbs.f
. . a n ass shall assault him. . . an ass shall

assault his concubine."
(El 25, 1903, 196)
6) Q ®
nk '3 hmt.f
"An ass shall assault his wife-"

(Brooklyn 67.118) (549)
7)
nk.f '3 nk '3 frmt.f
"He shall assault an ass, and an ass shall assault

his wife-"
(Cairo JE 85647) (550)
8) f" C- ^"*=> Q 1 2 f—^ Q' - y—
nk sw '3 nk '3 hmt.f
"An ass shall assault him, and an ass shall assault

his wife-"
(Ash. Mus. 1894.107b) (551)
nk s(w) p3 '3 nk p3 '3 hmt.f hrdw.f
"The ass shall assault him, the ass shall assault

his wife and his children."
flf3/hms: "serpent/crocodile."
133
The "serpent" and "crocodile" are creatures invoked in
threats towards persons guilty of damaging mortuary property (553).
The reference to the pair of animals has implications for the
denial of a ritual burial, and the destruction of the criminal's
corpse (554). Indeed, the specification of the beasts as "the
serpent on land" and "the crocodile in the water", ensures that
there is no place in which the threatened violator may be buried.
hms ir.f m mw fof3 ir.f hr-t3
"The crocodile in the water shall be against him,

and the serpent on land be against him."
(Urk. I 23.12-13)
hms r.f [m mw] [hf3] i[r].f hr-t3
"The crocodile [in the water] shall be against him,

and [the serpent] on land shall be a[gainst] him."
(Urk. I 226.13-14)
Terms Referring to the Legal Status of the Criminal
Parallel to legal injunctions, Egyptian threats refer
to punishments involving the loss of a violator's status and
position in society.
I3t: "office."
'I3t, "office" indicates a position or rank in the
bureacracy, and could be handed down through heirs (555).
in n£rw nw Wnwt fosf'.sn hrdw.f(?)m i3t.f m-s3 mwt.f

134
"It is the gods of the Hare nome who shall expel

his children (?) from his office after his death."
(Hatnub Gr. 11) (556)
nhm.tw i3t.f foft-hr diw n s nty m jfrrw.f
"One shall take away his office in the presence

of a man, who is his opponent, (to whom it) is given."
(Urk. IV 1800.5)
[bn ir.f 13] CywT i3t hm-ntr typ n Imn
"[Not shall he exercise] [tho] T se"1 offices of High

Priest of Amun."
(KRI VI 533.1-2)
nndi.f s3w.sn mi3t ss nswt n p3 ms'w
"Not shall he allow them to be satisfied in the

office of royal scribe of the army."
Pr: "house; estate."
The pr, lit. "house" represented the legal holdings or
estate of a private party, which were subsequently passed on
designated heirs (558). Thus, the loss of an estate amounted
to the destruction of the criminal's physical and financial
support, and by extention the dissolution of an inheritance.
frwt.f n snsnt pr.f n wnmwt
"His estate shall belong to the conflagration, and

his house to the devouring flame."
(Siut III 71) (559)
135
2) ^h?'$>
nn wn hsb m pr.f
"The person in his house shall not exist."

(Hatnub Gr. 52) (560)
3) GL'
pr.f sbiw n t3
"(While) his estate is gone to the ground (ie. dissolved)."

(Urk. IV 1800.7)
4)
'v1 zf". jfg,
pr.f nn wn
"His house, not shall (it) exist."

Rn; "name."
The "name" of an individual represented not only what one
was called, but also had implications regarding the "reputation"
as well as "status" in society. Thus, threats against the
"name" of a transgressor, amounted to exclusion from society.
i)
[nn dm.tw r.f]m-m 3fow
"[Not shall his name be pronounced] among the 3jjw."

(Siut III 68-69) (562)
2)
nn rn.f for- [msw.f]
"Not shall his name be with [his children]."

(Siut III 69) (563)
3)
nn wn rn[.f tp-t3]
136
"Not shall [his] name exist [on earth]."

(Siut IV 80) (564)
("Osiris. . . shall pursue him-")
r sswn rn.f
"in order to obliterate his name-"
(KRI I 58.6)
J i—* ft S r.—
bn bpr rn.f m p3 t3 n Kmt
"Not shall his name exist in the land of Egypt."

(KRI VI 844.3)
iw.tn fdfc rn.w n p3 t3
"You shall tear out their names from the land."

(Maspero, Momies Royales, 706) (Hentowe 19-20;20)
—MSSv-
pk.tw ^r^ rn.f mi irn brwy.f
"One shall spit (at) his name as is done for his

enemies."
(JSBA 24, 1902, 323)
Si
y
iw.k s'd rn.w n p3 t3 jrw.f
"You shall cut out their names from the entire land-"
(Cairo JE 45327 ) (565)
fe. 2 M •© **•— >>

nn wn rn.f m'nfow ndt
"Not shall his name exist among the living ones forever.
nn rn.f r hh dt
137
"Not shall his name ever exist."

(Stela from the Mandel Collection) (ex-collection
Bailey) (567)
11)
nn dm.tw rn.f m t3 far nhh
"Not shall his name be pronounced on earth forever."

(El Hasaya inscription of Hnsw-iri-di-sw) (568)
nn sh3.tw rn.sn tp-t3 r-3w.f
"Not shall their name be remembered in the entire

land."
(Colophon P. Bremner-Rhind) (569)
Threats Referring to Rejection from Religious Life
Some threats involve the rejection of the criminal by his
own deity, and his exclusion from religious or cultic activities.
(Bn) sms: "(not) serve."
In a threat from the Ramesside Period, future viziers who
might disturb a decree are admonished with exclusion from the
cult-service (sms) of Amun.
i) i J ± ^ 4 - < = 2 5?.
bn sms.f Imn m hb(w).f nbw
"Not shall he serve Amun in any of his festivals."
(KRI IV 359.5-6)
(Nn) ssp: "(not) to accept, or receive (an offering)."
Ssp indicates the "receipt" or "acceptance" of an offering
made to a god. Maledictions often refer to the "rejection"
("non-acceptance") of a violator's ritual gift to his deity.

138
i) ^ Mq T ' ^ - % j A*~
y
nn ssp ntr.f t-hdt.f
"Not shall his god accept his white-bread offering."

(Siut III 63-64) (570)
ssp w Hmn sftt.f hrw n hm nb ssp w Hmn ist.f nb
"Not shall Hemen accept his meat-offering on the

day of any divine lord. Not shall Hemen accept
any of his possessions."
(Ankhtify III 5-6) (571)
3,
nn ssp ntrw.sn t-hjw.sn
"Not shall his gods accept their white-bread offerings."

(Siut I 225 )(572)
4)
y
bn ssp.tw wdn.f nb
"Not shall any of his offerings be accepted."

(Bilgai stela) (573)
Threats Relating to the Mortuary Cult
In order to ensure that a violator was totally excluded
from society, threats were directed not only to his existence,
but towards those aspects of the mortuary cult designed to per
petuate his being among his descendants.
(Nn) pri-frrw: "(Not) shall there be pri-farw."
The compound pri-farw is translated by Wb. I 528.9 as
"auf den Ruf hervorkommen; Toten opfer". The compound refers
to the "delivery of brw", the latter denoting the necessities

139
i)
sfr3.sn dw m hrt-nfr
"(While) their memory is evil in the Necropolis."

(Urk. I 263.12)
nn sb3.f far tpw-t3
"Not shall his memory be with the surviving."

(Siut III 69) (579)
pgs.tw m-fat sfo3.f m prw trw
"One shall spit after he is recalled in the Houses of

the Honored Ones."
^nn} sfo3.f hr-s3 nty iw.f thi mnw pn
'JlNot> shall his memory be after him who shall interfere

with this endowment-"
(ASAE 11, 1911, 142)
(Nn) sti-mw: "(not) to pour out water."
Sti-mw, "to pour water" refers to libations made on behalf
of the deceased (581).
nn [s]t(i) n.f mw
"Not shall there be [pou]ring water for him (lit. water

poured for him).11
(Siut III 69) (582)
(Nn) ssp: "(Not) to receive."
The expression nn ssp in threats referring to the mortuary

140
cult, indicates the denial of necessities used in rituals for
the memory of the deceased.
1)
nn ssp.f mw hr w&h n Wsir
"Not shall he receive water or ointment for an

Osirian.11
(Urk. IV 1491.5)
2)
nn ssp.f mw m hrt-nfr
"Not shall he receive water in the Necropolis."

(Urk. IV 1491.15)
3)
nn sspw.w s3fr n M3't(y)
"Not shall they receive the rank of a "Righteous One"."

nn ssp.sn kbh nn ssny sty
"Not shall they receive libation, nor smell incense."

(Nn) Kbh mw; "(not) to libate."
Kbfr mw, "pour out water" is generally synonomous to sti mw,
and indicates a libation for the memory of the deceased (585).
i)
nn fcbfr.tw n.w mw frr bb(i) itr(w)
"Not shall one pour out water for them from the
Indundation of the River."
141
Denial of a Ritual Burial
The loss of a ritual burial, a punishment attested from
royal decrees, represented the total extinction of the condemned
party (587). Threats of this type invoke the denial of burial
itself in consecrated ground, or else the destruction of the
corpse through decay or cremation.
b3/h3t: "'soul'/corpse."
Some maledictions refer to the destruction of the "soul"
(b3) or "essence"of a person, as well as his physical remains (h3t).
» ijU-'fc'W.e.WL
htm.tw b3.f r nhfo
"His b3 shall be destroyed forever."

(Urk. IV 1491.16)
2) ("Osiris shall pursue him-") J

a. » O a Svh 660
r shtm b3.f r tm dit htp h3t.f m brt-nfcr
"-in order to destroy his b3, so as not to allow his

corpse to rest in the Necropolis."
(KRI I 58.7)
3) SVtt
'%3.w m W3d-Wr h3p.f b3t.w
"They shall be capsized in the Sea, and it shall cover

their corpse."
(British Museum 138 )(588)
(Nn) krsi "(not) be buried."
Krs refers to the interment of a ritually prepared corpse
in a consecrated grave.
i) vo-mc.
n krs.t(w).f m Imnt(t)
142
"Not shall he be buried in the West."

(Siut III 64) (589)
2)
[nn] krs.tfw.f] m zmt
"Not shall [he be] buried in the Cemetary."

(Siut IV 79-80) (590)
nn tcrs.tw.f hr zmt Imntt
"Not shall he be buried in the Western Cemetary."

(Urk. IV 402.1)
-O- i I csa
bn krs.tw.f hr Imntt
"Not shall he be buried in the West."

(KRI VI 533.2)
5) <^>Ptln
krs. tw.f m wnmyt
"He shall be buried in the devouring flame."

(Cairo JE 85647) (591)
kr^s>.w s(w) n t3 st3
"They shall inter him in the burning flame."

?) tss]
nn krs.f [m zmt Imntt]
"Not shall his burial be in the [Western Cemetary]."

(El-Hasaya inscription of Hnsw-ivi-di-sw) (593)
nn fcrs.f m fort-n^r
"Not shall his burial be in the Necropolis."

(Chicago OMI 13943) (594)
143
9)
nn jcrs. t(w).f m hrt-n£r
"Not shall he be buried in the Necropolis."

(Donation stela of Necho II) (595)
Threats Against the Family of the Transgressor
A violation of a designated stipulation could imperil the
immediate family of the offender, in addition to the actual
transgressor. Threats against the family, like those against
the criminal himself, could be of a physical or legal nature.
ffmt; "wife."
Threats against the spouse of the violator are almost
exclusively of a sexual nature (see below).
S3/s3t: "son/daughter."
Offspring could be threatened with death, or the denial
of inheritance rights (see below).
iw [s3.]f (r) [sbi (?)]
"His [son] [shall perish (lit. pass away)]."

(IFAO 3886) (596)
2)
s3.f (r) sbi
"His son (shall) perish."

3)
n fapr s3.f s3t.f hr-tp t3

144
"Not shall his son or daughter exist on earth."

(Chicago OIM 13943) (598)
4)
n s3.f s3t.f rdi(w) n.f mw
"Not shall there be his son or daughter who gives water

to him."
(Urk. II 22.1)
5)
nn 'h' n.w s3 s3t r sti n.w mw
"Not shall a son or daughter arise for them to pour

water for them."
Tp(y)-t3: "survivors."
Tp(y)-t3 literally means "those on earth", and is used
in reference to the survivors of the deceased (600). Threats
against the "survivors" primarily involve the suppression of
property rights.
1)
iw(.i) ^r> dr tpw.sn t3 'rrwt.sn tp-t3
"(I) shall oppose their survivors and their landed

property on earth."
(Urk. I 218.14)
2)
iw(.i) grt ^r^ dr tp.sn n r di(.i) 'rrt.sn
"Moreover (I) shall suppress their survivors, and not

allow their landed property to be established-"
(Urk. I 256.7-9)
3)
n(n) ts tp.w m pr. w iw.w hr-tp t3

145
"Not shall their survivors tread in their house as long

as they are on earth."
Threats Against the Family: Threats of a Sexual Nature
Iti: "rape."
Iti has the connotation of "to seize by force" "carry
off", and is used in a malediction with reference to the
rape of a transgressor's wife (602). Such threats often specify
that the outrage is to occur in the presence of the condemned
party itself.
1)
i£i.tw hmt.f r-hft-hr.f
"One shall seize his wife in his (own) presence."

(Cairo JE 31882) (603)
Nk: "(sexual) assault; violation."
Nk refers to "intercourse", often with the notion of
impropriety, such as an adulterous union (604). In threats
of the Rammeside and Third Intermediate Periods, it refers
to acts of bestiality (see above), as well as a parent's
"molestation" of its own children.
1)
nk frmt.f m^hrd.f^
"His wife shall assault his child

(Brooklyn 67.118) (605)
2) ^Xf
nk frbs hrd.f
146
"(His) concubine shall assault his child."

(Strassburg 1379) (606)
3) ^r"°?1 «=s>SP
nk frmt.f frrd.f
"His wife shall assault his child."

(Cairo JE 85647) (607)
4) -
nk.f hrd.f
"He shall assault his child."

(IFAO 3886) (608)
5)
nk fruit, f frrd.f
"His wife shall assault his child."

(Ash. Mus. 1874.1076) (609)
H': "rape."
fl' refers to sexual intercourse, although in the Decree
for Amenophis the son of Hapu, it is used in a threat with
the connotation of rape (610).
1) C^ ^• 11
f—yj o II I • ST*"
h'.tw hmt.sn irwy.w hr nw
"Their wife shall be raped while they witness (it)

(lit. while their own two are watching)."
Threats to the Legal Status of Off-spring
The denial of inheritance rights to a descendant, or the
interdiction of the transfer of office and property are often
included in threats.
147
'Iw': "heir."
'Iw', "heir", refers to the legally designated recipient
of familiar property (612).
i)
iw' w sw iw' .f
"Not shall his heir receive his inheritance (lit.

not shall his heir inherit from him)."
(Ankhtify III 7) (613)
2) ~
nn wn iw'w.f
"Not shall his heirs exist."

(Semnah Graffit of Thutmosis I) (614)
M-s3: "(to follow) after; succeed."
M-s3, literally "be after" has a connotation of (legal)
succession and physical "survival".
1)
1 s3.f m-s3.f
"His son shall(, not> succeed him."

(P. Turin 248.10) (615)
2)
nn s3.f m-s(3).f dt
"Not shall his son ever succeed him."

(Berlin 8439) (616)
Nst; "property."
Nst refers to official property passed on through inheri
tance (617).
149
i) ^
n wnn s3.f hr nst.f
"Not shall his son in his property exist."

(Urk. VII 30.2-3)
2)
nn s3.f mn hr nst.f
"Not shall his son remain in his property."

(New York-Metropolitan Museum 55.144.6) (618)
(Urk. Ill 103.2-3)
St; "place; seat; office."
St denotes a place, or office, and denotes an inherited
position (619). It is sometimes used as a synonym to nst.
bn 'fr' s3.f r st.f
"Not shall his son stand in his place."

A_I1 c O I a
L> '—»a—o <=> -tti JJH c-a rr,
nn dd.tw s3.s(n) r st.sn
"Not shall his son stand in his place (ie. assume his
office)."
nn st.sn ir m-k3b 'nfow hrd(w).s(n)
"Not shall their place belong to those in the midst

of the living, (namely) their children."
(RT 16, 1894, 125)
b[n] i[mn] s3.[f] hr st.f
"N[ot] shall [his] son be [established] in his place."

(Cairo JE 85647) (622)
150
5)
nn smn s3.f r st.f
"Not shall his son be confirmed in his place."

(Nn) sw3d: "(not) to bequeath, (not) to transfer (property)."
Sw3d is a later variant of swd, "to hand over (property,
station)" to descendants (624). Threats denying a violator
the ability to sw3j}, ie. "bequeath" property, denote the
interdiction of inheritance privilieges.
i) 2i»ji
nn sw3d.f ht.f n hrdw.f r nhh
"Never shall he bequeath his property to his children."

(Urk. IV 1491.6)
2)
n(n) sw3d.f fat.f n msw.f
"Not shall he bequeath his property to his children."

(Urk. IV 1491.13)
3)
bn sw3d»f i3t.f n hrdw^.f>
"Not shall he bequeath his office to ^his> children."

(DB 11 (625)
(Nn) sspn "(not) to succeed."

V
Ssp, lit. "accept, receive" refers to the receivorship of
inherited rank, thus denoting the assumption or succession of
a son to (n) his father's property and office (626).

151
1)
bn ssp n.f s3.f
"Not shall his son succeed him."

(KRI VI 533.2)
2)
iw bn iw.w dit ssp n.f sri.f '3
"Not shall they allow his eldest son to succeed him."

(Brooklyn 67.118) (627)
3) l4 hi
bn ssp n.f msw.f
"Not shall his children succeed him."

General Conclusions
The following tables are a summation of lexical and typo
logical items used in the stipulations and injunctions of the
threat formula in ancient Egypt. The chart is arranged chron
ologically according to type and is sub-divided by lexical items.
Since the evidence itself is of a disparate nature, such as threats
appearing in tomb inscriptions, endowments, donations, and legal
testaments, the charts are intended merely to demonstrate general
patterns of language appearing in the threat formulae. Moreover,
many of the expressions noted in the preceding lexical study are
of an isolated nature, ie. they appear in a single inscription.
Therefore, they have not been included in the following tables
since they are of little value in establishing any sort of pattern.

Stipulations
TERMS REFERRING TO PROPERTY DAMAGE
iri Jit iri d3t ft nss rwi hd zin
OK x X
FIP X X
MK X X X X
SIP
X
NK
18 X
19 X
20 X X
TIP
21 X
22 X
23
24
25
LP
26 x xx
Pers/
Ptol.
153
THEFT
it3 iti ssn sdi t3i
OK
= x x
FIP
MK
SIP
NK
18 x
19 X
20 X
TIP
21 X X
22 X
23
24
25
26 x
Pers/
Ptol
x
154
EMBEZZLEMENT ANNULMENT
s' mnmn
OK
FIP
MK
SIP
NK
18 X
19 X
20
TIP
21 X X
22 X
23
24 X X
25
LP
26
Pers/
Ptol x
155
CRIMINAL VIOLATION NEGLECT
tjsf hnn thi sh-hr tm mk tm dd
OK
FIP
MK
SIP
NK
18
19 X X
20 X X
TIP
21
22 X X
23 X
24
25 X
LP
26 X X X X X
Pers/
Ptol
156
DISPUTE/TREASONOUS SPEECH SACRILIEGE
mdw m 'k m/r sd--hrw
OK X
FIP X
MK
X
SIP
NK
18 X X
19 X
20 X
TIP
21 X
22
23
24
25
LP
26
Pers/
PtoT
157
From the preceding charts the following observations may be
made:
1) The term iri fat, "to do a thing" is quite frequent from
Old Kingdom texts. It is used strictly in reference to perpe
trating damage to mortuary property. Its revival in the Late
Period in a donation text of Necho II is not reflective of its
original use and probably refers to interference with a land
transaction.
'k m/r, "to enter (into)", indicating entry into a tomb
in an impure state, is limited to Old Kingdom mortuary texts.
2) Nss, "erase" is attested from the Siut texts of the First
Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom. The New Kingdom example
from the tomb of Puyemre is clearly dependant upon the inscrip
tion of Hp-Df3.
Hd, "damage" is used in the Siut texts of the First In
termediate Period and Middle Kingdom. It is, however, espe
cially common in stipulations of the Hatnub graffiti of the
Middle Kingdom.
v
Sd-hrw, "sacrilege", referring to the theft of funerary
offerings, again commences with the Siut threats of Tf-ib(.i),
and is attested in the 9p-Df3 and Puyemre inscriptions.
3) Mdw m , "speak against" appears in threats throughout Dyn.
18-20, with varying nuances in meanings. It is retained in
Dynasty 21 in stipulations to wills and donation texts.
Thi is the most common and best attested term for a

158
criminal violation. Its use is consistent in stipulative
clauses, examples being known from the beginning of Dynasty
18 throughout the Late Period.
4) Ft, "erase" is frequently used in the Ramesside Period,
and is common to the graffiti from Deir el Bahari. It is
difficult to ascertain the extent to which this indicates a
general usage, or whether it is reflective of a local "tradi
tion". Indeed, its later use in the Theban inscription of
Hentowe might support the latter.
Rwi, "remove" is common to Ramesside threats, with a brief
revival in the Late and Prolemaic Periods.
Mnmn , "move" referring to criminal trespass, and second
ary meaning of "annul", has quite a long use in threats begin
ning with the Ramesside Period, and lasts through the end of
the Third Intermediate Period (629).

V
5) S', "cut off" is common to threats of the Late Period.
159
Injunctions
TERMS REFERRING TO LITIGATION, ARREST, PRISON
iry-(n)-'h3 wd' mdw/' Iti iri m-s3 frbt
OK X X
FIP
x
MK X
SIP
-
NK
18
19 x X X
20 x X
TIP
21
22 (x) X X
160
CONDEMNATION
bwy/bwt fabnty hbd hrw/hrwy
OK
FIP
X X
MK
(x)
SIP
NK
X
18
19 X X
20
IIP
21
22 X X X
23
24
25 X X
LP
26 x
Pers/
Ptol
161
PUNISHMENT/EXECUTION
hsf hdb sic
OK
FIP
x
MK
SIP
NK
18
19 X
20
TIP
21 X
22 X
23
24
25
LP
26 X
PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT
'h' mwt fcbt 'nd/s'nd hfrr ib i3dt
OK
FIP
MK
SIP
NK
18 X X
19
20 (x) X X X X X
TIP
21 X X X
22 X X
23
24 X
25 X
LP
26
Pers/
Ptol
163
DIVINE WRATH
b3w dnd/dndn
OK
X
FIP
MK X
SIP
NK
18 X
19 X
20 X
TIP
21 X
22 X
23
24 X
25
LP
26 X
Pers/
Ptol X
164
FIRE/FLAME
3bt wnm nbit hh snwfat sdt tk3
OK
FIP
= x x
MK
— x
SIP
NK
18
19 X X X X
20
TIP
21 X X X
22 X X X X
23 X X
24 X
25 X
LP
2 6 x x
Pers/
165
KNIVES/CUTTING;PIERCING WEAPONS
Mb Mt nmt hsk-tp ssr s'(t) s'd
OK
FIP
MK
x
SIP
NK
18 x
19
20
TIP
21
22 X X X X X X
23 X X
24 X
25 X X
LP
2 6 x x
Pers/
Ptol
166
ANIMALS AS AGENTS OF PUNISHMENT
'3 hf3/hms
OK
X
FIP
MK
SIP
NK
18
19
20 X
TIP
21
22 X
23
24 X
25 X
LP
26
Pers/
Ptol
167
OFFICE; PROPERTY; STATUS <
i3t pr rn
OK
FIP
X X
MK X
SP X
NK
18 X X
19 X
20 X X
TIP
21 X X
22 X
23
24
25
LP
26 x x
Pers/
Ptol x
168
EXCLUSION FROM A CULT/

DENIAL OF MORTUARY RITES
(nn) ^sp pri-frrw st)3
OK
X
FIP
X X X
MK
X
SIP
NK
18 X
19 X
20
TIP
21 X
22 X
23
24
25
LP
26 X
Pers/
Ptol
169
B3; CORPSE: DENIAL OF RITUAL BURIAL
b3 h3t krs
OK
FIP
X
MK
X
SIP
NK
18 X X
19 X X
20 X
TIP
21 X
22 X
23
24 X
25
LP
26 X
Pers/
Ptol X
170
FAMILY
hmt hrd s3/s3t tpy-t3
OK
x
FIP
IOC
x
SIP
NK
18
19
20 X
TIP
21 X X
22 X X
23 X X
24
25 X X
LP
26
Pers/
Ptol x
171
HEIRS; INHERITED POSITIONS;

RIGHTS OF HEIR
iw' s3 m-s3 nst st sw3d ssp n
OK
FIP
x
MK
x
SIP
NK
18 x X
19 X
20 X X
TIP
21 X
22 X X
23
24 X X
25 x
LP
26 *
Pers/
Ptol
172
The following, preliminary observations shall be made
regarding the injunctive clauses of the threat-formula:
1) Wd' (mdw/') and i£i (jz) are typical of Old Kingdom
formulae, although the former is attested in the Middle
Kingdom as well.
The invocation of frf 3,"serpent" and hms,"crocodile" are
attested solely for the Old Kingdom, and are relatively
uncommon within this period.
2) The Siut texts, especially Tf-ib(.i)'s, are a particulary
rich source of injunctive formulae. Typical terms from these
threats are the"abhorrence" (bwy) of the criminal, and his
indentification with the"damned" (frbnty). The use of "fire"
(wnmwt / tk3) as a metaphor for punishment originates in the
Siut inscriptions. Similarly, threats to the estate (pr),
name (rn) and memory (sji3) are prominent features of these
threats. The latter, however, already has antecedants in
the Old Kingdom.
The Siut threats must have been considered quite impress
ive by the Egyptians themselves, since adaptions of their
formulations may be observed in texts of the Saitic. Period.
The term frsf, "punish", is common in the Hatnub graffiti
of the First Intermediate Period and especially the Middle
Kingdom.
3) The rejection of a suppliant's offerings to his god, and
denial of funerary rites, including a ritual burial, originate

173
in the First Intermediate Period. Indeed, threats of nonburial
are attested in every period up to and including the Ptolemaic
era.
4) Gods are attested as legal opponents (iry-n-'fr3) in threats
of the Ramesside Period, beginning with the Wadi Mia decree of
Seti I. Similarly, the idiomatic expression iri m-s3, referring
to "pursuit" by a deity,is also typical of Dynasties 19-20, and
is retained till Dynasty 22.
5) Terms for "condemnation" occur throughout the long history
of the threat-formula, although specific lexical items are
used sporadically, gbd, however, is particularly common to
Dynasty 18-19.
6) Hbd, "kill", is typical of threats of Dynasty 21-22 and is
characteristic of oracular addresses.
7) Threats to the physical existence, lifetime, and well-being
of the wrong-doer, first appear in texts of the reign of Hatshepsut.
"Hunger", "thirst", and "affliction" are characteristic of Dynasty
20, although hfcr, "hunger", is retained through Dynasty 21.
8) B3w, "wrath" of a god, is first attested in an Old Kingdom
oath-formula; it is especially common to threats of Dynasties
19-24.
9) "Fire" as means of punishment first occurs in the Siut
threats of the First Intermediate Period. However, it is
quite prominent in the Wadi Mia decree of Seti I. It is
particularly well-attested in Dynasties 21-26. Hh is the
most common term for "fire" in threats of Dynasties 21-26,

174
and also in the Ptolemaic Period.
10) "Knives" and threats of "cutting" are first attested
in the Siut threats of flp~df3. However, it is in Dynasty
22 that this method of punishment becomes standard in male-

y
dictory formulae. The term s'd first appears in an injunc
tion from Dynasty 20 and is retained in threats up to and
including the Late Period, s'(t) another common word is
attested in Dynasty 22 and its chronological use parallels

v
s'd thereafter.
11) Threats of sexual molestation by an ass (_V3) are known
from texts of the Twentieth Dynasty and are especially
characteritic of maledictions of the Third Intermediate
Period, particularly Dynasty 22.
12) Threats to the office (i3t) of the malefactor and his
off-spring first occur in the Hatnub texts of the Middle
Kingdom, and appear sporadicially up to the Twenty-first
Dynasty. The loss of "name" again originates in the First
Inmtermediate Period, and is especially common to Dynasties
19-22.
13) Threats to the family of the malefactor occur as early
as the First Intermediate Period, but become standard in
the Ramesside and Third Intermediate Periods. Threats to
the physical existence of the off-spring are particularly
common to the Third Intermediate and Late Periods. The loss
of office and succession rights is best attested for Dynasties
20-24.
175
C. Gods in Egyptian Threats
Gods primarily function as the punitive agent in the
injunction of the threat formula. That is, they are consid
ered to execute punishment for a breach of the condition
specified in the stipulative clauses. Theoretically, they
assume the role of the mundane judicial bodies who would
have been expected to prosecute and punish a criminal. As
noted, however, due to the nature of some offenses, Egyptian
legal authority was either ineffective or had no real jurisdict
ion over a case. A crime of "intention", or undetected offense
therefore, was not prosecuted by the courts. As a consequence,
divine forces were expected to punish the transgressor. To
a certain extent, the appeal to a deity in a threat is merely
a supplement to an invocation of a god in an oath (630). In
judicial oaths, both king and god were guarantors against
perjury. Should a forsworn party lie, it was liable to
royal punishment, which was to be meted out by the courts.
Cases, however, in which a guilty individual might success
fully elude detection, were considered to be under divine
jurisdiction. The viability of the concept is eloquently
illustrated by votive stelae from Deir el Medina. In some
of these texts, individuals guilty of undetected perjury,
consider themselves to be under divine chastisement as a
result of their offence (see below).

176
Due to the nature of the Old Kingdom threat-formulae and
their concern with the protection of property of the deceased
it is hardly surprising that gods primarily function as an
arbiter between the dead and the violator of his mortuary
goods. The deity invoked in these threats could simply be
called n£r« "god"(631), although descriptive epithets are
attested as well: nfr '3 , "Great god" (632); ntr '3 nb
wd'-mdw m bw nt wd' -mdw im, "Great god, Lord of Litigation
in the Place Wherein Litigation is held" (633); ntr '3 nb
imntt, "Great god, Lord of the West" (634); ntr '3 m hrt-nfcr
"Great God in the Necropolis" (635); ntr •'3 nb pt "Great god,
Lord of Heaven" (636). In such threats, the "Great god"
represented the authority to whom the deceased appealed for
arbitration of complaints. The god thus assumes the function
of an "investigating judge". Although the role is later
attributed to Osiris, this is clearly a secondary development
and is not evidenced by the threats themselves (637). The
ntr '3 initially appears to have been an indigenous or local
deity with its jurisdiction limited to the area of the
Necropolis. Indeed, in other threats of the Old Kingdom the
n£r '3 merely presides over a fl3d3t, "tribunal" or "court1,1
which hears the case of the deceased and his opponent (638).
It is the ntr '3 who delivers a verdict after receiving the
results of the tribunal's findings (639).
In the Koptus Decree of Dmd~ib-t3wy, Osiris himself is

177
invoked in a threat (640). However, his role as "judge" is
shared with the king, and the local deity of the accused (641).
More often than not, a local deity (ntr niwty) is ascribed
jurisdiction over a case, rather than an appeal to some
transcendental god. Thus in the inscription of Tf-ib(.i),
the "Lord of R3-krrt", a deity indentified with Anubis, is
considered to have authority over the local cemetary of
Siut (642). However! in a threat involving desecration
of the Necropolis, the "Lord of the Cemetary" (nb zmt),
(probably referring to Anubis as well) the "Gods of the
cemetary" (ntrw nw zmt), and the "local god" (ntr niwty)
of the offender are all invoked (643). It is obvious that
punishment'is entrusted to groups restricted to the environs
of Siut and the home-town of the potential criminal. Indeed,
the latter's role is probably that of prosecuting agent of
witness against the criminal. Similarly, in the threats
of Hty (Suit IV), a nfcr is to enact punishment along with
the local deity of the transgressor (644). Both, the Old
Kingdom threats and those from the Siut inscriptions indicate
that punishment for an offense was primarily relegated
to the Afterlife of the guilty party. Indeed, the escha-
ological aspect is clearly indicated in the Siut threats,
since criminals are to be placed in a fiery place along
with the "damned" a clear reference to "Hell" (645). How
ever, the temporal aspects of the threat's efficacy were
not always restricted to the future. In the inscription

178
of Ankhtify, for example, the indigenous god of Moalla, Hemen,
is to "strike the arm" of the condemned, suggesting some sort
of physical incapacitation (646).
In the Middle Kingdom specific deities are invoked in the
threat. The H-Df3 inscription refers to the "fury of Thoth"
along with the personal god of the transgressor (647). Simi
larly in the Hatnub graffiti, which primarily date to the
Middle Kingdom, "Thoth Lord of Hermopolis", "'nty Lord of
Tjerty" (648), and "the Gods of the Hare nome" are to protect
the inscriptions left by mining parties to the site (649).
Even when a god is specified by name, however, it is likely
that he was considered to have been the "personal" deity of
the individual invoking the threat, or else had special
provenance over the area itself in which the text was situated.
It is only in the New Kingdom that a "transcendental"
deity emerges as a punitive agent in the threat-formula.
However, even this theological development does not wholly
replace the conception that a local deity was the primary
guarantor of a threat. In the tomb inscription of Wr-sw
dating to the reign of Amenophis II, the k3 of Re is invoked
to "abhor" the person who might violate the deceased's
property and corpse (650). A later funerary testament
of a steward of Memphis, however, ascribes the protection
of a mortuary cult to Ptah, obviously due to his primacy
of the Memphite area (651). Similarly, in the Nauri decree

179
of Seti I concerning property and personnel associated with
the temple of Osiris at Abydos, that god is considered as
guarantor of the estate (652). Unlike earlier threats, how
ever, Osiris assumes an active role in the prosecution of the
criminal and his family. In the Wadi Mia decree, also from
Seti's reign, Osiris, Isis, and Khonsu are invoked to pursue
the family of a person ignoring the king's directives (653).
This matching of a divine triad corresponding to the human
"family" is quite common in Ramesside threats and is also
attested in the subsequent Third Intermediate Period (654).
The Wadi Mia decree also refers to the threat of divine
judgement: future kings are to be remanded to a tribunal
of gods in Heliopolis (655); private citizens are to answer
to a Totengericht (656). Both actions are indicative of the
eschatological consequences of crimes against the king's
royal estate. It is clear that deities prosecuting royal
offenders, however, are "indigenous" to the estate. Indeed,
several times they are referred to as the "owners" (lit. "lords"
nbw) of the foundation by the king (657).
This same concept is evident in the Bilgai stela of Two-
seret,, where the local god of the royal foundation, Amun of
Ramesses II, is specified as punishing officials who might be
negligent to the king's decree (658). It is interesting to
note that the "gods of heaven and earth" also play a prominent
role in the threats sanctioning the decree (659). The invocation

180
of such deities in a malediction is restricted to this text.
The royal estate which is the focus of Twoseret's act; how
ever, seems to have been a military garrison, and the unusual
invocation of deities may be reflective of this (660). Hence,
the appellation, "the gods of heaven and earth", was intended
to encompass the entire pantheon of gods-corresponding to the
divergent backgrounds of the inhabitants of the site, ie. the
soldiers.
Due to the Theban provenance of most of the threats sur
viving from the Ramesside Period, it is not surprising that
gods specifically associated with this city are frequently
invoked. Thus, Amun (-Re), Mut, Khonsu are often mentioned
in maledictions (661). However, the Deir-el Bahari graffiti
also refer to Osiris "Lord of Eternity", Hathor, Meres-seger,
the indigenous goddess of the Theban necropolist (662), as
well as Ptah, Sekhmet, and T3-wrt (663). In a threat dating
to the Ramesside Period from Nubia, a local Horus is called
upon to protect the burial of the deceased (664). Thoth
appears in a number of threats, especially in scribal
colophons to literary texts (665). This is undoubtedly due
to his position as divine patron of writing. The invocation
of a god, based on his association with a particular office
or function, occurs as early as the Intf decree of the
Seventeenth Dynasty. Here, the "Two ladies" (Nbty), the
divine guardians of the office of king, are invoked to

181
deny the crown to a future monarch who opposes the decree
of Intf (666).
In the Third Intermediate Period the god Amun is fre
quently invoked to protect endowments and private testaments
from potential violators. Thus, in the Twenty-first Dynasty
Decree for the protection of the mortuary estate of Amenophis
son of Hapu, Amun is specified to enforce the stipulations
of the text (667). Likewise, a geneological list containing
the lineage of priests of the Temple of Karnak is sanctioned
with a threat by the god Amun (668). In fact, the latter
example attributes the threat to the statement of the god
himself and indicates some sort of "oracular" context. Indeed,
it is in appeals to the divine oracle that many threats of the
Third Intermediate Period occur. In such situations, a deity
(usually Amun) is frequently invoked by the title n£r '3
"Great God" (669); Amun, however, has the fuller epithet njr
y
'3 wr s3' hpr, which has been translated as "Great God,
Chief Beginner Existence" (670). As Gunn (671) and Edwards
(672) had observed, the latter title is regularly used in
reference to the gods presiding over the oracle. Nfr '3,
however, should also be taken as a special designation for
the oracle. The adjective _|_3,"great" probably has special
relevance to the god's authority in pronouncing sentences and
delivering binding legal verdicts (673). Although Amun-Re is
often invoked by the title ntr '3, it is applied to other

182
deities as well. Thus, in the deeds made on behalf of
Psusennes II's daughters, Hentowe, and Makare, the Theban
triad of Amun, Mut, and Khonsu are all called the "Great
Gods" (674). In this context the deites clearly function
as the guarantor of the women's property, as evidenced by
the gods' pronouncement of threats accompanying the registra
tion of the deeds. In a stela of Sheshonk I referring to a
donation made on behalf of his dead father, Nemrat, a njr '3
is called upon to punish anyone embezzling from the deceased's
estate (675). Since the stela itself came from Abydos, which
was the locale of the mortuary cult of Nemrat as well, it is
likely that the ntr '3 referred to Osiris (676).
Wills and donations of this period were often placed
under threats of divine vengeance. Thus, inherited property
donated to Hathor in Atfih is to be protected by the goddess
who is recipient of the property (677). Amun in particular
is invoked to guarantee wills that had been registered under
the authority of his priesthood. In this way, the religious
estate, with the god Amun himself acting as its theoretical
head, was to distribute property to specifically designed
heirs. This is clearly the case in the so-called Apanage
stela dating to the beginning of the Twenty-Second Dynasty
(678), and the later will of Nht-mwt.f (679). Similarly,
donations made by the Prince and High Priest of Amun Osorkon
for the provisioning of Theban religious estates are threat

183
ened with punishment of Amun and Mut (680). In a fragmentary
inscription from Luxor, also dating to this period, the
indigenous god, Amun of Luxor is to oppose anybody who might
annul the provisions of the text (681). Interestingly, the
god Amunemopet also invokes the assistance of other deities
in the threat. Thus, Osiris, Isis, Horus, and Sekhmet are
to vent their wrath against the guilty. Sekhmet frequently
appears in threats of this period, and is usually associated
with a "slaughtering-block" (682) or "fire" (683). Moreover,
she often appears in threats along with the "knife of the king"
(684). Hence, Sekhmet represents the manifestation of "divine
power", which is used in correlation with royal justice.
The gods who are recipients of grants, logically, are
most often invoked as the donation's protector. For example,
donations to the Memphite temples are sanctioned by Ptah,
Sekhmet, and Nefertum, or Ptah-Sokar (685); Bubastite foundations
by Bastet (686); endowments in Mendes are to be guarded by
B3-nb~Ddt, H3t-mhyt, and Harpocrates (687); and those in
Sais by Neith (688).
In the Late Period, however, there is a reversion to the
concept of the "local deity" as executor of threats (689). It
should be noted that threats in which this title is used, clearly
have been influenced by texts of the First Intermediate Period
and Middle Kingdom, and are actually archaisms.
Although Egyptian threats essentially rely on deities for
their enforcement, the role of the king as legal authority in

184
the country is never totally abrogated. Even in historical
periods during which the power of the king was diminished or
severly restricted, the monarch is considered to be the primary
dispenser of justice. Thus, the "knife of the king", symboliz
ing royal jurisdiction in capital cases, is frequently invoked
in threats of the Third Intermediate Period along with divine
elements (690). It appears that the Egyptians never completely
eliminated the concept of "law", as represented by the office
of the king- from the formulation of their threats (691).
Similar to the components of the Egyptian oath, therefore,
the threat was based upon a concept of royal and divine
justice for its efficacy.

185
D. Threats Accompanied by Symbolic Acts
Since the threat-formula was to a certain extent a
"codified" expression, references to any type of ritual
accompanying the threat itself are extremely limited. That
threats could be delivered along with some sort of action
should not be ruled out considering the ample evidence for
such practices from religious and magical literature. However,
aside from passages in oracular texts describing the pronounce
ment of maledictions in appeals to gods, there is litle
surviving information regarding any symbolic act associated
with the threat-formula itself.
As noted above, religious and magical texts often refer
to actions concerning the ritual condemnation of an opponent.
For example, PT 580 describes the sacrifice of an ox, which
is explicitly linked to the killing of the god Seth (692). A
priest pronounces a number of ritual remarks over the carcass
of the slaughtered beast implicating the dead animal with the
murder of Osiris (693). Thus, through "magical" substitution
the actions against the animal are to be transferred upon the
opponent of the dead king (Osiris/Osirian) himself. Other
spells contain directives to ward off serpents and various
noxious creatures through symbolic movements and action of
the hand (694). Likewise, in the Coffin Texts there are
references to apotropaic rituals involving "substitutionary"

186
objects such as wax figurines (695) or objects inscribed with
bone (696). These are to be destroyed by various means such
as burning, spitting, or trampling under foot (697). Magical
and medical texts frequently contain spells or remedies in
which an object -a feather (698), or blank papyrus (699)
represents an illness or malign influence and placed under ban.
Likewise, the well-known Execration Texts have long been
recognized as representing some ritual whereby persons were
magically proscribed. Names of potential enemies-Egyptian and
foreign - as well as abstract concepts such as speech, thought,
intention, and even dreams-were inscribed upon figurines or
clay pots, and subsequently smashed (700). The practice has
been associated with a spell from the Pyramid Texts, the so-
called "Breaking of the Red Pots" (sd dsrwt)(701). However,
the procedure mentioned in the Pyramid Texts is merely a
directive attached to a statement that the deceased king has
been empowered with the Eye of Horus (702). There is no
explicit correlation between the "Breaking of the Red Pots",
and the Execration Texts themselves. Likewise, the latter
objects appear in no firm historical context, and it is
difficult to ascertain their original intent and import.
However, by drawing analogies with rituals described in
"magical" literature something similar to the procedure out
lined above must have been involved.
Evidence pointing to symbolic acts in relation to the

187
threat-formula, however is virtually non-existent. It is
apparent that in certain cases maledictions against trans
gressors were actually spoken or read by the party invoking
the threat (703). It seems likely that such "pronouncements"
are to be related to the invocation of an "oath", rather than
a magical "spell". Similarly the appearance of threats in the
context of oracular addresses was based on juridical procedure-
the declaration of an oath or pledge in court- rather than on
ritual or magical practice. Several threats from the Third
Intermediate Period and Late Period do refer to "spitting"(704).
Such an action, obviously expressing rancor, was clearly the
result of violating a directive, rather than accompanying the
initial formulation of the threat itself.
In the Decree for Amenophis the son of Hapu, there is a
threat whereby officials abusing personnel of the mortuary
estate are said "to be like Apophis on the morning of the
New Year" (705). Apophis was the demon of chaos who was
destroyed by the god Re (706). It is apparent that there
were elaborate rituals associated with the symbolic slaughter
ing of Apophis. Thus, in a funerary text of the Saitic
Period, the following remarks appear: (707)
"Osiris has read the '77' books concerning the

Slaughtering-Block of Apophis daily: "His b3
shall be given to the fiery-flame, his corpse
to the brazier, his effective-power (hk3w) to
the Eye of Horus so as not to remember him.'
[I have performed] the Apophis-Ritual (hrt),
namely the daily slaughtering."
188
In Papyrus Bremner-Rhind there is a similar collection of
rituals against the Apophis demon compiled under the title,
"Book of Overthrowing Apophis, the enemy of Re, the enemy
of Onophoris" (708). At one point the text directs the
owner of the papyrus (709):
This spell shall be spoken over Apophis,

inscribed upon a new sheet of papyrus in
green ink, placed in a chest with his name
on it: "Fettered One, Bound One-"
Placed in fire daily, and trampled with
your left foot, and whose face is spat
upon - Four times daily.
Elsewhere in the text it describes how an inscribed papyrus
along with a waxen figure of the demon are to be burnt in
fire, accompanied by a long litany of proscription (710).
Moreover it is clear that Apophis himself is to serve as the
prototype of the enemies of the king, who are thence described
as suffering a fate similar to the demon's (711):
Your shall seal up every enemy of Re, every enemy

of Pharaoh, either dead or alive, and all who
should be cast down by his wish; the name of their
fathers, mothers, and children, and all kindred.
Written in green ink on a new papyrus-sheet.
Their names are inscribed on their breasts, which
is made of wax. Simultaneously-being bound with
bands of black thread; being spat upon; trampled
with the left foot; cast down with spear and
sharpened knife, placed in the fire in a smelting-
furnace.
Thus, the reference to the condemned being "like Apophis"
could not fail to invoke the elaborate imagery described
in the ritual of overthrowing Apophis. However, in the
earlier Amenophis son of Hapu decree there is no directive
specifying that such actions were to be performed in conjunc
tion with the threat. To reiterate our discussion, there are no

189
references to symbolic gestures associated with the threat-
formula itself other than the actual pronouncement of the
malediction. The lack of any symbolic actions associated
with these "codified" statements, again suggests that the
threat-formula was not especially regarded as some type of
"magical" or "ritual" pronouncement.

190
NOTES TO CHAPTER ONE
1) Note the examples quoted by Moller, Sltzungsberichte

Berlin, 1910, 941 ff.; Sottas, Preservation, 8 ff.
2) See W. Gugliemi, Reden, Rufe, und Lieden auf altagyptischen

Darstellungen (Bonn, 1973) (TAB 1) 86, or Note the threat of
Dhwtinbt to the peasant in Eloquent Peasant B 125.
3) Note for example, Ptah-hotep (maxim 19): "The man whose stand
ard is truth, who walks according to its precepts shall endure, it
is he who makes his testament. (But) not shall there be a tomb for
the rapacious" (10,4-5); or Amenemope 17.13-N; "As for the scribe
who cheats with his finger: Not shall his son be enrolled."
4) The dream-book of P. Chester Beatty III is generally organized

as 1) protasis: "If a man sees himself in a dreamX" + 2)
apodosis: good/bad. See S.I. Groll in Pharaonic Egypt (Jeru
salem, 1985) 71-118 (esp. 74-76).
5) So see for example the diagnosis and treatment of a patient in

Edwin Smith Case 2: "If you examine a man with a wound. . . You
shall lay your hand on him. . . Then you shall say . . . It is an
illness which I will treat.
6) See P. Ebers 839(97.14-15). "If me hear his voice moaning, it

means it will die; if it places its face downwards, it means that
it will die."
7) So note especially the glosses to medical texts; Eb 855w(102.9-4):

"As for 'his heart shall be shrouded and he tastes his heart'; It means
his heart is constricted. . . He shall have fainting spells"; E. Smith
4(2.10-11): "As for your recogniting his reaching a point. It
states that you will recognize if he dies or lives on account of
that illness which I am treating."
8) The term "codified law" is merely a convenience, see the dis

cussion of Lorton, "The Treatment of Criminals in Ancient Egypt",
(JESHO 20) 4 ff.
9) "Laws" were considered to have been effective beyond the life

time of the king who promulgated them. Nevertheless, royal decrees
such as that of Horemheb demonstrate that provisions were "renewed"
of "re-promulgated" following periods of internal stress.
10) Urk. I 305.18-306.1.
11) Petrie, Koptos (London, 1896) pi. 8; Aegyptische Lesestucke

zum Gebrauch in akademischen Unterricht (3rded.) (Hildesheim, 1959)
98.
191
12) KRI I 58.3.
13) Lorton, "Treatment", 53 ff.
14) Lurje, Studien zum altagyptischen Recht (Wien, 1971) 166 f.
15) Lorton, "Treatment", 53
16) Ibid.
17) Ibid., 54.
18) Ibid., 55; Lorton notes that no full formulation of this kind
exists from the Middle Kingdom. The reconstruction is based upon
a legal directive in P. Brooklyn 35.1446.
19) Ibid.
20) Ibid., 56.
21) Ibid., 58.
22) Ibid. Lorton also quotes the demotic law-code of Hermopolis,

which contains second tense formulations reflecting its late date.
Apart from the peculiarities of tense forms, it generally follows
order patterns. (See G. Hughes, G. Mattha, The Demotic Law Code of
Hermopolis West, (BdE 45)
23) Ibid., 58.
24) Ibid., 57-58.
25) Ibid., 54; Gardiner, EG3 §§ 146-149.
26) Ibid., 54 (n. 228); Goedicke, Die privaten Rechtsinschriften aus

dem Alten Reich (Wien, 1970) 145. On the conditional clause, see esp.
147-148.
27) Lorton, "Treatment", 58.
28) Ibid., 57-58.
29) Ibid., 8-9; 54 (n. 226).
30) Goedicke, Konigliche Dokumente aus dem Alten Reich (Wiesbaden

1967) Urk. I 281.10; Goedicke, Ibid., 117 ff., fig. 9; Urk. I
284.17.
31) Edel, AaG §§ 679-683 ; Gardiner, EG3 §§ 363-364.
32) See W. Westendorf, Grammatik der Medizinischen Texte (Berlin,

1962) 227f. (§ 308).
192
33) Thus z nb ir.t(y).f(y) fat dw is literally "any evil doing

man-".
34) See Edel, Phraseologie, 2 ff.; J.S.F. Garnot, L'Appel

auz Vivants (Cairo, 1938) 1 ff.
35) So see Garnot, op-cit., lllff. on the differentiation between

"direct" and "indirect" appeals.
36) Lorton, "Treatment", 53-54; Gardiner, EG^ § 149.
37) For the future participle with prothstic alif, see Edel,
Phraseologie, 3; idem., AaG 681(3) . This is probably
a local orthographic variant, since the object j^t, is also
written with alif, i.frt.
38) R. Anth.es, Die Felseninschriften von Hatnub (Leipzig, 1928)

69 (Tafel 25).
38a) Ibid., 77 (Tafel 31).
39) Labib, P., ASAE 36, 1936, 194-196.
41) Urk. VII 53.10-12.
42) The text is published by H. Bakhry, Studi Classici e Orientali,

1970-71, 325-336 (pi. 1); Donation stelae are listed by Meeks, D.,
"Les Donations aux Temples dans 1'Egypte du 1 er Mille'naire Avant
J.-C.", in State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East (ed.
E. Lipinski) (Louvain, 1979) 657 ff. Hereafter, donation texts shall
be cited by Meeks annotation. The Bakhry text is 26.2.7.
43) Gardiner, EG^ § 368.
44) Griffith, Rylands Papyri (Catalogue of the Demotic Papyri in

the John Rylands Library (Manchester: 1909) Vol. 2, and Vol. 3,
110,250)
45) A. Leahy, RdE 34, 1982-83, 86; 26.2.11.
46a) R. Faulkner, The Papyrus Bremner-Rhind (Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca

3) (Brussels, 1933) 34.8-9 (Clp. 33-35).
48) Ibid.
49) Supra, note 11.

193
50) Anthes, Hatnub, 79 (Tafel 32).
51) K. Kitchen, JARCE 8, 1969-70, 59-63 (fig. 1-3); 22.8.22.
52) E. Brugsch, ZAS 34, 1896, 83-84; 25.4.6.
53) A. Leahy, Rde 34, 1982-83, 78; 26.2.4.
54) LEM 97.13-14.
55) Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak, Vol. Ill (Bubastite

Portal) (Chicago, 1954) PI. 16, A 53.
56) R. El-Sayed, Documents relatifs a Sais (Cairo 1975) 37ff.

(pi. VII); 24.1.8.
57) LES 29.12.
58) M. Marciniak, Les Inscriptions hieratiques du temple de

Thoutmosis III (Deir el-Bahari I) (Warsaw, 1974) 70.
59) Cerny-Groll, LEG 42.3.11.
60) Gardiner, ZAS 50, 1912, 55 (Tafel IV). KRI IV 342.5 (without
reconstruction).
61) Varille, A., Amenhotep Fils de Hapou (BdE 44) (Cairo, 1968)
68-72 (No. 27).
62) Moller, op. cit. 943 (no. 4).

v
63) For ju: see Cerny-Groll, LEG, Chapter 62.
64) A.M. Blackman, JEA 27, 1941, pi. X.
65) Sottas, Preservation, 157; 26.4.2.
66) Urk. I 49.7-11.
67) See the comments of Edel, Siut-Graber, 121 on the compound

preposition n-ht.
"U "
68) Labib, ASAE 36, 1936, 194-196.
69) For hr-s3, "after", see Wb IV 12.1.
70) K. Piehl, ZAS 29, 1891, 49-50.
71) Varille, Amenhotep, 70 (line 5).
72) Ibid., (lines 4-5).

194
73) Ibid.; For s3 n s3, Wb. Ill 408.4-5; Lacau, CASAE 13, 9.
74) Urk. IV 1798.14; 1799.15,18.
75) KRI I 69.2.
76) KRI IV 342.5 ; Gardiner, ZAS 50, 1912,55 (Tafel IV).
77) G. Maspero, Les Momies Royales de Deir el-Bahari (Paris

1889) 706 (line 24).
78) Ibid., (line 26)
79) G. Legrain, ZAS 35, 1897, 15 (line 24).
80) Ibid., (line 25).
81) KRI III 130.9-10.
82) KRI VI 844.2-3.
83) E. Iversen, Two Inscriptions Concerning Private Donations

to Temples (Copenhagen, 1941) 22 (Cairo JE 45327); 22.5.16.
84) See for example, Urk. I 171.12; 304.16.
85) Sethe, Lesestucke, 98.
86) J.M. Kruchten, Le Decret de Horemheb (Brussels, 1981) 205-210.
87) Goedicke, PRAR, 204-205.
88) Urk. I 23.14; 50.16-17.
89) Hatnub, Gr. 35, Anthes, Hatnub, 70 (Tafel 23).
90) Janssen JEA 54, 1968, pi. 25-25A (Ash. Mus. 1894.107b);
23.XV.24.
91) KRI I 70.3.
92) DB 51; Marciniak, Deir el-Bahari I, 105; Sadek, GM 72,

1984, 69, suggests restoring p3<y.i"> "my", rather than "the"
(name).
93) Urk. I 72.4.
94) Urk. I 150.9.

195
95) Suit III 65; IV 79.
96) Vandier, Mo'alia (BdE 18) (Cairo, 1950) 206 (inscription 8).
97) Sethe, Lesestucke, 98.
98) KRI I 69.3-4.
99) KRI I 60.9-11.
100) Urk. I 260.11-12.
101) Siut III 62-63.
102) Urk. VII 53.9-12 (Siut I 223-224).
103) Urk. VII 30.2-3.
104) Urk. IV 1799.15-19.
105) KRI I 58.1-5.
106) Gardiner, ZAS 50, 1912, 55 (Tafel IV). KRI IV 342.5.
107) Varille, Amenhotep, 70 (lines 5-7).
108) Ibid., 71-72 (lines 11-12; 16-17).
109) KRI IV 359.5-6.
100) Maspero, Momies Royales, 706 (lines 26-27).
111) Ibid., 694-695 (lines 5,6; 7-8).
112) Blackman, JEA 27, 1941, PI. IX.
113) Y. Koenig, ASAE 68, 1982, 113 (JE 30972); 22.10.19.
114) See especially, Lorton, "Treatment", 24-27,60; E.D. Bedell,

Criminal Law in the Egyptian Ramesside Period (1973) 173 ff.
115) Gardiner, EG3 § 332; J.P. Allen, The Inflection of the Verb
in the Pyramid Texts (Bibliotheca Aegyptia 2) (Malibu, 1984) 5
325.; Cerny-Groll, LEG, Chapter 17.
116) Gardiner, EG3 § 332; Edel, AaG 475-76, 1003.
117) Allen, op. cit., § 255-256; p/ 524 (note 182); see also
Cerny-Groll, LEG, 328 (21.1).
196
118) Gardiner, EG3 § 448; Erman, NAG §276-281, See also J.P.
Frandsen, An outline of the Late Egyptian Verbal System
(Copenhagen, 1974) 14-26.
120) Marciniak, Supplement au.BIFAO 81, 1981, 284.
121a) Ibid, (line 11). .
122) Bakir, ASAE 43 (1943) 79 (PI. I-II); 22.10.00a.
123) Athens Stela (line 9) (24.1.8).
124) Piehl, ZAS 29, 1891, 50.
125) Urk. VII 53.13.
127) RIK III, P, 16 (A 53).
128) Sottas, Preservation, 157; 26.4.0a.
129) Marciniak, Supplement au BIFAO 81, 1981, 284.
130) Legrain, ZAS 35, 1897,16.
132) Gardiner, EG3 § 289.
135) Ibid., 77 (Tafel 25).
136) Gardiner, EG3 § 450.5e.
137) Edel, Phraseologie, 10; AaG 900
138) Goedicke, MIO, 8 1961, 354.
139) Edel, Phraseologie, 18-19; AaG 900.
140) Gardiner, EG3 § 440.3.

197
141) Gardiner, EG3 § 332; Allen, Inflection, § 325;

Cerny-Groll, LEG 250 (17.2); Edel, AaG 934-37.
142) See Edel, Phraseologie, 13. The text is of early Middle

Kingdom date.
143) Iversen, Two Inscriptions, 22; 22.5.16.
144) Legrain, ZAS 35, 1897, 16 (line 31).
147) Allen Inflection, § 482; also Edel, AaG 553.
148) CT II 180-205 (Spell 146); See the remarks of J.F. Borghouts,

Ancient Egyptian Magical Texts (Leiden, 1978) x, who regarded such
threats as predictions.
149) Grapow, ZAS 49, (1911) 48-54 contended that such statements
were examples of magic, as does E. Hornung, Conceptions of God in
Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many (trs. Baines) (Ithaca, 1971)
206, 210.
150) Maspero, Momies Royales, 694-695 (line 5).
151) Ibid, (line 7).
152) Cerny-Groll, LEG 440 (42.3.1).
153) Gardiner, EG3 § 144.2; § 457; Gunn, Stud. Chap. 13.
154) Cerny-Groll, LEG 206 (13.4.3); 265 (18.1.1).
155) Gardiner, EG3 § 104; § 235.
156) Edel, Suit-Graber, 99.
157) Urk. VII 53.16.
158) See also Simpson, MDAIK 16 (1958) 298-309 (Pis. 29-30).
160) J. Vercoutter, Kush 5, 1957,70.

198
162) Faulkner, Paprus Bremner-Rhind 34.11 (clp. 37).
165) Leahy, RdE 34, 1982-83, 86; 26.2.11.
166) See M. Burchardt,G. Roeder, ZAS 55, 1918, 55 (stela

of Antaishotep).
167) KRI IV 342.11; Gardiner, ZAS 50, 1912 (Tafel IV).
168) Bakir, ASAE 43, 1943, 79 (PI. I-II); 20.10.00a.
169) Gardiner, EG3 § 38; § 162.6.
170) Ibid., § 122; § 162.6.
171) Ibid., § 163.1.
172) Ibid., § 114.1.
173) Generally Gardiner, EG3 § 164.1. (He only notes dative

of advantage § 164.2).
174 Edel, Siut-Graber, 99.
175 Brugsch, ZAS 34, 1896, 83-84; 25.4.6.
177 Urk. VII 53.14.
178 Varille, Amenhotep, 71 (line 11).
180 Moller, op. cit., 947 (no. 14).
181 W.C. Till, Koptische Grammatik (Leipzig, 1961) 166-67.
182 See Gardiner, EG3 §§ 128; 130; 189; 190.
183 Legrain, ZAS 35, 1897, 16 (line 27).
184 Bakhry, Studi Classici e Orientali, 1970-71, 326; 26.2.7.
185 Bakir, ASAE 43. 1943, 79 (PI. I-II); 22.10.00a.

199
186) Janssen, JEA 54, 1968, pi. 25-25A; 23.XV.24.
188) Ibid., 99.
189) RIK III, PI. 16 (A 53).
191) Ibid., 39.
192) Legrain, ZAS 35, 1897, 16 (line 31).
193) Ibid., (lines 28-29).
195) See Meeks 23.1.23.
197) Marciniak, Deir el-Bahari I.
198) See Gardiner, JEA 48, 1962, 67; Maspero, Momies Royales, 695
(line 8).
199) Anthes, Hatnub, 77 (Tafel 31) (Graffito 49).
200) Marciniak, Deir-el-Bahari I , 60.
201) Ibid.
202) Urk. IV 1491.14; 16.
203) Urk. IV 260.12.
204) Urk. IV 402.2.
205) KRI VI 533.13.
206) El-Sayed, Documents relatifs a Sais PI. VII; 24.1.8.
207) RIK III, PI. 22 (line 22).
208) G. Daressy, ASAE 11, 1911, 142.
209) Griffith, Rylands Papyri, IX 23.

200
211) Urk. IV 1491.6.
212) Sottas, Preservation, 158 (Berlin 8439); 26.5.34.
213) See Lorton, "Treatment", 6-7; 47-49.
214) Note for example, the threats in the inscription of the steward,
Amenhotep of Memphis (Urk. IV 1799.15-1800.7) in his testament for
a mortuary endowment. The malefactor is to be punished by 'both the
king and the gods. Additionally, there is a provision for actual
litigation, probably undertaken by the religious institution itself.
215) Edel, Phraseologie, 3.
216) H.M. Stewart, Egyptian Stelae, Reliefs, and Paintings II

(Warminster, 1979) 36, PI. 37.4 (154).
217) See Vandier, Mo'alia, 208; J_, lit. "arm" could be for
"document" (Wb. I 158.19) in the sense of "lay a claim to",
see Goedicke, PRAR, 57.
218) Vandier, Mo'alia, 206.
219) Bakhry, Studi Classici e Orientali, 1970-71, 326; 26.2.7.
220) C.F. Leahy, op. cit. 89 suggested that the phrase meant "to
perform a rite", based on the similar reading in the Bakhry text.
221) Wb. V 518.3; W.C. Hayes, A Papyrus of the Late Middle Kingdom
in the Brooklyn Museum (Brooklyn, 1955) 117.
222) The text is from an offering-table in the British Museum,

see Sethe, Lesestucke, 87.
223) Sethe, Lesestucke, 87.17-19.
224) Wb. II 346.14.
225) Urk. IV 1986.2; although Wb* I 580.14 reads ftt, the

orthography consistently shows ft.
226) Marciniak,
227) Ibid., 105.
228) Ibid., 116.
229) Ibid., 118.
230) Ibid., 119.

201
231) Wb. II 336.12-13.
233) Urk. VII 53.12.
234) W. Davies, Tomb of Puyemre (PMMA Vol. 1) (1918) PI.20.
235) Wb. II 406.19.
236) Ibid.; There could possibly be some relation with the use
of the word in the juridical phrase rwi 'nh> "to set aside an
oath" ie. "annul" (See Caminos, LEM, 27).
237) Labib, ASAE 36, 1936, pl.l; (See also, ibid. 196)
238) M. Malinine, Choix de Textes Juridiques en Hieratique Anormal

et en Demotique (Deuximeme Partie) (Cairo, 1983) 54.
239) Faulkner, Paprus Bremner-Rhind, 34.9 (Clp. 35).
240) Wb. Ill 213.1-2 (for people).
241) See Edel, Siut-Graber, 42-43; Anthes, Hatnub 10 (n.l)538.
243) Urk. VII 53.11.
245) Ibid., 41 (Tafel 20).
246) Ibid., 69 (Tafel 25).
247) Ibid., 70 (Tafel 23).
248) Ibid., 70 (Tafel 14).
249) See also Simpson's earlier study in MDAIK 16, 1958, Pis.
29-30
250) Anthes, op. cit. 77 (Tafel 31).
251) Ibid., 79 (Tafel 52).
252) Legrain, ZAS 35, 1897,16 (line 32).
253) The text is of Ptolemaic date, see E. Otto, Die Biographischen

Inschriften deer Agyptischen Spatzeit, 129 (n.66).
202
254) Wb. Ill 426.2; Simpson, MDAIK 16, 1958, 306.
255) Wb. I 150.19.
256) Wb. I 150. 13; See especially Caminos, LEM 208,283; see
P. Anastasi VI.10 on its use in the Ramesside Period in the sense
of "abducting" or "press-ganging" individuals for military ser
vice or forced labor,
257) ZAS 50, 1912, 55 (Tafel IV). KRI IV 342.7-8.
259) Wb. I 149.5; Goedicke, PRAR 77:
260) Leahy, RdE 34, 1982-83, 86; 26.2.11
262) Edel, Phraseologie, 3-4; Goedicke, JNES 15, 1956,28.
263) Goedicke, JNES 15, 1956, PI. XVI.
264) Wb. IV 561.4.
265) So note the treatment of the plundered corpses dexcribed in

Ramesside tomb robbery papyrus, P. Abbott 4.1 (Rt): "The tombs and
chambers of the past rewarded, (namely) the citizens who are in
terested on the West bank of Thebes. It was found that the thieves
plundered all of them, casting out their owners from their coffins,
and abandoned all over the desert and stealing their funevary
goods given to them along with the gold, silver, and equipment
which was in their coffins "(KRI VI 472.16-473.4).
266) Wb. V 347.7-9.
268) Kitchen, JARCE 8, 1969-70, 59 (fig. 1); 22.8.22.
269) Wb. I 133.10.
270) Wb. Ill 251.3; Example 1, may be derived from the term
hb3, "hack up "destroy" (Wb. Ill 253.2) rather than hb.
272) El-Sayed, Documents relatifs a Sais, PI VII; 24.1.8.
273) Wb. IV 415 f., cites non-figurative uses.

203
274) The use of in Late period threats is based on a type

of punning; s' in protases, "cut off" (ie. "dissolve" an en
dowment) and~¥' in apodoses, "cut off" (ie. "kill" the one who
"cut off" the gift).
275) A. Zivie, Hermopolis et le nome de l'bis I (Cairo, 1975)

88; 26.2.14.
276) Steward, Egyptian Stelae III, PI. 3 (no. 14).
277) Scottas, Preservation, 157, 26.4.2.
278) Ibid., 157; 26.4.0a.
279) Ibid., 157-158; 26.5. la; Maspero, RT 15 (1893) 86
280) Wb. II 81.1-4, 12; See the discussion of Leahy, RdE 34,
1982-83, 84.
281) Moller, op. cit., 943 (no. 4).
282) Legrain, ZAS 35, 1897, 16 (line 26).
283) RIK III PI. 16 (A 53).
284) El-Sayed, Documents relatifs a Sais, PI. VII (lines 7-8);

24.1.8.
285) Leahy, RdE 34, 1982-83, 78; 26.2.4.
286) Faulkner, Papyrus Bremner-Rhind, 34.8-9 (Clp. 34).
287) Janssen,JEA 54, 1968, 170; Caminos, Chronicle, 25, note s.
288) Janssen, JEA 54, 1968, PI. XXV-XXVA; 23.XV.24.
289) Wb. Ill 336.9.
289a) Legrain, ZAS 35, 1897, 16 (line 27).
290) Griffith, Papyrus Rylands.
291) Goedicke, PRAR, 56; see also Urk. I 305.9.
292) Wb. IV 293.20; Schott, NAWG 1961 (6), 153 (note 3).
293) Edel, Siut-Graber, 39; For sbi, see Lorton, The Juridical
Terminology of International Relations in Egyptian Texts through
Dyn. XVIII (Baltimore, 1974), 166.
204
294) Wb. V 319.3-320.23.
295) See Goedicke, The Protocol of Neferyt (Baltimore, 1977), 118;

Zandee, Death as an Enemy (Leiden, 1960) 292.
296) Vercoutter, Kush 5, 1957, 70.
298) Legrain, ZAS 35, 1897, 16 (line 27).
299) Ibid. (line 30).
301) Koenig, ASAE 68, 1982, 113; 22.10.19.
302) A. Schulman, JARCE 5, 1966, 34 (PI. XIII, fig. 2); 23.1.6.
303) Brugsch, ZAS 34, 1896, 83-84; 25.4.6.
304) J. Berlandini, BIFAO 78, 1978, 151; 22.0.30.
305) Meeks, Hommages a Serge Sauneron I (Cairo, 1979), 228.
306) E. Revillout, PSBA 14, 1891-92, 238.
307) Wb. I 13.16; wn, "fault" (Wb. I 314.7) is probably a derivative,

ie. some misdeed caused through carelessness.
308) Gardiner, JEA 48, 1962, 61; Caminos, LEM, 27.
309) Lorton, JT, 124.
310) Wb. IV 473.6; 474.6.
311) Gardiner, ZAS 50, 1912, 55; Schott, NAWG 1961, (6) 158 (note 3).
312) KRI IV 342.5; Gardiner, op. cit. (Tafel IV).
313) See Gardiner, EG^ §§ 342-348.
315) Burchardt-Roeder, op. cit.
317) KRI VI 342.6-7; Gardiner, ZAS 50, 1912, Tafel IV.

205
319) Ibid., 72 (line 17).
320) MarCiniak, Deir el-Bahari I, 60.
321) Ibid., 70.
323) See also J.M. Janssen, JNES 12, 1953, 51-55.
324) Wb. I 177.16-17; See Spalinger, A., Aspects of the Mili

tary Documents of the Ancient Egyptians (New Haven and London,
1982) 55-56.
325) Wb. I 508.11; 509.2; Edel, Siut-Graber, 122; see also

Theodorides, RdE 19, 1967, 111 ff.
326) Edel, op. cit., 99.
327) See Piehl, ZAS 29, 1891, 49 ff.; Gardiner, JEA 48, 1962,
60 (note 10).
328) LES 29.12-13.
329) LEM 97.13.14.
330) Piehl, ZAS 29, 1891, 49-50.
331) Moller, op. cit., 947 (no. 14).
332) Wb. Ill 30.6,9.
333) Gardiner, JEA 48, 1962, 62.
334) See Spalinger, Aspects, 67-69; Cf. K. Sethe, "Die Achtung

feindlicher Fursten" APAW 1926 (no. 5), 72, on the noun k3t,
"thought" indicating "treason" or "conspiracy".
336) Gardiner, JEA 48, 1962, 60 (note 10).
337) The use of dd fot' jw in the Coronation inscription is pro

bably related to formulae found in the Execration Texts, cf.
Sethe, op. cit. 71.
338) Edel, Phraseologie, 4-6.

206
339) T.G.H. James, The Mastaba of Khentika, called Ikhekhi

(London, 1952).
340) Edel, Siut-Graber, 43: idem., Abhandlugen fur die Kunde

des Morgenlandes, 39.1, 1970, 4-5.
341) Otto, Die Biographischen Inschriften, 68.
342) Ibid.
343) Te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion (Leiden, 1967) 147.
345) Wb. IV 561.3,4-5.
346) Dr. Goedicke has suggested that sd-hrw means, "to take
away the reputation", which would be an indirect result of the
theft of funerary goods.
347) Cf. D. Dunham, Naga-ed-Der Stelae of the First Intermediate

Period (London, 1937) 13; Edel, however (Siut-Graber 56-57)
translates as "nicht soil fur ihn ein Totenopfer herauskommen",
the verb pri is clearly in parallel with sti, "pouring out
(water)".
348) See Wb. I 528-529; For pri, "delivery " (Wb. I 523.24,
"kommen ausgeliefert worden:), see Goedicke, PRAR, 15, 17, 62.
349) This would be indicated by the determinatives of the bread

loaf, jar, and meats (cf. Dunham, op. cit.).
351) Urk. VII, 53.10.
352) Davies, op. cit.
353) Wb. I 218.2.
354) See the early study of Piehl, ZAS 29, 1891, 49 ff.
355) LES 29.13.
356) LEM 97.13-14.
357) Piehl, op. cit., 49-50.
358) Marciniak, Deir el-Bahari I, 104.

207
359) Ibid., 105.
360) Ibid., 118.
361) See Goedicke, MIO 8, 1963, 333-339; Note also its use in
the early MK threat (Cairo 1651) iw wpt(.i) bn'.f, "My claim
(lit. dividing) shall be with his-" (Cf. Edel, Phraseologie, 12).
362) Schott, op. cit., 158, translates as "rechten"; It is

clear that the term is similar to its OK usage, referring to
the process of "dividing (a claim)" ie. arbitration, rather
than the outcome of litigation, see Goedicke, op. cit. 366.
363) Wb. I 371.20; and the noun w£b, Wb. I 372.4. See also
Schott, op. cit., 154 (note 12); also W. Edgerton, J. Wilson,
Historical Records of Ramesses III (SAOC 12) (Chicago, 1936)
28 (48c).
364) See Goedicke's fundamental study, MIO 8, 1963, 339 ff.
365) Ibid.
366) Ibid.
367) Ibid., 354; also idem., KDAR 28 ff.; Wb. I 159.2; cf.
for example, Urk. I 300.5; 301.6; 306.6-7.
368) Ibid.
369) Ibid.
370) Edel, Siut-Graber, 39; 57-58.
371) Wb. II 19.2; also "Right, Truth", see Wb. II 18-19.
372) Wb. II 20.2; cf. Cerny, "Egyptian Oracles" in A Saite

Oracle Papyrus from Thebes (Providence, 1962) 42; see esp.
the oracle scene (fig. 9) and the pronouncement of the verdict:
"Right (m3't) is the servant Ramesses-nakhte", and the corres
ponding 'd3, "wrong", ie. guilty, Bedell, Criminal Law, 271-272.
373) Moller, op. cit, 943 (no. 4); For fz, "verdict" see Wb.
V 403.11; Sinuhe B 184, 227: "Never did I hear the verdict of
'Criminal'" (n sdm.i tz hwr); See Goedicke, Neferyt, 110.
375) Legrain, ZAS 35, 1897, 16 (line 30).
376) Wb. I 149, 4; Lorton JT, 79.

208
377) The word probably has the sense of "arraign", see Zandee
Death, 29,on the bringing of the deceased into court.
378) Edel, Phraseologie, 12-13, links it to ritual offering-

scenes. The stress of the comparative is on the violence of
the action itself, and is not an example of ritual "strangling
379) This would be a variant of the formula.
381) Wb. IV 10.9; Schott, op. cit., 158 (note 4).
382) Marciniak, Deir el Bahari I, 60.
383) Ibid., 104.
384) Ibid., 118.
386) Wb. Ill 252.9; It is certainly derived from the verb fob,
"execute", the knife determinative suggesting "beheading"
(Wb. Ill 252.6), see Zandee, op. cit., 170.
387) Zandee, op. cit.
388) See the remarks of Otto, Die Biographischen Inschrften,
389) See Goedicke, KDAR, 220.
390) Wb. V 17.11, from older k3s.
391) Edel, Siut-Graber, 57-58; Wb. I 453.6.
392) Goedicke, JEA 49, 1963, 89 Lorton, "Treatment", 29.
394) Ibid.
395) Ibid., 99.
396) Ibid.
398) See especially E. Devaud, Kemi I, 1928, 138 f., who con
trasts the term fabn fcirw, "punished, damned" with m3' forw,
"justified".
209
399) Edel, Siut-Graber, 99, 126; Hornung, "Altagyptische

Hollenvorstellungen" in Abh. d. Sachs. Akad. d. Wiss. zu
Leipzig (Phil. -Hist. Kl.), 59 (3); 1968, 38; Zandee, op. cit.
289.
401) Ibid., 190.
402) Wb. Ill 257.10, 12; Gardiner, ZAS 50, 1912, 56.
403) KRI IV 342, 9-10-; Gardiner, op. cifc., Tafel IV.
404) Bakir, ASAE 43, 1943, 79 (PI. I-II); 22. 10.00a.
405) See Lorton, JT 119 ff.; also Zandee, op. cit., 219 ff,;
Hornung, "Hollenvorstellungen", 34 (and note 9); Posener, ZAS
96, 1970, 30ff.
407) Wb. Ill 318-319; see Wb. Ill 321, £rw, "enemy".
408) Lorton, "Treatment", 30f. (note 137); idem. JT, 165, n.14.
409) Sethe, Lesestucke, 87.12.
410) Urk. VII 53.13.
411) RT 15, 1893,175.
412) Janssen, JEA 54, 1968, PI. 25-25A; 23.XV.24.
413) Wb. Ill 387.24, note the phrase, iw.f frrw 100 n sfo, "He
is under 100 blows", ie. "Sentenced to 100 blows".
414) Legrain, ZAS 35, 1897, 16 (line 29).
415) Ibid., (line 28).
416) Supra. note 293.
418) JNES 15, 1956, 28-29.
419) Ibid.
420) Ibid., 28; PI. XVI.

210
421) Wb. Ill 335.7 ff.
422) Wb. Ill 336.18; See especially the Intf Decree, "Have
him expelled (imm bsf. tw n.f m i3t.f) from his office" (Sethe,
Lesestucke, 98.11).
423) Wb. Ill 336.15; note also Zandee, Death, 284.
424) Anthes, Hatnub, 36 (Tafel 16); note also ibid., 10 (note 1)
425) Ibid., 41 (Tafel 20).
426) Ibid., 70 (Tafel 23).
427) Ibid., 73 (Tafel 14).
428) Ibid., 77 (Tafel 49).
429) Supra note 158.
431) Wb. IV 403.3; Sinuhe 61; See Battle of Kadesh (KRI II 47.7)
432) See J. von Beckerath, RdE 20, 1968, 11-12 (PI. 1).
433) Blackman, JEA 27, 1941, PI. X.
435) I.E.S. Edwards, Oracular Amuletic Decrees of the Late New

Kingdom (London, 1960) PI. XXVIII-XXVIIIA, 63-64.
436) Labib, ASAE 36, 1936, 196 (and Pl.l).
440) El-Sayed, Documents relatifs a Sais 43, PI. VII; 24.1.8.
441) Revillout, E., PSBA 14, 1891-92, 238.
442) Wb. IV 48.1.
443) Wb. I 207.7.
444) See moller, op. cit. 940; Sottas, Preservation, 120.

211
447) Legrain, ZAS 35,1897, 16 (line 29).
448) Ibid, (line 31).
449) See Gardiner, JEA 48, 1962, 62 (note 3); Sethe, ZAS 61,
1926, 76-77.
450) Sethe, ZAS 61, 1926, 71 f.
451) KRI IV 342.8; Gardiner, ZAS 50, 1912 Tafel IV.
452) Legrain, ZAS 35, 1897, 16 (line 27).
454) Wb. Ill 244.2-4.
455) Legrain, op. cit., 16 (line 27).
456) For dnd see Wb. V 579.2; dndn, Wb. V 471.2; Zandee, Death,
158, links the latter with decapitation.
457) Urk. VII 53.13.
460) See Leahy, op. cit., 84; P. Vernus, RdE 29, 181 (note 7);
For fire in eschatological contexts, see Hornung, "Hollenvorstel-
lungen" 21 ff.; Zandee, Death, 133 ff.
461) Wb. I 17.6; Schott, op. cit., 156 (note 9) points out that
the 3fat flame is often associated with the poisonous snakes who
inhabit the Netherworld; See also Assmann, J., Sonnenhymen in
Thebanischen Grabern (Mainz, 1983), 375.
462) Wb. I 166.9.
464) Zandee, Death, 142.
465) Griffith, op. cit.
466) Wb. I 321.21.

212
467) See Edel, Siut-Graber, 58-59 on the orthography; Bakir,

ASAE 43, 1943, 76 (note 4); also Faulkner, Papyrus Bremner-Rhlnd,
50 (24.12, 16,17) 53 (25.11).
471) Wb. I 472.1; Zandee, Death, 134.
472) Edel, Siut-Graber, 124-125; Zandee, op. cit., 144-145.
474) Wb. I 244.11; see nbi "to smelt (ore)" (Wb. 1 236.6-7);
Caminos, Chronicle, 172-173.
474a) RIK III PI. 16 (A 53).
475) Wb. II 336.1-2.
476) Wb. II 501.16-17; Zandee, Death, 137-138.
477) Moller, op. cit., 947 (no. 14).
478) Janssen, JEA 54, 1968, PI. XXV-XXVA; 23.XV.24.
480) H. Schafer, ZAS 33, 1895, 109.
481) Malinine, Choix de Textes, 54.
482) Moret, Catalogue de Musee Guimet, Galerie egyptienne

(Paris, 1909) P. 43; 26.2.1a.
483) Leahy, RdE 34, 1982-83, 78; 26.2.4.
484) Wb. IV 157, 12-13; H. von Deines-W. Westendorf, Worterbuch

der Medizinischen Texte (Berlin, 1962), 757-760.
485) Legrain, ZAS 35,1897, 16 (line 32).
486) Wb. I 476.2; Schott, NAWG 1961 (6), 154 (note 8); Zandee,
Death, 139 ff.
487) See Schulman, JARCE 5, 1966, 36 (PI. XIII, fig. 2); 23.1.6.
213
488) For the various meanings se Wb. IV 468; Leahy, op. cit. 84
(note u).
489) Von Deines-Westendorf, op.cit. 853.
490) Wb. V 331.5 ff, and nuances of the word.
493) Edel, op. cit., 190.
494) Wb. I 239.1; Zandee, op. cit. 148.
496) Urk. VII 53, 14-15.
498) Wb. II 264.1
499) Wb. II 264.2-5; Zandee, Death, 166-67; Hornung, "Hollen-

vorstellungen", 20.
500) Daressy, RT 18, 1896, 52-53; 22.7.9.
501) Wb. Ill 168.14; See Kitchen, JARCE 8, 1969-70, (note 7):
Kitchen-Gaballa, ZAS 96, 1969-70, 28.
502) Zandee, op. cit., 150; Hornung, op. cit., 15-16 (Abb. 1).
503) Bakir, ASAE 43, 1943, 79, (PI. I-II); 22.10.00a.
504) Kitchen, JARCE 8, 1969-70, 59, fig. A (PI. I-II); 22.8.22.
505) Wb. IV 415.13.
506) Wb. IV 416.14 ff.; Wb. IV 416.20 notes that the term appears
in compounds such as Ik't Bnsw, lit. "the knife of Khonsu", de
noting an illness (Eb. 109.18-19); von Deines-Westendorf, op. cit.
837 (and 144§2) who notes that it might denote a leprous con
dition, which could not be treated medically.
507) Daressy, RT 18, 1896, 52-53; 22.7.9.
508) RIK III PI. 16 (A53).
509) Kitchen, op. cit., 59,fig. A (PI. I-II); 22.8.22.

214
510 Berlandini, BIFAO 78, 1978, 151; 22.0.30.
511 Brugsch, ZAS 34, 1896, 83-84; 25.4.6
512 Meeks, Homages a Serge Saunercm I, 228.
513 Ibid.
514 Griffith, op. cit.
515 Malinine, Choix de Textes, 54.
516 Moret, Catalogue du Musee Guimet, pi. 43; 26.2.1a.
517 Sottas, Preservation, 157; 26.4.2.
518 Ibid.; 26.4.0a.
519 Drioton, E., ASAE 39, 1939, 121-22; 26.4.13.
520 Sottas, op. cit., 157-158; 26.5.1a.
521 El-Sayed, Documents relatifs a Sais, pi. VIII; 26.5.16.
522 Wb. IV 422.
523) Wb. IV 417.1-5; Note the similar use of the term in the
MK inscription of Sesostris I from the Wadi el Hudi, A. Sadek,
The Amethyst Mining Inscriptions of Wadi El-Hudi (Warminster,
1980) 33 (14.12) also A. Rowe, ASAE 39, 1939, 189 (line 4)
and Neferyt XIV e; see Helck, Die Prophezeiung des Nfr.t;
(Wiesbaden, 1970) 53 ("The Asiatics shall fall to his knives
(terror), and the 'Libyans' to his flame"); See Goedicke,
Neferyt, 135; also E. Blumenthal, Untersuchungen zum agyptischen
Konigtum des Mittleren Reiches I: Die Phrasaologie (Leipzig,
1970) 211 f.
526) Koenig, ASAE 68, 1982, 113; 22.10.19.
529) Schaefer, ZAS 33, 95, 109
530) Bakhry, Studi Classici e Orientali, 326, 26.2.7.

215
531) Wb. V 328.4; See Wb. V 328.7, in reference to the foes

of the king.
532) Wb. V 328.5: Zandee, Death, 156.
533) Edel, Siut-Graber, 190; tfosw is a passive participle.
534) See Wb. V 450, 7-10, "knife (of stone or metal); sickle-
sword". The word is derived from dm, "to be sharp" (Wb. V
448.10-11); Zandee, op. cit., 156.
536) Wb. V 463.7.
537) Vercoutter, Rush 5, 1957, 70.
538) Zandee, op. cit., 157-58.
540) Moller, op.cit., 947 (no. 14).
541) Wb. IV 546.7-9.
542) Legrain, ZAS 35, 1897, 16 (line 31).
543) The restoration is based on the other threats from this

period; for &sr and mdd, see also Belegstellen II 191.14-15.
544) Te Velde, Seth, 8-14.
545) Janssen, JEA 54, 1968, 171.(note gg); also te Velde,

op. cit., 56 (note 2).
546) Bakir, ASAE 43, 1943, 78 (note b).
548) W. Spigelberg, RT 25, 1903, 197 (III); 22.8.30.
549) Kitchen, JARCE 8, 1969-70, 59, fig A (PI. I-II); 22.8.22.
552) El-Sayed, Documents relatifs a Sais 43, PI. VII. 24.1.8.
553) See Scharff, A., MDAIK 8, 1939, 17-33.

216
554) Lorton, "Treatment", 15 (note 61); Bedell, Criminal Law,

162-165; See also Hornung, "Hollenvorstellungen", 28.
555) This is especially evident in the Intf Decree directive;

"Have him expelled from his office (i3t.f) of the Temple, from
son to son and heir to heir" (Sethe, Lesestucke, 98.11-12).
558) Thus the term imyt-pr, "testament" referring to property

transferred to heirs, see Seidl, Einfuhrung in die a'gyptische
Rechtsgeschichte bis zum Ende des Neuen Reiches 57.
563) Ibid.
564) Ibid., 99.
565) Iversen, Two Inscriptions, 22;. 22.5.6.
567) Zivie, Hermopolis, 88; 26.2.14.
569) Faulkner, Papyrus Bremner-Rhind, 34.11 (Clp. 37).
571) Vandier, Mo'alia, 206 (Inscription 8).
572) Urk. VII 153.16; See also Edel, op. cit. 193, who cites
a MK inscription from Elephantine (1373), nn ssp nfcjr.f hd.f,
"Not shall his god accept his white-bread offering". The text
is dated to the reign of Sesostris I.
573) KRI IV 342.10; Gardiner, ZAS 50, 1912, Tafel IV; note the
similar phrase in P. Anastas; II 2.4 (LEM 13.3).
574) Supra, note 347.

217
576 Ibid., 190.
577 Wb. Ill 44.15.
580 RIK III PI. 22 (line 22).
581 Wb. IV 328.9-10.
584 Faulkner, Papyrus Bremner-Rhind 34.9-10 (Clp. 35-36).
585 Wb. V 27.4.
587 Lorton, "Treatment", 12; 50.
588 Varille, Amenhotep, 71 (lines 8-9).
590 Ibid., 99.
591 Bakir, ASAE 43, 1943, 79 (PI. I-II); 22.10.00a.
592 El-Sayed, Documents relatifs a Sais, 43, PI. VII (lines

10-11); 24.1.8.
594 Leahy, RdE 34, 1982-83; 26.2.11.
595 Bakhry, Studi Classici e Orientali, 326; 26.2.7.
596 Berlandini, BIFAO 78, 1978, 151; 22.0.30.
597 Griffith, op. cit.
598 Leahy, op. cit.
599 Faulkner, Papyrus Bremner-Rhind, 34.10-11 (Clp. 36-37).

218
600) Wb. IV 292.9.
602) See Moller, op. cit., 936 (note 1).
603) Legraiit, ZAS 35, 1897, 16 (line 28).
604) Wb. II 345.5-6; See BD 125.19, "Not did I have inter

course (nk) with the wife of a man."
605) Kitchen, JARCE 8, 1969-70, 59, Fig. A (PI. I-II), 60 (not

6); 22.8.22.
606) Spigelberg, RT 25, 1903, 197 (III); 22.8.30.
608) Berlandini, BIFAO 78, 1978, 151; 22.0.30.
609) Janssen, JEA 54, 1968, PI. 25-25A; 23.XV.24.
610) Wb. Ill 364.4;
612) Wb. I 50.11
613) Vandier, Mo'alia, 206 (Inscription 8); for the negative

particle w, see Gardiner, EG3 352A.
614) Vercoutter, Kush 5, 1957-70.
615) Malinine, Cholx de Textes, 54.
617) Wb. II 322.11-12; Goedicke, PRAR, 116.
618) Schaefer, ZAS 33, 1895, 109.
619) Wb. IV 2.10.
620) KRI IV 342.11; Gardiner, ZAS 50, 1912, Tafel IV.
623) El-Sayed, Documents relatifs a Sais, 43, PI. VII (line 8)

24.1.8.
219
624) Wb. IV 78.12-14.
626) Janssen, JEA 54, 1968, 170 (note aa); Kitchen, JARCE 8,
1969-70, 60 (note 8).
627) Kitchen, op. cit., 59, Fig. A (PI. I-II); 22.8.22.
628) El-Sayed, op. cit., 43 PI. VII (line 11) 24.1.8.--... .
629) Note the replacement of mnmn with ktkt, "to move" (Wb. V
146.1-5) in the Theban deeds of Psusennes II's daughters
(Hentowe, 2; Ma'kare 6), see Gardiner, JEA 48, 1962, 59 (note 1).
630) See the discussion below in Chapter Two.
631) Urk. I 225.17.
632) Urk. I 51.1; 72.5; 73.5; 117.6; 122.16; 150.10; 218.13;

219.5; 260.14; 261.7.
633) Urk. I 71.1-2.
634) Urk. I 156.2.
635) Urk. I 263.10.
636) Urk. I 116.6.
637) See Edel, Phraeologie, 9; Kees, Totenglaube, 30ff.
638) See Urk. I 196.1; 202.9.
639) The njr '3, is clearly a primus inter pares. Note also in
Edel, Hieroglyphische Inschriften des Alten Reiches, Abb.6, where
the deity is called "The great god, Lord of Heaven, Lord of this
cemetary", clearly indicating his "local" nature.
640) Urk. I 305.18.
641) Urk. I 305.18-306.1; See Goedicke, KDAR 220-221.
642) Edel, Siut-Graber, 39 (Siut III 67); for comments see

ibid., 47.
643) Edel, Siut-Graber, 39: Siut III 68 (nb zmt); 71 (ntrw

nw zmt); 70 (ntr niwty). For the identification of the "lord
of the cemetary" with Anubis, see ibid., 53.
220
644) Ibid., 99 (Siut IV 80), the nfr would seem to be the judge
of the Netherworld, since punishment is to take place in an
eschatological context.
645) Ibid. 124 ff.
646) Vandier, Mo'alia, 206 (III 1 and parallels).
647) Siut I 224; Urk VII 53.13-14.
648) See Simpson, JNES 20,1961,29
649) Gr. 16,19.35,49; See Anthes, op. cit., 87 (and notes 2-5).
650) Urk. IV 1491.12; note also 1491.4, "He shall be a hated

one to Re.11
651) Urk. IV 1800.4, named only as "this god" (n£r pn).
652) KRI I 58.3.
653) KRI I 70.3-4.
654) KRI VI 352.1-2; DB 3, 50, 67, Cairo JE 45327.
655) Mil I 69.3-4.
656) KRI I 70.4.
657) KRI I 69.15-16.
658) KRI IV 342; Gardiner, ZAS 50, 1912, Tafel IV.
659) KRI IV 342.8-9; Gardiner, op. cit.
660) See Below Chapter II.
661) Amun: KRI IV 359.5-6; VI 533.12-13; DB 51,67; Mut: KRI

VI 351.15; 844.2; DB 67; Khonsu: KRI VI 351.15; 844.2; DB 67.
662) DB 3.
663) DB 50.
664) KRI III 130.10.
665) DB 58; LES 29.11-12; LEM 97.13-14.
666) Sethe, Lesestucke, 98.12.

221
667) BM 138, see Varille, Amenhotep, 70 (lines 4-5;7)
668) Spiegelberg, PSBA 24, 1902, 323.
669) See the Theban wills of Hentowe (4;23), and Ma'kare (1;2;
4;6;8); Louvre C256 (Verbannung stela); Cairo JE 66285; Cairo JE
45327; Brooklyn 67.118.
670) See for example Hentowe 19,22,23,24,25.
671) B. Gunn, JEA 41, 1955, 96-97.
672) Edwards, JEA 41, 1955, 96-98; see also Parker's remarks
in Saite Oracle, 9.
673) See Edwards, op. cit., The title might also be translated
as "Chief Great God, (namely) the Primordial One (lit. "First"
or "Beginner of Existance") as Gunn, op. cit. had suggested; wr
is an adjective modifying ntr '3, rather than a nominal epithet
applied to s3' frpr. It is obviously used to indicate the primacy
of Amun over other gods, including other n£r '3 associated with
the oracle.
674) Hentowe (18; 21; 22; 23; 24); Ma'kare (2; 5; 6).
675) Cairo JE 66285.
676) Blackman, JEA 27, 1941, 83.
677) Wb. 519; see Moller, op. cit. 947 (no. 14).
v
678) JE 31882; See the brief discussion of Cerny, "Egyptian
Oracles", 38-39.
679) Cairo 42208.
680) RIK III PI. 16 (A 53).
681) RT 16, 1894, 125.
682) JE 31653; RT 15, 1893, 175; RT 16, 1894, 125.
683) Ash. Mus. 1894.107b; ASAE 17, 1917,43; Athens stela;

P. Turin 248.10; Louvre E 22036; BM 1655.
684) JE 31653; RT 15, 1893.175; IFAO 3886; NY MMA 551.144.6.
685) Cairo JE 45327; JE 36861.
686) ASAE 15, 1915, 144; also BM 1655.

222
687) Brooklyn Museum 67.118.
688) Athens Stela.
689) See Edel, Siut-Graber, 190; Berlin 19400.
691) See now the discussion of Lorton in VA 2, 1986, 53 ff.
692) PT 1543 a-1550b, see Sethe, Kommentar, 494 ff., The Ancient
Egyptian Pyramid Texts (Oxford, 1969) 234-235.
693) 1543a-1545d; te Velde, Seth, 94-97.
694) PT 424a-b, 440a-441b.
695) CT I 156h-157a.
696) CT I 157c-d. The spell (37) directs: "Recitation over the

image of the opponent which is made of wax, with the name of that
opponent inscribed on its breast, with the bone of a fish, placed
in the ground in the cemetary."
697) Lexa, Magie 99 ff.
698) Edwin-Smith [49] 18,1-11, in Breasted, The Edwin Smith

Surgical Papyrus (Chicago, 1930).
699) P. Ebers 30.6-17.
700) See Below Chapter III.
701) Sethe, "Die Achtung", 20.
702) Ibid, Spell 244.
703) See Chapter IV.
704) See PSBA 24, 1902, 323; RIK III PI.22 (line 22); Edxl,
Siut-Graber, 190.
706) Te Velde, op. cit., 104-105; Hornung, ZAS 81, 1956, 32.
707) Assmann, Sonnenhymnen, 54-55 (Text 40; TT 33,6) (lines

23-24); for the date, ibid., xviii.
708) Faulkner, Papyrus Bremner-Rhind 42.2 (22.1); for a

translation of the entire text see idem., JEA 23, 1937, 166 ff.
223
709) Ibid., 68.15-69.1 (28.16-17).
710) Ibid., 46.5-7 (23.6-7); The spell is a prologue to the

First Book (23.16ff.) where the execration of the demon is
described in considerable detail. Note for example some of
the maledictions spoken against Apophis and his minions: "0
you (pi.) who ought to be condemned: Be condemned. Be supp
ressed! Be burned and cut up. Your destruction shall be
made. You shall be condemned to the ever-burning fire, and
every great flame of the furnace. Its glowing fire (3bt)
shall consume your soul, and its flame (hh) shall make your
body writhe in pain. It shall sear (mdd) with its great
scorching flame (nbit). It shall cut (ds) you with its
knife " 52.9-12 (25.6-25.7); Further it states: "Not
shall his name exist, not shall his children exist, not
shall he or his family exist. Not shall his false-door
exist. Not shall his heir exist, or his off-spring flourish.
His semen shall not be potent. Not shall his soul, body,
3t)w, swt, or hk3w exist. Not shall there be his bone or
skin " 63.1-5 (27.12-13); Also "Not shall there be
their tomb, estate, grave, or shaft. Not shall there be
their garden, tree, or bush. Not shall there be children
for them, or family, heirs, or tribe. Not shall their
property (nst) be on earth. Not shall water be poured for
them in this land among the living, or in the Necropolis
among the Ritually Buried Dead, and deceased" 67.2-11 (28.7-
28.10).
711) Ibid. 56.5-11 (26.1-4).

224
CHAPTER TWO
THE NATURE AND USE OF THE THREAT IN ANCIENT EGYPT
THE OLD KINGDOM
Threat formulae, consisting of a stipulation and injunction - .
or what are more commonly referred to as "curses" - begin to appear
with some regularity in Egyptian inscriptions dating from the Fifth
Dynasty (1). Indeed, this type of imprecation is well-attested over
the succeeding two millenia, with examples being known as late as
the Ptolemaic Period (2). Insofar as most of the material surviving
from the Old Kingdom consists of texts pertaining to the protection
of private tombs and mortuary equipment, it is not surprising that
the threats appearing in such inscriptions often refer to the dese
cration of property or illegal seizure of material used in conjunct
ion with the burial. Although it is reasonable to assume that per
sons caught damaging or plundering tombs were penalized according to
existing legal practices, the problem of tomb violation was endemic
thoughout the history of ancient Egypt. Local authorities must
have learned from painful experience that existing legal agencies
were not always adequate to combat such acts. Despite the absence
of legal documentation referring to such crimes until the Ramesside
Period, the stipulations to threats accompanying an individual's
burial bear witness to the society's repugnance to transgressions
against the deceased's property (3).
The threats used in such texts, however, certainly had some

225
roots in the legal sphere; more precisely they are imitative of
legal models and concepts (4). Formal threats, as they are used
in Egyptian inscriptions, though not "statutes" in the same techni
cal sense as they appear in "codified laws" (to use a convenient
term), clearly arose from the same mileu. This is immediately
evident in the close relation between the structure of the threat
itself, and examples of "case-law", as they appear in Egyptian
legal texts. Both exhibit the same principle of using a stip
ulation to introduce the legal situation which is to be addressed
(almost exclusively as a conditional clause); it is followed by
an injunction expressing the penalty or punishment for its
infringement.
More important, however, is the fact that threats are also
addressed to what might be termed "juridical" situations, similar
to those found in actual legal statutes. The threat-formulae
variously refer to cases of property damage, theft, criminal
trespass, or in some instances, perjury or slander - ie. private
law. Occasionally they pertain to situations which might best be
called "sacral" offences, relating to religious conduct, or man's
relationship with the divine realm (5). What is striking, however,
is the almost exclusive application of the threat to cases where
a wronged individual had no power or recourse for satisfaction
from existing legal bodies. This was due, either to some physical
restriction to the wronged party, or the nature of the offence
itself. This is most evident in cases of violations to tombs or
burial property. The authorities, or parties designated to safe-
keep the possessions of the deceased were not able to prosecute

226
every misdeed, save on those occasions when a criminal's activity
was divulged through corroborating parties, or actually appre
hended in the act. Thus, the threat-though similar to "law"
in its structure, purpose, and even its function-is ultimately
considered as an adjunct to the law itself. For the threat,
unlike an actual legal statute, had no real provisions for
enforcement.
Another major difference, however, is what might be termed,
the "personal" nature of the threat. It is exceedingly clear
that threats represent an instrument of personal "interaction"
between the individual invoking the penalty and the object of
the threat itself (6). More precisely, the threat was a
"personal", rather than "official" -ie. the use of law-response
against a transgression, and was initiated solely by the affected
party. Indeed, threats are largely used for the protection of
"private" property rather than "criminal" offences (7). This
is best illustrated by the form which the threat assumes in the
Old Kingdom. Here, a wronged individual states that he will
personally seek satisfaction against the offender through an
appeal to divine authorities. Since such threats most often
were applied to cases of damage to mortuary property, the puni
tive clauses refer to litigation instigated by the party seeking
redress-ie. the deceased- from the transgressor. This structural
characteristic, however, all but disappears after the Old Kingdom
the actual agents for both prosecution and enforcement of the
threat are most often specified as deities. Indeed, if one were
to seek a model for the "personal" characteristics of the threat,

227
it would be in the use of the oath in ancient Egypt (8). The
basic component of the oath was its solemn appeal to a deity-
often as witness to verify the contents of a statement (assertory-
oath), or pledge (promissory oath)(9). In time, the oath itself
was further strengthened by the invocation of penalties by the
forsworn party (10). As Wilson had noted, however, although
the oath was a standard instrument of "law" in ancient Egypt,
it is often found in texts referring to non-legal settings (11).
Thus, the oath could be used by a party in response to a
"juridical" situation - but not becessarily restricted to a
formal court. A good illustration of the point occurs in the
well-known Ramesside literary text about "Two Brothers"(12).
After being falsely accused of rape by his sister-in-law, Bata
flees his elder brother, Anubis, who is seeking to kill him.
Eventually both halt after Bata is safely separated from his
brother through divine intervention. From a safe vantage-point,
the wronged sibling swears an oath to the god P're-Harakhti,
declaring his innocense and denouncing his accuser's lies (13).
The invocation of the god, -the oath- clearly represents an
instrument of personal recourse for a grievance. Other than the
god, to whom the appeal is directed, the dispute has no other
forum for adjudication. The god is to witness the case, and
theoretically at least, guarantee its outcome. In a similar
way, the threat was pronounced to protect an individual's claim
in lieu of existing agencies (14). As a result, one of the most
basic components or characteristics of the threat-like the oath-

228
is an appeal to deity(ies) to protect a defenseless party, and
avenge any wrong done to them which conceivably might escape
the notice and prosecution of the authorities. Hence, the
threat is most often used by parties who have no real legal
status within the community, such as the dead; or it is
applied in cases of persons - such as heirs who have not
come of age- or in instances where the constraints of time
exceeded the ability of an individual or institution to enforce
the conditions for which some agreement originally had been
drawn. A will or testament designated "for posterity" is the
most obvious example. The close relation between the threat-
formulae and legal models is strikingly confirmed by the fact
that, despite popular misconceptions surrounding the nature of
ancient Egyptian "curses", the basic characteristic of the threat
in its earliest manifestations, involves a recourse to "litigation"
between the deceased and persons who might violate his property(15).
It is worth nothing, however, that the earliest Old Kingdom
threats referring to the practice of adjudication are not involved
with violations to a tomb or funerary property per se. Instead,
they concern civil disputes arising over agreements regarding the
mortuary cult.
The earliest reference to such "litigation" or "judgement"
occurs in a private deed of K3-m-nfrt, which dates from the
Fifth Dynasty (16). The text pertains to the installation of
K3-m-nfrt's mortuary cult and details service thereto, and
further calls for arbitration of disputes arising after the

229
patron's death. Any priest wrongfully challenging the arrange
ments made by the deceased could suffer the loss of land, servants
and possessions along with prosecution by the authoritites. Line
20 of the text referring to the division of property, however,
specifies:(17).
As for anything which is delivered from that which

I have given to them -[One shall divide it in a
place] where litigation is held. . .
The reference to some sort of judicial procedure makes it certain
that this is an allusion to a legally assembled body or "court",
which would convene to deal with problems pertaining to the funer
ary cult' (18). It is important to emphasize, however, that the
stipulation quoted above is simply to be regarded as a "codicil"
of the testament. The document provides for an arrangement where
in existing legal bodies could arbitrate any irregularities which
might arise over "contractual" disputes. Indeed, the remainder
of the injunction quoted above, states that "shares" are to be
apportioned among members of the priestly phyle in service to
the cult of the deceased, attesting to the text's origin as an
"agreeement"(L9). Likewise, it is important to note that the
provision refers to the distribution of property, and does not
involve redress for a violation of the terms of the document itself
Thus, the invocation or recourse to "litigation" in its inception,
is not necessarily a threat in the same sense that it is used in
subsequent tomb inscriptions. Rather, "litigation" provided the
means by which the provisions of the testament were satisfactorily
carried out.
230
The legal situation described in the grave inscription of
Ny-k3-'nh from Tehneh, however, is slighly different (20).
Dating to the end of the Fifth Dynasty, the text similarly
details regulations for monthly offerings, along with speci
fications for land division among members of the priesthood
of Hathor responsible for maintaining of the mortuary cult.
Likewise, relatives of' the deceased are also directed to exe
cute offerings on behalf of the family at proscribed festivals.
At the conclusion of the text, however, there is a stipulation
against removing the mortuary priests and subsequently placing
them in the service of another institution, to which the follow
ing threat is appended:(21).
As for any man who shall disturb (it): (My) plea

shall be litigated with his.
Again, it seems likely that the infringement, probably refer
ring to some breach of contract, would have been under the
jurisdiction of a local body specifically convened for such
a situation, and instigated by the injured party (ie. the legal
heirs)(22). As Lorton had noted, penalties are often reflective
of the nature of a specific delict (23). An appeal for adjudi
cation between private parties is indicative of a civil, rather
than a criminal case (24). It is noteworthy that both the depo
sitions of K3-m-nfrt and Ny-k3-'nh deal with civil cases, or
primarily claims against property damage, rather than sacral or
criminal law.
The preceding examples, however, should be contrasted with
the provisions of Old Kingdom decrees. Since such documents were

231
promulgated by the king, the legal situations which they reflect
are quite different from those contained in personal testaments or
"contracts"(25). The decree, unlike a private will, is more
likely to have contained specific penalties for its infringe
ment (26). Corporeal punishment, imprisonment, and death like
wise are to be found in royal decrees, rather than simple provi
sions for litigation (27). Obviously, the office of the king as
arbiter of justice in society, was invested with the legal
authority to execute harsher sentences, unlike private citizens(28).
Thus, a Fifth Dynasty decree of Nfr-ir-k3-R', dealing with the
exemption of the temple of Abydos from taxation, contains provi
sions protecting workers on the estate from seizure and placement
in the corvie by other officials (29). The offenders are to be
remanded to a hwt-wr, which should be understood as a court under
royal jurisdiction, and were liable to suffer punishment under
the direct auspices of the king (30). Unlike the cases involved
with private wills, such crimes were clearly understood to be in
violation of officially recognized legal precepts, and were
regarded as a capital offense (31). Thus, the text quotes a
specific body of penalties which had been created to enforce
violations of the decree. Again, the private agreements merely
call for "litigation" with the ultimate outcome dependant upon the
result of judicial arbitartion. The decree, however, was address
ed to offences against institutions, and therefore concerned all
segments of society.
232
The examples above, have been cited merely to compare
what appears to have been genuine legal practice in ancient
Egypt, with the circumstances invoking the use of the threat
or maledictory passages. As noted, in the case of disputes
arising over the dispensation of private wills and agreements, ,
or violation of a provision of a royal decree, enforcement was
dependant upon disclosure; whether from apprehension of the
criminal in an illegal action, or as the result of an investi
gation. Therefore, both public knowledge and access to specific
documents -"codified law" represented by a royal decree, or a
"contract" such as a mortuary deed- provided the basis for con
crete legal action to be initiated in case of any disparities or
inequities which may have arisen. However, violations of
mortuary property represented an entirely different legal situa
tion in terms of both detection and enforcement of a crime.
Because of his death, the tomb owner was unable to prosecute an
offender by existing legal forums. Moreover the transgression
was likely to occur in the distant future- a time when advocates
for the deceased might no longer exist.
A clause concerning the actual violation of a tomb occurs
in the inscription of gnw dating to the Fifth Dynasty (32). The
stipulation is formulated in the most general of terms:(33)
A[s] for any man who shall do a thing against these

which I have made for (my) provisioning from (my)
Lord: (My) plea shall be investigated with his in
that place where litigation is held.
The clause undoubtedly concerns possible damage to the mortuary
property of flnw after his demise, since he refers to his having

233
obtained the provisions for a ritual burial (im3.h) from his lord,
meaning the king (34). The owner of the tomb obviously would
not have been in a position to prosecute the malefactor, and
the stipulation itself does not refer to the maintenance of his
mortuary cult. Instead, the potential trouble-maker is to be
handed over to the authority of a "court". As in the case for
the deposition of a private will, it seems some judicial body
concerned with the protection of the Necropolis would have been
convened -in theory- to punish the desecrator (35). The paucity
of evidence makes it difficult however, to decide whether this
would have been the case here. Quite significant, however, is
the fact that the crime is essentially a matter for a "civil"
court (in whatever form that may have assumed), rather than a
matter of "criminal" law. This suggests that the violations
addressed in these formulae were basically conceived as damage
to property, rather than sacrilege against the interred corpse(36).
A number of significant changes do occur, however, in the
formulation of threats attendant with other ritual burials of the
Fifth Dynasty. Thus, in the inscription of Hww-wr, dating from
the reign of Nfr-ir-k3-R', it states(37):
A[s for you who shall act] against this:

The like shall be done against your property
(ij[t) by your successors.
Although the stipulation and the injunction resemble the codicil
of a "legal" document in structure and formulation the emphasis
is no longer restricted to litigation for damage to private prop

234
erty. Rather, it is a wish that whatever action, good or bad,
enacted by visitors to the grave of Hww-wr, is to be later re
ciprocated upon the violator himself.(38). Unlike the provisions
of a private will, or the criminal "codes" used in royal decrees,
the agency for enforcement is described in vague terms ("succes
sors")(39). It is obvious that the threat itself is merely a wish
with no real mechanism for enforcement.
Another change is recorded in the mortuary inscription of
Ptp-hr-3hty. The stipulation is not directed to physical damage
to the tomb alone, but also concerns ritual impurity:(40)
As for any people who shall enter into this (my)

tomb in their impurity, (or) who shall do an evil thing
against this: (My) plea shall be held with theirs on
account of it by the Great God.
The second stipulation, which concerns malicious intent, it es
sentially the same as that in the inscription of gnw ; what is
particularly interesting, however, is the stress on impurity(41).
This is specified in later inscriptions as failure to perform
ritual cleansing rites, or the eating of foods which have been
restricted or banned(42). The strict adherence to specific
ritual practices was dependant upon the piety of the individual,
and could not be constantly regulated or monitored. Hence, cases
of desecration and impurity were transferred to the responsibility
of the divine realm. The reference to the "Great God" (ntr '3)
originally refers to the supreme judge of the Necropolis(43).
It should be noted that the later identification of the god with
the person of the deified Osiris is not necessarily true in the

235
earliest attestations of the concept(44).
Thus, a similar injunction preserved in the Sixth Dynasty
inscription of Bbi demonstrates the evolution of the concept:(45)
. . . (My) writ shall be litigated with

theirs by the Great God, the Lord of the West, in
the place where Justice is therein.
As in the earlier examples cited above, the most obvious char
acteristic is the personal nature of the injunction. The wronged
party is to be a litigant with the offender at the divine trial.
In contrast with the Htp-hr-3fot(y) inscription, the "Great God"
is given the appellation "Lord of the West", referring to his
authority over the property of the Necropolis, and his role as
administrator of the royal cemetary. In the inscription of Snni,
dated to the late Sixth Dynasty, the transcendental nature of the
deity is stated even more explicitly:(46)
As for this grave shaft which I have made of six

x [. . . ] and [. . .] 3 cubits, which I have given to
my beloved wife, '.s.n.k [. . .] As for any man who
shall seize them from this '.s.n.k: (I) shall be
litigated with them by the Great God, the Lord of
Heaven. . .
A slight change occurs on a mortuary stela from Abydos con
cerning the treatment of the criminal who would damage funerary
property:(47)
As for any people who shall seize anything in

violence: I shall be litigated with them by the
Great God in the Necropolis, indeed, in the West,
while their memory is evil in the Necropolis.
Most significant is the wish accompanying the injunction referring
to the desecration to the memory, ie. the reputation, of the
malefactor; one might suppose that this was to have been regarded
236
as the ultimate result of the process of litigation.
Another common threat of a personal nature appears in the
grave of Iti, dating to the early Sixth Dynasty:(48)
[As for anybody who shall enter into this tomb]

[in] his impurity: (I) shall seize [his neck"
like a bird's].
Indeed, the formula becomes quite extensive as the inscription of
K3-gm.n.i illustrates:(49)
[As for any man who shall enter into this tomb]
(if) he has not been purified [as he ought to
be purified on behalf of an excellent 3fcw]:
[I shall seize his neck like a bird's, (namely)
(he) in whom I have placed fear] [in order
that that 3fcw and the survivors] might observe
their fear [on behalf on an excellent 3jiw];
[and] (my) writ shall be litigated with his in
the Council (d3d3t) of the Great God.]
Personal retribution by the deceased is again pledged against the
malefactor, the effectiveness of which is noted both in terms of
a threat to the actual person of the offender, and the psychol
ogical impact upon the witnesses and successors of the deceased(50).
This includes the community of the ritually buried dead (3Jjw) as
well(51). Although the case is primarily assigned to the Great
God for litigation, the authority of the divinity is divided among
a council with the ntr '3 overseeing the prosecution of the case(52).
A variation of the formula occurs on the architrave and post
inscriptions from the tomb of Nnki:(53)
As for any dignitary, or any official, or

any persons who shall remove any stone or any
brick from this (my) tomb: (My) writ shall be
litigated with his by the Great God.
237
I shall seize his neck like a bird's. I

shall cause that all surviving citizens ('nfrw)
be fearful of the 3fcw who are in the West . . .
The stipulation is quite specific, and refers to the theft or
illegal use of material designated for the construction of a
tomb(54). The earlier examples referring to the breach of
mortuary agreements were covered under civil procedures, while
failure to adhere to standards of ritual purity was a sacral
violation. Cases of theft involving tomb property, however,
ultimately appear to have been regarded as a criminal act(55).
This would seem to be corroborated by a text from Mastaba G. 2001
from Giza, where the threat for stealing or damaging any building
material from the deceased's tomb is slightly different:(56)
As for any man who shall seize or tear

out a stone or brick from this (my) tomb: (I)
will be litigated with him in the Tribunal of
the Great God (and) an end shall be made for him
on its account so that the surviving shall see
(it).
"To make an end to" somebody, has been interchanged with the more
usual "(I) shall seize his neck like a bird's"(57). As Goedicke
has noted, the expression iri ph n, occurs in a juridical con-
text(58). He suggested that the term refers to the passage of a
death sentence in the pronouncement of a capital crime, and is
specified as br.s, "on account of it", alluding to the prior
mention of theft(59). Again, the case involves mortuary property,
and explains the remonstrance of the offender to the divine
tribunal. The difficulty arises in the concept of personal
vengeance, and precisely how far this extended.

238
The plaintiff, ie. the deceased, certainly is depicted
as participating in the arraignment of the criminal. This is
demonstrated in some of the so-called "Letters to the Dead",
where surviving relatives beseech their late predecessors to
bring disputes to adjudication (60). The process of litigation,
thus was considered to have been technically instigated by the
injured party, even though deceased. One should therefore,
expect that the arraignment of the defendant, and presentation
of testimony, conceptually would have paralleled the actual
procedure employed in the mundane courts (61). The reference
to "seizure" (i.ti) of an individual by "his neck like a bird's"
probably should be envisioned as the method of arraignment,
rather than an allusion to the ultimate punishment of the
offender per se (62). The vivid imagery, probably based on
the wringing of a goose's neck in ritual offering, might also
carry with it implications to the offender's loss of civic
status (63). The expression should thus be viewed as equiva
lent to the later description in the Decree of Dmd-ib-t3wy,
where violaters of the royal edict are to be "fettered",
ie. "arrested" (64). This might also be compared to the
much later New Kingdom references to captive foreigners who
have been seized and brought back to Egypt, bound and "pinioned
like birds" (65). The treatment is reflective of their loss of
legal status within the Egyptian legal sphere.
As noted above, the threat is described as affecting both

239
the relatives of the criminal, as well as the community of the
living at large, as an immediate result of judgement. The
impact is described primarily in terms of its "psychic"
implications: the arousal of a feeling of awe and dread
towards the deceased, thus insuring the sanctity of his
property, and hopefully deterring any further mischief (66).
In the biographical inscription of NJhbw, however, there is
a change in this concept (67):
As for any man who shall enter therein [. . .]

after this: I shall be litigated with him by the
Great God, (and) I shall oppose their survivors,
and their landed property ('rrwt) on earth.
Likewise in the previously quoted inscription of Bbi, a
similar statement occurs following the threat of litigation (68):
Moreover, (I) shall suppress their survivors,

(and) (I) shall not allow their landed property to
be established, nor allow [. . .] to live.
In the preceding examples, it initially appears as if the de
ceased had indeed, assumed the role of "avenger" on behalf of
the Great God. Edel's translation, "Ich werde ihre Hinterbliebenen
austilgen" also suggests such an interpretation (69). The term
used in the threat, dr, while having a meaning "to (physically)
destroy" (Wb. V 474.10), would also seem to have a judicial
application as well (70). It is likely that the expression
"to oppose/suppress" survivors and their 'rrwt, lit. "gates",
in reference to landed property, refers to the contesting of
inheritance rights (71). This is suggested by the Bbi reference
where the deceased proclaims: n rdi(.i) grg 'rrwt.sn, "(I)

240
shall not allow their landed property to be established", thus
indicating the suppression or prohibition of a claim to proper
ty (72). It therefore, appears that the role of the deceased in
these threats is essentially that of a plaintiff who instigates
legal proceedings under the jurisdiction of a divine court.
Occasionally, this includes a hand in apprehending the criminal.
It is rarely, if ever, the case that the deceased is the agent
who brings retribution to the malefactor (73). In all circum
stances, however, the deceased acts in a dependant role, subject
to the final authority of the divine, and does not usurp the role
of judge.
In a number of cases, however, there seems to be some
reticence in assuming any responsibility for prosecuting or
accusing an offender. Thus forces of nature are invoked,
rather than resorting to the use of a "personal" threat. In
a text from the grave of the steward Mni, which dates from
the Sixth Dynasty, a warning accompanies the deceased's decla
ration of innocence (74):
It is the Elder of the House, Mni, who says:

"The crocodile in the water be against him, the
serpent on land be against him, (namely) he who
shall do a thing against this. For I have never
done a thing against him. It is God who shall
judge."
Although the "crocodile" and "serpent", might be intended
literally, it probably is used here as a metaphor referring to
the denial of ritual burial rites, and is a wish for the ultimate
241
destruction of the criminal's corpse (75).
One of the threats preserved in the Pyramid Texts contains
a stipulation similar to that of the private tomb inscriptions
and warns against damaging the mortuary establishment of Pepi
I (76):
The flail shall be struck for him who shall

place his finger against this pyramid or this chapel
of the k3 of P. For he has placed his finger against
the "Estate of Horus in the Burial Ground", and he has
transgressed the "Estate of Nbt [. . .] Geb. The
complaint against him (mdw.f) shall be heard by the
Ennead: Not shall be his possession (far.f), not
shall be his house. He is an expelled one, one
whose estate is consumed is he.
The reference to striking the flail (hw nfafr) denotes the ritual
of sentencing in a capital case (77). The offense is described
as "placing the finger against" (rdi db' r) the various cult
installations surrounding the mortuary complex of the king. The
term is used in the sense of "to perform the slightest action
against"; the finger being used to express the least possible
act, ie. "any act" (78). The crime is initially formulated as
an offence against the personal property of the king (79).
Since the monarch is deceased, however, responsibility for
prosecution is given to divine elements. This is stressed by
the equation between damage to royal property, and transgression
against Hwt-Hr in kbhw, lit. "the Realm/Estate of Horus" in
"the North", and "the Estate of Nbt" (80). Both terms would
seem to be references to the royal Necropolis or burial ground,
which are under the protection of deities (81).

242
The case is obviously to be regarded as involving a sacral
offence, since the crime is against divine property. The
malefactor, therefore, is under the jurisdiction of the Ennead,
which is given authority to pronounce sentence (82). The
threats referring to punishment hence should be considered
as the pronouncement of sentence upon the criminal. The
maledictions stress the loss of possessions, and the expulsion
of the offender from the community (83). The description of
the sentenced party as lit. "one whose body/estate is devoured"
(wnm dt.f) is to be taken as the forfeiture of income (84).
Again the reference to "expulsion", has the implication of the
denial of a ritual burial. Such penalties as those invoked in
this spell, namely the removal of property, and possibly the
expulsion from the royal cemetary have their origin in actual
penalties proscribed in the royal decrees of the Old Kingdom (85).
Another threat of similar type occurs elsewhere in the
Pyramid Texts. The context of the threats is in a spell address
ing a case in which the deceased king might be hindered from
assuming his legal position in the Netherworld (86). PT 291
d- 292 d contains maledictions directed against the former and
potential enemies of the king:
W is victorious against them when he has appeared

on his bank: "Their hearts shall fall to my fingers.
Their entrails belong to those who are of the sky, and
their blood to those who belong to the earth. Their
heirs belong to poverty, their estates to conflagration,
and their landed property to the High Nile.
243
The reference to the "appearance" (h'w) of the king "on his
bank" has a juridical connotation alluding to his resumption
of authority, and his ability to convene a court under his
legal jurisdiction (87). The expression "falling to the
fingers" of the ruler parallels references to royal condem
nation, and the dismembering of the corpse should be seen
as the passing of sentence for a capital crime (88). Indeed,
the vivid phrases "entrails to those who belong to heaven"
and "blood to those who belong to earth" referring to birds
and assorted vermin, are close parallels to the threat invok
ing the destruction of the corpse by the crocodile and the
serpent (89). The loss of a ritual burial is accompanied by
an imprecation invoking the desolation of the offender's
"house" and landed property ('rrwt). The social position
of the criminal's heirs is likewise to be reduced to poverty.
THE FIRST INTERMEDIATE PERIOD
A number of injunctions are contained in the Decree of
Dmd~ib-t3wy, dating to the First Intermediate Period. The
text originates from Koptus, and exempts property on behalf
of the vizier and overseer of Upper Egypt, Idy (90):
As for any people of this entire land who shall

commit any harmful or evil thing against any of
your statues or any of your offering stones, or
any of your mortuary estates, or any of your
wooden artifacts, or any of your endowments,
which are in any temple or any chapel:
(My) Majesty does not allow that their

property or the property of their fathers
remain with them; Nor does (my) Majesty
allow that they join the 3frw in the Necropolis,
nor does (my) Majesty allow them to remain among
the surviving citizenry.
244
As for any people of this entire land who shall

disturb or reduce the property of your offering
endowment which has been taken according to
contract, or which has been made on behalf of
your statues which are in the Chapels of Upper
Egypt- - consisting of land, bread, beer, meat,
or milk, which has been made on your behalf
through a document of benefice:
Indeed, (my) Majesty does not command that

they be among the 3frw in the Necropolis. Instead,
they are to be bound and fettered as under the
verdict of the king, and Osiris, and their local
deities.
The text concludes with penalties for officials who refuse to
prosecute and punish an offender until that time when the king
or his sanctioned representative may arrive to prosecute the
case (91). The decree contains explicit punishments for male
factors: denial of property and inheritance rights, loss of
free status and office (92). Perhaps more significant is the
denial of burial privilieges, to which the private threat
formulae of the Old Kingdom only allude.
Lorton has emphasized the participation of Osiris and local
deities in the prosecution of offenders of the decree, although
he suggested that Osiris was merely a plaintiff in the case (93).
It is clear however, that the criminal was to be arrested and
imprisoned under the "verdict" (mdw) of three possible author
ities: the King, Osiris or the local deity of the offender (94).
Thus, the decree was dependent upon both royal and divine agents
for its enforcement (95). This concept surely is a continuation
of the Old Kingdom personal threat, where the wronged party (the
deceased) appealed to a divine tribunal to oversee any litigation.

245
Indeed, some of the Old Kingdom threats refer to the "council/
tribunal" of the "Great God", and it is likely that such a
juridical body is intended here as well. In the example
quoted from the Pyramid Texts (above), cases of criminal
trespass against the royal cemetary were adjudicated by the
Ennead of gods.
In the Siut inscriptions dating from the Herakleopolitan
Period, there is a significant development in the formulation
of threats. The pertinent texts are those from the graves of
Tf-ib.i (III) and jjty (IV) (96). The inscriptions from Tf-ib.i'
tomb, although in a poor state of preservation, contain the
longest and most developed imprecative formulae (97):
The r3-p3t, h3ty-', [T]f-ib.i sa[ys]:
As for any rebel who shall rebel or who

shall plan in his [heart] to make an "uproar"
[against] this cham[ber] and what is in it,
or who shall damage his inscription, or who
shall erase the images in the chambers [of]
the ancestors in the cemetary of S[i]ut [in]
the Temple [of] [the Lord] of R3~krrt, not
fearing the "Judgement" which is therein:
Not shall he be (ritually) "honored" (3.h)

in the [Necro[polis]; Not shall there be his
possessions which are in the Necropolis; His
[children] shall be expelled from th[eir]
bureau[s]. He [shall be] an enemy of the 3frw,
one whom the Lord of the [ceme]tary does not
recognize. [His name shall not be pronounced]
among the 3j?w. The memory of him shall not be
with those surviving. His name shall not be with
his [children]. There shall be no [pour]ing
water for him, nor shall there be any "invocation-
offerings" on his behalf on the W3g-feast, or
[any proper] festival [of the cemetary].
246
He who shall be given to the place of Litiga

tion- [His local deity shall abhore him]; His
relatives shall abhor him. His estates shall
belong to the Conflagration, and his home to the
devouring flame. Everything which shall [cojme
[forth] [from his mouth] (the) [Go]ds [of the
cemetary] shall [overturn] it. (Inscription A)
The r3-p't, h3ty-', Overseer of the priests [of]

Anubis, the Lord of R3-krrt, Tf-ib.i, says:
As for any chief, any notable, [any]official,

any commoner, who shall not protect [th]is [cham]-
ber and what is i[n] it:
His god shall not accept his white-bread

offering. He shall not be buried in the West.
[The]ir [lim]bs shall be to the conflagration]
[w]ith the damned, who are made non-[exis]tant
(ones). (Inscription B)
The texts are addressed to two different groups. The first
inscription (A) concerns individuals who are indentified as
"rebels" (sbi), referring to those groups which have placed
themselves beyond the orderly structure of society (98). The
other text (Inscription B), by contrast, invokes persons who
administer, and are under the jurisdiction of the local author
ities in Siut (99). It is tempting to view the subjects of
Inscription A as relating to the Thebans and their allies, who
were inimicable to the interests of the Herakleopolitan rulers,
and the Siut nomarchs (100). The later literary text, the
Instruction for Merikare records the destruction of the cemetary
at Abydos, which had occured during the conflict between
Herakleopolis and Thebes sometime later (101). Tf-ib.i's
warning should be seen in this historical context, and seems

247
intended to prevent such an outrage from occuring in Siut.
Indeed, the threat concerns not only his own private mortuary
property, but the entire local cemetary of the town as well (102).
It is interesting to note that punishment is invoked not merely
for rebellion (sbi), ie. actual participation in a crime, but
extends to thoughts or plots of sd-farw, lit. "uproar", but
referring to some act of sacrilege, probably theft of materials
used in the mortuary cult (103). This is an excellent example of
the use of a threat in an attempt to curb behavior which was not
necessarily of a physical nature, or in any case, easily detect
able. Unlike the Old Kingdom threat concerning the removal of
building material from the tomb-structure, the Siut texts also
refer to actions against the burial chamber itself, including
the inscriptions and cult-images. Moreover, the relative term
"what is in it", suggests the sarcophagus, perhaps even the
interred body. More telling is the added specification relating
to the religious attitude of the potential malefactors. They
are described as those "who are not fearful of the 'Judgement'
which is therein". The reference to w^'wt lit. "that which
litigates/investigates" seems to refer to a juridical body,
quite similar to the divine court mentioned in personal threats
of the Old Kingdom (104). The stipulation is thus addressed to
persons who do not honor, nor regard themselves as adherents to
the moral or religious code to which Tf-ib.i himself has ascribed.
Despite the criminal's lack of "fear", by which we should under

248
stand "religious awe" or "respect", the text explicitly states
that he will be accountable by his own deity, after being deliv
ered to the place of litigation (105).
By contrast, Inscription B contains a warning against the
authorities and general citizenry who are responsible for main
taining the sanctity of the local necropolis, but fail to do
so (106). Interestingly enough, the stipulation concerns all
members of the society, ranging from local rulers and adminis
trators to those without any real legal authority. Hence, all
free persons within the social matrix were responsible for the
protection of the deceased's tomb and mortuary property.
A number of the punishments which are promised have been
encountered in earlier texts. The emphasis, not surprisingly,
is on the denial of burial rites. The Siut texts, however, are
quite explicit in this regard. The criminal is to be denied
the status of one accorded a ritual burial (3b), and shall
suffer a corresponding loss of mortuary equipment. The offender,
likewise, is to suffer complete and utter destruction in regards
to his social position, and any status within the family cult
following his demise. His memory is to be shamed among his
progeny, and all commemorative rites are to be ceased. Indeed,
the exclusion from the society is so complete that even his
own family will abhor his name, and refuse to honor him with
the proper funerary ceremonies.
Quite important, however, is the reference to the children

249
of the criminal. According to Edel's restoration of line 67,
it states ns.tw [b]r[d][w.f] ( ) m i[z]w.s[n]:
"[His chil]dr[en] shall be expelled from th[eir] ch[a]mbers"(107).
Although Edel assumed that this was a reference to the ejection
of the descendants' corpses from their tomb, this seems unlike
ly (108). It is preferable, rather, to equate the threat with
the rejection of inheritance or property rights, rather than to
the desecration of a corpse already afforded a ritual burial (109).
Indeed, most maledictions refer to the denial of legal status
necessary for a ritual burial. Izw, "chambers", is used here
in the sense of "bureau" or "repository" where legal claims were
registered and placed on record (110).
As noted above, punishment is threatened to members of the
local community who might be negligent towards the deceased as
well. A slightly different set of circumstances, however, is
attendant within the series of threats recorded in Inscription
B. Although failure to protect Tf-ib.i1s interest could result
in the denial of burial privilieges (as in the case of actual
perpetrators against the deceased), there is also the added
injunction that the negligent party's local god will reject an
offering on his behalf. This certanly implies a denial of
participation in the religious life of the community, as well
as the withdrawal of the deity's favor, which itself carries
implications of disaster. Similar to the earlier Decree of
Dmd-ib-t3wy, where violators could be arrested under divine

250
authority the Siut threats are also placed under the auspices
of a god himself. Thus, the imprecations are not to be examples
of "excommunication" in a formal or legal sense. Indeed, the
ability of the individual to worship has not really been re
stricted or impeded through the citation of a legal code or
statute. It is rather the deity's own willigness to accept
or reject the behavior of the criminal which is invoked as
punishment.
Aside from the references to expulsion from the cult,
there is the additional specter of eternal punishment; such
eschatological features are not specified in the private
threats from the Old Kingdom. Those addressed in Inscription
B, are to suffer with individuals who are referred to as the
"damned" (111). The term fobntyw designates those persons who
have not been exonerated of their crimes in the Afterlife, but
are instead condemned to eternal torment (112). This is
explicitly stated where the criminal's "limbs" (corporeal
body) are to be consumed by fire, a well-attested metaphor
for divine wrath or punishment (113). Moreover, the condemned
is to become a tm-wn, "a non-being one" referring to the total
loss of existence in terms of both physical and legal status (114).
Likewise the threat of Hty is Siut IV 80 is similarly
formulated (115):
Indeed, as for any rebel or dissident who shall

upset these things despite of these which he
has heard:
251
[His] name shall not exist [upon earth]. He shall

[not] be buried in the cemetary. He shall be to the
conflagr[ation] [w]it[h] the condemned whom God [has]
punished. [His] loc[al] deity shall abhore him, his
fellow citizens [shall abhore] him.
The stipulation, again, does not concern physical damage per
petrated against the possessions of Hty. Rather, acts of appro
bation against the deceased's memory, probably represented by
the tomb biography, are named. The term pn', lit. "to upset,
overturn", would seem to have a juridical usage, referring to
acts of slander or "malice" against the reputation of the tomb
owner (116). This is supported by the emphasis upon action
against matters which had been heard, in contrast to explicit
damage which might be perpetrated towards the property of the
deceased (117). The destruction of the individual's name upon
earth also implies the loss of social status, and perhaps is
related to the later attested practice of "debaptism" (see
below), or the removal of the social rank and status in the
community. No agency is invoked to execute punishment, and
the injunction probably has the character of a wish for harm,
rather than carrying any actual legal penalty. Again, there
is the eschatological consequence of condemnation in the
Afterlife. The threat obviously implies that the criminal
shall be judged and found guilty by a divine court, following
the abandonment of his one deity's patronage as well as the
rejection of his earthly peers.

252
Roughly contemporary with the Siut inscriptions are the
threats in the tomb biography of 'nfa-ty.fy, nomarch of Mo'alla (118):
As for any administrator who shall administer in

Mo'alla, and who shall commit_an evil or bad act against
this (my burial) mound, or against any endowments of this
(my) domain:
His arm (hps) shall be stricken by frnn when he goes forth-
-(or against) those which belong to any of my decrees:
His arm shall be stricken by jlmn when he goes forth-
-(or against) all those belonging to the Eastern side:
His arm shall be stricken by Hmn when he goes forth-
-(or against) all those belonging to the opposite-
His arm shall be stricken by ffmn when he goes forth-
-(or against) all those belonging to any divine majesty-
His arm shall be stricken by flmn when he goes forth-
-(or against) all those belonging to an important adjacent (area)-
Hmn shall not accept his meat-offering on the day of any

divine majesty. Hmn shall not accept any of his possessions.
His heir shall not inherit him.
The threat is primarily addressed to future administrators
(frk3) or nomarchs of Mo'alla who are to be responsible for defend
ing and protecting both the funerary equipment of the deceased, as
well as endowments which have been established in the legal terri
tory ruled by 'nfo.ty.fy (119). Similar to the Siut texts, a god
is invoked to reject the offering of the person who might trans
gress the wishes of the deceased. The indigenous deity of
Mo'alla, Hmn, moreover, is considered to physically harm the

253
criminal in retaliation for his offence (120). Unlike the
Tf.ib.i or jjty threats, which have an eschatological reference
to condemnation in the Netherworld, punishment in the 'nji.ty.fy
threat specifically refers to the Netherworld, punishment in
the 'nh.ty.fy threat specifically refers to the visitation of
divine vengeance upon the person of the malefactor. The invoca
tion of "striking the arm", implies incapacitation, probably
manifested as illness or disease (121).
Equally intriguing, however, is the extention of punishment
to the family of the wrongdoer, with the rejection of his depen
dant's claim to property as rightful heir as its main component.
Like the Tf-ib.i threat referring to the expulsion of the male
factor's offspring from their "bureaus", the scope of the impre
cation has been widened to include the immediate heirs, for whom
the potential criminal is also to be held responsible (122).
THE MIDDLE KINGDOM-SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD
In the earliest examples of a threat from the Middle Kingdom,
there is a reversion to the Old Kingdom formula citing personal
litigation as the major recourse for offenses perpertrated against
mortuary property. In an Abydos stela (Cairo 20458), probably
of an early Middle Kingdom date, there is a warning against
damaging the deceased's memorial inscription (123):
Moreover, as for any man who shall render damage

to this stela: I shall be litigated with him in the
place where litigation is held.
254
Sottas regarded the text as archaistic, rather than as a revival
of the Old Kingdom formulary (124).
From the examples preserved from the beginning of the
Twelfth Dynasty, it may be observed that older patterns of
language have been retained in some of the threats. Thus, in
the tomb inscription of Hp-Df3 of Siut, it is not surprising
that there are similarities in the stipulation of the threat
to those appearing in the text of Tf-ib.i. The injunc
tion itself, however, has been modified (125):
He says:
As for any people, any scribe, any knowledgeable

one, any commoner, any low-born, shall make an "uproar" in
this (my) chamber, (or) who shall damage its writings, (or)
who shall erase its images:
They shall fall to the fury of Thoth, the "Super

lative" (one) who is among the gods. They shall belong to
the knives of the srw and the servants of the bit(y), who
are in the Hw(w)t-wrwt. Not shall their gods accept their
white-bread offerings.
Again the warning is intended to forestall damage to the
physical contents of the tomb, particularly the inscriptions and
statuary belonging to the mortuary cult of the deceased. The
explicit reference to Thoth as a guardian of the writing reveals
a slight change from the earlier Siut threats. There, punishment
was dependant upon the personal god (ntr.f) or local deity (ntr
niwty) of the offender, in conjunction with the "Lord" or "sover
eign" of the "cemetary", together with the gods of the Necropolis.
Since an indigenous or local god's effectiveness was limited to a

255
rather small geographic base, a person could technically escape
divine prosecution upon leaving the locale where the crime had
been committed. Thus, in the Tf-ib.i threat, the god of the
criminal's own town is invoked to have a role in his punish
ment. Likewise, it is logical that the "Lord of the Cemetary"
and accompanying mortuary gods are involved, since potential
damage is to the Necropolis of Siut, and the private burial
property of its nomarch. By the time of the Hp-Df3 inscrip
tion, however, Thoth had apparently assumed the status of a
major deity, ie. his power was not restricted solely to the
environs of Siut (126). He is therefore regarded as the
primary protector of Hp-Df3's shrine. The elevation of
Thoth to primacy accounts for the use of the epithet spd wn
imy-ntrw lit. "sharpest, most effective", ie. "superlative
who is among the gods", thus indicating the high position to
which the deity had attained (127).
The injunction referring to the "knives" ('dt) of the
sr(3)w and frmw-bity is somewhat obscure (128). It has been
suggested that the former were bands of demonic being who
were enlisted as agents of vengeance against malefactors (129).
The mention of both groups as "those who are in the hw(w)t-wrwt"
suggests that they had a specific juridical function. As noted
previously, the hwt-wr were "law courts", in particular, they
functioned as the locale where criminal prosecution occured (130).
Indeed, the juxtaposition of the two bodies with the term bity,
256
"royal authority", would support some relation to a legal body
meting out royal jurisdiction (131). Hence, they would be
responsible for prosecuting criminal cases or for violation
or desecration of mortuary property. Again, the term referring
to the exaction of vengeance by these groups is 'dt, lit.
"knives" (132). It is unlikely that "knives" has any specific
reference, other than "punishment" per se.
As in the earlier Siut texts, the malefactor's own deity
has been invoked to reject his offering to the god. The Hp-df3
threat is noteworthy since the imprecation seems to refer to
both divine and human agencies for its enforcement. The trans-
gressoris to be consigned to the punishment of a god (Thoth),
as well as prosecution by what probably were the criminal
courts. The threat culminates in the rejection of the individ
ual from the religious life of the community. Again, there is
no real mechanism for its enforcement.
In the inscription of flnm-htp (II) from Beni-Hasan, there
is a stipulation warning against damaging a cult-statue or
hindering provisions for its care in the owner's tomb (133):
Moreover, as for a hm-k3, or anybody who shall

damage it: Not shall he (or) his son in his office
exist.
The abbreviated threat alludes to the denial of the "existence"
(wnn) of an individual (134). Again, it probably has an
application to the loss of civil status, since the objects of

257
the threat are specified as hr nst.f, "in his property", refer
ring to the criminal and his son. The reference is to their
social position, and the threat may have an association with
a proscription from holding office. It is noteworthy that the
malediction is directed towards a group, the descendants, which
may have not have been a party to the actual transgression.
The invocation of the "knives" of a deity reappears on an
offering table in the British Museum. The threat has been
attached to the so-called "Address to the Living", in which
the survivors are called to recite a blessing on behalf of the
deceased (135):
0 survivors: As your king loves you, as Hnty-

[Imntyw] praises you, may you say:
"A portion of bread, beer, cattle, fowl, and every
rite for the k3 of the Chamberlin, Sesostris, born of
'nbt':"
Moreover, as for those who shall do damage to

this offering-table: They shall fall to the knives
of Horus who is in S3£wt.
The threat is a wish for the destruction of the offender by a
deity. The invocation of the god, "Horus who is in S3twt", a
deity known from the Pyramid Texts, suggests a local or indig
enous form of Horus (136). The punishment iî , probably to
be read dsw, "knives", again is not intended literally, but is
used as a term for any misfortune attributed to divine power (137)
The maledictions discussed above have dealt with transgres
sions against mortuary property, and would tend to support the

258
misconception that "curses" are associated exclusively with
"burials" or similar matters. Threats dating from the end of
the First Intermediate Period into the Middle Kingdom have been
found among the graffiti left by groups who travelled to the
alabaster quarries of Hatnub (138). The contents of the graffit
range from giving the names and titles of the workers in the
quarries to the lengthy biographical accounts of a party's
journey to the quarry. Occasionally the inscriptions conclude
with an invocation which in form and function is closely related
to the "Address to the Living" (see above) (139). The texts
generally appeal to those who would honor the inscription and
memory of the person who had left the graffiti, either through
a prayer or invocation of offering. This is often followed by
a blessing for good health, or wish for a safe return home to
the benefactor ;(140):
Moreover, as for any traveler who shall raise [his

arm to this inscription]: [He shall reach] his home in
health, when he has come to it on his [own] accord.
The threats themselves usually warn against the destruction
of the text and figures (hntyw) of the mining party by persons
who might conduct subsequent business to the area (141). The
earliest injunction is from a text dated to the fifth year of
the nomarch, Nhri (I), while the latest example has been dated
by Moller to the Second Intermediate Period on paleographic
grounds (142). The majority of the threats, however, are from
the reign of Sesostris I.

259
The text of Nhri (Gr. 16), which also contains the blessing
formula cited above, contains a characteristic warning against
damaging the inscription (143):
[As for he who shall damage these] images: It

is the gods of the Hare nome [who shall punish him].
Graffiti 33 and 42, dating from the end of the Herakleopolitan
Period, specifically invoke the vengeance of the god Thoth:
As for he who shall destroy (h4« t(y)) these:

Itis Thoth who shall destroy (hj) him. (Gr.33) (144)
As for he who shall destroy these: It is Thoth

who shall pun[ish him] (fcsf). (Gr. 42) (145)
By the Middle Kingdom, however, other elements besides the
simple formula of divine opposition appear in the threats.
These include maledictions of a specific type, denying good for
tune to the transgressor, and particularly relate to the success
of the visitor's enterprise to the quarry (146):
[Moreover, as for] he who shall damage this in

scription or who shall erase its inscription (wd) in
[. • •]:
He shall not see success. He shall not accomplish
that for which he has come. I[t] is [Thoth, Lord] of
Hermopolis, and i[t] is 'nty, [Lord of Tjerty who shall
punish him].
Occasionally the threat is a wish that malefactor never returns
home, or sees his offspring again (147):
Moreover, [as for] [he] who shall destroy this

inscription: He shall not reach his home. He shall
not embrace [his] children. He shall not see success.
Grafitto 49 is striking, insofar as the wrong-doer is not pe
nalized himself; rather it is his children who are to be pun
ished by denying them access to the office, or position, of

260
their father (148):
Moreover: as for he who shall destroy my name

upon the inscription: It is the gods of the Hare
name who shall oppose his children in his office
after his death (Gr. 49).
The action probably refers to the loss of inheritance rights,
and it is ascribed to the gods of the Hare nome. These deities
are considered to be the protectorsôf the person who had left
the text (149). The latest attested threat from the Hatnub
quarries dates from the Hyksos Period. The formulation differs
slightly from the Middle Kingdom examples (150):
Moreover, as for anyone who shall destroy this

inscription: His office which is in his possession
shall be destroyed (hj.tw) [. . .] The person in his
house shall not exist [. . .] (Gr. 52).
The stipulation of the threat parallels that found in the pre
ceding texts and refers to obliterating the commemorative
inscription. The malediction itself, refers to the office of
the offender, and probably has an application to legal status.
The term "office which is in his possession", lit. "in his fin
gers" (m ^b'w.f)refers to the retention of a tenured position
(151). The subsequent injunction, by contrast, includes those
people legally attached or "accounted" (hsb) to the estate (152).
Significantly, the malediction is to effect anyone bound to the
transgressor in some legal relation; the result is again a loss
of status. As in the case of mortuary property assigned to the
protection of deities, the Hatnub texts clearly demonstrate
that threats were employed in areas or regions where no perma

261
nent legal agency was effective. Thus, out of necessity,
enforcement (in these instances, preservation of the texts)
was assigned to the vigilance of divine powers (153).
One would have suspected that foreign territory which had
been incorporated under royal authority would have entailed a
similar use of the threat. In the only example of what is prob
ably to be considered as a boundary marker relating to land out
side of Egypt per se, this is not the case (154). The duplicate
stelae erected by Sesostris III at Semhah and Uronarti specify
the extent of the Southern territory, which had been conquered
by the king. Following a recitation of Sesostris Ill's valor,
the texts conclude with an address to future rulers (155):
Moreover, as for any of my sons who shall

strengthen this border which my Majesty has made:
He is my son, born to my Majesty. Pleasing is a
son who is the protector of his father, who strength
ens the borders of the one who engendered him.
(But) moreover, as for he who shall lose it, or

who shall not fight on its behalf: Indeed, he is not
my son, nor is he born to me.
The warning, as well as the benediction, retains the structure
of the threat formula containing a stipulation followed by an
injunction. The threat, itself, however, is not directed to
those who would violate the boundaries established by the king,
or against those who might damage the inscription as would be
expected (156). Instead, the king alludes to the pride and
prestige of his successor. It is the failure of a future

262
monarch to consolidate Sesostris Ill's achievement in securing
his southern border which is the object to the threat. The
malediction, "he is not my son, nor is he born to me", is drawn
from juridical language referring to the recognition or legit
imation of an heir. The admonition however, has no real force,
other tan as an insult to the prestige of the potentially
failed king.
The Semnah-Uronarti stelae may be contrasted with a por
tion of a spell from the Coffin Texts (313), which concerns
the delineation of territory under the authority of the now
deceased king (157). The setting of the te.xt refers to a con
vocation assembled before Osiris, who is described as assuming
the administrative role of king. Atum, Thoth, and Horus appear
before the deceased monarch; Thoth, however, is subsequently dis
patched by Atum to report on the condition of Osiris' realm (158).
The scene culminates in a request of Horus, referring to the
living king and successor, to receive the transfer of the royal
attributes of power which had belonged to his predecessor (159).
Containing characteristics of an enthronement ritual, the text
also preserves a series of threats againt those forces which
might trespass or violate the physical boundaries of Osiris'
realm (160):
He who shall come from heaven against you:

[He (shall) belonging to] the fury (3t) of your
Wrrt-crown.
He who shall come against you.from the earth

263
(t3): He (shall) belong to the fury of your awe-

someness (^f^ft.k).
He who shall come against you belonging to the

South: They shall be opposed by Satis, Mistress
of Elephantine. She shall shoot at th[em] with
her arrows, painful and sharp [against] them.
He who shall come against you belonging to

the North: He (shall) belong to flkt and Hpwy.

the Easterners: He shall belong to Sopdu, Lord
of the East, among whom your knives have repelled.

the Westerners: He (shall) belong to H3, Lord
of the West. He shall oppose them on behalf of
the fury of Atum in his going-forths from the
horizon.
The text, of course, has been fashioned for the deceased
king, and refers to the theoretical boundaries of the Netherworld
in which Osiris may effect his rule. Moreover, the threats are
formulated or addressed to a "model", in which every avenue of
trouble is potentially under ban (161). Transgressions of ter
ritory by groups from specific geographical locales, are sup
plemented by references to those of heaven and earth. Thus,
the maledictions are all-inclusive in their scope. The impre
cations themselves, are divided into two groups of agents. Hos
tile elements are initially stated to be under the authority of
the king. This is formulated as the personification of royal
power, designated by the wearing of the crown Wrrt, lit. "that
which is ever great"; and "awesomeness" (sfsft), which derives
from the innate qualities of the office of the king (162).
Hence, the injunction primarily invokes the legitimate right of

264
the king to execute royal power (in his abstracted role of
Osiris) against potential foes.
By contrast, opponents listed by regions are to be punished
by deities indigenous to the area. As noted, the spell addresses
a theoretical model. Thus, potential trespassers are designated
as inhabitants of the South, North, East, and West; the four
cardinal directions by which entry into Egypt, corresponding to
the model of the Netherworld, was possible (163). It is tempting
to see the preceding threats as a reflection of some prototype
or practice by which the historical boundaries of Egypt were
formally placed under divine protection. For example, Satis,
a native goddess of Elephantine is invoked to guard the South
(164); Sopdu, a manifestation of Horus in the Eastern Delta is
expected to preserve the Eastern borders (165). Again, it must
be noted that the formulation of the text is in a "mythologized"
or "ritual" context, and is not meant as a mundane document (166).
Nevertheless, the imprecations certainly demonstrate the prin
ciple that the territory of the king was considered to have been
under divine protection. It is unclear, however, due to a lack
of evidence, if the actual legal boundaries of Egypt were phys
ically marked by stelae with threats corresponding to the Coffin
Text spell (See below).
The Koptus decree of Nb-faprw-R' Intf, the founding monarch
of the Seventeenth Dynasty contains provisions against aiding

265
and harboring a fugitive in the temple of Min (167). The royal
decree, dated to the third year of the king, concerns a functionary
of the temple, Teti son of Minhotep. The primary charge against
the official seems to have consisted of abetting an enemy of the
king (168). Any garrison commander or civil authority, however,
who might petition the monarch to pardon Teti was also liable to
royal condemnation.
The levying of the charge and resulting sentence occurred
following an investigation by a representative dispatched by
Intf. Interestingly, the text states that the actions of the
king were instigated after rumors of Teti's treasonous activities
had been reported by his fellow priests of the temple estate at
Koptus (169):
Behold, this decree for your information has

been conveyed to you, to the effect that my Majesty,
l.p.h., has dispatched the scribe and seal-bearer
of the God of Imn-s3-Imn, Elder of the Portal,
Imn-wsr, to perform an official investigation in
the Temple of Min; (and) to the effect that the
religious phyle of my father Min has reached my
Majesty, l.p.h., saying:
"An evil word has been plotted to take

place in the Temple—An enemy has been accepted
by—Away to his name!—Teti, son of Minhotep."
The punishment enacted by Intf against Teti includes disposses
sion of legally registered property, removal from office, loss
of income, and the rejection of claims of Teti's heirs to their
patrimony (170):
"Have him forcibly removed from the Temple of my

father Min. Have him expelled from his office of the
Temple, from son to son and heir to heir, (namely)
(those) who are legally proscribed; (and) whose income
266
and whose meat is confiscated, so his name shall

no longer be recalled in this Temple, as is (always)
done against the likes of him-(namely he) who partic
ipates in criminal actions against his god. Remove
his documents from the Temple of Min, from the
Treasury, and upon any (other) papyrus likewise."
As noted, officials who might be kindly disposed towards Teti
or his family are liable to have their own goods and landed
property confiscated and transferred to the ownership of the
Temple of Min. Moreover, the family of the guilty party is to
be prevented from assuming office, and any claims of inheritance
are to be forfeited to the authority of the crown (171).
As for any commander, or any mayor who shall petition

the Lord, l.p.h., to pardon him, having arisen (172):
His people, his goods, his land shall be given to

the divine endowment of my father Min, Lord of Koptus,
and no man of his relatives, of the family of his
father (or) his mother shall be allowed to be appoint
ed to office. And this office shall be transferred to
the Royal Seal-bearer and Overseer of the Administrative
District of Min-em-hat. The income from it, its food,
and its pure meat shall be given to him, when it has
been established in his possession by document in the
Temple of my father, Min, Lord of Koptus, from son to
son and heir to heir.
Particularly noteworthy among the punishments levied against
Teti is the attendant loss of civil status accompanied by the
loss of property. Similar to the earlier threat formulae of
the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period, the Koptus decree
contains an injunction that the criminal's name is not to be
recalled among the community (lit. "remembered") (173). Al
though the activity of Teti was likely regarded as an act of
treason against the king, the locale of the crime, ie. within
267
the temple itself, probably accounts for the framing of the
charge as the commission of a sacral offense. Indeed, Teti
is specifically denounced as "One who participates in criminal
actions against his god" (sbi hr faftyw ntr.f) (174). It is
likely that the religious underpinnings of the office of the
king were a factor in the formulation of the sentence as well.
Significantly, Intf refers to the punishment as something "which
is (always) done against the likes of him" (175). Hence, it
should be assumed that the sentence was standard in cases of
treason or the commission of sacrilege.
An interesting aspect of the formulation of the original
indictment against Teti is the insertion of a parenthetical
statement, w3 n rn.f, preceding his name. Literally meaning,
"Away to his name", the formula is to be construed as a malign
wish against the criminal (176). The expression appears to have
been fixed by the Middle Kingdom. The same phrase occurs
earlier in a papyrus, published by Hayes, dating from the reign
of Amenemhat III (177). The expression is used in reference to
parties guilty of aiding fugitives from the crown, suggesting a
situation quite similar to the Intf decree (178). Posener has
referred to the use of the term in criminal charges as an exam
ple of what he called "debaptism" (179). Hence, a guilty party
was deprived of his status by literally "removing" his name, or
in other cases his position in office (180). Closely related
to this concept is a later practice in which an accused indi

268
vidual's name is changed or "deformed" in official transcripts
of his trial. The practice involved the replacement of any
onomastic element with a deprecatory term (181). An obvious
example occurs in the transcripts of the conspiracy trials
relating to the assassination of Ramesses III. In the lists
of conspirators, a name such as Mr-sw-R', "Re loves him", is
written as Msd-sw-R', "Re hates him" (182).
Hayes noted that the phrase was in origin a "curse" (183).
He added, however, that it was perhaps thought of as a pro
nouncement of actual punishment (184). This is most likely the
case in the Intf decree, where the text incorporates a verbal
directive of the king referring to the deprivation of a criminal's
rank. The expression is to be related conceptually to maledic
tions referring to the "name" or "status" of a potential criminal.
It is not, however, a "formal" curse in its structure, but is
rather the pronouncement of an actual sentence by the king.
Moreover, unlike the previously discussed threat formulae, the
Intf decree had been issued against a specific party in response
to a particular circumstance (185). It is doubtful, however,
that the Egyptians themselves would have considered the two
concepts to have been divergent or mutually exclusive. Indeed,
the difference between the application of the term, as it refers
to a criminal's loss of status, in a decree, and its use as a
"threat" or malediction, would have been one of agency or en
forcement, and perhaps its chronological specification.

269
In a similar fashion, Lorton contrasted the sentences
against officials who might violate the decree with the injunc
tion concerning kings who might rescind Intf's sentence (186):
As for any king or any potentate who shall pardon

him: Not shall he assume the White Crown, nor raise
up the Red Crown. Not shall he reside upon the Throne
of Horus of the Living Ones. Nor shall the Ladies
pardon him as "One whom they love".
Lorton suggested that, technically, a king could not be prose
cuted, unlike officials (187). The injunction, therefore is to
be considered a "curse" rather than an actual legal directive.
The imprecation itself, is a parallel to the threats depriving
the officials of their rank. It has been formulated, however,
according to the office of the king. The tenor of the threat
is simply a wish that the monarch to be denied the exercise of
his royal office. The invocation of the "Two Ladies" (Nbty)
indicates, however, that they were considered to be the agents
by which the injunction was carried out. This is obviously due
to their function as guardians or patronesses of the institution
of kingship (188). The incorporation of a "curse" indicates
that the king had lacked actual authority or legal means to
enforce his decision (189).
Although the Intf decree had been drafted in reaction to a
specific crime, the king's proclamation has been formulated so
as to be valid in perpetutity. Thus the "publication" of the
document in monumental form on the doorway of the temple suggests
that is was to be in effect beyond the time of its original
issue (190). It is evident that a primary concern of the text

270
was towards officials who might seek to reinstate Teti's legal
claims on behalf of his descendants which accounts for the far-
reaching scope of Intf's reaction to the crime (191). In struc
ture, it consists of legal stipulations relating to the punish
ments of the transgressor, Teti, along with a "curse" pertaining
to the actions of future kings. The composite nature of the
decree thus, indicates that legal injunctions and maledictory
formulae could be utilized in a royal pronouncement, apparently
without any conceptual difference regarding their efficacy.

271
THE NEW KINGDOM
Examples of threat formulae from the Eighteenth Dynasty
are unfortunately rare. Whether this is due to an accident of
discovery or whether there was an actual decline in their usage
durng this period is not certain (192). Nevertheless, from the
available evidence, it appears that formal maledictions were used
with less frequency than in the Old and Middle Kingdom. Several
threats are found in inscriptions made by Hatshespsut herself, or
contemporary to her reign. Those threats appearing in her Corona
tion inscription indicate the troubled nature of her rule since
they are specifically concerned with potential dissidents (193).
A similar reason could be posited for the presence of a malediction
in the tomb inscription for her favorite, Senmut. The text warns
against violations of his mortuary property (194);
As for any man who shall do damage to my image:

He shall not follow the king in his reign. He
shall not be buried in the Western Necropolis.
His lifetime shall not exist upon earth.
The threats contains some traditional elements, particularly the
loss of burial privileges. On the other hand, the interdiction
pertaining to royal service, which is parallel to earlier threats
referring to the denial of office, seems to have a specific
application to advisors of the king, similar to Senmut's own
position. The threat to the "lifetime" of the violator is
simply a wish for the death of the transgressor. This is to be
contrasted with maledicitons against the "existence" (wnn), which

272
refers to legal status.
By contrast, the threat formula appearing in the contempor
ary tomb of Puyemre is to be regarded as an example of the
"revival" of Middle Kingdom models, and is typical of the life
style of the early Eighteenth Dynasty (195). The stipulation
and injunction referring to a violation of the deceased's tomb
are almost an exact copy from the Hp-Df3 tomb (196). The only
real changes are in orthography; the most interesting aspect
being the replacement of sibilants in the Eighteeth Dynasty
text. The threat itself requires no further comment, other
than to demonstrate the extent of the "literary borrowing":
Hp~Df3
ir rmt nbt sS nb rfc j}t nb nds nb tw3 nb
/) Jflj *=7
V
ir rmt nb ss nb rh nb nds nb tw3 nb
EP~pf3 ^Pn.c© } C~D • >—

V , .
lr.tsn sd-prw m is pn
Puy£mre
ir.t.sn sd-frrw m is pn
gp-s»
hd.t.sn ss.f nss.t.sn n hntiw.f
273
22S5SS i"*\~ m S*
hd.t.sn ss.f nss.t.sn n hntiw.f
SE=Sf3
for.s[n] n dnd 11 Dhwty spd wn Imyw ntrw
g»y-*
frr.sn n d[n]c} 11 Dhwty spd wn imy ntrw
iw.sn n 'dt nt sr3w ftmw bit(y) imyw hw(w)t wrwt
Puyemre 3 !51 ^'"''
iw.sn n 'dt nt sr3w hmw bit(y) imyw hw(w) wrwt
A later text from a statue of an official during the reign
of Amenophis II, Wr-sw, contains two threats directed against
violators of his tomb, including those who would desecrate his
corpse (197):
Wr-sw, he says:
As for anyone who shall violate my corpse in

the Necropolis, or who shall damage my image in my
chamber: He shall be a hated one of Re. Not shall
he receive water or ointment for an Osirian, nor shall
he ever bequeath his goods to his children.
The overseer of the foreigners, and the gold of

Amun, Wr-sw, justified, he says:
As for he who violates my place, or who shall damage

my chamber, or who shall destroy my corpse: The k3 of Re
274
shall abhor him. Not shall he bequeath his goods

to his children, nor shall his heart be restful in
life, nor shall he receive water in the Necropolis.
His b3 shall be destroyed forever, as this land is
wide without limit.
The maledictions primarily refer to the denial of offering rites
intended for a proper burial, followed by the exclusion of the
violator's heirs to his property. There is an added wish for
a troubled life, which is to culminate in the utter destruction
of the violator's b3 upon his demise. It is significant that
the criminal is identified as "the hated one (frbd) of Re";
or denounced by the formula, "The k3 of Re shall abhore him
(fabd sw)". Wb. Ill 257.10 defines the term as "to hate,
loathe", and is antonymic to frsi, "praise", gbd is probably
a variation of the older formula, bwt nfcr, "abomination of
god" (198), or perhaps msdcjt nswt pw, "It is what the king
hates" (199). Both are used in reference to a guilty verdict
relating to criminal offences. The condemnation in the Wr-sw
threat suggests that the offense, especially the references to
violation of the burial chamber and destruction of the corpse,
were considered to have been acts of sacrilege (200). Juris
diction of such a case belonged to religious authorities,
represented here by the pronouncement of guilt in the name of
a deity. Punishment, likewise, was to be enacted under divine
jurisdiction.
A similar concept may be observed in the later Eighteenth
Dynasty inscription engraved on a votive statue of Amenhotep,
the chief administrator of Memphis and the estate of Ptah (201).

275
The text is essentially a funerary contract made during the
reign of Amenophis III, and contains specifications for offer
ings to be made to the cult of the deceased (202):
I say:
"Hear o priests, lay officials, servants of the "community*

of Ptah (203), or every steward of the king who shall live
in Memphis after these things. Thus:
His Majesty has granted me bread, beer, cakes, and every

proper rite, in order that you find (them) in his chapel of
the "community" of Ptah, in the course of every day.
May you not obstruct my offerings, which the Most Divine

One has decreed to me, in order to pour water for me on
account of my testament.
(For) I have not mentioned an abundance of offerings,
nor sought excess; indeed, for I have placed property in
writing for the image of the king who is in his Chapel,
as payment for his giving to me a divine-endowment, and
benefices which are delivered before his statue, after
service, in order that my offerings remain for others who
shall come after my generation.
Because I was a just man on earth, who recognized his

god, who aggrandized his beauty, who performed benefactions
for the service of his house. I did not remove a man from
his office, plundered another of his goods, or seize another's
property through lying. For abominable is a rapacious act."
Amenhotep later invokes a threat against officials or members of
the priesthood of Ptah who might interfere with the dispensation
of his endowment in the temple (204):
Indeed, I speak even more:
"As for any steward of the king who shall live in

Memphis, or any scribe, lay official, or priest of the
Chapel, or the entire priesthood of the Chapel, or
anybody who shall be in this estate, who shall hinder
my offering which Ptah South-of-his-Wall, a god who
lives on truth, who fashioned his own body, had decreed:
(Namely) those (things) which Amun - Re has granted

to me, to deposit for me, in accordance with my testament,
for so great was my reward to him:
276
This god shall hate him. His office shall be confiscated

in the presence of a man to whom it (shall be) rewarded,
(namely) (he) who is his litigant. His k3 shall be absent
from him, while his estate has gone to the ground."
As in the Wr-sw threat, the essential element is the con
demnation of the wrong-doer by a deity; in this case, it is
the god Ptah, due to the Memphite origin of the testament (205).
The offense is primarily a "breach of contract", entailing the
failure to execute a proscribed set of offerings (206). The
reference to the "hatred (bbd)" of the god suggests, however,
a charge pertaining to sacrilege. Violations of the provision
of the testament could result in removal from office, thereby
indicating a criminal rather than sacral offense. Indeed, the
punishment is specified as confiscation of office and property,
rather than the typical wish for loss of burial privileges.
Property loss is further indicated by the reference to the
violator's k3, which has a specific connotation of "victuals"
or income (207). The threat is probably to be understood as the
forfeiture of pension resulting from the dismissal from office,
quite similar to the prohibitions in the decree of Intf (see
above). Again, the expression, "his estate has gone to the
gound", has a legal connotation referring to the dispossession
of landed property (208).
Although it is not specified, the treatment of the criminal
was probably assumed by a juridical body associated with the
religious estate in Memphis. The maledictions themselves are
essentially a parallel to earlier formulae of proscription
known from royal decrees. The reference to a possible recipient

277
of the violator's office indicates that there was a specific
penalty, or process of litigation in effect for misappropriation
of ritual property. Such an individual is designated as a
citizen (s) who is a "litigant" (nty m hrw.f) lit. "who is
his enemy/opponent" (209). More precisely, it seems to refer
to a person who instigates proceedings for the violation. Since
the grant of Amenhotep's contract or testament is attributed to
both Ptah and the king himself, this suggests that proceedings
as those described above, were ultimately regarded to have been
under royal jurisdiction. Indeed, the initial deposition of the
contract is stated to have been "placed" before an image of the
king; thus making it probable that the authority of the crown
would have been involved in any transgression of the will (210).
Concommitant with the Ramesside Period in Egypt is a marked
increase in the use of threat formulae to guarantee compliance
with royal decrees, or to safe-guard the provisions of private
documents. The use of maledictions in this manner is in contrast
with their rather limited application during the Eighteenth
Dynasty, and is representative of a shift, or change in the out
look of the Egyptians towards the ordering of their world, and
the intervention of the divine in mundane affairs.
Indeed, Wilson had regarded the beginning of the Ramesside
Period as constituting a major breech in Egyptian thought and
philosophy (211). He cited evidence of a growing belief in
the role of divine forces in human events, increasingly of a

278
malevolent nature. For example, the "demonization" of the
Underworld is often seen as evidence of this change in perception.
The dependence of the Egyptian courts upon the judgement of the
divine is represented by the consultation of the oracle (212).
The ever-increasing use of "spells" in Ramesside redactions of
earlier medical texts (213), and more pertinently, the inclusion
of "curses" in royal decrees are clearly symptomatic of a grow
ing theocracy during this time. Wilson's observation is undoubt
edly valid up to a point, although it is probably not correct
to refer to a definite "break" or division exactly paralleling
the beginning of the Nineteenth Dynasty (214). Thus, it has
been noted that maledictory formulae appear in inscriptions
well before the Ramesside Period, although the practice is
primarily associated with texts relating to burials or mortuary
property.
Wilson is essentially correct, however, in noting an increase
in the Egyptian's recourse to divine aid and protection, partic
ularly in the sphere of law. Earlier royal inscriptions occa
sionally contain maledictions; thus the imprecation against future
kings in the Intf decree is a good example. In a dedicatory text
of Seti I, however, "curses" are included to sanction the protec
tion of his endowment (see below). It is significant, moreover,
that the king himself invokes the threats of divine punishment,
rather than a private individual, as is more typical for earl
ier periods. The attitude wherein royal monuments were placed
under the protection of deities, however, is a very ancient concept

279
in Egyptian thought (215). Such a belief is not necessarily
expressed as a codified threat, as are the examples from the
Ramesside Period. Certainly the admonitions in the Teaching
for Merikare beseeching the king to increase temple endowments
in return for divine favor, points to the antiquity of the
concept (216).
It is only logical that the benefactions of a king to the
temples and the royal fostering of the divine cults formed the
basis of the fundamental relationship between the divine sphere
and the monarchy in Egypt. The king's actions assumed the nature
of a de facto contract, and the royal dedicatory inscriptions are
evidence of this. The nature of the "agreement" between the two
parties, ie. the king and the divine, is formulated almost
exclusively in positive terms (217). Thus, the generosity of
the king is cited along with a pledge of god's favor in repay
ment for the royal benevolence (218). Among the manifestations
of the god's blessings are the fixed formulae granting health,
life, and prosperity to the king (219). These rewards also
include abundance to Egypt, victory in battle, and prestige
among foreign peoples (220). Such a concept reaches its apex
in the monumental building activities of the Eighteenth Dynasty
pharaohs, especially Thutmosis III and Amenophis III. Not
surprisingly, this accompanies the period of the greatest
Egyptian military expansion and diplomatic success abroad. The
period of a "Pax Aegyptica", if it may be so termed, or at least
a heightened Pharaonic military and administrative presence in

280
Syro-Palestine, coincides with increases to temple endowments,
particularly that of Amun in Thebes.
It is only natural therefore, that Egyptian theological
speculation linked the two actions in a cause and effect rela
tionship. Thus, the continued success of Egypt was obviously
dependant upon the satisfaction of its major deity, Amun, and
to a lesser extent other gods. There was little to dispute the
assertions of divine favor made in the dedicatory inscriptions
at Thebes by a king such as Amenhophis III, until the changes
wrought by his son and successor Akhnaton.
The aftermath of Akhnaton's innovations and the ensuing
consequences of his actions affirmed to the populace the
reverse of the hitherto agreeable concept. Divine retribution
seemingly descended upon Egypt, visible in the wreckage of a
failed domestic and foreign policy. The introduction of
Tutankhamun's Restoration stela gives vent and literal expression
to a belief which was only hinted at previously (221):
Now when his Majesty (Tutankhamun) had appeared as

king, the temples of the gods and goddesses from Elephantine
[ending] at the marshes of the Delfta] [. . .][fallen] to
ruin. Their sh[rine]s had fallen to desolation, become
ruin-heaps, overgrown with w[eed]s. Their sanctuaries
were as that which did not exist, while their estate was
as a foot-path. The land was suffering illness, for the
gods surely abandoned this land. If the [ar]my (was)
sent to Djahy in order to expand the borders of Egypt,
there did not occur any success. If one petitioned a
god to make an oracular inquiry from him, he never
came [at all]. If one beseeched any goddess likewise,
she never came at all. For their heart was demoralized
on account of their body, and they destroyed what had
been made.
The unabashedly bitter tone of the account is reflective of the

281
antipathy felt towards Akhnaton and the changes his policies
had wrought (222). Moreover the events described in the text
were a confirmation of a belief which had been heeded by
Akhnaton's predecessors: The land and its people could suffer
divine retribution for any breach of faith caused by the king.
The appearance of the plague in Syria-Palestine, and most
likely within the Nile Valley itself, was a palphable and
terrifying sign of the anger of the gods, and a manifestation
of divine wrath that could not be explained away or ignored (223).
Likewise the weakening of Egyptian military might among its
client-states in Syria was symptomatic of the dreadful punish
ment by the gods upon a disobedient king and his subjects. The
introduction of the Restoration stela clearly makes such a
connection. Moreover, the linkage of Akhnaton*s refusal to
support religious cults other than that of the Aton, and the
subsequent withdrawal of divine patronage from Egypt required
no great leap of imagination as seen in the light of contemporary
events. It is striking to compare the Restoration stela with
the roughly contemporary "Plague Prayers of Murshilish" (224).
The Hittite texts attribute the outbreak of the plague in Hatti
to actions precipitated by its ruler, Shuppiluliuma by breaking
a treaty that had been arranged between Egypt and Hatti. The
doctrines of causality are remarkably similar, although the
divine "cursing" of the respective countries are traced to
differing events (225). It seems that in the aftermath of
the Amarna period, a fundamentally altered view of the world

282
emerged in Egyptian belief regarding its relationship with the
divine (226). Thus, the change attributed to, or symptomatic
of the Ramesside Period (as noted by Wilson) probably had its
impetus in the reaction to the uncertainties brought about dur
ing the Amarna episode.
The Nauri Decree of Seti I, dated to that king's fourth
year, contains injunctions pertaining to infringements against
the property and personnel of the cult of Osiris at Abydos (227).
The text cites infractions such as the illegal acquisition of
servants or property belonging to the funerary estate, mis
appropriation of goods and material sanctified for the temple
personnel, and criminal trespass. Such crimes were usually
punished with beating, and also accompanied by the confiscation
of property and loss of free status to the offender (228). In
the case of selling an animal designated as a endowment to the
estate of Osiris, an offender was liable to death by impale
ment (229). The text also refers to citizens who might be aware
of violations against the establishment, but fail to report it
to the proper authorities. The final stipulation of the decree
concerns authorities who might hear a charge of malfeasance,
but refuse to prosecute the criminal. The latter is formulated
as follows (230):
As for any [official (?)] who is in any city to whom

anybody of the Chapel of Mn-M3't-R', Content of Heart
in Abydos arrives ... in order to report, and he
ignores him, so as not to fly on account of the plea
to perform his duty quickly: The law shall be enacted
283
against him, namely he shall be beaten with 100

blows, removed from his office, (and) placed as
a cultivator in the Estate of Mn-M3't-R', Content
of Heart in Abydos.
The injunction directed towards persons refusing to report
a crime appears quite differently by contrast (231):
[As for any people] who are in the entire land

against whom anybody of the Chapel of Mn-M3't-R',
Content of Heart in Abydos, commits a transgression
saying:
"[It was a certain controller] who illegally

seized my ox, or my ass, or my goat"; Or- "A
certain controller illegally took my personnel
by Sc^buic "xit OTQc'L 1'perforin 'i^ny tssfc" ~ '
And they do not fly on account of his plea, in

order that his adversary be apprehended quickly,
in order that he be judged:
Osiris, Foremost of the West, (namely) the Lord

of all the people and all the property, shall
pursue him, his wife, and his children, in order
to obliterate his name, in order to utterly
destroy his b3, so as to prevent his corpse
from resting in the Necropolis.
The difference between the respective cases is obvious and strik
ing. An official who refused to prosecute a known felon was to
be beaten and removed from office, due to his breach of trust.
Private parties, however, who might hear a rumor of malfeasance,
but neglect to inform the proper legal authorities were liable to
divine, not human, punishment. The misdeed itself was probably
considered to have been akin to withholding evidence, and was
most likely subsumed under some oath of loyalty to the king. The
individual in such circumstances was beyond the reach of the law
per se. Without corroborating witnesses, prosecution was clearly
dependant upon the moral and civic integrity of the private citizen.
284
It is noteworthy, that in such a case, Osiris is named as
the agent to effect the injunction. This may be attributed
to the god's role as owner (lit. "lord") of the estate and
personnel, and therefore the injured party (232). The nature
of the crime and difficulties attendant in its detection also
account for a relegation to divine, rather than human, auspices.
It is interesting that the god is described as pursuing
the victim and his immediate family, in order to obliterate
their physical being and legal status. The divine punishment
culminates in the loss of a ritual burial. Although the emphasis
is on physical punishment, the threat probably had an underlying
eschatological implication. The rejection of the criminal's
corpse from the Cemetary amounted to the denial of an existence
in the Afterlife.
A similar concept occurs in the decree of Seti I which
records the dedication of his temple at Kanais in the Wadi
Mia (233). The text contains provisions for the establishment
of a temple and sanctuary, as well as for the exemption of
workers from labor other than the refining and delivery of
gold to Abydos. A number of maledictions, however, occur in
a warning to future monarchs, reminding them that the inscrip
tion and estate had been placed under divine protection (234):
"As for any king who shall exist, who shall

tear down any of my plans, and shall surely
say":
'All lands are under my authority. They
belong to me, as they belonged to him.'
285
An evil deed is it among the gods. Behold

he will be answered in Neliopolis. They
are the tribunal [. . .] (and) they shall
answer on behalf of their property. They
shall be red like a fiery flame, they shall
burn up their flesh, (namely) those who do
not obey me.
They shall utterly obliterate those who damage

my plans, and shall assign him to the Prison
of the Netherworld. I [have] said [these]
that I might counsel you. Let the one who is
free of his crime take him (but) woe to another
straying of heart to the Ennead. They shall
arraign him.
The threats deal with a monarch who might disregard Seti's
provisions for the foundation, but still assumes title to the
land in imitation of his predecessor (235). Owing to the royal
status of the transgressor, however, he is to be arraigned by a
divine tribunal in Heliopolis rather than prosecuted under exist
ing law (236). Paralleling the role of Osiris in the Nauri decree,
the deities are, themselves, considered as the protectors of the
temple. The outcome of the divine convocation is the utter
destruction of the guilty party, signified by the reference to
"the fiery flame". Again, the threats appear to have an eschatol-
ogical reference since the criminal is ultimately consigned to the
"Prison of the Netherworld". The term fabt Dw3t refers to a place
of torment reserved for the deceased following condemnation by the
gods for their crimes (237).
A further stipulation concerns officials who might initiate
the removal of personnel from the temple for another service (238):
As for any official who shall bring forth

this thought to his Lord (namely) to take
work-crews, to place them in another founda
tion, through the counsel of an evil witness:
286
He shall belong to the fiery flame, and his

limbs shall belong to the glowing fire. It
shall consume his limbs, on account of all
these things which his Majesty has done for
their sustenance (lit. k3), (namely) the
lords of my estate. For God abhores the
one who transgresses his people.
Again, the punishment is considered to have been under the
jurisdiction of gods who are named as "lords", ie. owners of
Seti's "estate", referring to the temple (239). Indeed, the
king himself explicitly cites the provisioning of the temple
as the basis for divine protection. The removal of workmen
from the establishment, who form part of the "sustenance" of
the indigenous deities, therefore, is to be regarded as an
offense against the divine patrons of the estate. The threats
in this instance once more invoke the image of fire as punish
ment. It is noteworthy, however, that the monarch himself is
considered to be absolved of guilt. Rather, it is an official
who falsely counsels the king to misuse the resources of Seti's
foundation, who is to be under condemnation.
The decree concludes with a warning to the general populace
(240):
As for anybody who shall ignore this decree:

Osiris shall pursue him, while Isis is after
his wife, and Horus his children. It is all
the officials of T3-gsr who shall make their
judgement with him.
The threat is a variant of the one used in the Nauri Decree, with
Osiris, Isis, and Horus, acting as agents of vengeance on behalf
of the king. Appropriately, the individual deities of the triad
are invoked to pursue victims corresponding to familial rank:

287
Osiris (divine father;husband)-"Criminal" (father;

husband)
Isis (divine mother;wife)-"Criminal's"wife (mother)
Khonsu (divine child)-"Criminal's" children.
The threat concludes with the violator being brought to judge
ment (wp) by the officials or judges (srw) of t3-Dsr (241).
Schott understood the term t3-Qsr to be a reference to the
Necropolis of Abydos (242). The srw of the "consecreated land"
or cemetary, therefore, were the Totengericht, corresponding
to the juridical body before which the dead testifies, as the
Book of the Dead, Chapter 125 (243). Again it is likely that
the "pursuit" (m-s3) of the gods was primarily considered as
punishment to the corporeal existence of the criminal, probably
manifested through illness or disease. Divine "persecution",
however, may also refer to a concept of "arraignment" prior
to the actual prosecution of the criminal. The threat itself
culminates in a pronouncement of judgement, which certainly is
of an eschatological nature (244).
In the Bilgai stela, which dates to the late Nineteenth
Dynasty, imprecations are a prominent feature in this royal
decree (245). The text, one of the few surviving offical
inscriptions from the reign of Twoseret, commemorates the
establishment of a divine foundation somewhere in the Delta,
on behalf of Amun of Wsr-M3't-R'-Stp-n-R' (246). According

288
to the inscription, a cult installation is to be placed under
the charge of a "Fortress commander of the W3d~Wr", a descrip
tion strongly suggesting that the location itself housed a
garrison (247). In order to ensure the sanctity of the estate
beyond the lifetime of the queen, a series of threats is address
ed to future administrators of the property (248):
[Further, as for any overseer of the Fortress

of the W3d~Wr] who shall exist and who shall
ignore this Chapel which [the] Great [Mistress]
of every land has made [on behalf of Amun of
Wsr-M3't-R-Stp-n-R'], her father, so as not to
allow that Amun of Wsr-M3't-R'-Stp-n-R' rest
therein, whenever he shall appear in any
festival, and who shall [seize] people from
it to place him in another business which
is not among the business of the Chapel:
He shall be in the power of Amun of Wsr-M3't-R'~

Stp-n-R'; He shall be disgraced to the gods of
heaven and earth. He shall be disgraced to the
king in his reign. Not shall any of his offer
ings be accepted. Not shall he stand on the lips,
enduring, of (his) relatives. Not shall his
son stand in his place. Not shall anything
which he has done come about. Nor shall he
rely upon anything he shall do.
The first stipulation is not entirely clear in its intent,
although there seems to be reference to the suppression of the
personal cult of Amun of Ramesses II. Such a transgression
apparently involved the denial of access to the estate and the
proscription of the divine image from participation in religious
festivals. The "appearance" of the god undoubtedly refers to
processions wherein the sacred statue or paraphernalia was
displayed for public veneration (249). The subsequent prohibi
tion referring to unlawful seizure of temple personnel for work
not related to the estate, is similar to those found in the

289
earlier Nauri and Wadi Mia decrees of Seti I (250).
The maledictions themselves, generally are of types which
have been encountered from earlier periods. There are, however,
variations in the language and structure of the threats. The
reference to the b3w of Amun is to a manifestation of the "power"
or "wrath" of the deity (251). The b3w of a god is a common
element in imprecations of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate
Period; it is likewise invoked in oaths sworn during the Ramesside
era (252). The aforementioned god of Ramesses II, Amun of Wsr-M3't-
R'-Stp-n-R', undoubtedly is a reference to the personal cult of the
king (253). It seems likely that the temple and its grounds had
been privately financed by the queen, and was therefore not a
"state" cult, as was the case of the Theban cult of Amun (254).
Thus, the personal god of the estate, as in the Wadi Mia text, is
responsible to answer infringements against the cult, subsequent
to the death of Twoseret.
The denigration of the criminal as bbdy, "disgraced" is a
variation of the older term bbd, used in maledictions of the
Eighteenth Dynasty (255). Bbd appears twice in the Bilgai stela,
and refers to a pronouncement of "guilt" upon the transgressor of
the decree. The term, however, is applied to different agents:
1) the gods of heaven and earth; 2) a king in his reign. It is
clear that a transgression against the estate was considered to
have been under the primary jurisdiction of the cult's own deity.
On the other hand, offenses committted against the personnel of
the institution were probably regarded as some capital crime,

290
and accounts for the participation of the king in the condemnation
of the violator. Prominence, however, is given to divine elements,
rather than royal punishment. This again suggests the "private"
nature of the benefices to the cult.
The general reference to the "gods of heaven and earth" in
the imprecation cited above is striking. It is tempting to see
the expression as encompassing the entire patheon of gods, includ
ing those not necessarily of Egyptian origin (256). Gardiner
suggested that the decree itself had been intended for a settle
ment on one of the branches of the Nile (257). Indeed, the
prominence given to the personal deity of Ramesses II, indicates
a place of origin in the Delta for the estate (258). Likewise,
the specification of the establishment as a "fortress of the
W3d~Wr" undoubtedly refers to a location near the Mediterrean
coast (259). Moreover, the mention of a "fortress-commander"-
who was obviously responsible for the up-keep of the estate,
suggests that the settlement was military in nature. Indeed, it
may be deduced that the persons who would have been effected by
the queen's degree were primarily residents of a garrison, ie.
soldiers assigned to the estate. Such information, meager as
it is, may be linked to a passage in the roughly contemporary
stela of Setnakhte from Elephantine (260). It is interesting
to note that the Setnakhte stela contains a denunciation of
Twoseret for having relied upon Palestinian mercenaries for
political support. The malediction from Twoseret's decree,

291
therefore, may be seen as incorporating non-Egyptian deities to
protect the queen's endowment. The reference to such powers is
due to the nature of the inhabitants of the settlement, whose
ethnic background was primarily Semitic (261). The appeal to
"the gods of heaven and earth" in such a manner is similar to
the god-list of international treaties (262). Each party's
native gods were to act as witnesses and guarantors of the
agreement. A similar, but more limited arrangement, occurs in
the invocation of "local" deities to punish a violator of
private property in earlier Egyptian threats. An estate was
thus protected not only by the god who was the primary benefic
iary and owner of a donation, but also by the deities of parties
associated in some official capacity with the institution. There
fore, an offender was considered doubly liable, ie. by the indig
enous god, and his own personal deity for violation against an
estate.
The rejection of an individual's offerings, indicating
exclusion from the religious life of the community, is a topos
known as early as the Old Kingdom. The concluding threats refer
to the proscription of inheritance rights. The break in the
familial line of the condemned is accompanied by the denigration
of the criminal's memory by his relatives (263).
Paralleling an increase in the application of threats in
royal texts, a similar trend may also be observed in their use
in "private" inscriptions. On the so-called "monumental ostracon"

292
of Pakhemeset, dating from Twoseret's reign, there is an admoni
tion against the removal of the text from its place of display (264):
Amun said when he appeared: "As for the vizier

who sh[all] [remove this stela] [from] [its] [place]:
Not shall he be satisifed with m3't, nor shall

he follow Amun in all his festivals."
It is noteworthy that the threat is attributed to a god, rather
than the donator of the stela. The setting for the divine pron
ouncement is specified as an appearance (h'w) by Amun. It may
be deduced that the god had been addressed during some public
display or festival, most likely in connection with an oracular
address (265). The warning against "moving" the decree or stela,
is common in the Late Period. The final threat of the god's
pronouncement follows a standard pattern, denying participation
in religious festivities. However, the stipulation is addressed
to the vizier himself; this suggests that the term "follow" ie.
"serve" sms, is an allusion to "officiating" a cult (266). The
initial malediction is a variant of older threats referring to
"litigation" or "judgement". The specification of the violator
as one "not satisified with m3't", alludes to the rejection of a
legal claim, or in other words, a guilty verdict awarded by a
court (267). In effect the god simply proclaims that a vizier
who might "remove", or "annul" the decree of Pakhemeset, would
be found guilty for his offense, and dismissed from his official
duties associated with the cult of Amun.
In a text of Pnt, Deputy of W3w3t, referring to an endowment

293
to the statue cult of Ramesses VI at Aniba, there is a threat
against anyone who would dispute the arrangements of the
donation (268):
As for anybody who (shall) speak against it:

Amun-Re, king of the gods (shall) be in pur
suit of him. Mut shall pursue his wife, and
Khonsu (shall) pursue his children. He shall
hunger, he shall thirst, he shall grow weak,
he shall be afflicted.
The deities again are matched to family members on whom vengeance
is to be meted out, corresponding to their divine statue. More
striking are the final threats referring to the destruction of
the violator by hunger, thirst, and physical afflicition. A
similar motif occurs in an inscription of Herihor from the end
of the Twentieth Dynasty. Threats appear on the base of a
granite statue of the High Priest of Amun (269):
He (Herihor) says: "As for any citizen

who (shall) remove this image from its
place after many years:
He belongs to the power of Amun, Mut, and

Khonsu. Not shall his name exist in the
land of Egypt. He shall die of hunger
and thirst."
The stipulation is interesting since the image dedicated by
the High Priest is considered to be under divine protection in
perpetuity. The Theban triad is undoubtedly invoked due to
the erection of the image in the great precinct at Karnak.
The area was one in which these particular gods were regarded
to have suzerainty.
No agent is explicitly named to effect the threats invoking

bodily suffering. It seems likely, however, that such misfor
294
tunes-undoubtedly fixed formulae referring to illness or disease-
were regarded as a manifestation of divine wrath. The maledictions
invoking "hunger, thirst, and affliction", therefore, should be
regarded as purpose or result clauses, and were logically con
nected to the actions of the gods: "He belongs to the power
of Amun, etc., so that his name shall not exist . . . that he
may die of hunger and of thirst" (270).
The motif of divine pursuit had been utilized as a threat
in a text from Aniba, prior to the inscription of Pnt (271).
On the covering-block for the tomb shaft of a high priest of
Horus.at Mi'at, there is a warning against damaging the
chamber (272):
The Osirian, first priest of Horus, Lord

of Mi'at, Sbk-h'w, justified: As for the
one who shall trespass against this tomb
(in) latter days; Horus, Lord of Mi'at
shall pursue him.
The threat itself is conventional; the malediction attributes
the protection of the tomb to "Horus of Mi'at", an indigenous
deity. More noteworthy, however, is the use of a threat to
safeguard a private burial. Although common in earlier periods
of Egyptian history, such a device is used infrequently during
the New Kingdom. Its appearance in a tomb from Aniba might
represent an aberration, or "provincial" archaism, when com
pared to contemporary funerary practices in Egypt itself (273).
Indeed, official transcripts of tomb-robbery trials from the
Twentieth Dynasty, never refer to a belief in "divine" protection
of the royal Theban Necropolis. Instead, the inviolability of

295
the cemetary is attributed solely to the powers of the king (274).
Therefore, the use of maledictions, at least in relation to
royal burials, may have been considered unnecessary.
Several maledictions are employed in the biographical
inscription of Amunhotep, High Priest of Amun in Thebes (275).
The text, dating from the reign of Ramesses IX, contains a
reference to the achievements of the High Priest during his
tenure. Amunhotep warns against individuals who might refuse
to recognize his claims of accomplishment (276):
But as for the one who shall .distort

the words which I have spoken, and does
not acknowledge what I have done, and he
comes [ . . .] [He shall not exercise hi]
s office of High Priest of Amun. Not shall
his son succeed him, not shall he be buried
in the West.
The initial threat follows the pattern of interdicting a
criminal's assumption of office. The post of "High Priest of
Amun" is to be denied the violator, since the text is explicitly
addressed to the successors of Amunhotep (277). Also familiar
is the rejection of a son's right to inherit his patrimonial
estate, and the ultimate denial of a ritual bural to the
criminal. The stipulations themselves are noteworthy since
they refer to infractions of an "intangible" nature, rather
than to physical damage to the inscription. Those who would
seek to distort ('b') Amunhotep's account through speech and
rumor are listed for possible condemnation (278).
The preceding is to be contrasted with another threat

296
referring to usurpation of the text and erasing the name
of Amunhopep (279):
As for anyone who shall remove my [nam]e in

order to place his name (on it): Amun shall
lessen his life-span on earth completely (?)
. . . (280).
The malediction is antonymic to the typical blessing for
the award of a long life-span and many years upon earth (281).
A particularly rich source of imprecative formulae attested
during the Ramesside Period occurs among the graffiti left by
visitors to the local shrines of Amun and Hathor at Deir el
Bahari. Within the corpus of texts published by Marciniak (282)
and studied by Sadek (283), there are numerous threats protecting
the inscriptions themselves, as well as the integrity of the
person who had left his mark. Particularly interesting is the
fact that the formulations are not necessarily limited to the
prevention of physical damage to the texts. There is, for
example, a warning to future pilgrims to the site, who will
not properly invoke a blessing on the original author of the
text. Thus, a graffito dated to year 7 of reign of Siptah-
Twoseret is designed to deter "ingratitude" against the gods
of the Hathor shrine (284):
As for anyone who shall read these writings

and does not say to the gods, the Lords of
the Sanctuary - "Blessings" - [for] which
they have done (285):
Osiris, the Lord of Eternity, the King of

the Two Lands, shall pursue him with swell
297
ings in a latter day. Hathor, Mistress of the

Necropolis shall pursue his wives, while Ims-grt,
the Mistress of the West shall pursue his child
ren when my face and eye are shrouded.
The pursuit by gods is typical in Ramesside threats, as well
as the concept of a divine triad as agent of destruction. The
invocation is obviously to the gods of the local sanctuary,
rather than the more common formula, Amun-Mut-Khonsu. Ims-grt
probably refers to Mr.s-sgr, "She demands Silence/Penitence",
a deity particularly associated with the Theban Necropolis (286).
The goddess was frequently invoked as patroness of the workmen
from Deir el Medina, and is mentionned in votive texts from that
locale. Although Osiris, the judge of the Underworld, is invoked,
it seems likely that punishment was considered to have taken
place during the life of the malefactor. Indeed, the affliction
to be visited upon the transgressor is exclusively of a physical
nature, lit. "swellings" (287). Such a term should be seen as
an imprecise designation for "disease" (288). Likewise, the
threat is designed so as to be effective beyond the lifetime
of the author of the text. Sadek has suggested that the express
ion, "when my face and eye are shrouded", refers to the burial
cloth of the deceased (289). Therefore, the visitor is admonished
that retribution may occur after the death of the promulgator
of the graffito.
A typical characteristic of these graffiti is an invocation
to deities in order to preserve the text and name of their author.
Warnings are included to hinder the usurpation of the blessing

298
by subsequent visitors to the shrrne:
As for the one who shall erase my name

in order to place his name: Ptah shall
be an opponent for him, while Sekhmet
shall pursue his wives, and T3-wrt his
children (290).
As for anyone who shall erase [my] name:

Amun shall be an opponent to him (291).
As for [any]one who shall erase these

writings: Amun shall be an opponent to
him, Mut shall pursue his wives, and
Khonsu shall pursue his children (292).
The concept of the "opposition" (iry-'t?3) of a god, which
features prominently in the preceding examples, is first en
countered in an injunction from the earlier Wadi Mia decree of
Seti I (293). In a warning against removing temple personnel
of the estate to other, unauthorized service, it states (294):
As for anyone who shall infringe against

these people, being set in another place:
All the gods and goddesses of my estate

shall be an opponent, for the fact is,
all my property is in a testament under
their feet forever and ever.
It is likely that the opposition of a god was regarded as "ju
ridical" in nature, as opposed to the imagery of physical pursuit
or bodily punishment. In the Wadi Mia text such an interpreta
tion is warranted by reference to the gods' role as protectors
of royal property, signified by Seti's deposition of a deed
"placed under their feet"(295). The metaphor is to be taken
literally since documents were actually placed beneath the images
of gods for divine sanction.

299
Similar injunctions are utilized in some colophons of
Ramesside literary texts. The appearance of threats in Papyrus
d'Orbiney and Papyrus Sallier IV was to prevent distortion to
the texts by later scribes. The term employed in the stipulations
of these documents is lit. "speak against" (mdw m), ie. "dispute
(296):
As for the one who shall dispute this writing:

Thoth shall be an opponent to him (P. d'Orbiney)
(297).
As for the one who shall dispute this instruction

of the scribe, Imn -fr'w: Thoth shall be an opponent
to him even to death (P. Sallier IV) (298).
The prominence of Thoth in these invocations is undoubtedly due
to his position as patron £*nd authority over the scribal arts.
The adverbial qualification "even to death", lit. "to the limit
of death" suggests an association with the judgement of the
deceased, an event in which Thoth often appears in a prosecutorial
role (299).
The threat again appears in an "invocation to the living",
and warns citizens against defaming the reputation of the de
ceased (300):
0 all people, and all citizens who shall come

after us, who shall speak against Amenemopet
such and such: Amun shall be an opponent to
him . . .
The role of Amun would appear to be of a juridical nature, with
the deity acting as witness to the character of the deceased and
protecting him from slander (301).

300
An inscription at Deir el Bahari dating from the late
Ramesside Period records a visit to the grotto near the funerary
temple of Hatshepsut (302). The author, the scribe of the mort
uary estate of Thutmosis I, Nb-w'w, lists royal offerings donated
on his behalf. As in the other graffiti from the site, there is
a warning against damaging the commemortive inscription (303):
Moreover, as for any person who (shall)

damage the inscription: He shall be
thirsty, one shall make his destruction,
(namely) he who shall be an [af]flicted
one [for] all men.
The contents of the malediction, particularly the threat of
"thirst" and "affliction" are typical of the late Ramesside
Period, and indicates that the text is probably subsequent to
the reign of Ramesses VI (304). Unlike other maledictions from
this time, however, no agent is specifically invoked other than
the impersonal .tw, "one" in the expression "One shall make

v
his destruction (s'd) " (305). Such penalties as those pron
ounced, however, were likely attributed to divine, rather than
human sources.
Another characteristic threat originating from the
Ramesside Period likewise appears in a graffito from Deir el
Bahari (306). The text contains a prayer to the goddess Hathor
requesting the endowment of a new house (307). By contrast,
a malediction is directed against individuals who do not
invoke the proper blessing on behalf of the supplicant (308):
As for anybody who shall read the writing and

says: "[Do not] grant a wish to the maker of
the writing (?)"(309):
301
An ass shall violate him, an ass shall violate

[his wives]; Not shall be bequeath his office
to [his] children.
The threat calling for the sexual attack of the transgressor
by an ass becomes a stock image in maledictions, especially in
the Third Intermediate Period (310). It has been suggested
that the animal represented the Sethian foe, an association
common in New Kingdom texts (311). It appears likely, how
ever, that the formulation is simply a bit of obscene imagery
common to curses, rather than reflecting some mythological
reference (312).
A similar formulation occurs on an ostracon found in the
Ramesseum (313):
The baker of the estate, Wsr-m31t-h'w:

May he be violated by an ass . . .
Sottas considered the text to have been an example of tabellae
defixionis (314). The term refers to the practice by which a
party, either represented by name or likeness on an object was
magically or symbolically "cursed" (315). The concept itself
is common in magical literature from ancient Egypt (316). The
limited archeological context of the ostracon, however, allows
only speculation to its original purpose (317). Whereas,
Sottas' explanation may be valid, it is just as likely that
the text may have been written simply as a coarse insult by
someone hostile to the baker.
A similar obscene formulation occurs in a graffito left
by a mining party in the Wadi En. A stipulation calls upon

302
visitors to the quarry to refrain from taking stone designated
for royal use (318):
As for the one who shall steal these stones

which my commission has carried out:
An ass shall violate his wife. For it is the

Chief of the work-gang of Mnti-'nfri who has
placed Thoth (as) a proper (?) guardian.
Apparently, the material had been mined, but was temporarily
abandoned at the quarry site. Therefore, to prevent its
theft, the foreman of the mining party placed the goods under
a threat as well as an invocation for the divine protection of
Thoth (319).
The threat invoking bestiality seems to have been a vulgar
malediction, perhaps originating among the common-folk of Thebes.
It also appears in an official transcript dating from the reign
of Ramesses XI recording the adoption of slaves by a woman named
Ren-nefer (320). Following a description of the terms of adoption
and specifications of the testament, Ren-nefer affirms the adoptees'
rights to inheriting her property (321):
She said: "As Amun endures, and as the Ruler,

l.p.h., endures, I make the people whom I have
recorded, freemen of the land of Pharaoh, l.p.h
Should a son or a daughter or a brother or a
sister of their mother or of the father, contest
with them-except for this son of mine, Pen-diu -
For they are no longer slaves to him, but are
brothers and sisters to him, for they are free
men of the land of Pharaoh, l.p.h.: An ass
shall violate him, and an ass shall violate
his wife (namely) he who shall call one of
them a slave. . . "
The malediction used to guarantee the provisions of the will,

303
obviously was not expected to have been physically fulfilled
upon the violator. Unlike earlier threat formulae which are
analogous to actual legal pronouncements of criminal sentences,
this type of imprecation should be viewed simply as a wish for
harm. The coarseness of the imagery invoked heightens the
tenor and intensity of the pronouncement.
The preceding text is a good example of an important use
of the malediction as a component or adjunct to legal oaths.
The oath in the Ramesside Period, from which most of our
evidence comes, was usually sworn in the name of the king
("ruler" or "lord"), occasionally accompanied by an oath to
a god (322). The full "oath" formula probably stated: "As
Amun endures, as the Ruler endures, may he live, be prosperous,
and be healthy, whose wrath is worse than death by Pharaoh" (232).
Perjury, therefore, technically would be considered as treason
against the monarch, since it was sworn by the life of the
king. Similarly, a violation of an oath sworn to a deity
amounted to sacrilege (324). To strengthen the impact of the
oath, a standard feature was a self-imprecation of punishment
upon the person foresworn. Typical threats include impaling,
mutilation, beating, or exile (325). As several scholars
have noted, however, the harsher sentences probably were not
executed against individuals guilty solely of perjury (326).
Beatings on the other hand, appear to have been a standard

304
punishment. Such threats, nevertheless, were regarded as
normal features of the law, and administered by juridical
bodies under authorization of the king.
An oath, however, could invoke punishment whose efficacy
was dependant upon "extra-legal" forces. Thus, parallel to
the use of maledictions in other texts, a threat of divine
power was sometimes used to guarantee against perjury. This
would seem to be the rationale in instances where the "oath
of the god" was utilized, regardless of whether a penalty had
been technically invoked by an individual or not (327). Cases
of the threat of divine punishment accompanying oaths must
have been fairly common prior to the Ramesside Period. The
only known example of such a practice however, is P. Berlin
9010:2-6, dating from the Old Kingdom (328). The text records
a dispute over property and contains an invocation of the
"power/wrath of god" upon witnesses who might perjure them
selves (329):
If Sebek-hotep brings forth three verifiable

witnesses in which one can rely, who shall
pronounce:
"Your power be against him, 0 god-thus-that

these depositions have been made according
to the pronouncement of this word-thus-
(the goods) are in the house of this Sebek-
hotep."
Due to the interchange between direct and indirect discourse
in the text, it is difficult to ascertain for whom the penalty
of divine power was intended. It appears that the pronoun "him"

305
in the clause, "Your power be against him", refers to the
witnesses brought in to testify on behalf of Sebek-hotep.
Thus the original oath would have been sworn in the first
person by each witness, and was a standard formula to prevent
perjury (330).
Papyrus BM 10335 describes juridical proceedings executed
in the presence of an oracle of Amun of Pakhenty (331). A
farmer by name of Pethauemdiamon confesses to the theft of
some property before witnesses, swearing that he will not
rescind his earlier confession (332):
. . . made him take an oath of the Lord, l.p.h,

saying: "If I go back again on what I have said,
I (lit. you) will be given to the crocodiles."
It seems unlikely that the oath refers to a standard punishment;
rather it should be understood as an exaggerated metaphor for
the death penalty, especially a reference to the denial of
a ritual burial (333).
Instances of perjury must have been commonplace despite
the specter of divine or human vengeance (334). There is written
evidence, however, where the consequences for violation of an
oath are explicitly described. Several votive stelae from
Deir el Medina have survived which demonstrate a clear belief
in the causal relationship between perjury and an ensuing
manifestation of divine justice (335). The donator of such
a text describes suffering some misfortune or illness, either
to his own person, or to a relative. The ultimate cause is

306
often ascribed to an act of perjury, for which the violator
expresses penitence (336):
I a man who falsely pronounced, 'As endures-'

to the Mistress of the House, Nfrt-iry, justi
fied: The wrath (b3w) of god happened to (me). . .
Likewise in" another stela (BM 589), a draftsman by the name
Neferabu, recorded his violation of the oath and consequences
for his misdeed (337):
I was a man who swore falsely to Ptah, the Lord

of Truth: He caused that I behold darkness by
day. (So) I shall describe his wrath to him who
does not know him, (and) to him who recognizes
him, to the small and the great ones.
Beware of Ptah, the Lord of Truth. Behold, he

does not forgive anyone's misdeed. Be fearful
of proclaiming Ptah's name falsely. Behold, he
who proclaims it falsely, 10 he falls!
The. pronouncement of a god's name in an oath is also a topic in
the Instructions of Amenemope, Chapter 6 (7.17-19) (338). Though
written subsequent to the Ramesside Period, much of the material
predates the time of its compilation, and the sentiments expressed
are in agreement with the texts cited above. A warning occurs in
a maxim referring to the gain of property through subterfuge (339):
. . . the one who confiscates it from the field,

whenever he is bound by oaths falsely, is taken
captive by the wrath of the Moon.
An injunction occurs in the Hymn to Amun from the Leiden Papyrus,
dating from the Nineteenth Dynasty, likewise admonishing against
the profanation of the divine name (340):
Instantly, (one) falls to a violent death at the

utterance of his mysterious name, unwittingly or
wittingly.
307
THE THIRD INTERMEDIATE PERIOD-LATE PERIOD
The increasing tendency of the state to resort to the
divine in civil affairs, so evident in the Late Ramesside
Period, laid the ground for the theocracy of the Twenty-first
Dynasty (341). Such a development appears to be "evolutionary"
rather than "revolutionary" in nature. The political void
produced by the waning of the Ramesside kings, and the total
emergence of the Theban cult of Amun which filled this vacuum,
simply solidified a process which had been progressing for
some time (342). This is most evident in the importance
accorded the divine oracle in guaranteeing and sanctioning
decrees, legal documents, and deciding criminal cases (343).
Likewise, there appears to be a corresponding increase in the
use and intensity of threats to sanction royal decrees. This
is quite evident in the decree promulgated on behalf of the
cult of the deified Amenophis son of Hapu.
The well-known text, now in the British Museum, is a nin-
teen line hieratic inscription on white limestone, which Moller
dated to the Twenty-first Dynasty, primarily on the basis of
paleography (344). Although the decree itself is ascribed to
Amenophis III as promulgator, Moller considered this attribution
fallacious (345). According to him, the presence of late
Egyptian formulations, rather than classical Middle Egyptian,
precluded an Eighteenth Dynasty origin for the decree (346).

308
The text is dated "Year 31, fourth month of 3fat, day 9
of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands,
Nb-M3't-R' . . . Amenhotep (III)" (347). It supposedly records
the king's endowment of a cult for Amenophis the son of Hapu,
ostensibly "in respect to his goodness, in order to cause that
his funerary estate be endowed with male and female servants
ever after, from son to son and heir to heir, so as to prevent
men from transgressing (it) ever after; for Amun-Re, King of
the Gods has equipped it, as long as it is on earth, for it
is he who is the King of Eternity, and is the one who protects
the interred" (348). Subsequently a number of stipulations are
listed concerning the upkeep of the estate, and adherence to
its proscribed festivals. This culminates in the imposition of
threats upon the violator of the decree (349):
As for the general of the army or scribe of the

army who shall come after me, and he finds the
funerary chapel fallen into ruin, together with
the male and female slaves who are sustained
as my dependants (?), and he takes people from
among them to put him in any business of Pharaoh,
l.p.h., or any personal task of his own: Or
if another molests them, and he does not answer
on their account:
He shall be one cut off by Amun, Lord of the

Thrones of the Two Lands, Foremost of his
Chapel; He shall not allow them to be satis
fied in the office of the royal scribe of the
army which they have assumed on my behalf;
He shall place them in the great burning fire
of the king on the day of his destructive
rage; His uraeus shall spit fire at their
brow; Their flesh shall be consumed, and it
shall devour their limbs.
They shall be like Apophis on the morning of

309
the New Year. They shall be capsized in the

Great Green, and it shall cover their corpse.
They shall not assume the rank of a righteous
one (?); They shall not partake in the pro
visions of one who is enshrined. One shall
not pour out water from the inundation of the
River.
Their sons shall not be placed in their office.

Their wives shall be raped while their (own)
two eyes witness (it). Not shall survivors
tread in their houses, as long as they are on
earth. Their statues of the Two Chapels shall
not be paraded.
They shall not hear the decision of the king

in an hour of joy. They shall belong to the
knife on the day of destruction. They shall
be called "Punished" thereto. Their limbs
shall be consumed, they shall hunger without
bread, and their limbs shall perish.
The main stipulations attached to the threats are to be
divided -into two categories: 1) The removal of personnel for
business other than that related to the funerary estate of
Amenophis son of Hapu; 2) the failure of officials to in
stigate juridical proceedings against persons abusing members
of the cult. Such provisions are well-known from royal decrees
of the Ramesside Period, as noted above. There are subsequent
warnings to the vizier, treasury and granary officials, and
various priests of Amun who likewise might ignore the decree
(350). Moreover, the Chief of Police attached to the district,
and the mayor of the necropolis area, are admonished to ensure
the delivery of revenues and support for the cult, in order to
carry out its proscribed festivals (351). Both instances carry
with it the warning in case of failure: "That which has been

310
said above (ie. the maledictions) shall overtake them."
By far the most interesting aspect of the text is, how
ever, the variety and scope of the threats. The maledictions
refer to 1) Divine punishment by Amun, who is guarantor of
the estate; 2) Royal punishment; 3) Removal from office; 4)
Loss of inheritance privilieges; 5) Loss of burial rights;
6) Exclusion from participation in the religious life of
the community; 7) Mistreatment of the offender's family;
8) Royal condemnation; 9) Complete and total destruction
of the body of the criminal primarily by starvation. The
threats concerning inheritance, denial of burial, and
death from hunger, are attested in previous periods.
Nevertheless, "traditional" or "standard" threats are quite
elaborated in this particular case. Indeed, the image of
"drowning in the sea", is a malediction restricted to this
text alone (352). Also striking are the expressions in
which the criminal is "demonized". This is especially
evident in the equation of the transgressor with "Apophis",
the demon of chaos (353). Likewise, the threats that refer
to "belonging to the knife on the day of destruction (skvw)".
and the denunciation of the person as nik, "punished", have
an eschatological focus (354). Such terms allude to the
final condemnation and obliteration of the damned in "Hell".
The question arises, however, as to the validity of

311
the decree itself, or rather its authenticity as a New King
dom text. Moller considered the possibility that is was a
"pious forgery" similar to the later Bentresh stela, or the
Famine Decree from Sehel which dates from the Ptolemaic
period (355). Moreover, he noted that several of the curses
or threats utilized in the text are typical for the time after
the Twentieth Dynasty, and rather far removed from its
supposed Eighteenth Dyansty origin (356). Sottas, however,
suggested that the text could have been a copy of an earlier
decree, whose authenticity was not as questionable as Moller
had assumed (357). Moreover, Alexandre Varille noted that
the text contains authentic chronological and historical
information concerning the king, as well as Amenophis son
of Hapu (358). This is especially true regarding administrat
ive titles and positions held by the latter. Varille concluded
that the decree was a later redaction of an earlier Eighteenth
Dynasty decree, and therefore quite authentic (359).
The language of the stipulations of the Amenophis decree,
particularly in the introductory material, is parallel to
earlier decrees of the Ramesside Period concerning the
protection of royal estates. Thus, the basic similarity in
legal formulation and intent suggests a date prior to the
Twenty-first Dynasty as Varille had stressed. Indeed, as
Wildung has pointed out, there are references in inscriptions
to the funerary cult and personnel of Amenophis son of Hapu

312
by the late Ramesside Period (360). This indicates that a
mortuary estate as described in the decree was in existence
prior to the British Museum text as well. Several of the
maledictions refer to punishment by the king, possibly
indicating that the estate had originally been considered to
have been under royal auspices (361). Therefore, violations
against the cult personnel were liable to prosecution by
the crown, rather than solely dependant upon divine enforce
ment. Such circumstances would better fit a political climate
preceding the Twenty-first Dynasty, when the king had undisputed
control over the enforcement of -law. The submission of the
king as guarantor of the estate to Amun, who is clearly a
"transcendental" god in the text, is characteristic of at
least the Ramesside Period, but more likely, the Twenty-first
Dynasty. However, the role of Amun as supreme judge of the
Underworld, which is an emphasis of the decree, has parallels
in earlier texts of the Ramesside Period such as Papyrus
Leiden I and extracts among the Scribal Miscellanies (362).
Moreover, even at the beginning of the Nineteenth Dynasty,
royal estates and temples were considered to have been owned
and protected by deities (363). Indeed, the earlier funerary
contract for the priest Amenhotep, dating from the reign of
Amenophis III, likewise contains a series of maledictions in
case of violation of his testament (364). Thus, the practice
of attaching threats to a legal document, is attested during

313
the period from which the British Museum decree supposedly
had its origin.
It is conceivable as Varille had suggested that the
Amenophis text represents the latest adaption of an older
royal decree (365). However, the text, at least in the
stipulations, is closer in formulation to decrees of the
Ramesside Period than the Eighteenth Dynasty. Indeed,
the references to a mortuary cult of Amenophis son of
Hapu in the late Twentieth Dynasty suggests a context in
which the document could have been issued. The legal force
of the original decree, and the ability to carry out its
stipulations gradually waned as time passed. Therefore,
there was a greater recourse to the use of maledictions in
order to protect the decree. Thus the curses represent an
adaption and reshaping of traditional maledictions, which
better suits the prevailing historical situation of the
Twenty-first Dynasty. The British Museum text hence, is
the final stage in the decree's transmission.
In a geneological list of the Twenty-Second Dynasty,
referring to the priests of the Temple of Karnak in Thebes,
there is another reference to Amenophis son of Hapu: "Amenhotep,
in your great and august name who knows the benfactions (3t)w)
in ancient texts, (namely) those since the time of the ancestors
. . . (366). The text, written in hieratic, concludes with a

314
threat against those who would remove it (367): [Then said
Amun] in Thebes, Resident of the districts and towns: 'As for
the one who shall move (mnmn) these writings illegally (m sfn)
from [th]is land (?): [Th]us, not shall his son be to [his]
of[fice]. Not (?). .' . Not shall his k3 be remembered; One
shall spit at his name as is done for his enemies."
There is no hint of punishment to the violator during his
life. Rather, the malediction has a clear eschatological
emphasis, referring to the status of the individual following
his death, and the effect of his transgression upon his heirs.
The attribution of the threat to the god Amun indicates some
sort of "oracular" pronouncement. The injunctions, however,
have lost all "legal" force, and are merely wishes for ill
against the criminal.
Whereas the general form of the decree on behalf of
Amenophis, the son of Hapu, follows earlier, traditional models
in the presentation of stipulations and threats, the usual
practice during the Twenty-first Dynasty was to issue decrees
or legal decisions on the basis of an oracle. Oracular consult
ations are attested perhaps as early as the Eighteenth Dynasty (368).
By the Third Intermediate Period, however, it had become standard
practice to submit litigation to a god for decision (369). Court
cases and legal petitions, including wills and decrees were rout
inely placed before a deity for rendering a verdict (370). In
certain instances, maledictions used to sanction or guarantee a

315
document or divine decision, would be cast as a question to
which a god would respond (371). This seems to have been
accomplished through some motion by the sacred image, indicat
ed by a term which scholars have translated or interpreted as
meaning "to nod" or "move forward" (372). Such a movement was
interpreted b.y the attending cult personnel as the divine
response to a particular question. As a result, the structure
of oracle texts assumes a particular form and alternates between
questions by a petitioner and the response from the god.
In the so-called "Stela of Banishment", the priest of
Amun, Menkheperre, sought the abolition of an earlier decision
which had sentenced former opponents.of the king to banishment
to the Southern Oasis (373). Their pardon was corroborated by
the Theban oracle of Amun-Re (374):
Then the high-priest of Amun, Menkheperre,

may he be justified!-arrived at the Great
God saying:
"As for anybody who shall repeat before you

saying- 'May you slaughter the free-citizens'-
Shall you destroy him, and shall you murder him?"
Then the Great God assented very vigorously.
Stylistically, the injunction or threat by the High Priest
has been posed as a question to the god in order to fit the
peculiarities of an oracular consultation (375). The request
of Menkheperre concerns the revocation of an earlier sentence
of exile, and the threat attached to it is to guarantee that
the banishment would not be reinstated (376).

316
The reference to the "free-citizens" (rmf 'nfaw), lit.
"living people", clearly indicates the juridical status of
the formerly banished group, whose rights had been restored
through the instigation of the High Priest (377). The use
of the term "slaughter" (sm3) for the reimposition of punish
ment, clearly has a juridical, rather than physical applicat
ion (378). It would not refer to "execution" per se, but to
the loss of civil status as represented by their former state
of exile. The term may have a similar use in the much earlier
Instruction for King Merikare (379). In a section dealing with
"talkers", most likely a reference to "conspirators", the follow
ing advice is given (380): The talker is a trouble-maker.
Repulse him, slaughter (sm3) [him], blot out his name." Lorton
has suggested that the statement may be viewed as an instance
of the death penalty for treasonous behavior (381). It is
probable, however, that the punishment refers to the loss of
status, rather than "execution" in a physical sense. This is
supported by the emphasis upon the "name", which is indicative
of legal and social position (382). Thus, the stipulation pre
sented by Menkheperre, concerns anybody -in all probability a
high official, or even some future king- who might conceivably
petition Amun to reinstate the ban against the pardoned group (383).
Punishment for such an infringement of the High-Priest's
petition, however, is dependant upon the intervention of Amun-
Re. An instance wherein a king might rescind the pardon could

317
not easily have been challenged by other parties. Therefore,
the threat has been formulated in such a way that opposition
to Menkheperre's request would be against a divine, rather than
human decision. The terms used for punishment itself, ffa,
"destroy" and bdb, "kill" indicate that the violation was
considered to be a capital offence (384). Although supposedly
to be enacted by the god Amun-Re himself, it is possible that
a malediction threatening divine punishment was utilized in a
case as a means of evading responsibility for taking a human
life (385). In such instances, the sentence would have been
enacted by the courts. Technically, however, execution would
have been under divine jurisdiction. The practice finds a
parallel in the court proceedings of the conspiracy trials
for the assassination attempt on Ramesses III. There the
king presents the decisions as being under divine supervision
in instances where the death penalty was rendered (386).
The dependence upon the oracle extended beyond trial cases
and well into the sphere of the daily vagaries of life. Wills
and deeds for property transfer were also placed under divine
supervision. For example, several members of the royal house
hold of Psusennes I have left records of their wills which had
been delivered to vouch-safe of Theban gods (387). Of particular
interest in these texts are the inclusion of threats against
people who would violate or dispute the provisions of the docu

318
ments, or distort their contents.
The record of the deposition of the lady Hentowe at Karnak
contains several threats pertaining to the violation of her will
(388). Although the text is mutilated, enough remains to provide
the tenor of the document. It seems likely that the threats
themselves were cast as questions by the officiating party,
probably a high-priest, to which the god(s) would have assented
in a fashion similar to the Stela of Banishment discussed above.
For instance, the god Amun-Re, is invoked to punish individuals
"who shall tamper [with anything of them]" (ie. the property
of Hentowe) by "closing the West in front of them" (389).
As Gardiner had noted, the threat itself is an allusion to the
rejection of the disputant from the "West", ie. the Necropolis
(390). The reference is clearly to the denial of a ritual
burial. Offenders are elsewhere warned that the gods "shall
uproot their name from the land", and shall "not [give] them
[their places]", "nor allow them to flourish in them" (391).
Elsewhere Amun-Re, Mut, and Khonsu threaten to "exercise
their great impressive wrath (b3w) against them" (392). The
gist of the preserved threats is that a malefactor was consi
dered to be liable to divine punishment, primarily involving the
loss of status (lit. "name") and removal from office.
A similar text, also originating from Karnak, invokes the
Theban triad of Amun, Mut, and Khonsu to guarantee the property
of Makare, the daughter of Psusennes I (393). The inscription,
as in the case of Hentowe's alternates between requests and commands

319
to the gods, and oracular assents. Thus, after the confirmation
of Makare's property, the petitioner addresses the protective
deities (394):
Again [he said to (?) Amun-Re, King of the Gods],

this Great God, Mighty Beginner of Existence,
(and) Mut, and Khonsu, the Great Gods:
"Kill (bdb) any people of any sorts of the entire

land, be they men or be they women, who shall
dispute about anything of any sort which Makare,
the daugher of King Psusennes, beloved of Amun,
bought by purchase of the South Country, together
with [any] things [of any sorts which the] people
of the land [sold to her] [or (?)] which she
obtained as a child of their property. Those
after tomorrow we (sic) shall exercise our
(sic) great impressive wrath against them, we
(sic) shall not furthermore, pardon them."
Very strong assent by this Great God, Mut, and

Khonsu, the Great Gods.
Significantly, however, following the address to the oracle, the
text contains a long pronouncement or reiteration of the threats
attributed to the god's themselves (395):
Said Amun-Re, King of the Gods, this Great God,

[Mighty Beginner of Existence, Mut, and Khonsu,
the] Great Gods:
"We shall kill any people [of] any sorts of the

entire land, be they men or be they women, who
shall dispute about anything of any sorts [which
Makare the daughter of King Psusennes bought by
purchase] of the Southern Country, together with
any things of any sorts which the people of the
land sold to [her] [or (?)] which she obtained as
[a child of their property. Those who shall
tamper with things among them] tomorrow or after
tomorrow we will exercise our great impressive
wrath against them, we will not pardon them
furthermore, we will place their noses to the
ground, and they shall be [subject to the wrath
of this Great God], Mut, [and Khonsu], the
Great Gods.
320
Gardiner had suggested that the preceding divine proclamations
constituted the women's legal rights to their property (396).
It is important to note, however, that the legal arrangement
was to be applicable to parties other than the original owner
or presentor of the deed. Indeed, provisions were to be in
effect well after the original registration of the document
as attested by the formula, "tomorrow or after tomorrow" (397).
In the confirmation of Makare's ownership, moreover, it is
clearly stated that the deed is to be valid not only in the
case of the princess herself, but also to her descendants in
perpetuity. As a result, deities, rather than existing legal
bodies, were invoked to "confirm them (ie. the possessions)
in her (Makare's) hand (ie. under her authority). . . in the
hand of her son, the son of her son, her daughter, the daughter
of her daughters, the children of her children down to eternity"
(398). The void left by the demise of the originator, there
fore, was to be filled by the gods who were the agents for its
enforcement. Likewise, the specification of Makare's property
in the South may be an important factor in the appeal to gods.
The transfered territory and possessions in the area around
Thebes were far removed from the Tanite seat of the ruling
family (399). Indeed, it is evident that the transactions,
although involving a member of the royal family, were matters
of private rather than offical business (400).
The threats themselves are fairly standard, with the mani

321
festation of divine wrath or power (b3w) against an offender,
accompanied by the usual oracular formula invoking "death"
(hdb). Quite interesting is the added injunction that the
divine sentence carried no hope of pardon (401). The unusual
malediction, "We shall place their nose to the ground", probably
is an allusion to a loss of free-status (402).
A related group of documents, which has been studied by
Edwards, are the so-called "oracular amuletic decrees" (403).
The texts date from the Twenty-first through Twenty-second
Dynasties and were written on behalf of newly born children
(404). The documents are formulaic, and were produced com
mercially for the sake of visitors to the Theban temples (405).
In the decrees, deities promise to "save, preserve" (sd) the
party from almost every conceivable type of harm arising during
its lifetime. These include protection from diseases, animal
and serpent bites, stings, natural catastrophes, accidents,
magic, demonic influences, malign intervention by gods, evil
thoughts, speech, and dreams. The tenor of these documents
may be guaged by a few passages:
"We shall save her from the hand of Sekhmet and

her son. We shall save her from the falling of
a rampart, and the destuction of the storm. We
shall save her from disease, from blindess, from
passing away on every day of her life. . . " (406)
"We shall save here from any death, any illness,

any spoken matter, or any bad (thing), or any
disorder, any quarrel (?), any bad word, or any
terrifying word, or any word of contention, or
any mocking word . . . " (407)
322
"We shall save her from the wrath of Amun,

Mut, and Khonsu, Amun in Luxor, Montu, and
Ma'at. We shall save her from an unpleasant
oracle or from an unpleasant decision. We
shall save her from the hand of the gods who
seize people in retreat, from the hand of the
gods who seize people by capture, from the
hand of the gods who find people in fields
and kill them in towns, vice-versa (408)."
"We shall preserve (wd3) her on any traveling

which she may make, in any building she may
enter, in any place in which she may go. We
shall guard (s3i) her at noon, and we shall
watch her at night. We shall save her in
night, day, in any time (409)."
"We shall make for her every good decision,

every good success (?), a good childhood (410)."
In one instance, however, a malediction is pronounced against
those who would harm the infant owner of the document (411):
"We shall kill every male and every female

who shall say evil things against him in the
presence of a god (or) in the presence of
any people whatsoever."
The passage immediately preceding the threat concerns possible
appearances in court: "We shall cause every god and every god
dess before whom he will go to decide for him. We shall grant
him the exoneration (p3 m3't) of the divine tribunal or citizen'
tribunal (412)." The malediction, thus, concerns protection
against defamation of character, most likely in the context of
unjust litigation.
Maledictions were used to protect the transfer of private
property and estates much in the same fashion as the earlier

323
Adoption Papyrus of Ren-nefer. A hieratic stela of the Twenty-
first Dynasty contains a bequest of a house from husband to wife
(413). Afterwards, she donated the property to a religious es
tablishment of Hathor. The transaction was ultimately sealed
with a threat against anyone who would dispute the arrangements
(414):
"My husband has given this house to me, (and)

I donate it to the Mistress of Atfih. As for
anybody who shall dispute (it):
She shall place her horn in him, while her

flame shall pursue him."
It is evident that the care of the property had been entrusted
to the recipient of the grant, the goddess Hathor. Apart from
the common metaphor of "fire" as punishment, the threat itself
plays upon the imagery of Hathor as a cow. Thus, divine ven
geance for disputing the deed is depicted as the goddess rending
open the violator with her "horn."
In a stela of Sheshonk I, prior to his accession as king,
there are provisions for the endowment of a statue of his father,
Nemrat, together with a mortuary estate in Abydos (415). The
text is striking, insofar as the reigning monarch, King Smendes
II, is described as addressing an oracle and asking for divine
protection of Sheshonk1s endowment (416):
Then <his majesty^ spoke again in the presence

of this Great God:
"0 my good lord, will you kill (bdb) the chief

('3) of the army, the sergeant, the scribe,
the controller, every messenger, or anyone
sent on business to the country who shall
324
seize property of this image for the Osirian,

the Great Chief of M^_, Nemrat - may he be
justified!-. . . which is in Abydos; or any
people who shall diminish his divine endow
ment, (or) of his fields, his people, or his
cattle, or his garden, or any of his hecatombs,
or any of his endowments?"
"Will you exercise your great and strong wrath

against them, against their wives, and against
their children?"
Then this Great God agreed.
The long stipulation resembles earlier provisions for mortuary
endowments such as to the cult of Amenophis, Son of Hapu. The
king primarily refers to theft (f3w) or embezzlement Qibi) of
property designated for the deceased's estate. The threats
themselves refer to death (hdb) by the god issuing the decree
and a manifestation of divine wrath (b3w) against the violator
and his family. The stela had been found at Abydos, which
corroborates the textual information that Nemrat's cult had
been in this locale (417). This suggests that the deity address
ed probably was Osiris. As in common in oracular addresses, the
god is merely referred to as the "Great God" (ntr '3) or "my
good lord" (p3y.i nb nfr) (418).
Similar to the wills presented on behalf of the royal
family of Psusennes is the latter deposition of Iuweret, high
priest of Amun and officer during the reign of Osorkon I of
the Twenty-Second Dynasty (419). The so-called "Apanage Stela"
recounts the exclusive transfer of Iuweret's estate to one of

325
his sons, Khaemwese, by an appeal to an oracle. The pronounce
ment and approval of the transfer is attributed to the god Amun,
who is considered the guarantor of the document (420):
"I confirm them throughout eternity on the

priest of Amun-Re, King of the Gods, Chief
of the District, Khaemwese-may he be just
ified!- (but) the other children whom he
(Iuweret) has borne, or the children of
his father in their entirety shall not
be able to enter into them, to partake
of them in the future (lit. the day after
tomorrow).
"But they belong to Khaemwese-may he be just

ified!- alone, to whom his father has given
them, and it is again to the son of his son
and to the heir of his heir, that he will give
them, while I shall be with them as protection
forever."
Threats protecting the deposition are subsequently presented
through a divine pronoucement (421):
"(Now) as for the one who shall move this stela:

Foolish is he who is in the process of opposing
those things which I have said. I shall become
immediately enraged towards a transgressor of
what I plan and what I have counseled, (namely)
that it is hidden about me ever after. Reproached
is a deed against it. Not shall he live. Who
shall endure the wrath of my violation?
"I shall cause that he be as one bearing wrong

doing, while his inheritance is in the posses
sion of another, while his (own) two eyes are
seeing them.
"He shall be as one in the gesture of mourning,

beyond if he had died. One shall seize his
wife in his presence, all his limbs are joined
with one who is under condemnation; (while)
he is one (whose) body is perishing.
"Not shall he go among the one who was his

supporter, because he is an 'opponent' (lit.
326
outsider) to them (422). The foundation of

his posterity shall be among the servants of
those who pray for him (namely) that he be
justified by your (sic) k3. I shall surely
not hear the one who is in the process of
transgressing this decree to which I have
confirmed.
"I shall plunge my arrow into (his) helper,

(and) he (shall be) changed under my influence.
He (shall) belong to the Eye of Horus which
is powerful against him, while I shall offer
him up as (sacrificial) flesh for destroying
what I have said. (And) Shu shall be as the
wind dispersing it against his limbs complete
ly, namely a conflagration from the Great
Place, on account of propitiating my heart."
The variety of maledictions in the Apanage stela, as well as texts
such as the Amenophis, Son of Hapu decree, indicates that the
Egyptians were not dependant upon standard formulations. The
tendency to "extemporize", or what magical texts refer to as
hmt-r3, lit. "the craft of speech" is a characteristic of the
threats found in the documents of the Twenty-first and Twenty-
Second dynasties (423). This trait suggests that the personality
and inventiveness of either the promulgator, or perhaps the offi-
cating priest was an important factor in the expressions employed.
The initial stipulation is directed primarily against persons
who might "move" the stela. The term mnmn probably has a literal
application "to (physically) move, remove" a stela (424). It
acquires a juridical nuance as well: "to move" a stela is to be
equated with "subverting" or "annulling" the contents of a docu
ment (425). Apart from contesting the will, individuals who are
"in the process" (w3) of disputing the legal arrangements, ie.

327
those only considering opposition to the decree, are liable to
divine condemnation (426). Thus, in this case the succeeding
threats are to control or prevent amorphous actions such as
improper thoughts or designs.
The major emphasis of the text is the divine condemnation
of the violator. As a result various terms are applied to the
criminal by the god:
1) wfa3 pw w3ww r fasf ddwt.i: "A fool is he who is in the process

of opposing what I have said" (1. 26)
2) bpr.f m br(y) iww: "He shall become as one under wrong

doing" (1. 28)
3) fr't.f nb 3bfo m far (y) 'b: "His entire body shall be joined
with him who is under condemnation"
(1. 29)
Wfa3,"fool" (cf. Wb. I 354.11) is used in literary texts in reference
to the "ignorant" (427). It has the implication of moral approbation
rather than a strictly legal or juridical meaning pertaining to
"guilt". The term frr(y) iww('Wb. I 48.9-10) by contrast, is obviously
a formula of condemnation, although the precise nuance of iww is
uncertain. It has a general meaning of "sin" or "guilt" although
it is often dependant upon context (428). Thus, the use of the
term in mortuary texts indicates an offence or "guilt" which is
to be expunged at the final judgement of the deceased (429). If
such a meaning is implied in the Apanage stela, it would indicate
that the criminal is to be pronounced "guilty" in the Afterlife.
An eschatological reference may also be attached to ^_b
"condemned" "criminal" (430). The term has an origin in sacral

328
language and appears to have a meaning of "one who has committed
a moral outrage" (431). The term may be used in relation to
persons guilty of sacrilege and probably should be linked to the
concept of "impurity" or "uncleanness" (432). Indeed, the term
'b, might be antonymic to w'b, "pure", which refers to persons
exonerated of crimes (433). The pronouncement of the transgressor
as hry iww and frry 'b, "one under (ie. guilty of ) wrongdoing and
condemnation", therefore, has eschatological implications for the
fate of the criminal in the Afterlife.
As in earlier threats, the malefactor's inheritance is to
obe confiscated from him and his family (434). In contrast to the
maledictions referring to the Afterlife, the god states that the
loss of patrimony is to be witnessed by "his (own) two eyes".
This indicates that punishment was considered to have an immediate
impace. Abandonment by friends, and loss of the family estate to
servants emphasize the social degradation of the transgressor.
The loss of status is exacerbated further by physical deterioration,
and dissolution of the family. The latter is graphically signified
as the "seizure" or molestation of the outcast's wife.
A substantial portion of the divine threats is devoted to
persons aiding in the subversion of Iuweret's will. The graphic
maledicitons are of a physical nature, and are immediate in their
temporal aspect. Thus, the "arrows" of Amun are to be "plunged"
lit. "driven deeply" (mdd) into the criminal's assistant (imy-st-')
(435). His health is to be completely transformed as well (lit.

329
"his head is to be to the ground") under the malevolent activity
of the god (436). The metaphors refer to "illness" or "disease",
which were considered as obvious manifestations of divine justice.
The Eye of Horus, a common agent of divine retribution, is invoked
by Amun to exact vengeance (437). Concluding the decree is the
description of the criminal being offered up like the flesh of a
sacrifice, with the god Shu "roasting" the victim. The image of
a "burnt offering" or "hecatomb" is heightened through the reference
to the action as resulting in the "pacification" or "propitiation"
of Amun. The term shtp has a ritual sense of "satisfying" a god
through some sort of redemptive o.ffering or sacrifice (438). Thus,
there is an explicit relation between divine vengeance and individual
atonement for violation of a god's precept. The harsh attitude is
to be compared with the similar concept eloquently expressed in
the private votive texts of the Ramesside Period (see above). In
the so-called "penetential prayers", a person's guilt is expiated
by suffering a debilitating illness, which is ascribed to the
anger of a god (439). In the Apanage text, however, the trans
gressor, in effect, is equated with a "sacrifice" itself. As a
result, the guilty party can only repay the deity through the loss
of his own life.
A text dated to the sixteenth year of Osorkon II records a
donation of land to Ptah by a scribe Dd-Pth-iw.f-'(440). The
procedure recorded in the stela is in the oracular tradition dis

330
cussed above. Threats follow a blessing of health and a long life
on behalf of the person who would preserve the donation (441):
Again he (the priest) said:
"0 my good lord, will you kill any evil

person of the entire land who shall damage
it from him, for ever and ever? Will you
cut out their names from the entire land,
while Sekhmet will pursue his wives and
Nefertem will pursue his children?"
Then the Great God greatly assented.
The personal nature of the gift inevitably led to the use of a
threat as a means of guaranteeing the donation. Thus, a party
lacking the power to enforce a deposition pronounced a maledic
tion, or more precisely, an invocation of divine punishment to
protect its property. As in the deposition of a will the grant
of the scribe is stipulated to be effective perpetually, ie.
beyond the individual's lifetime.
The maledictions are quite familiar, with the initial threat
containing the formula invoking the god to "kill" (hdb) the
violator. The "cutting out" of the name from the "entire land"
again refers to the loss of civil status. Due to the Memphite
origin of the grant, the triad of Ptah, Sekhmet, and Nefertem is
to pursue the offender and his family (442).
On a statuette of a priest of Amun, Nakhtmutef, there are
a series of prayers to the god Amun to protect a will made on
behalf of the priest's daughter, Tasherenmut, also called
Shepeneses (443). Although the text dates from the reign of
<
331
Osorkon II, the prayers themselves are reminiscent of the "per
sonal piety" of the Ramesside Period (444). The deposition of
Nakhtmutef, however, is similar to that of Iuweret's in the
Apanage stela, since it refers to property bequeathed to a
single heir not to be' shared among other family claimants.
Moreover, it is the god Amun himself who is to act as guarantor
of the testament.
Again the setting for the events described in the inscrip
tion is undoubtedly to be linked to an oracular address. This
is apparent in a request of Nakhtmutef's wife, Tinesmut, for
Amun's sanction of the property transfer (445):
"I am your maid-servant who performs benefac

tions for the Great Protector of our daughter
Shepenese. Allow her to receive your property,
and kill (hdb) him who shall transgress it.
You are the Protector forever."
The threats presented in Nakhtmutef's own bequest are of a more
descriptive nature than that of his wife's. Preceding the invo
cation of divine retribution, however, is a reference to the
terms of the will (446):
I (Nakhtmutef) have said these în> adulation

and petition in order that you may come to
me quickly in a moment's time. I invoke (you)
on behalf of my daughter. . . to take care of
her in the future, in order that you cause
that that the testament (imy(t)-pr) endure
for her, consisting of everything which I
have given to her from your estate in the
City, consisting of land, live-stock,
household property, and every precious
thing which has accrued to her on water and
land. Another son or daughter shall not
say: "Give me their like!'. . .
332
" . . . M a y y o u c o n t e n d ( 'h3) against he who

contends against them, after you place your
penetrating arrow in them (r.sn), in order
to destroy their life, without loosing your
horn from them forever. It shall be to any
great one, any [rela]tive, or any people who
shall violate it hereafter, from any posses
sion which I grant to her, and of everything
which I give to her children, that fthey] might
receive it forever" (447).
Punishment for'violation of Nakhtmutef's will is conceived exclu
sively in terms of immediate, physical suffering for the trans
gressor. The reference to the "contending" of the god Amun,
however, probably refers to initial legal "prosecution" against
rival claimants to the estate. The invocation of "your painful
arrow", lit. "your arrow and your pain (sdb)" recalls the vivid
imagery of the Apanage text, wherein Amun is said to "plunge"
his arrow into the criminal (448). Again, the sanction of a
god is requested on behalf of an individual whose recourse to
legal protection may have been limited. It is striking that a
number of these testaments, as in the case of Nakhtmutef's bequest
and the deeds presented on behalf of the daughters of Psusennes,
involve the claims of women. Likewise, in the Nakhtmutef text,
both he and his wife refer to their possessions as belonging to
the god Amun himself (449). This suggests that the property to
be transferred had either been acquired by Nakhtmutef during
his tenure as priest of Amun -and therefore technically the
god still retained ownership - or the deed was subsequently
placed under the authority of the god as a final deposition,

333
from whence it could be distributed through the auspices of the
temple (450). In either case, Shepenses's claims were considered
to have been guaranteed by divine sanction.
An undated stela from Saft-el-Henneh listing provisions
for an endowment, contains maledictions which are formulated as
an oracular pronouncement (451). Though fragmentary, some of
the imprecatory formulae have survived (452):
His god orders to equip this endowment:
"Every person who transgresses it shall be

divinely condemned on behalf of his words
(ie. the violator's)(453), (and) the burning
flame of the brazier shall consume [him (?)
. . .] Not shall his son be in his place.
[Not] shall his remembrance be after he
who transgresses this endowment, or is deaf
to it."
In lieu of chronological indicators, owing to the condition of
the text, Sottas attributed the grant to a period between the
Twenty-Second and Twenty-Sixth Dynasties (454). Despite the lack
of the clues regarding the date of the decree, however, it would
seem to best fit the Twenty-Second Dynasty. Such an attribution
is due primarily to the context in which the threats appear, ie.
as a divine pronouncemet, rather than from the maledictions them
selves. The use of an inclusio whereby a stipulation introduces
and concludes the imprecation finds a parallel in a threat from
the reign of Sheshonk III (455). This suggests some chronolog
ical and typological affinities to the Saft-el-Henneh text.
Hence, in this case, the style or presentation of the threats,

334
rather than their content, are more helpful in assigning a date.
Threats occur in the contemporary biographical inscription,
the so-called "Chronicle 0-& Prince Osorkon", which appears on
the Bubastite Portal from Thebes (456). In this historical
document, the High-Priest of Amun and son of Takelothis II,
Osorkon, pronounces maledictions following a summary of his
benefices to Amun and his Theban estates (457). As in earlier
royal decrees, punishment is invoked upon those parties who would
transgress the official proclamation. The earliest text in which
a threat appears dates to the eleventh year of Takelothis II and
follows a record of Osorkon's good deeds to his patron deity Amun
(458):
As for the one who (shall) upset this decree

which I have made:
He shall fall to the knife of Amun-Re, (he)

whom the flame of Mut has overwhelmed when
she rages. Not shall his son succeed him. . .
The threat refers to the imagery of the "knife" or "blade" of
Amun, to whose temple the benefactions are given, as well as the

V
flame of the goddess Mut. S't, "knife" has both a physical
implication of "destruction, slaughter" as well as an extended
meaning of "terror" or "ferocity" (459). The metaphor of the
flame, here attributed to Mut, is more characteristic of the
goddess Sekhmet, as Caminos has noted (460). It is likely,
however, that Mut had been assimilated during this time to the
role of Sekhmet, a syncretism evidenced already during the New
Kingdom (461).
335
The final malediction that a son not "succeed the father"
is common, although the idiom employed in this instance may have
a slightly different nuance than is assumed. • The term used by
Osorkon is wflb s3, lit. "turn after", ie. "follow" which Caminos
has translated as "to succeed" (462). Wjb s3, however, has a
spatial rather than strictly temporal connotation (463). It is
used in the sense of "to follow after" in service or aid, rather
than the "succession" of an heir. Therefore, Osorkon's threat
is an allusion to the denial of service by a son, most likely
relating to the maintenace of the mortuary cult of the predecessor.
In contrast to the more usual threat involving the dissolution
of inheritance rights, Osorkon's imprecation is directed solely
against the transgressor himself rather than his successors.
Another malediction by the High-Priest Osorkon, is attached
to a later decree concerning benefactions to Amun and his Ennead
(464). The initial part of the stipulation has been lost, al
though the reconstruction offered by Caminos surely approaches
the general sense of the passage (465):
[As for the one who shall act against] their

temples:
One shall spit after his memory in the Houses

of the "[g]odsU . .
The threat is seemingly a simple call for the desecration of the
malefactor's reputation. The references to shrines, however,
suggests a practice comparable to "excommunication", particularly
the removal of a criminal from official records (466). "Spitting",
is a physical action used to express disdain or even condemnation

336
(467). The expression literally states, "one shall spit 'after'
(m-fot) his 'memory'". The temporal connotation of m~bt suggests
a meaning of "one shall spit after/when he is recalled (sl?3.f)
in the Houses of the '[g]ods'" (468). The implication of the
threat, therefore, is that whenever the malefactor's name is
mentioned in the shrine, perhaps in a ritual context, it is to
be accompanied by a sign of approbation.
In an inscription found at Luxor, and published by Daressy,
there are a number of threats with close affinities to other
maledictions of the Twenty-second Dynasty (469). Portions of
the text refer to events similar to those related in the Chronicle
of Prince Osorkon,and it is likely that it is to be dated sometime
shortly after year fifteen of Takelothis II (470). The original
stela probably referred to donations on behalf of the cult of
Amun in Luxor accompanying the sanctification of the shrine
during the great festival of Southern Opet (471). On the base
of the inscription a warning is given by the god Amun himself
against subverting the text. The proclamation again, most likely
occurred during the consultation of the divine oracle (472):
"[ As for everyone (?) who shall] move this stela

(473), (namely) (they) against whom Amun ^-em^-
Opet has extended his hand in his capacity of the
Raging One, whom he has roasted in the fiery flame
[of Mut (?) . . .] (474) [. . . they shall be to
the (?)] glowing fire. (For) he who opposes him
is under it, (namely) they are in the fire upon
his lips. (And) Osiris, the Great God is dimin
ishing the years of (those) whose corpse is to
the Slaughtering-Block of Sekhmet (. . .]
[. . .] forever, being con[fined (?)] (475) in
the Prison of the East among the Damned, whom
337
Isis bans with her own mouth for revoking [this]

decree [. . .] [. . . Not shall they] be among
those who ought to exist. Not shall their res
pective offices be among the Living, (namely)
their children. The Son Of Osiris with his
Mighty Arm (shall) drive deep his [arrows in
them (?) . . .] (476) [. . .]<against >all
those who plotîn^their heart(s) to transgress
the divine decree. The one who repeats an
offence, th[ey] shall perish [in] misery. Not
shall [they exist] [before (?)] Osiris forever
(477).
Despite the fragmentary state of the text, the variety of threats
is impressive. The punishment of the criminal is all inclusive
in scope, having immediate as well as eschatological consequences:
1) Amun shall oppose the transgressor with "fire", referring to
physical affliction; 2) Osiris is to cut off his life-time on
earth; 3) Isis is to condemn the criminal in the Afterlife to
the "Prison of the East" among the "Damned"; 4) The transgres
sor's offspring are to lose their inherited positions; 5) They
are to suffer the vengeance of Horus ("the son of Osiris"); 6)
Those merely contemplating violation of the decree shall perish,
and probably are to be excluded from a ritual burial (478).
The vivid imagery employed in the text is quite obvious. It
is interesting to note, however, that although the presentation
of the threats through a divine pronouncement is consistent with
Twenty-second Dynasty practice, many of the threats themselves
have an antiquarian ring. This is most evident in the mention
of the "Prison" or "holding-place" of the "East", a clear allusion
to the Egyptian "Hell". As noted above, fabt is attested in a
malediction only in the Wadi Mia decree of Seti I in reference

338
to the Afterlife (479). Likewise, the expression fabntyw, "damned",
lit. "condemned" appears in the threats of the First Intermediate
Period from Siut. It is not clear if such references can be
ascribed to knowledge of these earlier maledictions, as for
example in the blatant case of Puyemre's inscription (see above).
Terminology used in maledictions, however, is common to "religious"
texts as well (480). Therefore, the threats in the Luxor inscrip
tion could just as well be a reflection of similar, contemporary
"theological" language, rather than being an example of arch
aizing", or copying from earlier texts.
It is primarily among donation stelae that maledictions are
found in the Third Intermediate and Late Periods, some of which
have been discussed above. The texts, often written in hieratic,
are documents recording the donation of tracts of land or food
and drink, primarily by private individuals, to temples and their
associated estates (481). Often the donation is listed, along
with the recipient, or the party under whose care the grant was
to have been maintained (482). Thus, officiating priests of the
religious establishment are occasionally named as supervisor of
the gift (483). The texts are frequently illustrated by a picto
rial representation in the upper register of the stela, showing
a donation of land by an individual, or by the king who is followed
by private persons (484). The presence of the monarch in such
scenes strongly suggests that grants of this type were ultimately

339
administered through the king (485). Although primarily intended
to commemorate a transaction or donation, the texts also appear
to have been used as boundary markers, listing the physical
extent of the property transferred (486). This accounts in part
for stipulations warning against the removal or displacement of
the stela itself, or altering the contents of the text. Such
practices appear to have been common, since an admonition against
the act appears in the Instructions of Amenemope (487):
Do not remove the stela from the boundaries

of the arable land (7:12).
On a stela from the reign of Takelothis I, a gift of land
to a functionary of the estate of Bastet is recorded, including
a threat (488):
"On this day, granting an offering of three

arourage of land for the k3 of [. . .] of
Bastet, Hr-Mht. The one who shall damage
this stela in its place:
He shall be to the [kn]ife of the Victorious

King, while he is fallen to the Slaughtering-
Block of Sekhmet, (namely) the one who shall
damage this stela.
The malediction is divided into two components, invoking both
the power of the king and the goddess Sekhmet. Thus, the monarch
is considered by the donator to be responsible for the grant,
as the primary "legal" authority in the country; Sekhmet, how
ever, is associated with the maintenance of divine "order" within
the world (489). The relegation of the donation to the king
seems to indicate that royal authority was still recognized as

340
binding over the dispersement of property. Hence, there is a
bifurcation between the use of force by the crown - or what
should be understood as the execution of "law" - and the threat
of divine intervention. The division of the threat into comple
mentary elements is very similar to the two-fold oath of the
Ramesside Period (490). We have noted that a deity and the
ruling king were often invoked in juridical proceedings as guar
antors against perjury. Unlike "codified" legal statutes, how
ever, no specific penalty is pronounced in the donation text.
The threat of royal punishment points to some sort of "capital"
rather than "civil" offence, although the precise form of "execu
tion" is not stated. Presumably, actual penalties for violations
of such estates were subsumed under recorded penal codes.
A similar threat appears in a donation text of the Twenty-
Second Dynasty, from the reign of Takelothis II (491):
This day granting arable land to the chief

of the deputies of Basted: Hr-bit-Mht;
namely 10 arourae, which the Royal Seal-
bearer of the Estate of I-b3-s3, son of
Nsy-Pth made for the town of P3-grg-P3-R'
as regulation against damaging them by
any transgressor saying:
"As for any official, any scribe, any

controller who is not on business to
this field, who shall damage them:
They shall be to the [knife] of the Lord

of the Two lands, and the Slaughtering-
Block (?) of Sekhmet."
The application of the title "Lord of the Two Lands" (nb t3wy) to
341
the king, refers to his primary role as legal owner of land
in Egypt (492). Thus, in this instance, it appears that the
•king, in theory, was responsible for the distribution and protec
tion of property transferred to a temple. It is significant
that maledictions are described in the text as having been
"spoken" by the donator of the property (493). The pronouncement
of formal threats in the name of the king and a deity accompanying
the legal transfer of land, again suggests a strong affinity to
the invocation of an oath in a legal setting. Indeed, the trans
fer of property by oracular decree, as in the cases of Hentowe
and Makare above, indicates that maledictions were incorporated
into official temple records (494). They could be referred to
later if a violation of the deed arose. In such circumstances
the threats themselves were probably formally invoked against
the transgressor. Likewise, one of the stipulations of the decree
for the funerary estate of Amenophis Son of Hapu refers specif
ically to the "reading" (_|_s) of the provisions of the text, in
cluding the maledictions, by the vizier or some other authority
(495).
Several donation stelae have survived from the reign of
Sheshonk III. The imprecative formulae, unfortunately, are in
varying states of preservation. A hieratic text attributed to
this monarch and dated to year 17, records the transfer of land
to a triad of gods at Busiris (496):
As for the one who shall damage. . . the Great

God shall cut [off his name (?)]. . .
342
The use of the title "Great God", n£r '3, is typical in oracular
addresses, although the mutilated context precludes any definite
identification. The term clearly refers to some penalty
pertaining to the "destruction" of the transgressor who would
damage the stela. Noting a similar phrase from earlier texts,
it seems likely that rn, "name" should be supplied in the lacuna
as object of the verb s_|_ (497). "The cutting out of the name"
again is a reference to the loss of legal status.
A fragmented text from the thirtieth year of the same king's
reign, has a partially preserved threat (498):
The one who shall . . . H3t-mhyt: An ass shall

violate his mistress; an ass shall violate his
dependants.
The threat is a variation of the formula first encountered in
the Ramesside Period, "an ass shall violate him (ie. the trans
gressor), and his wife." The familial objects of the malediction,
however, have been changed from the usual frmt, "wife", to frbs,
"mistress" (499). Also significant is the expansion of this
type of threat to include the offspring (lit. "dependants") of
the criminal. A similar injunction appears in a text dated to
year 32 of Sheshonk III, indicating that the malediction had
become standard during this reign. Again, the stela is broken,
but the preserved portions undoubtedly point to its use as a
donation text. The final threat is presented in inclusi.o
form (500):
As for the one who damages [this stela]. . .

343
An ass shall violate him. . . an ass shall

violate his mistress, (namely of) the one
who (shall) damage this stela.
A text dated to year 22 of a Sheshonk (possibly Sheshonk III),
now in the Brooklyn Museum, records a transfer of land to
Harpocrates residing in Mendes (501). The threat formulae are
more expanded than in the prior examples of donation texts (502):
The one who shall seize them (ie. the donated

property) from him:
An ass shall violate his wife, and his wife

shall violate [his children]. B3--Nb-Ddt, the
Great God, Lord of Life, and H3t-Mhyt, and
Harpocrates are the ones who shall slaughter
him by cutting off his head, and they shall
not allow his eldest son to succeed him.
The sexual nature of the the initial threat is slightly different
from the standard formulation. A striking, though not unique,
image is the violation of the offender's offspring by his wife
(503). The invocation of a moral transgression by the spouse
against her own children is directed at the very concept of the
social unity of the family. Thus, the mother who is responsible
for the protection of her offspring is to become the agent for
their destruction. The theoretical pattern of the divine family
as a triad is also evident in the invocation of the gods of Mendes.
The usual practice of pairing the deity to a corresponding member
of an Egyptian household, however, is not employed in this threat.
Instead, the three deities are to kill the violator by beheading.
The imagery is frequently used in reference to the foreign
enemies of the king who have been vanquished in battle (504).

344
The threat concludes with a wish that the rights of the offender's
children as heirs are not to be honored.
A donation text, dated to the nineteenth year of Sheshonk
IV, records the gift of land to an estate of Hathor, probably
in the town of Pr-Sbk, by a shield-bearer of the king (505).
The stela concludes with the following malediction (506):
As for [any] body, any scribe, who is dispatched

on business to the district of the town of Pr-
Sbk, who shall damage this stela:
They shall come about to the blade of Hathor,

whose name endures forever . . .
The assignment of vengeance to the goddess Hathor, is evidently
due to her position as recipient of the parcel of land. The
political weakness of the king during this time, however, may
be a significant factor in the omission of a threat of royal
punishment (507).
An impressive example in the corpus of Egyptian maledic
tions occurs in a donation stela published by Bakir (508).
Although the first five lines of the hieratic inscription are
broken, all the imprecative formulae have been preserved. The
hieratic paleography is characteristic of the Twenty-second
Dyansty, and the king's praenomen, '3-hpr-R', makes it certain
that Sheshonk IV is intended, although the entire titulary and
date have not survived (509). The text itself came from the
Western Delta; it probably related a donation of land to the

345
deities Heka, and his mother Sekhmet. Both gods are prominently
depicted in the top register of the stela. They are shown
receiving a gift from an individual wearing a feather on his
head, an iconographic feature of a "Libyan" chief, or offi
cial (510). The stipulation warning against any transgression
of the gift has been lost, but undoubtedly referred to a viola
tion of the donated property as Bakir had suggested (511):
[As for anybody who shall violate these

fiel]ds:
He shall violate an ass, an ass shall violate

his wife, and his wife shall violate his
children. He shall become one deserving
slaughter by the king. His head shall be
cut off, and sought away<from>his tomb (?).
His lifetime shall be non-existent. He
shall be buried in the devouring flame.
N[ot] shall his son be [established] in
his office, he will be abhorred in the
Temple of Amun, the Temple of Re, the
Temple of Ptah, and the House of the
Ruler.
The combination of punishments is clearly intended to
encompasss the total existence of the criminal: physical,
social, and spiritual. As Bakir has stressed, the repeated
references to molestation by an animal are used to demonstrate
the severity of punishment (512). The initial threat, however,
refers to indecent acts by the transgressor himself in contrast
to the usual formula, "an ass shall violate him". The typical
threat against the wife has been retained. The subsequent
invocation of maltreatment of the violator's offspring by his
own wife again is an image of social chaos, resulting in the
destruction of the family as a cohesive unit.

346
Afterwards, the transgressor is described as fapr.f m s'd,
"he shall become one deserving slaughter" by the monarch. Al
though Bakir regarded s'd, as a term for physical "mutilation",
it probably denotes a sentence of capital punishment (513).
This is corroborated by the subsequent reference to beheading.
As before, such an action is most often used in relation to
foreigners. Hence, there is an implication of the criminal's
reduction of status in the threat. The method of execution,
applicable primarily to non-Egyptains, would imply a total
loss of juridical standing as a result of his criminal activity.
The accompanying threat, "his lifetime shall be made non
existent" refers primarily to the termination of "physical"
or corporeal life. It too, however has an implication of
legal standing, particularly in reference to the grant of a
ritual burial (514). Likewise, beheading itself would have
serious repercussions for the existence of the criminal in
the Afterlife (515). The mutilated condition of the corpse
and the separation of the head from the body would effectively
deny a person any semblence of a meaningful existence after
death. Indeed, the execution and loss of status is concluded
by a threat towards the disgraced corpse itself. The burial
in the "devouring flame" clearly represents the denial of a
ritual burial, and the complete destruction of the physical
being of the transgressor. Such a threat most likely refers
to the burning of a criminal's corpse, a punishment referred

347
to in the Chronicle of Prince Osorkon in the sentence imposed
upon the vebellious Thebans (516). A conspicuous example,
however, is the treatment of the Saitic monarch, Bocchoris,
by the Kushite Shabaka (517).
The injunction concludes with the rejection of an heir
to his forebearer's office, thereby extending the punishment
beyond the life-time of the criminal. Ultimately, the male
factor is denounced as "hated/disgraced" (fobd) in the temples
of Amun, Re, and Ptah, as well as the administrative residence
of the king. The term bbd as noted above, is used for persons
guilty of sacrilege or some criminal offense. The reference
to three major deities is intended to encompass the major
religious shrines of Egypt, ie. Thebes, Heliopolis, and
Memphis (518). The threat probably has an application to the
denial of ritual benefits on behalf of the mortuary cult of
the transgressor. The mention of the Pr_Jik3, or "House of
the Ruler" stands in parallel to the religious centers, and
refers to the royal administration (519). The specific
denunciation of the violator as jjbd, "hated" of/by the House
of the Ruler, suggests the exclusion from receiving benefits
awarded to citizens by the king. Similar to the injunction
contained in the earlier Intf decree, such a sentence probably
would include the denial of income to the survivor's family(520).
There are several observations to be made concerning the
threats used in this text. The scope and quantity of the impre
cations are quite impressive. Aside from the initial references

348
to sexual abuse, the punishments invoked have a clear basis
in "legal" proscription. Indeed, supernatural elements have
been mitigated, and the recipient deities, Heka and Sekhmet,
are not even mentioned as possible agents of retribution. Pre
ference is instead given to the king as responsible for the
grant's enforcement. It is significant that the monarch was
still considered, at least theoretically, to have been the
primary guardian of law, given the historical juncture. How
ever, the insistence or dependance upon such an array of male
dictions suggests that the supposed authority of the king was
not as effective as the text's donator implies (521).
Somewhat contemporary with the later Sheshonkide rulers
is a donation stela of the "Great Chief of R3bw" and "Commander",
Roudamon (522). The text records a gift of land to the priest
hoods of Sekhmet and Heka. Although fragmentary, a portion of
the imprecation remains (523):
[As for] the one who shall [damage (?)]
. . .He shall go (?) to the knife of the

king. He shall violate his children. His
son [shall perish (?)].
The invocation of the "knife of the king" indicates again that
the property was considered to have been in the legal domain of
the crown, with the transgressor liable to punishment by the royal
courts. The subsequent injunctions are slightly different from
the usual maledictions for this period. The final threat in
349
voking the death of the criminal's child, replaces the more
frequent denial of inheritance rights. It is noteworthy that
by this time, threats routinely include parties beside the actual
transgressor. The other malediction is a variant of the usual
threat involving sexual abuse against the malefactor's family.
In this instance, the molestation is to be carried out by the
criminal himself. Thus, a collapse of the moral structure of
the family is intended by the malediction.
Somewhat close in time to the preceding texts is the dona
tion stela of the troop-commander Irwrhn, dating from the reign
of the Twenty-Third Dynasty king, Pedubast I (524). The record
of the gift of land contains a brief malediction (525):
[As for the one who] violates [this] stela:
He shall be given to the fire of Wrt-Hk3wl . . .
As Schulman had noted, the reference to the goddess Wrt-flk3w,
"the Great of 'Magic'", undoubtedly refers to Sekhmet, a common
figure of retribution in these texts, as is the imagery of de
struction by fire (526). Sekhmet is usually invoked in maledic
tions as an adjunct to a threat of royal punishment. Denoted as
the abstraction of "power", or the "Powerful One", she assumes
the role of the divine protectress of "order" (527). This is
the case in another donation text from the reign of Pedubast,

350
where the usual combination of the king's power and Sekhmet's
is invoked (528):
. . . the one who shall transgress this stela

in its place:
He shall belong to the knife of the Victorious

King while he is fallen to the Slaughtering-
Block of Sekhmet (namely) this one who shall
transgress this decree.
The use of the epithet "Great of 'Magic'" for the goddness in
the Irwrhn text, however, suggests a slightly different role.
Rather than appearing as the divinely or dained agent of
vengeance, or restorer of order, the "magical" or "super
natural" aspects of Sekhmet's nature are recalled (529).
Several inscriptions left by the Ethiopian monarchs of
the Twenty-fifth Dynasty and their successors, attest to the
continuation of the practice of employing threats in royal
decrees, as well as minor legal texts among the conquerors of
the Nile Valley. The so-called "Smaller Dakhleh Stela", dated
to the Twenty-fourth year of the Pharaoh Piye, relates the
donation of a daily bread-offering on behalf of the father of
an official of the oasis (530). The text contains an admonition
against removing the text (531):
As for the one who shall drag it off:
He shall (belong) to the knife of Amun-Re.

He shall (belong) to the flame of Sekhmet.
He shall be one whom Osiris, Lord of Abydos,
shall overthrow together with the son of his
son, forever, eternally. An ass shall
violate him, an ass shall violate his wife,
and his wife shall violate his children.
351
It is perhaps significant that the king himself is not mentioned
as the primary guarantor of the donation. The omission of Piye
could be a reflection of the historical situation in the Nile
Valley during this Period. The oasis may have been considered
independant of the jurisdiction of the Ethiopian king who had
retreated into his Kushite domain by this time (523). Thus,
although Piye's authority was obviously recognized by the
donor of the gift the transaction is dated by the king's
regnal year it appears that any formal arrangements regarding
internal legal matters or disputes were rather loose (533).
Amun and Sekhmet, instead, have been invoked to execute
punishment against the potential criminal. Even more striking,
however, is that the deity to whom the offering had been pre
sented, Sutekh, is not regarded as an agent for its protection (534).
A slightly different element in the malediction is the classific
ation of the transgressor, as "one whom Osiris shall overthrow
with the son of his son forever, eternally." The invocation of
Osiris, as "Lord of Abydos", undoubtedly refers to the deity in
his role as the lord and owner of the cemetary, and theoretical
master of ritual burials there. The denigration of the male
factor as farwy, usually translated as "enemy", but clearly written
as a future passive participle-"one who should be (overthrown)"
(by Osiris)-has a juridical implication for the judgement of the
deceased, and to ultimate condemnation in the Afterlife (535).
Equally important, however is the association of the criminal's

352
guilt to his lineage in perpetuity. Condemnation of a violator
is Egyptian maledictions is usually restricted to the physical
life-time of his off-spring, especially as it refers to inheri
tance privileges. The threat concludes with the standard invoca
tion of sexual abuse towards the criminal and his family.
In a stela dated to the sixth year of Piye's successor
Shabaka, a donation of land to Horus and Wadjit of Buto is
recorded along with a threat (536):
The one who shall transgress this field:
He shall be to the knife of the king.

He shall . . . the Slaughtering-Block (?)
(of) Sekhmet.
The malediction contains the typical threat of the "knife of
the king" as well as the vengeance of Sekhmet. The reference
to the king's vengeance coincides with the historical fact that
Shabaka had consolidated the Delta under his authority follow
ing the seizure and execution of his rival from Sais, Bocchoris
(see above) (537).
A number of threats are used to seal a later decree of the
Ethiopian king Taharqa, reestablishing the cult equipment of the
temple and religious estates in Memphis (538):
As for the one who shall transgress this decree

[which] [his Majesty] has made [for] his father
[Amun-Re, resident of the] rDivinen [Estates]:
353
He shall [belong] to the knife of Ptah-Sokar,

while Amun-Re, Resident of the Divine Estates
is (?) slaughtering him.
The deities invoked are the recipients of the grants mentioned
in the text, and were therefore considered responsible for main
taining adherence to the decree. The maledictions are standard,
and follow established patterns referring to divine wrath. The
most interesting aspect of the threats, however, is the total
abrogation of responsibility of enforcement to divine elements (539).
The use of a threat in a decree of the later Kushite ruler,
Aspelta, demonstrates that the practice was not limited to the
Ethiopian occupation of Egypt (540). Dated to the king's third
year, the text records the transmission of the office of priest
of Amun to the king's children. The decree concludes with a
conventional malediction (541):
As for the one who shall move this decree from

the Divine Estate of Amun-Re, Bull of Nubia:
He shall belong to the knife of Amun-Re.

He shall belong to the fire of Sekhmet.
Not shall his son be established in his
place.
The Saitic rulers of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty also employed
threats in official documents, and their use is attested in
private inscriptions as well. Not surprisingly, these occurences
are limited primarily to donation texts and grants to temples,
consistent with earlier practice. The use of maledictions during
the Saitic period, however, has a forerunner in the Athens stela

354
of the founding monarch of the Twenty-fourth Dynasty Tefnakhte (542).
Dated to the king's eighth year, the text is one of the few sur
viving documents from his reign. The decree concerns the donation
of land to the temple of Neith in the town of hwt nt R'-mss, lit.
the "Estate of Ramesses" (543). After a brief blessing for those
who would protect the donation, the king invokes maledictions on
the potential transgressor (544):
As for the one who shall remove them:
Neith shall come about against him forever and

ever. Not shall his son be established in his
office. The ass shall violate him, and the ass
shall violate his wife and his children.
He shall go the flame of the mouth of Sekhmet,

while the All-Lord and the gods entirely, 'bind
up' the one who shall diminish this offering
for Neith. His moments shall be cut off, they
shall inter him in the burning flame. Not shall
his children succeed him. Beware of Neith from
reaching affliction.
Due to Neith's receipt of the donated property, the goddess is
invoked as the primary guarantor of the decree. Formulaic
elements of the threat include the loss of office to the crim
inal's heirs and the assault of the transgressor and family by
an ass. As a result of divine punishment, the violator's life
time is to be cut off along with the loss of a ritual burial. The
reference to interment in the "burning flame" (t3 st3) indicates
the total destruction of the corpse, another image retained from
earlier periods. A peculiar feature of the imprecation, however,
is the reference to the "binding up" of the criminal by the All-
Lord, and a host of assembled deities (545). The word 'rk itself
355
is used as a term for "oath", which might indicate that a threat
of divine "ban" was in effect for crimes against the religious
estate (546). The role of Sekhmet and other deities is some
what unusual since they are not considered as acting on behalf
of the actual donor of the land, ie. Tefnakhte, but instead are
agents for the goddess Neith, the beneficiary of the gift. The
exclusive threat of divine punishment in a royal decree is strik
ing and suggests that the land donated was not really under the
king's dominion (547). It is noteworthy that the monarch himself
threatens no punishment, but instead has relegated vengeance
exclusively to divine forces.
A text dated to the eighth year of Psametichus I concerns
the donation of sanctified land to a village (548). A stipulation
against one who would transgress the '3 Wsir, lit. "door of Osiris/
Osirian", indicates that the donated property was intended to be
used as a cemetary. The violation itself amounted to desecration
of burial equipment (549):
(As for) the one who shall violate the pre

servation (s'nfa) of the doors of Osiris:
tlr-mrty shall cut off his "heaven", (he)
shall cut off his lifetime, (and) (he) shall
destroy his wife and children.
The reference to Horus' "cutting off" his "heaven" probably
indicates the denial of a ritual burial (550). The divine
punishments are entirely of a physical nature with the offender
losing his life, accompanied by the death of his wife and child
ren. The final threat is a basic change from earlier formulae.

356
Maledictions against the off-spring and family usually involve
sexual molestation or the denial of legal rights, rather than
an immediate forfeiture of their life.
A decree of Psametichus I preserved in Papyrus Rylands,
and dated to his thirty-fourth year, contains an injunction
to preserve the contents of a royal donation (551):
As for him who opposes this decree:
He shall belong to suffering in the Great Tribunal

which is in the Estate of Nni-nsw. He shall belong
to the knife of the "slaughterers", and the chief
of N-rd-f. His son shall perish. His house shall
not exist, while his limbs are passing into the
fire. He shall belong to the glowing flame of
Sekhmet. . . His name shall not exist among the
citizenry.
The most strking aspect of the malediction is the invocation
to the d3d3t '3 imyw Hwt Nni-nsw, "the Great Tribunal which
is in the District of Elnasiya", ie. Herakleopolis (552).
Obviously referring to a juridical institution, the "Great
Tribunal" is to sentence the violator of the king's decree.
The term used for punishment by this body, %'yw, is a variant
of older s_^, "destruction", lit. "cutting off". In the context
of the malediction, however, it should be seen primarily as an
expression of guilt. The phrase, "he shall belong to the s'yw
of the Great Tribunal", signifies the relegation of the trans-

V
gressor to persons already "condemned" by the Court. S'yw
ooriQ^ IT6-
• — ii i s a p a s s i v e p a r t i c i p i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h o s e w h o h a v e
been destroyed/cut off" (553). Although the specification of the

357
d3d3t as having links to "Herakleopolis" suggest a "local" or
"district" court, the determinative of d3j3t ^ indicated a
divine body rather than human institution. The tribunal itself,
thus, is to be linked to the Totengericht or eschatological
court. Hence, the d3d3t '3 represents a corporation of local
or indigenous deities from Herakleopolis. The attribute '3,
"great", ie. "major" denotes the tribunal's authority or
jurisdiction over "criminal" rather than "civil" cases, and
its ability to delivery a capital sentence (554). Indeed, the
primacy given to the <}3d3t's role in the injunction suggests
that the subsequent maledictions referring to "execution", loss
of status, and heirs comprised the extent of the divine condemna
tion.
A private donation of land dated to Psametichus I's
forty-seventh year is recorded in Papyrus Turin 248. Again
there is the usual stipulation and injunctions (555):
As for the one who shall move them:
He shall (belong) to the knife of Amun-Re

and Ptah. He shall (belong) to the flame of
Sekhmet, while his son shall ^not^ succeed him.
Likewise in a private offering to the sanctuary of Hr-mrty during
the same monarch's reign it states (556):
Should they raise up wreaths therein in the

presence of flr-mrty (and) Osiris in R3-mht:
His heart shall be content thereby for

eternity;
But he who destroys these:

358
The Gods and the b3w who live in iadnw shall

destroy him . . .
The language of the theat is striking since the principle of
reciprocity is an essential element in its formulation. The
action undertaken by a party against the foundation is to be
visited upon the malefactor himself. This type of "literary"
construction where the protasis and apodosis use the same term
referring to the violation / destruction or punishment, is
typical of the threats from the Saitic Period (557). Moreover,
the direct juxtaposition between the blessing-usually formulated
as an expression of "equivalency"- and curse, is characteristic
of the injunctions during this time. Indeed, the maledictory
formulae are more noteworthy for their succinctness and brevity
than the imagery which they invoke.
The following examples demonstrate how commonplace some
of the threats during the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty had become. An
anonymous donation to Osiris dated to the reign of Necho I contains
a blessing and curse (558):
The one who causes [that it] endure:
[He] will endure.
(But) the one who destroys (s') anything

from them:
y
He will belong to the destruction ( s j _ ) of
Bastet, and the fiery flame of Sekhmet.
Similarly, in a rededication of a monument of Psametichus II by
Apries, it states (559):
Amun-Re (and) the Ram of Mendes: [The one who

359
causes] the shrine to endure: He (ie. the god)

causes him to endure.
He who destroys (it): He shall destroy him.
From Apries' thirty-second year is a private donation of an
artifice to Bastet in Bubastis containing the following impre
cation (560):
The one who shall destroy the artifice:
Bastet the Great, the Mistress of Bubastis

shall destroy him forever and ever. Not shall
his son ever follow him.
A stela dated to the sixth year of Amasis recording the donation
of a lamp to Osiris, Horus and Isis, also contains a brief male
diction (561):
He (ie. the god) is the one who causes to

endure the one who causes (it) to endure.
(But) he cuts off forever the one who shall

cut it off.
It is noteworthy that this type of threat had become so fixed
that suffix pronouns denoting subject and object are routinely
omitted from the texts.
Three donation stela dated to the reign of Necho II, how
ever, demonstrate that more "traditional" threats could be employed
as well:
1)(562) The one who shall move them:
He shall belong to the flame of Sekhmet, and

the burning heat of Bastet.
2)(563) Any scribe, âny^ official, any man,

360
or anybody who shall come (to) (this)

field (to) seize afterwards those things
which I have made on earth:
He whose name is pleasant on earth-not

shall his son or daughter grow up on
earth. Not shall he be buried in the
Necropolis.
3)(564) As for any scribe, any official, any

man who shall come down to this field
to take anything from them, to do things
therein on earth:
He is a rebel to the Great God. His son

and daughter shall be slaughtered on earth.
Not shall he be buried in the Necropolis.
The reference to sbi pw n ntr'3, "he is a rebel of the Great God"
in the last example indicates condemnation by Osiris for a moral
transgression. The loss of ritual burial, therefore, should be
seen as a direct result of the judgement by the god. Again, the
preceding examples stress actual physical harm to the violator's
offspring, rather than to their legal status, or rights as heirs.
The tendency to re-use or adopt older formulations, a
general characteristic of the Saitic Period, is plainly evident
in a contemporary tomb inscription from El-Hasaya (565). As
Edel has demonstrated, the text contains threat formulae closely
related to those included in the Suit Inscriptions from the
First Intermediate Period (566). Indeed, it is difficult to
imagine that the "author" of the El-Hasaya threats did not have
more than a passing acquaintance with the Siut graves. Although
very similar to the older threats, the El-Hasaya maledictions

361
should not be considered as simple "copies", but rather are
adoptions of the earlier texts. The literary dependence of
the El-Hasaya text upon the Siut inscriptions, however, is
demonstrated by the chart below, following Edel's studies (567):
A. El-Hasaya nn sb3.tw.f m-m 3faw
Not shall he be remembered among the

"Glorious Spirits"
Siut Ilia [nn dm.tw rn.f] m-m 3frw
[Not shall his name be pronounced] among

the "Glorious Spirits"
El-Hasaya nn dm.tw rn.f m t3 for nhh
Not shall his name be pronounced on earth

forever
Siut Illb nn sfa3.f hr tpyw-t3
Not shall his memory be with those surviving
B. El-Hasaya nn priw n.f brw
Not shall there be delivered to him offerings
Siut III n priw n.f brw
Not shall there be delivered to him offerings
El-Hasaya nn krs. f m zmt Imntt
Not shall there be his burial in the

Western Necropolis
Siut IV [nn] krs.t[tw.f] m zmt
[Not] shall [he be], buried in the Necropolis

362
Siut III n[n] fcrs.tw.f m Imntt
No[t] shall he be buried in the West
D.(i)
El-Hasaya iw.f <r> t[k3 fr]n' hbntyw
He shall be ^to^ the conf[lagration w]ith

the "damned"
Siut IV iw.f r pf[st] [h]n['J fobntyw
He shall be to the burn[ing] [w]it[h] the

"damned"
Siut III [h']w.[s]n r tk[3 fr]n' hbntyw
[The]ir [lim]bs shall be to the conflagration]

[w]ith the damned"
D.(ii)
El-Hasaya hwi [n] Qhwti [s]dbw r.f
whom Thoth [has] punished
Siut IV hwi [n] ntr sdb r.sn
whom God [has] punished
The reliance of the Saitic text upon the Siut inscriptions is
striking. Moreover, it is interesting to observe how the First
Intermediate Period threats have been adopted and transformed in
the later formulations. In A., El-Hasaya has retained the threat
denying the memory of the criminal from Siut Illb; but has used
the adverbial qualification of Siut Ilia "among the "Glorious
Spririts". Assuming that Edel's restorations are correct, a

363
similar process can be observed in example C. In the original
threats, zmt, "Necropolis" (Siut IV), and Imntt, "the West"
(Siut III) are used as objects of two prepositional phrases:
"in the Necroplis" and "in the West". The author of the El-
Hasaya text, however, has combined the two nouns zmt and Imntt
into a noun + adjectival qualifier: "in the Western Necropolis".
In D. (i), El-Hasaya again has utilized the future construc
tion of Siut IV iw.f r, attaching it, however, to the adverbial
clause of Siut III tk3 hn' fobntyw, "(to) the conflagration with
the damned". Finally in D. (ii), a relative clause originally
plural in Siut IV has been transformed to a singular in the
El-Hasaya text: r.sn, "against them" becomes r.f, "against him".
Likewise in the Saitic text, Thoth is invoked as an agent of
retribution, substituting for the neutral ntr, "god" in Siut
IV.
The El-Hasaya text does employ a more "contemporary" threat
referring to the "slaughtering knife" of the king. Tfrs, "knife"
is used rather than the more usual ^'/s't (568). It should be
noted, however, that recourse to the king's power is rarely used
in injunctions from this time. This suggests the use of another
"archaism" by the El-Hasaya author.
The El-Hasaya threats are from the entrance to the tomb
of an official of Elephantine, gnsw-ir-di.s. The complete
maledictory formulae follow an address to the living (569):
As for the one who does not say these things

(ie. the blessing for the deceased):
364
He shall [belong to] the fury of his local

deity, and the slaughtering knife of the
king. Not shall [he] be remembered among
the "Glorious Spirits", Not shall his name
be pronounced on earth for ever. Not shall
there be the delivery of offerings for him.
Not shall there be his burial in the Western
Necropolis. He shall be to the conf[lagration]
[wjith the "damned", whom Thoth [has] [p]unished.
One shall spit upon him.
The import of the threats has been discussed previously in rela
tion to the Siut texts themselves. The most significant aspect
of the El-Hasaya threats, however, is the initial stipulation.
The Siut inscriptions are directed specifically to "rebels" who
might damage the tomb, its contents, or the district cemetary
of the nomarch Tf-ib.i. As noted, sbi "rebel/outlaw" is util
ized in consideration of the political situation during the
First Intermediate Period. Thus, the threats are a direct
result of the animosity between the Siut officials and their
Theban rivals, and reflect the historical enmity between the
two parties. The Siut threats, which refer to a specific
circumstance, however, have been taken by their Saitic adapter
from their original historical context. The El-Hasaya, threats,
by contrast, are simply used as a warning towards anyone who
might fail to invoke the proper funerary blessings on behalf of
the owner of the tomb.
The same "archaizing" spirit is also apparent on a stela
of the Saitic Period, now in the Berlin Museum (570). A number

365
of threats have been attached to an invocation to the living
similar to the El-Hasaya text (571):
He says:
0 living ones who (shall) pass by the burial

ground (lit. "mountain"), and who enter this
my tomb, and who see what is in it, (but) who
do not protect its writings or pay homage to
its image:
Not shall their god accept their white-bread

(offering). They shall belong to the enemies
of the Resident of the Cerastes nome.
Sottas had noted that both the stipulation and malediction of
the Saitic text bore also close resemblance to the earlier
tomb inscription of Tf-ib.i (572):
Berlin tm.sn mk ssw.f twr twt.f
Who shall not protect its writings or pay

homage to its image-
Tf-ib.i tm.t.f mk [i]z p[n] tin' ntt i[m].f
Who shall not protect th[is] (my) [cham]ber and

what is in it
Berlin n ssp ntr.sn hd.sn
Not shall their god accept their white-bread (offering).
Tf-ib.i nn ssp ntr.f hdt.f
Not shall his god accept his white-bread (offering).
Sottas doubted that a body of threats, such as those contained in
the Siut texts and the later El-Hasaya and Berlin inscriptions,
could have been maintained as part of a "living" tradition for
over a millenium and a half (573). As in the example of the

366
El-Hasaya text, it is quite conceivable that the Saitic scribe
of the Berlin text had some familiarity with the earlier inscrip
tions. It is difficult to say, however, in what form this access
occured. Sottas had suggested that such borrowings or adaptations
could be ascribed to the geographical proximity of the original
location of the Berlin text to Siut (approximately 12 miles) (574).
El-Hasaya, located to the south of Edfu, however, is a considerable
distance from Siut (over 150 miles) thus making it difficult to
accept Sottas' simple explanation (575). Regardless of the
precise "form" of the earlier texts with which the Saitic scribes
were familiar, ie. whether they had actual access to the tomb
inscriptions themselves, or whether the texts had been recorded
and preserved in some "archive", the use of the Siut texts demon
strates the antiquarian spirit of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty (576).
That both threat formulae for El-Hasaya and the Berlin text, are
associated with the protection of tombs is also striking. Indeed,
as has been stressed, maledictions appear infrequently in tomb
inscriptions after the Middle Kingdom, with only occasional re
vivals during the Eighteenth Dynasty. They are extremely rare in
texts of the late New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (577).
The reappearance of maledictions in this context, again is un
doubtedly due to the Saitic "Renaissance", and its penchant for
emulating"and using Old Kingdom models as a basis for its own
lifestyle.
The use of threats is not restricted to the period of

367
indigenous rule in the Nile Valley. Such formulae appear in
texts subsequent to the Saitic Period and into the Ptolemaic
era. For the most part, however, they are merely a revival of
older maledictions. The Satrap Stela is the best known example
of the use of a threat in a royal decree after the Late Period
(578). Promulgated under the reign of Alexander IV by Ptolemy
Soter, the decree allows for the restoration of property to
the deities of Buto (579). After commanding the distribution
and receivorship of servants, cattle, and the like, the text
contains a warning to those who might interfere with its
provisions (580):
The one who shall tear it up, or who shall

move it, or take property from it:
He shall belong to the binding (?) of those

who are in Pe, and he shall belong to the fury
of those who are in Dep, while he belongs to
the fire of Wp-t3wy on her day of raging. Not
shall there be a son to him or daughter to him
who gives water to him.
The principle of assigning the protection of property to deities
who were conceived as owners of the estate and recipients of the
gift is obviously in effect here. The most interesting aspect
of the text is the mutiple protasis, wherein three possibilities
are given for infringement of the decree. The reference to
"tearing up" (spsp) would apply to the original papyrus draft (581).
Such a document undoubtedly was part of the official temple
archives, and was the actual legal deposition of the grant.
By contrast, individuals are further warned against "moving",

368
ie. "annuling" the public display text, similar to the earlier
examples of donation texts and boundnary stones. Finally, the
party who might seize any property from the estate itself is
admonished. The dependence upon deities to enforce the decree,
rather than a reliance upon human agencies for enforcement
again is quite explicit. Goedicke, however, has recently
demonstrated that the donation was not of royal origin, ie.
from the king, but was rather a private gift from Ptolemy
Soter prior to his accession as monarch (582). Although the
final malediction would seem to refer to the denial of funerary
offerings as Sottas has suggested, (583) there is a slightly
different stress in its formulation. The actual wish is that
the transgressor have no off-spring at all. The participial
phrase rdi(w) n.f mw, is in apposition to s3.f, "his son", and
s3t.f, "his daughter", is descriptive of their responsibilites
to their precdecessor. Thus, the phrase, "his son (namely) who
gives to him water" merely refers to a "dutiful son" who will
perform the proper ritual service on behalf of the deceased.
The emphasis, therefore, is not on the proscription of mor
tuary rites, ie. "the giving of water", but rather on the
severance of the offender's line, ie. "not is his son or his
daughter . . .".
A similar imprecation is included among the threats in
the colophon of the Papyrus Bremner-Rhind, a religious document

369
also from the reign of Alexander IV (584). The use of male
dictions to protect the integrity of literary texts has been
duly noted for the Ramesside Period. This .later exemplar,
however, employs threats to prevent the physical removal or
disturbance to the text itself, rather than any "literary"
distortion of its contents or usurpation of its authorship.
This might be due to the use of the document as an amuletic
device to magically ward off evil, an essential element in
'the composition of the body of the text itself. Interestingly,
the stipulation of the colophon is directed exclusively towards
foreigners who may take the papyrus from its owner. This
xenophobic quality is evident throughout the accompanying
text, especially in the sections dealing with the repulsion
of the Apophis demon, who is the prototype of the foreign
enemies of the king (585):
As for any man of any foreign country, Nubian,

Kushite, or Syrian, who removes this papyrus,
(or) should he separate it from me:
Not shall their corpse be interred. Not shall

they receive libations, not shall they smell
incense. Not shall a son or daughter arise for
them to pour water for them. Not shall their
name be remembered in the entire land. Not
shall they see the rays of the Sun-disc.
The threats follow older patterns denying a ritual burial, the
preparation of the corpse, and funerary offerings, as well as
the complete destruction of the offender's status after death.
The formula, however, is quite explicit in its reference to
funerary practices. Again the criminal is to be denied an

370
off-spring who would honor his memory. The final prohibition
of "seeing the rays of the sun-disc certainly has an eschato-
logical connotation referring to the dead's blessed position
in the Afterlife, rather than to physical affliction during
the transgressor's lifetime (586). A striking aspect of the
threat however is the application of Egyptian funerary rituals
and beliefs among foreign groups at this late juncture. Thus,
the threats which, in earlier periods had been restricted to
"Egyptians", ultimately came to be applied to other peoples
as well. The denial of funerary rituals to a group or to an
individual would have no consequence, unless it had some
application and meaning to their daily life and beliefs (587).

371
NOTES TO CHAPTER TWO
1) See generally Edel, Phraseologie, 2 ff.
2) Sottas, Preservation, 168 ff. briefly discusses some

Egyptian motifs in threats from Coptic literature; note
also the threat in the colophon of the Nag Hammadi text,
"The Discourse on the Eight and Ninth" (VI 63.15-30):
"The wrath will come to each one of those who violate
the oath" (see the translation in The Nag Hammadi
Library, ed. J.M. Robinson (New York 1978), 297 (trans,
by J. Brashler, Dirkse, P., and D. Parrot).
3) Note the oft-repeated statement in O.K. inscriptions

stressing that property for a tomb had not been taken
from another, see Edel, op. cit. 31 (§25) and also 50
(§46) referring to the legality in preparing a tomb.
4) See above Chapter One on the similarity in structure.

See also Sottas, op. cit., 36 ff. who compares the O.K.
threats of litigation ("judgement") with punitive clauses
from royal decrees.
5) See the discussion of Lorton, "Treatment", 7, 37-38,

48-49.
6) The threats are presented as personal statements, see

generally Goedicke, PRAR, 195.
7) Such distinctions often break down since the evidence

suggests that civil cases could include criminal penalties,
Lorton, op. cit., 48. The Egyptian legal system appears
to have been exceedingly complicated, with various types of
offences, including civil, criminal, sacral, and state crimes,
see generally the study of Bedell, Criminal Law in the Egyp
tian Ramesside Period.
8) See Wilson's study, JNES 7, 1948, 129 ff.
9) Ibid., 129.
10) Ibid., 136-140,155.
11) See Wilson's distinction between juridical and nonjuridical

settings, ibid., 131 ff.
12) The text is in the d'Orbiney papyrus, see LES 9 ff.
13) LES 16.15-16: "Then he swore (lit. bound himself) by

372
P'Re-Harakhti saying, 'As for your coming to kill me by a

lie- You carry your spear under the authority of a degraded
whore!"' Note also Bata's earlier appeal to the god which
clearly has juridical overtones, though not explicitly de
signated as an oath: "His younger brother appealed to P'
Re Harakhti, '0 my good lord, it is you who decides between
the guilty ('^3) and the just (m3't)" (LES 15.11-13).
14) It is certainly parallel to the later invocation of

penalties, cf. Wilson, op. cit., 148-149.
15) This was noted by Sottas, op. cit., 10.
16) See Goedicke, PRAR, 44 ff., for the text, see Taf. IV;
Urk. I 11-15. For the date, see Goedicke, op. cit., 46.
17) Urk. I 14.9-10; Restoration based on Goedicke, PRAR,

62; the lacuna certainly contained some directive concerning
the distribution of income to the phyle officiating the cult.
18) Goedicke, op. cit., 62; also Bedell, Criminal Law, 276 ff.
(note 12). The use of a title referring to a scribe of the
d3d3t '3t ntr '3 (Junker, Giza VII (Wien und Leipzig, 1944)
198 (no.6), indicates that there were both mundane and "escha-
tological" courts, one under the authority of the king, the
other (later designated as belonging to the Necropolis)
theoretically under divine jurisdiction, see Bedell, ibid.
19) Urk. I 14.11-12.
20) Goedicke, PRAR, 131 ff.; Urk. I 24-31.
21) Urk. I 30.12-13
22) For hnn, supra. Chapter One note 291; the text states
that the mortuary priests are under the authority (hr-') of the
deceased's children (Urk. I 30.7); Goedicke, PRAR, 140.
24) Indeed, no "criminal" penalties are invoked in these cases,

although in later texts, persons are to be remanded to a hwt-wr,
which is clearly a criminal court under the king's authority,
see Goedicke, PRAR, 214. See PRAR, Taf. X (Inscription B) of
Nb-k3w-Hr: "As for any man at whom I was angry, or who did that
(at) which I took offense, or which I hated: It was I who took
care of him. Regarding any people, of whom I knew (committing
such acts), they were dispersed, beaten, on account of it in
the hwt-wr, and punished in the "Court" cf. Goedicke, ibid.,
94 ff.; Lorton, "Treatment", 7.
373
25) See Goedicke, KDAR, 239 ff.
26) Ibid. 247-248, and see Lorton, "Treatment", 9 (note 35).
27) Lorton, Treatment", 6-12.
28) Goedicke, Die Stellung des Konigs im Alten Reich (Wiesbaden,

1960) 42-49; idem., KDAR.
29) Urk. I 170.11-172.11; Goedicke, KDAR, 23-24; Lorton, "Treat

ment", 6-7.
30) See Urk. I 171.12-15: "As for any man of the district who
takes any mortuary priests who are on the divine property, for
which they perform ritual service in this district, for work
on the (royal) property, or any district labor: You shall send
him to court", cf. Goedicke, op. cit., 23-24; Lorton, "Treat
ment", 6-7.
31) Lorton, "Treatment", 7, 9-10; Goedicke, KDAR, 102-103,

247 ff.
32) See Edel, Phraseologie, 3, who notes the earliest attestation

of the phrase "As for any man who shall do evil" in a tomb of the
Fourth Dynasty dating from the reign of Mycerinus; see Fachry,
Sept Tombeaux (Cairo, 1935), 21.
33) Urk. I 35.1-3.
34) For im3h, see Goedicke, 124; Helck, MDAIK 14, 1956, 68 f.
Note also Urk. I 34.2, and Goedicke, ibid., Taf. XVII b.
35) Supra, note 18; for the threat see Edel, op. cit., 9 ff.;
Sottas, Preservation, 36 ff.; Kees, Totenglauben, 49., believed
the older formula lacking mention of the gods referred to a
royal court, although this was doubted by Edel, (op. cit., 12).
36) It is only in the NK that desecration to the corpse itself

is listed as an offense (see Urk. IV 1491.11).
37) Urk. I 46.11-12.
38) Edel, Phraseologie, 18 f. states: "Die Phrase hat einen

doppelten Sinn: sie droht dem Grabschander mit entsprechender
Vergeltung und versichert dem Pietatvollen, dass ihm mit gleicher
Pietat vergolten werden wird". For other threats of this type
see Edel, ibid., 18-19; Garnot, L'Appel, 17.
39) For imy-fot, see Edel, op. cit., 17; Wb. Ill 347.3.
40) Urk. I 50.16-51.1.

374
41) See Edel, Phraseologie, 4-8; Goedicke, MIO 8, 1963, 340ff.;

and the earlier study of Sottas, Preservation, 28 ff. The earl
iest example (Urk. I 49.1-3) refers only to "litigation" with
out naming any divine arbiter.
42) See Edel, Phraseologie, 6-7; Sottas, Preservation, 11-16.

Note also Goedicke's remarks in PRAR, 66 (note 25) observing
that ritual immunity was to be linked to property offenses.
43) Edel, op. cit., 9; supra. Chapter One, note 637.
44) This occurs during the FIP, see Dmd-ib-t3wy Decree, Urk.
I 305.18, although in the Siut threats, Anubis is clearly the
judge of the local Necropolis. Pyramid Texts refer to a collec
tion of deities, usually the Ennead, as juridical body, see
Goedicke, MIO 8, 1963, 361 ff.
45) Urk. I 256.2-3.
46) See Goedicke, PRAR, 186 ff. and Taf. XVIII; Urk. I 116.1-6.
47) Urk. I 263.9-12; also Frankfort, JEA 14, 1928, 235 ff. (No.
23; PI.xx.3). See especially Frankfort's remarks, ibid., 237-
238, who links the emphasis on divine justice to a weakening of
royal power.
48) Urk. I 90.2-3.
49) Urk. I 195.15-196.1; see Edel, op. cit., 68-70; idem., MIO
1, 1953, 210-226; MIO 2, 1954, 187-88, for further additions to
the tomb inscriptions.
50) Edel, Phraseologie, 13-14.
51) Ibid.; for 3hw see Wb. I.
52) For the d3d3t see Goedicke, MIO 8, 1963, 361-362, 365-366;
Edel, op. cit., 12; Kees, Totenglauben, 49.
53) Urk. I 260.12-14; 260.15-17.
54) Edel, Phraseologie, 3-4; See also the related texts quoted
by Edel (p. 4): "A beloved one of the king and Anubis is he who
does not tear out a stone from this (my) tomb" (S. Hassan,
Excavations at Giza, Vol. 11 (1930/31) 173); and "Assuredly, never
was a stone belonging to other people bought for me to this (my)
tomb: (Hassan, op. cit.,).
55) This is clearly the case by the Ramesside Period, see Lorton,
375
op. cit., 32-36, 40-41. It is not surprising that OK threats

indicate similar legal circumstances and treatment.
56) Goedicke, JNES 15, 1956, 28, PI. XVI.
57) Ibid., 28.
58) Ibid., 58-59.
59) Ibid.
60) See Gardiner-Sethe, Letters to the Dead (London, 1928) PI.

Ila, inside column 9 (Kaw bowl); Leiden papyrus 371, lines 6-7;
also Bedell, Criminal Law, op. cit.
61) See Lorton, "Treatment",9, for violation of royal decrees

and the remanding of offenders to court; Goedicke, KDAR, 247 f.;
For the Ramesside Period, Bedell, Criminal Law, 67 ff., who notes
that wronged citizens were often responsible for bringing cases
to adjudication.
62) Contra. Sottas, Preservation, 40-42, who links the state

ment to magic and occult practices. The sameopinion has been
presented by Bakhry, Studi Classici e Orientali 20, 1970-71,
333, "The deceased might, through his magical power of revenge,
threaten a culprit with the infliction of illness on him . . . "
63) See Edel, Phraseologie, 13 who links it with ritual scenes.
64) See below; the term itit probably has a technical meaning of
"to take away, ie., arraign", see Zandee, Death, 259; also PT 1041
a-d; Eloquent Peasant Bl, 104; 296; Bedell, Criminal Law, 294.
65) Thus for example, P. Harris 77.4 (also 76.10).
66) This is clearly expressed by the accompanying phrase, "in

whom I shall place fear that the 3hw and survivors observe their
fear for the 3h ikr", see Edel, Phraseologie, 13-14.
67) Urk. I 218.12-14, also D. Dunham, JEA 24, 1938, 6.
68) Urk. I 256.7-9.
69) Edel, op. cit., 14.
70) See Faulkner, CD, 315, to "repress" a criminal; also Dunham,

JEA 24, 1938, 6 Anm. 8; Gardiner-Sethe, Letters to the Dead, II,
20.
376
71) For 'rrwt, see Edel, op. cit. 15; Sethe-Gardiner, op.cit.22,
VI(A)4 Cairo Bowl (Inside) who notes it used as a synonym for
"house"., Sethe, Kommentar,292 c.
72) Cf. Edel, op. cit., "ich werde nich zulassen, dass ihre
Gehofte bewohnt sind". For grg, "established", Wb. V 186; esp.
"establish (an inheritance) (or from inherited property) see
Urk. I 3.13, Goedicke PRAR, 12; The meaning "to settle" (Wb.
V 187.16) should be seen as a derivation of this.
73) Edel, Phraseologie, 13, cites the early MK stela Cairo

1651: iw(.i) (r) sht tz.f mi 3pd, "I shall strike his neck
like a goose". Sftt, however might be sfr.tw, "one shall strike".
74) Urk. I 23.10-16; See Scharff, A., MDAIK 8, 1939, 32 who

noted that it dates from the Sixth Dynasty ibid. 31. The threat
is also translated by Wilson in ANET (3) 327 e.
75) See Lorton, "Treatment" 48; and Bedell, Criminal Law, 164-
165, for Ramesside examples. Bedell, ibid., 162 ff., however,
considers drowning to be an actual method of execution.
76) PT 1278a-1279c.
77) See the famous instance of the king's accidental touching

of th courtier R'-Wr with the 3ms-scepter in Urk. I 232.8-9,
"the 3ms-scepter which was in his Majesty's hand touched the
leg of the courtier R'-Wr. His Majesty said: 'You are well!'
So said his Majesty." See Goedicke, Agyptologische Studien,
ed.D. Firchow (Berlin, 1955), 96; for the nhb or flail see
A. Hassan, Stocke und Stabe in Pharaonischen Agypten (Berlin,
1976), 82.
78) Wb. V 565.10. Dr. Goedicke has suggested this interpretat

ion to me.
79) The mortuary property is clearly designated as the personal

possession of the king.
80) For Hwt-Hr, as the "Realm of Horus", see PT 1025d, 1026c, 1027c,
1327b; also S.A. Mercer's comments and references in The Pyramid
Texts: Commentary (Vol. Ill) (New York-London-Toronto, 1952) 639.
81) For kbhw denoting property in the Necropolis, see Wb. V 30.1,
4.
82) See Goedicke, MIO 8, 1963, 361 ff.
83) Wb. II 200.12 suggests for n3s, "verderblich? verwunscht?"

377
It is most likely an early writing for ns, "drive out" (Wb II

337.13-14). Note the threat in the Siut text of Tf-ib(.i), "His
children shall be expelled " see below.
84) For dt see Wb V 510. Also Goedicke, PRAR 34 f., 50 f; Junker,

Giza III, 6f., 150; Alliot, BIFAO 37, 1937, 134 (Anm. 4); Edel
AaG § 68, with its relation to."owned property".
85) Lorton, "Treatment" 9-12; Goedicke, KDAR.
86) The threat belongs to a lengthy utterance (254), 276a-294c.
87) For fo'w, see Wb. Ill 240.20. In reference to a juridical

situation see PT 398 b, "W appears as that Great One, Lord of
those under authority" (See Goedicke MIO 8, 1963, 362).
88) To fail to the fingers expressing condemnation, see Wb.

I 564.12.
89) For irw pt, cf. Wb. I 490.11; Sethe, Kommentar VI, 97; Note
the inscription of the nomarch Hnk3 (Urk. I 77.12): "Moreover
(I) sated the mountain-jackals and the birds (drwt) of the sky."
90) See Goedicke, KDAR, fig. 28; Urk. I 304.16-306.1.
91) Urk. I 306.2-7: "Moreover, as for every representative or

official who shall not confiscate the property in his district
of any many who commits these things until the king, the vizier,
or officials arrive: [Not] shall he have a (legal) [cl]aim to
his office or position. Moreover, not shall he have a legal
claim to any of his property, nor shall his children have a
claim to it." See Goedicke, op. cit., 214; Lorton, "Treat
ment", 11.
92) See Lorton, op. cit., 11-12; Goedicke, KDAR, 225.
93) Lorton, "Treatment", 12 (and note 49).
94) See Goedicke, KDAR, 220f.
95) The king clearly has authority over the granting of burial
privileges, Goedicke, KDAR 217; Wilson, JNES 7, 1948, 149, how
ever, has suggested, "Perhaps the disintegration of central
authority in this period made it difficult to mobilize the
agencies of law enforcement, so that the Pharaoh phrased his
threat in terms of his divine powers rather than his secular
powers, that is, in terms of a curse rather than a law."
96) See now Edel's study in Siut-Gr&ber which supersedes earl

ier publications of the threat-formulae from this locale, for
a complete bibliography.
378
97) Edel, Siut-Graber, 39 (Inscription A: Siut III 65-71) and

comments 37 ff.; ibid., 27 (Inscription B: Siut III 61-64), and
commnetary 25 ff.
98) Siut-Graber, 39 (Siut III 65); for sbi, see supra, note 293
(Chapter One). The concern over the care of the entire cemetary,
rather than the private tomb of the no march alone, suggests
that "organized" groups, rather than random "trespassers" are
intended.
99) Edel, op. cit., 27 (Siut III 62-63).
100) See W. Schenkel, Memphis-Herakleopolis-Theban (Wiesbaden,

1965) 75 ff. for the Great Inscription of the nomarch detailing
his fighting against the South.
101) See Helck, Die Lehre fur Konig Merikare (Wiesbaden, 1977)
74-75; A, Volten, Zwei Altagyptische Politische Schriften
(Copenhagen 1945) 64-65: "Behold a crime happened in my reign
-the Necropolis of Abydos was desecr ated (lit. hacked up).
Though it occured not through my action, I knew of it after
it was done." Note also earlier, Helck, op. cit., 41-42:
"Fighting against Egypt was in the Necropolis, namely the
desecration of tomb with deeds of destruction. I committed
the like ".
102) See Edel, Siut-Graber, 39 (Siut III 66).
103) For ^d-hrw, see above Chapter One.
104) Siut III 70; for the restoration see Edel, op. cit., 57 f.,
who notes that wd'wt, or something similar should be read.
105) See Edel, Siut-Graber, 57-58; a similar threat occurs in

Siut IV 80 (Edel, ibid., 99).
106) Ibid., 27 (Siut III 62-63).
107) Ibid., 52.
108) Ibid.
109) Note the parallel in PT 1279 c and the use of the term
n3s/ns referring to expulsion from the community. I would take
the term in a legal, rather than physical, sense.
110) In his earlier study, Edel, Die Inschriften am eingang des

Grabes des "Tef-ib", 11, translated izw as "Bttros". For iz referr
ing to an "office" or official place of business, see Wb. I 127.2;
see Goedicke, KDAR 100 ff.
379
111) Edel, Siut-Graber, 27 (Siut III 64); note also his remarks
ibid., 32-33.
112) See above Chapter One; also Devaud, Kemi I, 1928, 138; Sethe,
Kommentar PT 462b. Note also the use of the term sfd n hbnty,
"criminal register", in the "Duties of the Vizier", Davies, Tomb
of Rekhmire (New York, 1944) 89, PI. 26 (14). See also the
remarks by Hayes, Papyrus of the Late Middle Kingdom, 40, 65-66.
113) Note the similar threats in PT 292d: "Their estate shall

belong to the Conflagration (snsnt) and landed property to the
High Nile". See Edel, Siut-Graber, 59.
114) Wb. V 303.1-2; See also Hornung, "Hollenvorstellungen",

3n (note 5).
115) Edel, Siut-Graber, 99 (Siut IV 79-80), and discussion 120 ff.
116) Siut IV 79; Edel, op. cit., 99; 120-122. Note also the use
of the term in Siut III 71. For pnj see Theodorides, RdE 19, 1967,
111 ff.
117) For m-ht, see Edel, op. cit., 121; Urk. I 49.10, 283.13,
172.6.
118) Vandier, Mo'alia, 206 (Inscription 8) and comments 206ff;

Schenkel, Memphis-Herakleopolis-Theban, 50 ff; also remarks by
H.G. Fischer, WZKM 57, 1961, 60.
119) The nisbe n(y)w is to be linked to the nouns jdt (III 1)

"estate, domain"; wd (HI 2) "decree"; gs i3bt (III 3) "eastern
side"; hftyw (III 4), "opposite (side)", and is modified in each
case by the adj. nb, "every", ie. "every (thing) which belongs to
the estate, decree, eastern side, and its opposite". Thus, all
endowments enacted by Ankhtify and works accomplished within his
territory are to be placed under protection. Dr. Goedicke has
suggested that gs i3bt and hf tyw refer to territory along the
Nile. But cf. Vandier, who suggests that gs i3bty nb refers to
the east side of the nomarch's tomb (op. cit., 213 (h)). Sim
ilarly, Schenkel, op. cit., 51 suggests reading gs h3wt nb, "the
side of any alter". It is unclear as to why only the side rather
than the entire object would have been protected.
120) For Hemen, see Vandier, Vandier, op. cit. 8, 212.
121) This view was presented by Clere, see Vandier, Mo'alia,

212, but rejected by the latter. It is evident that the threat
is antonymic to the well-known idiom, "to act with the hps"
see Polotsky, Untersuchungen 11, 42. It is interesting to note
a similar sentiment in the much later prophecy of Ezekiel.
Referring to the defeat of Pharaoh Ezekiel 30.20-21 states:
380
"The word of Yahweh was to me saying: 'Son of Manthe arm of

Pharaoh, King of Egypt, I have broken and 30.22: "There
fore the Lord Yahweh speaks thus: 'Behold I am against Pharaoh,
King of Egypt, and I shall break his arms, both the strong and
broken- and I shall cause the sword to fall from his hand-'"
See the remarks of Redford in JAOS 90, 1970, 482. There is no
direct link between the Ankhtify threat and the Biblical text,
although the latter is probably based on imagery well-known
from Egypt.
122) See the remarks of Vandier, op. cit., 215; Lorton, "Treat
ment", 52; also Theodorides, RIDA(3) 20, 1973,79.
124) Sottas, Preservation, 44.
125) Siut I 223-225; Urk. VII 53.7-16; Griffith, The Inscriptions

of Siut and Per Rifeh (London, 1889) PI.4; Sethe, Lesestucke, 88.
1-5; Sottas, Preservation, 50.
126) On Thoth see generally the older study of P. Boylan, Thoth,

the Hermes of Egypt (London, 1922); see also Anthes, Hatnub, 81 ff.;
in Greco-Roman representations, see M.T. Derchin-Urtel,Thot
(Brussel s, 1981).
127) For spd, see Wb. IV 108 ff. The term is used in parallel
with b3, shm, w3s, and indicates some special innate quality which
fosters respect.
128) Siut I 224-225; Urk. VII 53.14-15.
129) See Otto, Biographischen Inschriften, 56 (and note 2) who

reads sr.tyw, translating as "Ganseschlachter" based on a suggest
ion by Kees ("Eine Art Jenseitsdamonen von sr.t 'Gans'?); Sethe,
Erlauterungen, simply reads as sr.tj.w (Leute).
130) For hwt-wr, see above, and note 30. Sethe, op. cit., 146-47,
also noted the link with the judicial courts.
131) The term bity certainly suggests some affiliation with royal
power, Wb. I 435.2; Goedicke, Stellund des Konigs, 7-17. The
word is also used in the later copy of Puyemre (see below).
I would prefer to read as sr," official" "judge" (Wb. I 188-13-14);
The 3 is a dialectal variant for w.
132) See above Chapter One.
133) Urk. VII 30.1-2.
134) For n wnn, see Edel, Siut-Graber, 51; Gardiner, EG (3), § 120
who notes that it is extremely rare; Gunn, Studies, 104.
381
136) Sethe, Erlauterungen, 145.
137) For dsw see Wb. V 486.7: Sethe, Erlauterungen, 145, also
suggests reading Vt, "knife".
138) See Anthes, Hatnub, 9 ff.; Some texts, however, date from
OK, ibid., 9.
139) For the blessing, see Anthes, Hatnub, 10 (note 1); Simpson,
MDAIK 16, 1958, 304-305.
140) Anthes, Hatnub, 36 and Tafel 16.
141) For hntyw which acts as a plural for twt, see Anthes,
Hatnub, 10 (note 2).
142) Ibid., 10 (note 1), and also 110 ff. for listing of texts
and dates.
144) Ibid., 69 and Tafel 25.
145) Ibid., 73, Tafel 14.
146) See Simpson, JNES 20, 1961, 29; and his earlier remarks in
MDAIK 16, 1958, 306.
147) Posener, G., JEA 54, 1968, PI. IX-IXA.
148) Anthes, op. cit., 77 and Tafel 31.
149) See Anthes, Hatnub, 87-88.
150) Ibid., 79 and Tafel 32. Moller noted that the paleography
somewhat resembled tht of the Westcar papyrus.
151) For m db'w.f see Wb. V 565.5.
152) For hsb, see Anthes, Hatnub, 80, who cites Beni-Hasan I pi.
VIII, 14 (=Urk. VII 15.10) hnt.n.i m hsb 600 m kn nb, "It was
with 600 men (ie. attached to the nomarch) namely every soldier
(of the Oryx nome) that I headed South"; Wb. Ill 168.1. The word
is clearly derived from hsb, "count, reckon" (Wb. I 146.12-13),
and probably denotes those officially enlisted to an estate.
153) Again, it was not possible to physically protect the image

from vandalisim.
382
154) See now Spalinger, Aspects, 46-47, 230-31; idem., JNES 37,
1983, 35-41; Boundary stelae are attested for territory within
Egypt itself, see Meeks, "Les donations" 686. Of those listed
by Meeks, none have threats attached to them. However, the
stela of Neferhotep (originally published in D. Randall-Maciver-
A.C. Mace, El Amrah and Abydos (London, 1902) PI. 29, and now
Helck, Historisch-Biographische Texte der 2. Zwischenzeit and
neue Texte der 19. Dynastie (Wiesbaden, 1975) 18, no. 26)
contains actual penalties for trespassing the sacred grounds
at Abydos: "As for anyone who is found within these stelae,
to its boundary, namely, craftsmen or priest: One shall brand
him. Moreover, as for any official who shall have a tomb made
within this holy locale: He shall be reported, and the law
shall be applied to him. . . " See also Lorton, "Treatment",
18. One might also cite the propagandistic depictions of the
king smiting foreigners in such places as the Sinai mines.
Such scenes clearly indicate the king's (supposed) claim over
the area. See Gardiner-Peet, The Inscriptions of Sinai Part
II (London, 1955) 25-28.
155) Sethe, Lesestucke, 84.12-16; see also Janssen, JNES 12,

1953, 51-55; Sottas, Preservation, 143. Note also W. Barta,
"Der Terminus twt aug den Grenzstelen Sesostris' III in Nubien",
Festschrift Berlin Museum (Berlin, 1974) 51-54; Spalinger,
op. cit., 47.
156) See Sottas, op. cit., 142.
157) CT IV 87-93; The text is discussed by Faulkner in JEA 58,

1972, 91 ff. See also Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Coffin
Texts I (Warminster, 1978) 233-235.
158) CT IV 87-89.
159) CT IV 91-93.
160) CT IV 89-90.
161) Although such formulations are characteristic of "magic"

ie. virtually every possible source of trouble is listed by the
person using a spell, the CT passage has little to do with
"magical" or ritual acts.
162) For sf^ft, see Morenz, "Der Schrecken Pharaos", Religion

und Geschichte des alten Agypten (Koln-Wien, 1975) 143-147;
Hornung, One and the Many, 197. See also Lorton, JT 133 ff. on
the related term £fyt, and its use in indicating a legitimate
claim to rule.
163) CT 89-90.
383
164) For Satis, see D. Valbelle, Satis et Anoukis (Mainz, 1980).

Stt is clearly related to st(i)/st(i), "shoot (with a bow)" thus
accounting for the iconography.
165) For Sopdu see Gardiner-Peet, op. cit., 29, and his partic
ular associations with Sinai.
166) It is interesting to note that the text may contain an

echo of the fixing of the eastern border during the MK, since
the threat against the Easterners refers to those "whom your
knives have repelled (fasf,n)". The use of the s<jm.n.f might
indicate the reflection of some historical event.
167) For the text see Petrie, Koptus, PI. 8; Sethe, Lesestucke,
98 (which is used for citation purposes); Helck, Historisch -
Biographische Texte, 73-74. I have basically followed Lorton's
discussion in "Treatment of Criminals", 18 ff.
168) Lorton, op. cit., following Wilson, The Culture of Ancient

Egypt (Chicago/London, 1951) 242, suggested that the charge was
harboring an enemy. As Wilson correctly pointed out, such an
act would have amounted to treason. One therefore might suspect
that the death penalty would have been enforced, as in the later
case of the assassins of Ramesses III. Although the penalties
given Teti are harsh, including expulsion from office, loss of
income, and probably imprisonment, they are not overly so,
especially considering the supposed nature of the crime. As
Lorton (note 76) pointed out, ambiguity resides in the verb t3w,
"take" which might have the nuance of "take in" or "take out".
I am wondering if t3w in this instance might not refer to "taking",
ie. "seizing" a person without authorization (so Chapter One in
stipulations). That is Teti had seized an enemy of the king with
out the proper authority, and in effect had overstepped his
ground. Indeed, the text specifies that the incident was reported
to the king, and that something "bad" was about to (w3i) happen
rather than having actually occurred. The details of the in
cident, however, were not deemed important enough to be included
in the decree.
169) Sethe, Lesestucke, 98.5-10 (lines 2-5).
170) Ibid., 98.11-16 (lines 5-7).
171) Ibid., 98.19-23 (lines 9-12).
172) I take 'h' as an OP, following Sethe, Erlauterungen, 167,

referring to thepreceding jsw nb, b3ty-' nb, "any commander or
mayor having arisen-"; 'h' is used in the sense of "to stand
(to testify in court)" (Wb. I 219.6); cf. Lorton, op. cit., 22
(note 101).
384
173) See above, Chapter One.
174) For a slightly different rendering, see Lorton, op. cit.,

20 (note 94).
175) Sethe, Lesestucke, 98.13; Lorton, "Treatment" 23.
176) Lorton, op.cit., 19 (note 85) 23.
177) See Hayes, A Papyrus of the late Middle Kingdom (P.

Brooklyn 35.1446), 57-58.
178) Ibid., Ro. 58 (PI. VI) referring to persons banished for

their complicity in aiding the escape of a criminal (ibid., 57).
179) Posener, RdE 5, 1946, 51-56.
180) Ibid., 54; also Hayes, op. cit., 57; Lorton, "Treatment",
17, 23.
181) Posener, op.cit.; Lorton, 'Treatment', 30.
182) Posener, RdE 5, 1946, 51-56; Lorton, "Treatment", 30. For

other examples of this phenomenon in the Late Period, see M.
Guentsch-Ogloueff, BIFAO 40, 1941, 117-133.
183) Hayes, op. cit., 57-58.
184) Ibid.; See also Lorton, op.cit., 29.
185) Surviving decrees of the OK usually dealt with the exemp

tion of divine estates; for the Intf decree, see Lorton, "Treat
ment" 52 (note 224).
186) Sethe, Lesestucke, 98.16-18 (lines 7-9).
187) Lorton, op.cit., 21 (note 99).
188) Lorton, "Treatment", 21 (note 97).
189) Ibid., 21 (note 99). He further suggested (note 105) that

the text was directed against a Hyksos rival of Intf. See the
older view of Sottas, Preservation, 127-128 (note 1) who holds
that the successor of Intf is placed under threat similar to
the off-spring of Sesostris III in the Semnah-Uronarti stellae.
191) Ibid.
385
192) See the brief remarks of Sottas, Preservation, 54, in this

regard.
193) See below Chapter III.
194) Urk. IV 401.16-402.2; Sottas, op. cit.
195) See Davies, Tomb of Puyemre, PI. 20; and especially P.

Montet, Kemi III, 1930-35, 46-48.
196) Ibid.; also Otto, Biographischen Inschriften, 56 (note 3).
197) Urk. IV 1491.1-17.
198) See above Chapter One under bwy.
199) Goedicke, KDAR 103.
200) See the discussion of Lorton, "Treatment' 9, 41.
201) Urk. IV 193 ff.; Petrie, Memphis V (London, 1913) pi. 79-80.
202) Urk. IV 1798.12-199.13.
203) It seems that hnmt (from hnm, "be joined, associated with",
Wb. Ill 377 ff.) denoted some sort of organization, or priestly
"community" linked to Ptah at Memphis, or else hnmt-Pth might
actually be the name of the sanctuary in this locale. See Gardiner's
remarks in Petrie, Memphis V, 33 ff., who states that the entire
sanctuary was called "The House of Nib-mu-re, 'United with Ptah"1,
(ibid. 34). A translation is included.
204) Urk. IV 1799.14-1800.7.

*
205) It is somewhat difficult to decide which deity is given

authority over the estate since both "Ptah-South-of-his-Wall"
(Urk. IV 1800.1) and "Amun-Re" (1800.2) are credited by the
priest with granting him his sinecure. However, the text does
specify that Ptah had decreed (wd) the offering, making it likely
that he was considered to have been the guarantor of the test
ament.
206) See the earlier specification concerning the handling of

the cult: "Moreover as for the divine endowment consisting of
his property and this statue after it has received its due: One
shall have provisions brought forth for this servant (ie. the
deceased) by the agency (lit. by the hand of) the resident priest
(hry-hb) (lit. priest who is in his house), while the priest
(w'b) who is on duty (lit. in his month) shall deposit [goods on
behalf of my] [tomb] (?) [in accordance with] the daily stip
ulations (nt-' m hrt-hrw)-" (Urk. IV 1797.12-14).
386
207) k3, "victuals" is clearly in parallel with £r "estate",

see Wb. V 91.3.
208) For sbi n t3 see Wb. Ill 430.16; Faulkner, CD, 219,
translates as "crumble to dust" quoting this passage. The phrase
would seem to have a technical meaning referring to "dispossession"
similar to terms such as rdi far t3, "place, case on the ground",
and rdi r t3 and ptfa r t3, "cast to the ground", cf. Lorton,
"Treatment", 20 (note 88). Again the penalties invoked in the
Amenhotep text and the legal directives of Intf are quite
similar. Thus note the respective punishments:
Intf Amenhotep
1) Explusion from office 1) Office confiscated
2) Loss of income ('kw) 2) Income (k3w) taken away,

and provisions from temple and loss of estate.
3) Enemy (hfty) of god 3) Hated (fobd) by god.
209) For hrw or fcrwy, see Wb. Ill 325.18. The term nty m hrw.f
would seem to be analogous to an expression such as nty m rwty,
"one who is in court", ie. "Litigant", see Goedicke, Neferyt,
107. Nty m brw.f, "the one who is his enemy" certainly is a
technical expression referring to a legal opponent, since this
person is specified as receiving the property of the embezzler
as reward. Note in the Intf decree, the official, Min-em-hat
is to receive the goods of the individual revoking the king's
sentence (Sethe, Lesestucke, 98.22-24), suggesting that this was
standard procedure.
210) Urk. IV 1796.14-15: "Then the property (fat) was set in

writing, namely my fields, serfs, and cattle, for the image of
the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, whose name is [Nb-M3't-R']
victorious (?)"; and Urk. IV 1799.3-4: "Because the property
was set down in writing to this image of the King who is in his
estate, in return for granting me a divine endowment, which is
delivered before his statue." The text implies that Amenhotep
had bequeathed his property to the king (or state), out of which
the provisions for his mortuary cult would be drawn.
211) Wilson, Culture, 242 f.
212) See generally, Cerny, "Egyptian Oracles", 35 ff.
213) So note the lengthy introduction to P. Berlin 163a, on the

collection of writings on the sickness wfodw. Although both
P. Ebres 856a (103,1-2) and the Berlin text attribute the
finding of the text in an ancient shrine, P. Berlin also assoc-
ciates it with special divine or "supernatural" knowledge, see
Grapow, Die Medizinischen Texte in Hieroglyphischer Umschreibung
(Berlin, 1958) 12.
387
214) Although Wilson, op. cit., notes changes, especially

indicated by the legal decrees of Horraenah and Seti I, he does
add: "The Hyksos domination, the necessities of empire, and
the Amarna heresy were all factors leading to a repressive
authoritarianism-".
215) See G. Bjorkman, Kings at Karnak (Uppsala, 1971) 16-21;

Morenz, Egyptian Religion (Ithaca, 1973) 95-97.
216) So see Helck, Merikare, 82: "Act for god through lavishly
endowed offerings, and engraved stelae- It is an indicator of
your reputation- that hemay do the like for you. For god recog
nizes the one who acts for him". See also Bjorkman, op.cit.,
16-18; Morenz, op. cit., 58-59.
217) See Morenz, Egyptian Religion, 96.
218) See Gorg, Reden in Israel und Agypten (Stuttgart, 1975)

237 ff.; and note the remarks made by Thutmosis III in dedication
of gifts to the Temple of Amun in Karnak: "Reward belongs to him
who enacts benefactions and payment consisting of even greater
benefactions belongs to him" (Urk. IV 163.1-2).
219) See Kitchen-Gaballa, ZAS 96, 1969, 23-24; Poo, The Offering
of Wine, 57-59.
220) For grants of the Ramesside Period, which are clearly based
upon earlier "literary" models, see Morschauser, "The Speeches
of Ramesses II in the Literary Record of the "Battle of Kadesh",
in Perspectives on the Battle of Kadesh, ed. Goedicke (Baltimore,
1985) 126 ff.
• 221) Urk. IV 2027.2-20.
222) See Redford, Orientalia (N.S.) 39, 1970, 46.
223) Redford, Orientalia 39, 1970, 44 ff.; also Goedicke, SAK

11, 1984, 92; Helck, Die Beziehungen, 183 ff.; The setting up
of the Sekhmet statues in the precinct of Mut by Amenophis III
might possibly be seen as a response to the out-break of
pestilence, (Urk. IV 1763 ff.).
224) See below Chapter III; for the text, see the translation
of Goetze in ANET (3), 394-296 (esp. 395, 4-5).
225) See for example the article of A. Malamat, Vetus Testamentum

5, 1955,1-12, who compares the Hittite material with Biblical
concepts of causality.
388
226) See Redford, Orientalia 39, 1970, 46-48, who notes that the
earliest examples of the so-called "penetential hymn" appear during
this time.
227) For the entire text, see KRI I 45-58; and the study of
Edgerton, JNES 6, 1947, 219 ff.; Gardiner, JEA 38, 1952, 24 ff.;
Griffith, JEA 13, 1927, 193 ff.
228) See the brief summary of punishments by Lorton, "Treatment"

25-27; Bedell, Criminal Law, 22-23.
229) KRI I 55.14-56.1.
230) KRI I 58.7-11.
231) KRI I 58.1-7.
232) KRI I 58.5-6. Osiris' position as owner is specified in

the parallel phrases: p3 nb n3 n rm£ nb//p3 nb n fat. Wilson,
op. cit. 243 writes: "It was no longer possible for pharaoh to
issue his word, awfully potent because his divinity was unques
tioned. Now he had to invoke the other gods by a curse to support
his authority. The fear which had been his alone now had to be
backed by magic." Such a view was also expressed by Sottas,
Preservation, 130 and Lexa, Magie, 51, who lists a threat from the
Wadi Mia as an example of a magical formula. There is, however,
no "ritual" invoked to rouse the gods into action, nor is there
any specific means of effecting the threat. Rather, it is the
responsibility of the deity to oversee the protection of his own
estate, rather than a matter of the king "magically" enlisting
divine aid. Indeed, the threat of divine vengeance in the Nauri
decree would indicate that the injunction itself was considered
to be another "law".
233) The entire text is published in KRI I 65-70; Schott, NAWG

1961(6), Taf. 19, with translations and comments 139 ff.; see
also the comments of Gunn and Gardiner, JEA 4, 1917, 241-251;
Breasted BAR III §162-168; Sottas, Preservation, 128 ff., Lich-
theim, AEL II, 52 ff.
234) KRI I 69.2-7.
235) Cf. Schott, op. cit. 153 (note 5); the quote refers to what
Seti considers to be an usurpation of authority.
236) Note also the appearance of Merneptah and the chief of

R3bw before the court at Heliopolis as described in the Israel
stela (see below Chapter IV). See Helck, zAs 82, 1957, 112 ff.,
and Bedell, Criminal law 2ff., 275 f. (note 8).
389
237) See above Chapter One; Schott, op.cit., 154 (note 13).
238) KRI I 69.9-12.
239) See KRI I 69.16 where they are specified as "the gods and
goddesses, the owners of my estate". For nbw, "lords, owners"
rather than the adj. "every" see Wb II 231.9 and Caminos, LEM,
18. (But cf. Wente, LRL, 34a for a differing view). The ref
erence to the establishment as "my estate" suggests that his was
a private foundation of the king, rather than a state project.
240) KRI I 70.3-4.
241) KRI I 70.4.
242) Schott, op.cit., 159 (note 7).
243) Ibid., 158 (note 6). There was, however, some sort of
tribunal which should be convened for prosecution of trans
gressors of the necropolis, as is evident from the tomb robbery
papyri.
244) The text simply refers to the arraignment of the negligent

party. The participation of Osiris as prosecuting "agent" how
ever, suggests some sort of connection to the Judgement in the
Netherworld.
245) KRI IV 341-343; see earlier, Gardiner, ZAS 50, 1912, 49 ff.,
and Tafel IV. Also remarks by Sottas, Preservation, 159 (note 1).
246) See Gardiner, op.cit., 52-53.
247) See Schulman, Rank and Title (Berlin, 1964) 45-46.
248) KRI IV 342.5.11; Gardiner, op. cit., Taf. IV (verso,5-9).
249) For h^ see Wb. Ill 240.4-5.
250) See above Chapter One; Gardiner, op. cit., 55(p).
251) For a discussion of b3w see generally Gardiner, JEA 48,

1962, 62 (note 3); Hornung, the One and the Many, 61. The b3w
of a god could be demonstrated by a physical sign, such as ill
ness; in its more dramatic forms, the b3w is manifested in a
"theophany" such as a storm, see. Helck, Historisch-Biographische
Texte, 107, (the so-called "Bad-Weather Stela of Ahmose) where
some type of meterological activity is called the b3w of god.
252) See Gardiner, op. cit.; M.A. Green, in J. Ruffle et al.,

390
eds. Glimpses of Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honour of H.W. Fairman

(Warminster, 1979) 108 ff.
253) See Montet, Griffith Studies (London, 1932) 407-409; Goedicke,

CdE 41, 1966, 25-26; Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period (Warminster,
1973) 427.
254) On the question of whether the text is to be dated to

Twoseret's regnal years or Siptah's, see R. Drenkhan, Die
Elephantine-Stele des Setnacht und ihr Historishen Hintergrund,
(Wiesbaden, 1980) 17-18, 28 ff.; Drenkhan, ibid. 17, dates the
text to the period of the queen's regency rather than sole rule.
This might account for the "personal" aspects of theinscription.
255) See Gardiner, ZAS 50, 1912, 56 (r); also above Chapter One.
256) Note for example ina Hammamat inscription dating to the

fourth year of Ramesses IV, recording the sacrificial offerings
made on behalf of the huge mining party: "The offerings were
brought to Thebes for the propitiation of the gods of heaven
and earth" (KRI IV 14.11-12). The expedition was composed of
persons of different nationalities including 'prw ('Apiru) and
Nubians.
257) Gardiner, ZAS 50, 1912, 52.
258) Ibid.
259) Gardiner, ibid., suggested a sea-port on either the Tanitic

or Pelusiac mouth of the Nile.
260) See Drenkhan, op. cit., 62.
261) The Setnakhte stela (ibid., lines 10-11) specifically

condemns Twoseret on the grounds of hiring mercenaries from
Palestine: "They deposited silver, gold and [copper] (namely)
[the property of] T3-Mri, which they gave to these Palestinians
(Sttyw) in order to expedite for themselves warriors [as
commander]s of T3-Mri."
262) For example in the Treaty of Year 21 between Ramesses II

and Hattushilish III, the god-list refers to deities such as "the
goddess, the Mistress of the earth, the Mistress of the Oath,. . .
the Mistress of the mountains and the rivers of the land of Hatti,
the gods of Kizzuwatna; Amun, Pa-Re, and Sutekh, the male and
female gods of the mountains and the rivers of the land of Egypt,
of heaven and earth (iwtn), the Great Sea, the wind, and the
storms" (KRI II 230 8,10)
263) See lines 8 of verso, Gardiner, op. cit., Taf. IV, and KRI
IV.
391
264) KRI IV 359.5-6.
265) See Cerny, "Egyptian Oracles", 36; Bedell, Criminal

Law", 193.
266) Wb. IV 483.18.
267) Note similarly the threat cited by Moller SPAW (Louvre C

108); see above Chapter One under m3't.
268) KRI VI 844.2-4; see also Lefebvre, ASAE 26, 63-68.
269) KRI VI 351.15-352.2.
270) See Wilson, ANET(3) 328h (note 8). It is clear in texts

from Deir el Medina that sickness was often attributed to the
vengeance of the gods; for a brief discussion of Egyptian tho-
edicy, see Williams, JESSA 8, 1978, 131-137; Gunn, JEA 3, 1916,
81-94; Breasted, Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient
Egypt (New York, 1912) 350-352.
271) KRI III 130-910.
273) There is a stipulation in the tomb of Simut-KyKy (Theban

Tomb no. 409; KRI III 331 ff.) which refers to persons committing
a violation (KRI III 341.5). Unfortunately, the injunction which
would have presumably followed has been lost.
274) Note for example, the lofty (but erroneus) remark in P.

Abbott (Rt. 6.5-7) regarding the supposed sanctity of the Royal
Necropolis: "As for every king and their queens, and royal
mothers and children who are interred in the Great and Sanctified
Necropolis, and those who rest in their final place- They are
continuously intact, safe and protected, (for) it is the good
counsel of Pharoah, their son, which guards them and which looks
after them" (KRI VI 477 12-16).
275) KRI VI 532 ff.; Karnak inscription, see S. Sauneron, BIFAO

64, 1966, 11-17 (pis. 1,2.). The text is a building inscription.
276) KRI VI 532. 16-533.2.
277) This suggests that official, rather than private acts of

usurpation or mulitation were placed under condemnation and is
probably to be linked to the well-known "suppression" of Amen-
hotep, see E. Wente, JNES 25, 1966, 73 ff.
278) For 'b' see above Chapter One (note 324).
279) KRI VI 533.12-13.

392
280) Tm at the end of the clause actually modifies 'h'.f hr-tp t3,
his earthly lifetime", ie. "his entire earthly lifetime".
281) Note also the reference made by Amenhotep in his autobio

graphical text referring to his enemies, "He suppressed the one
who suppressed me" (KRI VI 538.6); see Wente, op. cit., fig 2.
282) See M. Marciniak, Deir e'l Bahari I: Les inscriptions

hieratiques du Temple de Thoutmosis III (Warsaw, 1974); note
especially 21 f.
283) A.I. Sadek, GM 71, 1984, 67-92; GM 72, 1984, 65 ff.
284) DB 3; KRI IV 377.7-12; Marciniak, op. cit., 60-61; idem.,

Etudes et Trauvaux V, 1971, 54-64; Sadek, GM 71, 1984, 75-76.
285) I would insert n in the lacuna before i.ir.sn, either "for

what they have done" referring to the beneficence of the deities
of the shrine, or "for the one who made them" referring to the
author of the text.
286) See Sadek, GM 71, 1984, 76 for the reading Mrs-sgr. For the
goddess generally, see B. Bruyere, Mert Seger a Deir el Medineh
(MIFAQ 58, 1930).
287) Cf. Sadel^ ibid., note 14 f. who transaltes as "like dark.
288) See Wb. V 251-252; Gunn, JEA 12, 1926, 131; von Deines-
Westendorf, Worterbuch der Medizinischen Texte, 939, in ref
erence to the heart, and a sickness of cattle.
289) Ibid., 71.
290) DB 50; Marciniak, Deir el Bahari I, 104; Sadek GM 72,

1984, 69. For the unusual or.hography of m-s3 with the goose
(s3) sign, see Marciniak, Etudes et Travaux 3, 1969, 52-53.
291) DB 51; Marciniak, Deir el Bahari I, 105; Sadek, GM 72, 1984,

69.
292) DB 67; Marciniak, op. cit., 118; Sadek, GM 72, 1984, 73.
293) For iry-n-'h3 see Piehl, Z&S 29, 1891, 49-52.
294) KRI I
295) For the expression see Theodorides, RdE 24, 1972, 188-192.
296) See Piehl, op. cit.
297) LES 29.12-13.

393
298) LEM 97.13-14.
299) See Grieshammer, Das Jenseitsgericht in den Sargtexten

(Wiesbaden, 1970) 77-81.
300) Piehl, op. cit., 49-50; Sottas, Preservation, 57. The

text appears on a statue from the Turin Museum.
301) The succeeding clause m sn rm£ nb n niwt.f, "as brother

of all the people of his town" would seem to refer to Amun. It
is not clear, however, as to why the god would be designated in
this way. Sn might mean "associate" (Wb. IV 150.11) or "companion"
in the sense of "ally". The other possibility is to take m sn
as additive, ("with (my) brother (and all the people of his town)",
cf. Piehl, ZAS 32, 1894,50 who takes m sn as "a cause du frere
de tous les hommes de sa localite"; with sn referring to the de
ceased. Sottas, Preservation, 57 f. (note 5) points out that
elsewhere the statue refers to ir.n.f n sn.f, "he acted for his
brother". It is unclear if sn refers to a person having the same
name as the donator of the text (Amen-em-Opet) or else the god
Amun himself, or a Sottas pointed out, the image of the deity
which accompanies the statue of the deceased.
302) Marciniak, Supplement au BIFAO 81, 1981, 283 ff.
303) Ibid., 284.
304) But of. Marciniak, ibid., 291 (note 1) who suggests a date
as early as Ramesses II (p. 288 note 5) on paleographic grounds.
All of the elements of the threat, however, are found towards
the end of the Ramesside era, or in the succeeding Third Inter
mediate Period, which Marciniak (ibid. 287-288) also notes.
These could, of course, be early exemplars of the maledictions
referring to thirst, affliction, and destruction.
305) The impersonal formulation is more typical of legal pro

nouncements, see Lorton, "Treatment", 54; this might suggest
the king was the agent for enforcement.
306) DB 11; Marciniak, Deir el Bahari I, 70.
307) See line 2 (ibid.), "[Let] (my) house be established."
308) Marciniak, Deir el Bahari I 70.
309) Sadek, GM 71,1984, 81 translates as "(But) as for anyone

who reads these lines and says (only), 'Grant love to the
author (of) these lin[es]'" implying that the wish was not deemed
sufficient. Indeed, in lines 7-8 of the graffito it states,
394
"Allow one to see and hear and [go] (namely) he who says for me:
As Amun-Re endures, may I be furnished with a house'-". However,
in lines 3-4, the author also requests the grant of his desire:
"Grant that which is desirable to me in the presence of people-"
I would thus take imm' as a miswriting for imi, "Do not-" (Cerny-
Groll, LEG, 356).
310) See Sottas, Preservation, 120, 149 ff.; Speigelberg,RT 25,

1903, 196 ff.; Kitchen, JARCE 8, 1969-70, 60 (note 6); and above
Chapter One.
311) J. Janssen, JEA 54, 1968, 171 (gg).
312) Bakir, ASAE 43, 1943, 78(b).
313) Spiegelberg, op. cit», 198; idem., Hieratic Ostraca 111

(no. 114).
314) Sottas, op. cit., 167 f.
315) Ibid.; Note for example the later Sethian curse tablets
from Rome, R. Wunsch, Sethanische Verfluchungstafeln aus Rom,
81 ff. See G. Luck, Arcana Mundi (Baltimore, 1985) 18, 90-91.
316) So see Lexa, Magie, 99 ff.
317) Spiegelberg, Hieratic Ostraca, #114 (pi. X111A), See Introduction.
318) Spiegelberg, RT 25, 1903, 198; Sottas, Preservation, 165 f.
319) Sottas, Preservation, 166 (note 2) refers to a late decree

of Nechtanebo, where there is a stipulation against moving stone
intended for the cemetary of Abydos; see M. Burchardt, ZAS 44,
1907-1908, 55 ff.; especially lines 9-12 "If any man is found
hewing any stone from this mountain: He shall be punished on
account of it, by cutting of his hand according to what is done
to [one who transgresses against] the Holy Place".
320) P. Ashmolean Museum 1945-46; see Gardiner, JEA 26, 1940,

23 ff. PI. 5-7; KRI VI 735 ff.
321) Gardiner, op. cit., PI. 7; KRI VI 737.11-738.3.
322) Wilson, JNES 7, 1948, 130 f.; Bedell, Criminal Law, 125.
323) See Green, in Glimpses of Ancient Egypt, 108 ff.; Bedell,

Criminal Law, 125.
324) Wilson, op. cit., 150, 154-155; Bedell, op. cit., 139 ff.
r
395
325) See Wilson, op. cit., 155; Lorton, "Treatment" 32 ff.
326) Lorton, "Treatment", 36; Bedell, Criminal Law, 127.
327) For the oath of the god, see Bedell, op. cit., 123; Wilson,
JNES 7, 1948, 150-151.
328) For the text, see Sethe, ZAS 61, 1926, 67-79.
329) Ibid., 71 f.; The text is briefly discussed by Schottroff,

Altisraelitsche Fluchspruch, 72 (note 1).
330) See M. Green, GM 39, 1980, 33 ff.
331) The text is published by Dawson, JEA 11, 1925, 247-48 (pi.
35-38), with translation by Blackmun, 249-255; see also Cerny,
"Egyptian Oracles", 40-41.
332) Dawson, op. cit., pi. 38 verso line 17.
333) See Lorton, "Treatment", 48; but cf. Bedell, Criminal Law,
162 ff. (313 note 95) who opts for an actual punishment. The for
mula also appears in a somewhat different form in the Blinding
of Truth, where the young men upon hearing of his lineage de
nounces his mother, "Fitting is the gathering of your clan, and
having a crocodile summoned!" (LES 33.5-6).
334) See Bedell, Criminal Law, 139, who notes that there are no
records of persons refusing to take the oath in court.
335) See Gunn, JEA 3, 1916, 81-94; Erman, Denksteine aus der
thebanischen Graberstadt (Berlin, 1911) 1086 ff.; for a dis
cussion see supra, note 270, and also Lichtheim, AEL II, 104 ff.
336) KRI III 771.16-772.4.
337) See not KRI II 771.16-772.4; see KRI III 771 for bibliog
raphy; Lichtheim, AEL II 109 f.
338) See I. Grumach, Untersuchungen zum Lebenslehre des Amenemope

(Berlin 1972) Kapital 6; H.O. Lange, Das Weisheitsbuch des Amenemope
(Copenhagen, 1925) 48.
339) Grumach, op. cit.; Lange, op. cit.; note also Wilson, JNES
7, 1948, 150.
340) P. Leiden I 350 (IV 20); see Gardiner, ZAS 42, 1906, 34.
341) See generally E. Meyer, Gottestaat, Militarheerschaft und

Standwesen im Agypten (Berlin, 1928) 495 ff.; Kitchen, Third
Intermediate Period, 426 ff.; Morenz, Religion und Geschicte des
396
alten Agypter, 98-99, 116-117.
342) See for example, von Beckerath, Tanis und Theban (Gluckstadt-
Hamburg- New York, 1951) 95 ff.
343) Cerny, "Egyptian Oracles", 35 ff.; note also Seidl, Ein-

fuhrung, 38 ff.
344) See Moller, SPAW 1910, 932-941 and Taf. VI; Varille,
Amenhotep, 67-85 and fig. 8, see esp. 67-68 for bibliography;
also D. Wildung, Imhotep und Amenhotep (Berlin, 1977) 281 for
additional references.
346) Ibid.
347) See Varille, op. cit., 68 (line 1).
348) Ibid., 70 (lines 4-5).
349) Ibid., 70-71 (lines 5-11.
350) Ibid., 71 (lines 11-13).
351) Ibid., 72 (lines 16-18). For the terms mw3d "support" see
Varille, ibid., 76-79, referring to financial and physical support
for maintaining a cult. The term also occurs in a royal donation
of Ramessess I, and would seem to refer to the cult-personnel
of a foundation (KRI I 4.4).
352) See Foster, JSSEA 14, 1984, 91 (lines 45-46): "go into the
turbulent sea (and) behold you sink into the deep Netherworld";
(Oriental Institute Ostracon #12074); Cerny-Gardiner, Hieratic
Ostraca (Oxford, 1957) PI. 78-79.
353) Supra, note 706 (Chapter One).
354) See Zandee, Death, 295, for nik, and its particular associa
tion with the condemnation of Apophis; see also Posener, RdE 5,
1946, 53-54 who notes that criminals are designated as nik.
356) Ibid., 940-41.
357) Sottas, Preservation, 111; see ibid., 109-116 for a trans

lation and discussion. He concluded that the text was an adaption
of an 18th Dynasty text with appropriate changes in grammar.
397
358) Varille, Amenhotep, 81-85 especially linked the text to the

celebration of the king's tib-sd in his 30th year.
359) Ibid., 83-85.
360) Wildung, op. cit., 282-283 notes that the tomb-robbery papyri
dating to the end of the Rainesside Period mention personnel at
tached to the mortuary temple of Amenophis. See also ibid., 284-
285 where references to Amenophis occur during the reign of
Ramesses III.
361) See Varille, op. cit., lines 8, 10. Indeed the decree has
been attributed to the king rather than a divine oracle which
would have been typical of this time.
362) So see P. Leiden I 350, V 24, Gardiner, ZAS 42, 1905, 24.
P. Bologna 1094.2, 3-7 (LEM 2); P. Anastasi II 6.5-7 (LEM 16);
see Caminos, LEM 9-10,50.
363) Note the remarks of Seti I in the Nauri and Wadi Mia decrees
attributing ownership to the indigenous gods.
364) Urk. IV 1799.14-1800.7.
365) Varille, op. cit., 85.
366) The hieratic text is published in Wildung, op. cit., Taf.

LXVI, see 280-282 for discussion and partial translation (esp.
280 for bibliography). A transcription of the entire text appears
in Spiegelberg, PSBA 24, 1902, 320-24.
367) See Speigelberg, op. cit., 323.

V
368) See Cerny, "Egyptian Oracles", 35-36.
369) Ibid., 38 ff.; also Bedell, Criminal Law, 192 ff.
370) Cerny, op. cit., 38-39.
371) For typical questions addressed to the oracle, see Cerny,

ibid., 46; idem., BIFAO 35, 1935, 41-58; BIFAO 41, 1942, 13-24;
Bedell, op. cit., 196 ff.
372) On the term hn see Cerny, "Egyptian Oracles" 43-45.
373) Louvre stela C 256; see von Beckerath, RdE 20, 1968 pi. 1,
see especially 33 ff.
374) Von Beckerath, op. cit., pi. 1, line 23.
375) Ibid., 26 f.
398
376) Rde 20, 1968, 9 ff.; Breasted, ARE IV §§ 650 ff.; Cerny,
"Egyptian Oracles", 38.
377) Rde 20, 1968, 35; for 'nhw, see Goedicke, KDAR 217 ff.
378) Cf. Wb. IV 122.7-12.
379) See Lorton, "Treatment", 12 (note 51).
380) Helck, Merikare 10 (P 11-12; M 8).
381) Lorton, op. cit., 13.
382) This was also suggested by Posener, RdE 5, 1946, 55.
383) Indeed, it is unlikely that a "private" citizen would have

had the authority to appeal such a case, see von Beckerath, op. cit.,
33 ff.
384) For fh, see Wb. I 578, 9-11. It is likely that the term
has a juridical sense, perhaps to "cut off (rights, status)".
385) See Lorton, "Treatment" 29; Note also that in international

conflicts, the king must receive divine permission to wage war,
see Schmidt, Ramesses II; A Chronological Structure for his Reign
(Baltimore, 1973) 178 f.; Spalinger, Aspects, 116 and note 67.
386) Lorton, op. cit., 29 f. According to Bedell, Criminal Law,

264, during the Ramesside Period, the death penalty could not be
passed by oracular judgement. However, all the cases during this
time involve property disputes, and it is likely that by the Third
Intermediate Period, the oracle assumed more binding authority.
387) See particularly Gardiner, JEA 48, 1962, 57 ff. The inscrip
tions have been published by G. Maspero, Momies Royales de Deir el
Bahari (Paris, 1889) 705 f. (and earlier ZAS 21, 1883, 73 f)
(Hentowe); Momies Royales, 694 f., (Makare). For the complex
family relationships of the Twenty-first Dynasty royal families,
see Gardiner, op. cit., 63-64, 67-69; Wente, JNES 26, 1967, 152-74
Kitchen, TIP 47ff, 64-65; A. Niwinski, JARCE 16, 1979, 49 ff. (The
problem is still unresolved, and does not affect the essence of
our argument concerning the use of the threat however.
388) Maspero, Momies Royales, 705 f.; Gardiner, op. cit., 57-64.
The text is also briefly discussed by Cerny in "Egyptian Oracles"
39; Kitchen, TIP 56.
389) Maspero, op. cit., 705 (line 2); Gardiner, JEA 48, 1962,
59 (note 1).
399
390) Gardiner, JEA 48, 1962 59 (note 2).
391) Maspero, Momies Royales, 706 (line 20); Gardiner, op. cit. 61.
392) Maspero, Momies Royales, 706 (lines 23-24); Gardiner, op. cit.
62.
393) See Maspero, Momies Royales, 694 f.; Gardiner, op. cit.,
64 ff.
394) Maspero, Momies Royales, 695 (lines 4-6); Gardiner op. cit.,
66 f.
395) Maspero, Momies Royales, 695 (lines 6-8); Gardiner, op. cit.,
67.
396) Gardiner, op. cit., 59.
397) Maspero, op. cit., 695 (lines 6, 8). (See also above,
Chapter One under "Temporal Qualifications in Stipulations).
398) Maspero, Momies Royales, (lines 2, 4).
399) Ibid, (line 5); see also Gardiner, JEA 48, 1962, 66-67 (and
67 note 1)„
400) So see Gardiner, JEA 48, 1962, 58.
401) Maspero, Momies Royales, 695 (lines 6, 8); Gardiner, op. cit.,
67 (note 6).
402) Maspero, Momies Royales, 695 (line 8).
403) I.E.S. Edwards, Oracular Amuletic Decrees of the Late New

Kingdom (London, 1960) (2 vol.)., xiii ff.
404) Ibid., xv f. (vol. 1).
405) Ibid., xvi, ff. (vol. 1).
406) Ibid. LI (BM10083) Recto, 6-12 PI. 1/1A (vol. 2).
407) Ibid., Recto 23-28.
408) Ibid., Recto 32-41.
409) Ibid., Recto 59-65 (PI. 2/2a)
410) Ibid., Recto 74-76.
411) Ibid.T.3 (Turin Museum 1985) Recto 63-66 (PI. 28/28A).

400
412) Ibid. Recto 59-62.
413) See Moller, SPAW 17, 1910, 947, 110. 14 (Wb. No. 529),
see also ibid., 939. The text is still unpublished. Note
also Sottas, Preservation, 146 (and note 3).
415) Blackman, JEA 27, 1941, 83 ff., and pi. 10-11. The text
had been entered under JE 66285 but also bears the identification
1/6/24/1.
416) Ibid., PI. 10 (lines 2-5), see also ibid., 84.
417) Ibid., 83.

V
418) For common ways of addressing the god, See Cerny, "Egyp
tian Oracles" 46. One would expect that the deity from whose
estate the endowment was to be administered would have been
the guarnator. However, later on in the text is specifies:
"Stipulations for it were confirmed in the Scribal Repository
according to that which the Lord of the Gods said. For he
had erected a granite stela bearing the decree of Imn-'rn. f
having it rest in the divine sanctuaries forever." (PI. 10,
lines 8-9). This strongly suggests that Amun had been the deity
issuing the decree. However, the designation of the god is
not the usual "Ainun-Re, the Great One, the Primordial One"
(see above Chapter One, "Gods of Threats").
419) The text was published by G. Legrain, ZAS 35, 1897, 13-
16; also additional remarks by Erman in zAs 35, 1897, 19 ff.
The concluding section containing threats had been published
by Sottas, Preservation, 161 ff. Portions|(of the lengthy
threats have been translated by Erman, in Agyptische Religion,
(Berlin, 1909) 187; and Revillout, Precis de Droit egyptien
(Paris, 1903) 372.
420) See Legrain, ZAS 35, 1897, 15 (lines 24-26); note also
the brief comments of Cerny, Egyptian Oracles.
421) Legrain, op. cit., 15-16 (lines 26-32); Sottas, op. cit.,
162 f.
422) Reading iw.f hr rwty.w pw; Sottas, op. cit., 164 skips
this clause,. For rwty as "opponent" (litigant) see Goedicke,
Neferyt, 107 f.
423) Note esp. Sottas' comments op. cit., 161-62 on the personal
aspects of the threat.

401
425) In addition to the citations in Chapter One under mnmn,

see now Goedicke, BES 6, 1985, 98.
426) For w3, see Wb. I 244.11; cf. also Spalinger, Aspects,
56; Breasted, PSBA 23, 1901 239 ff.
427) See Goedicke, Die Geschichte des Schiffbruchigen (Wiesba den,

1974) 40.
428) See Zandee, Death as the Enemy, 286; Grimal, Le Stele

Triomphale de Pi ('ankh)y (Cairo, 1981), 174, (note 519).
430) Wb. I 174.15-16 (note also the nominal ^_b, 174.13).
432) There may be some relation to the common Old Kingdom

term referring to ritual impurity, see Edel, Phraseologie,
5.
433) Bedell, Criminal Law, 144 f.
434) Legrain, ZAS 35, 1897, 16 (line 28).
435) Ibid, (lines 30-31)..
436) See Wb. V 264.23. The idiom "to place one's head to the
ground" also refers to "death" (Wb. V 264.22). It is tempting
to see the threat in Makare's will (Maspero, Momies Royales,
695) referring to placing "the nose the ground" as similar
imagery for a debilitating illness.
437) J.G. Griffiths, CdE 33, 1958, 182 ff.; Anthes, zls 86,
1961, 1 ff.; Germond, Sekhmet et la Protection de Monde
(Geneva, 1981) 316 ff.
438) See Wb. IV 221.10-15; Germond, op. cit., 252 ff.
439) KRI III 687.4; 693.10; 699.7.
440) Iversen, Two Inscriptions, PI. 1,3 ff. (JE 45327); also
briefly discussed in Cerny, "Egyptian Oracles", 40; Otto,
Biographische Inschriften, 53.
441) Iversen, op. cit., PI. 1, lines 8-9.
442) Ibid., 3 see line 9; see also Meeks, "Les donations aux
Temples", 634-635.
402
443) Cairo 42208, published in Legrain, Catalogue general

(Catalogue de Musee du Caire) 20 f£.; also see Otto,
op. cit., 139 ff.
444) Otto, Biographische Inschriften, 17-18.
445) Catalogue, 23, Inscription d (lines 4-5).
446) Ibid., 21 f. Inscription c (lines 9-12).
447) Ibid., (lines 16-18).
448) Ibid., (line 17).
449) See Otto, op. cit., 81, 84-85.
450) A similar situation occurs in the 18th Dynasty testament

of Amenophis of Memphis, discussed earlier.
451) Daressy, ASAE 11, 1911, 142 ff.; Sottas, Preservation,

172 f.
452) Ibid.
453) See below Chapter Four for a discussion of frwi-sdb in

this passage.
454) Sottas, op. cit. 172.
455) Sottas, op. cit., 149 (note 9); Spigelberg, RT_ 25, 1903,
196 f.
456) The full text is published in RIK III, pis. 16,20. See
Caminos1 translation and commentary, The Chronicle of Prince
Osorkon (Rome, 1958).
457) RIK III, pi. 16 (Inscription C 53); and pi. 20 (22).
458) Ibid., PI. 16; Caminos, Chronicle, 71; also Sottas,

Preservation, 132.
460) Caminos, op. cit., 72-73.
461) Ibid., 73 (note 1); Germond, Sekhmet, 177-179. As he

notes, (179) one of the epithets given to Sekhmet during the
New Kingdom is "She who is united (dm<Jt) with Mut".
462) Caminos, Chronicle, 73.

403
463) So see Wb. I 408.9.
464) RIK III PI. 20 (22).
465) See Caminos, op. cit., 147-148.
466) The orthography for "gods" »: is quite unusual.

See Caminos, ibid., 149. I am wondering whether the word is
actually a participle derived from tri, tr(w), "respected
ones" (Wb. V 318.1-7; esp. 6 referring to the deceased).
467) So note its use in a threat attached to the geneological

list mentioning Amenophis Son of Hapu, and in the finsw-iri-di-sw
grave from El-Hasaya.
468) For m-fat, see Gardiner, EG^ § 178 (p. 133, 3-4).
469) The text had been published by Daressy in RT 16, 1894,

125 f.
470) Ibid., 125. A portion of the upper part of the stela is

now in the Cairo Museum. It has been (re)published by Gaballa
in JEA 63 1977, pi. 23.1, p. 124-125. Unaware of Daressy's
original publication, Gaballa dated it to the Ramesside Period.
The text is the subject of a forthcoming study.
471) The text referes to the cleansing of the shrines of Karnak

and Luxor and the opening of the inner sanctuaries at the New
Year, see Daressy, op. cit., 125, Cairo (Giza) fragment (line
8); Luxor Base, line 2.
472) The Luxor text, ibid. 125, line 2 begins with dd I[-]n. . .
Restore dd I[m]n [^m^ Ipt] "A[m]un [êm> Opet] said-".
473) Luxor Base, 125 line 2. Restoring [ir p3 nty nb]w. See
above Chapter One. The only other possibility is a masc. pi.
noun, since the closest suffix refers to r.sn "against them".
If this is the case, the lacuna probably would have contained
a reference to "officials" (srw) or "priests" (w'bw; hmw-ntr).
474) Restoring on the basis of Chronicle of Prince Osorkon,

RIK III, pi. 16 (C 53).
475) The lacuna must have referred to "confinement" or imprison

ment" owing to the subsequent hbt I3btt, "Prison of the East".
Restore rt[fr], "being conffined]" (Wb. II 460.7, although
attested only in Gr. period).
476) The restoraton should be ssr, "arrow" or something similar;

see Cairo 42208 (Nht-mwt.f) or Cairo JE 31882 (Apanage).
404
477) RT 16, 1894, 126. Restoring the break as • • • /«fL

The reference would certainly seem to be to existence in the
After life.
478) Ibid., line 7. The beginning of the line is very broken.

The first gap probably contained some verb referring to "destruc
tion" (s d, hd (?): "He (Horus) [acted hostilely] against
w3[.s(n)] nb<m>ib [.s(w) ] thi wdt ntr, "all those who plot
în> [their] heart (to) violate the divien decree."
479) On hbt, see above Chapter One. The term also occurs in
a threat of the Ptolemaic period, (Cairo 22151).
480) That the language used in threats derives from the religious
"lexicon" referring to "damnation" and eternal punishment should
be of no surprise. So note Zandee, op. cit., 170 f., on fobt,
and occurences of the term in Coffin Texts and Book of the Dead.
481) See now Meeks' comprehensive study, "Les donations aux

Temples", 605 ff. The earliest donation texts date from the
Second Intermediate Period, although those with threat-formulae
are attested only in the Third Intermediate and Late Periods.
482) Meeks, ibid., 624 ff.
483) Ibid., 645 ff.
484) Ibid., 626 ff.; Meeks, however, notes that local officials
(632, 636 ff.) could administer the grant. See also the remarks
of Leahy, RdE 34, 1982-83, 79; Sottas, Preservation, 145 ff.;
Yoyette, Melanges Maspero I, 140 § 24.
485) Meeks, "Les donations", 628-629.
486) See especially the remarks by Leahy, op. cit., 85 (note 14)
who suggests that some stelae were erected in temples or their
encosures, others as actual boundary markers; against Sottas,
Preservation, 145, who argues that there was a distinction
between boundary markers and "archival" documents. Also Meeks,
op. cit., 608-610. That some were indeed boundary stelae
should not be questioned, see for example in Stewart, Egyptian
Stelae III, where the procedure is described for marking off
property which had been rededicated to a temple: "Then he
sanctified it, surrounding it with stelae (wdw), giving it
fields" (PI. 3-4).
487) Grumach, Amenemope.
488) Daressy, RT 15, 1893, 175; Sottas, Preservation, 146.
489) See Germond, Sekhmet 165 ff., particularly the role of

the goddess as the protector of royalty.
405
490) Some similarlity with the oath had been suggested by

Sottas, op. cit., 171 f. (and note 1), although he did not
explicitly link the two.
491) Sottas, Preservation, 147; Daressy, RT 18, 1896, 52 f

(JE 31653).
492) See Lorton, JT 12 ff.; Goedicke, Stellung des Konigs,

42 ff.
493) See below Chapter Four.
494) See Gardiner, JEA 48, 1962, in the warning against any
temple scribe who might conceal or delete portions of the
document kept on record. See also Blackman, JEA 27, 1941, 89,
where the provisions for Nemrat's statue were kept on record.
495) Varille, Amenhotep, 71 (line 12); see below Chapter Four.
496) A. Moret, Cat. Guimet, Steles, pi. 64; Sottas, Preservation,

148; Spiegelberg, RT 35, 1913, 41 ff (Louvre 20905).
497) See Iversen, Two Inscriptions, Pl.l, line 9.
498) Spiegelberg, RT 25, 1903, 197-198; Sottas, Preservation,

148 f (Strasbourg 1379).
499) See above Chapter One. For hbs, see Spigelberg, RT

25, 1903, 197 (note 3).
500) Spiegelberg, RT 25, 1903, 196-197; Sottas, Preservation,

149 (Cairo 22.8.32).
501) Kitchen, JARCE 8, 1969-70, 59 ff. (fig. A) (Brooklyn

67.118). See also Kitchen's remarks (66.f.) on the general
style of these stelae.
502) Ibid., 59.
503) Ibid. 60. I disagree with Kitchen's suggestion that

nk '3 sw, "an ass shall violate him" should be emended.
504) Ibid., 60 (note 7); also Kitchen-Gaballa, ZAS 96, 1969-

70, 23 ff.
505) Y. Koenig, ASAE 68, 1982, 112-113; Sottas, Preservation,

150 f.; also Breasted, ARE IV §§ 782 ff.; also M. Muller,
Egyptological Researches I (Washington, 1906) 54-55, pi. 88;
Maspero, RT 15, 1893, 84-86 (JE 30972).
506) Koening, ASAE 68, 1982, 113 (lines 7-9).

406
507) Meeks, "Les donations", 627 (and note 82).
508) A.-E. Bakir, ASAE 43, 1943, 75 ff. (JE 85647).
509) Ibid., 77.
510) See also Meeks, op. cit., 638-39 who dates it to Sheshonk
IV (22.10.00a); Bakir, op. cit., 77.
511) Bakir, ASAE 43, 1943, 78 (a).
512) Ibid., 78, for the threat see also the general remarks of
Meeks, op. cit., 625-626.
513) ASAE 43, 1943, 80 (d), who suggests that cuttingôff a

hand may be intended; also Cerny, JEA 15, 1929, 247. S'd seems
rather to be a participle s'd(yw), "one who ought to be (ie.
deserving of) slaughter(ed)". For the participle used in this
manner, see Gardiner, EG 3 § 371.
514) For non-existence in the Afterlife, see Zandee, Death,

234; Hornung, "Hollenvorstellungen", 31 ff.
515) See Zandee, Death, 149-150; Hornung, op. cit., 16-17.
516) See Caminos, Chronicle, 48, 51. De Meulenaeve, CdE

28, 258 ff,; Griffiths, ASAE 48, 417 f.
517) The story is related in epitomes of Manetho (preserved

in Africanus and Eusebius) that "Sabacon, who taking Bochchoris,
burned him alive. . . "
518) The text reads Pr-Imn Pr-P3-R', Pth, Pr n P3 Hk3, ASAE

43, 1943, 79.
519) For hk3, see generally Lorton, JT, 22 ff.
520) So see Lorton's remarks in "Treatment", 235.
521) Again see Meeks, op. cit., 634 ff.; generally Kitchen,
TIP, 335 ff.
522) J. Berlandini, BIFAO 78, 1978, 147 ff. (IFAO 3886).
523) Ibid., 151-154 (and notes on reconstruction).
524) Schulman, JARCE 5, 1966, 33 ff., pi. 13, fig. 2 (JE 45530).
525) Ibid., pi. 13 (fig. 2), and 34, 36-37 (notes m-o).
526) Ibid., 36 (note o).

407
527) See supra., note 489.
528) Florence stela, in S. Bostico, Le Stele Egiziane di Epoca

Tarda (Rome, 1972) 3 p. 14-15. Meeks 23.1.23 notes that this
is the same stela as that quoted above for Takelothis I (Daressy,
RT 15, 1893, 175).
529) Surprisingly, Germond, Sekhmet, does not list this as an

epithet of the goddess.
530) See Janssen, JEA 54, 1968, 165 ff., pi. 25/25a; also
Spiegelberg, RT 25, 1903, 194 f; Sottas Preservation, 149 f.
(Ash. Mus. 1894.107 b).
531) Janssen, JEA 54, 1968, 25A (lines 12-15).
532) Ibid., 171 f; also generally Yoyette, Melanges Maspero

I 4, 141, and 150 f.; Kitchen TIP 366 ff.
533) See also Meeks, op. cit., 651 (and note 212).
534) See te Velde, Seth, and his remarks on the increasing

"deomonization" of the god during the Third Intermediate
Period.
535) See Zandee, Death, 248 f. (see also Chapter One above).
536) Brugsch, ZAS 34, 1896, 83 f.; Sottas Preservation, 154

(Metropolitan Museum of Art 55.144.6).
537) Meeks, op. cit., 618 (note 44) observes that the land
had been under Saitic control.
538) Meeks, Hommages a Serge Sauneron I, 1979, 221 ff., esp.

223, fig. 1, and 228 (JE 36861).
539) See the parallels noted by Meeks, ibid., 126 (80) invok
ing the knife of the king.
540) Schaefer, Urk.III 101; idem, ZAS 33, 1895, 109; Sottas,
Preservation, 133.
541) Ibid.
542) El-Sayed, Documents Relatifs a Sais et ses Divinities,

43, PI. 7, for full bibliographical references see ibid.,
37-38.
543) Ibid., 43 (line 3). El-Sayed notes that the town has
been located near Naukratis and Memphis (ibid., 46 g, and
51 ff). It is tempting, however, to see it as Tanis.
408
544) Ibid., 43 (lines 7-11),
545) For the reading of the sign see El-Sayed, ibid., 50 (cc)
546) See below Chapter IV.
547) This suggests that the land had not actually been part
of the Saitic ruler's "legal" property, and again points to
Tanis.
548) E. Revillout, PSBA 14, 1891-92, 237-238 (Louvre 10572).
549) Meeks, "Les donations" suggests that s'nh refers to

"revenues" (647 f. note 194).
550) For £t, see Wb. I 490.11.
551) Griffith, P. Rylands IX, 23; Sottas, Preservation, 156.
552) For the importance of Herkaleopolis during this period,

see Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, 327 f.; Griffith, op. cit
(Vol. 3) 71 f., it was the home of the influential "Masters
of Shipping" Padiese and his son.
553) For the construction see Gardiner, EG^.
554) See Zandee, Death 274 ff.
555) N. Malinine, Choix de Textes Juridiques (Pt 2) (Cairo,

1983) 54 (line 10).
556) Sottas, Preservation, 154 f.; Revillout, RE 2, 1881, 32;

Piehl, ZAS 31, 1893, 84-86 (Berlin 8438).
557) So see Sottas' remarks, op. cit., 120.
558) Sottas, Preservation, 156 f.; Moret, Catalogue, Muses

Guimet, I, 99, PI. 43 (Louvre, E 22036).
559) Sottas, Preservation, 157 (Berlin 7780).
560) Sottas, ibid., 158; Revillout, RE 2, 1881, 42-44.
561) El-Sayed, op. cit., 55, PI. 8, identifies it as Moscow

Museum 18499. Meeks, however, ("Les donations" 680; 26.5.16)
states that it comes from the Hermitage (18499).
562) Leahy, RdE 34, 1982-83, fig. 1, 78 (BM 1655).
563) Ibid., Fig. 2, 86 (OIM 13943).

409
564) Bakhry, Studi Classici e Orientali, 20, 1971, 326.
565) Edel, Siut-Gr&ber, 190; see ibid., 188, for earlier

publications and also Edel, Abhandlungen fur die Kunde des
Morgenlands 39, 1970, 34 f.
566) Edel, Siut-Gr&ber, 192 ff.
567) Ibid., 193.
568) For ths, see ibid 191 (3).
569) Ibid., 190.
570) Burchardt-Roeder, ZAS 55, .1918, 55 (Berlin 19400).
571) Ibid., lines 2-4; note also line 5 the admonition,

"Don't neglect that which is in their tomb-shaft: One shall
be rejected from.heaven .on account of it."
572) Sottas, Preservation, 75.
573) Ibid., 75 (note 3).
574) Ibid.
575) See Edel's remarks, op. cit., 192 ff., who believes that
the El-Hasaya text is a direct textual witness or copy of the
FIP Siut threats, and all exemplars form a type of "Musterbuch"
(p. 194).
576) See Otto's remarks in Biographischen Inschriften, 121 f.

for the influence of Herakleopolitan "literature" during the
Late Period. Note also the tomb of Ibi, Scheil, Tombeau d'Aba
(Mem. Miss. V) which is a direct copy from an OK tomb (I thank
Dr. Goedicke for this reference).
577) This had been noted by Sottas, Preservation , 58 ff.
578) The entire text is published in Urk. II 11-22.
579) See now Goedicke, BES 6, 1985, 33 ff.; Spalinger, ZAS 105,
1978, 142 ff.
580) Urk. II 21 11.17.
581) See Goedicke, op. cit., 51; Wb. IV 107.15. I would take
the term as a reduplicated form from s£, "piece", ie. "to tear
into pieces".
582) Ibid., 50 ff.

410
583) Sottas, op. cit., 137.
584) Faulkner, P. Bremner-Rhind, viii. The colophon had been

published by Spiegelberg, RT 35, 1913,35-40.
585) Ibid., 34.8-12 (Clp. 33-38).
586) This is suggested by the preceding references to ritual

burial.
587) For other threats of this period, see Ranke, MDAIK 12,
1943, 114: "If indeed you are ignorant of my name and every
good thing which (I) have made for you: The divine mother
shall expel you from the tomb which I have made for you, not
shall your name reach the Palace"; Cairo 22151: "As for any
man who shall see this stela and damages it, or erases its
inscription: He shall be to the Prison of Hathor not shall
he ever go forth from it. Not shall his son be in his seat";
Wrezinski, Hierogl. Insch. Wein (Wien Stela I, 150), 89: "He
who damages it: Not shall the sun rise for his seeing. His
soul belongs to the deed of the one doing it."
411
CHAPTER THREE
THREATS AND THEIR.USE IN TREATIES AND LOYALTY OATHS
One of the fundamental social and political relation
ships in Pharaonic Egypt, indeed, throughout the Ancient
Near East, was the bond between a king and his subjects. No
matter how powerful a king may have aspired to be, he was to a
great extent dependant upon the goodwill and support of his
subordinates. Even monarchs who had abrogated power at the
expense of large segments of the population were well-aware
that absolute rule was not guaranteed. Indeed, the specter of
assassination could render real or imagined claims of total
authority non-existent.
That this was recognized by the Egyptians is certain from
the surviving inscriptional evidence, wherein loyalty to the
king was extolled and fervently promoted. Such evidence thus
demonstrates that the concept was not prima facie considered
to have been part of the natural political scheme. Whether this
attitude was initiated solely from the person of office of the
king- who would have benefited most from the promulgation of
this principle- or whether it had developed into a societal
ideal shared by both ruler and ruled is not certain.
This phenomenon, however, should probably be viewed as a
combination of the two interests, for at least as the written
evidence allows, the principle appears to have been mutually

412
satisfactory to both the king and his subjects. Of course, it
is important to recognize that such a conclusion is due to the
highly prejudicial and skewed nature of the sources available to
the historian. The autobiographical tomb inscription, an impor
tant source in this regard, endlessly, and quite naturally pro
motes the benefits which an individual had enjoyed from the king
during the subject's lifetime (1). Social position, rank and
privilege originated from the auspices of the ruler. It is
therefore, not unexpected, that a person would have advertised
the results of royal favor. The rewards for fidelity to the king
are plainly and unequivocally stated, since often the reason for
an individual's appointment to an office had been his unquestion
ing obedience to the will and wisdom of his sovereign (2). More
over, the king himself provided the raison d'etre for much of the
mortuary literature: a subject's adherence to the policy and
commands of his king resulted in the awarding of a ritual burial,
and hence a forum for self-promotion.
Regardless of the intricacies of the Egyptian bureaucracy,
and the actual isolation a monarch may have had from his subjects-
the relationship between the king and his subordinates was re
garded, and idealized by both parties as having been of a person
al nature. The numerous proclamations of a king's love for an
individual, and the proud declarations of loyalty to one's lord,
should not be regarded as merely a calculated and cynical manip
ulation of our literary sources in order to exalt an ideal held

413
only by the king. Indeed, the response of Thutmosis Ill's offi
cers at the Aruna Pass in which they agree to follow their com
mander's bold and dangerous advance towards Megiddo should be
seen as a reflection of a concept held equally by the king and
his followers (3): "Look, we are following your Majesty where-
ever [yourMajesty] goes, for a servant shall follow [his] Lord."
Not surprisingly, however, the concept of a subject's
loyalty to his sovereign was promoted by the monarchy, and a
whole body of literature developed around this theme. The
archetype of this genre appropriately called by Posener
l'Enseignment loyaliste, or Loyalist Instruction, should be
regarded as a sub-group of Egyptian wisdom literature with which
it shares many characteristics (4). The Egyptian term for the
Loyalist, in fact, is an "Instruction" (sb3yt), a "Cousel for
Eternity" (shrw n nhh), and "Proper Means of Life" (ssr 'nfc m3'w),
which lends itself to the theory that it was utilized in the
scribal schools as a wisdom text (5). Hence, the promulgation
of support for the king among young students methodically primed
a potential base of loyal adherents to the crown, long before
their actual entry into the Egyptian social and political bu
reaucracy.
While the reader, and thus potential subject, was adjured
to follow the king, a sovereign was keenly aware of his respon
sibilities to his subordinates. In the instruction to the

414
Herakleopolitan king Merikare, dating from the end of the Tenth
Dynasty, an adage is presented stressing that the support of the
governed is very much dependant on their satisfaction with their
ruler (6). Upon examining the wisdom texts and autobiographical
inscription, it becomes apparent that the idea of loyalty was
broached from two divergent, yet mutually complementary manners.
The first is positive, and quite naturally is stressed more often.
This is a careful delineation of the rewards attendant upon an
individual's fulfillment of his responsibilities to the king
and the benefits of remaining an obedient and loyal servant to
the crown. Such advice finds its fullest expression in the
composition alluded to above, the Loyalist Instruction, of
which the protype derives from the Middle Kingdom tomb stela of
Shtp-ib-r' (7). Here the rewards for fidelity and the happily
resulting prosperity to the country are ascribed solely to the
benign influence of the king (8).
He (ie. the king) is one who causes prosperity

more than the Great Inundation, for it is with
victory and life that he has filled the Two Lands.
Nostrils are surely blocked when he falls to
raging, but when he is peaceful, one may breathe
his breath. To those who are his followers, he
gives sustenance, and his nourishment is amount
the one who adheres to his path (m^d mtn.f).
Not unexpectedly, this type of composition was reused by
later monarchs, and it is not altogether surprising to find
numerous copies of it from the Eighteenth and Nineteenth
Dynasties containing their own accretions and expansions (9).

415
Apart from actual copies of the text, however, there are quota
tions of the instruction found in royal inscriptions far beyond
its Middle Kingdom inception, and the ideal which they reflect
must be considered to have become normative throughout Egyptian
society. In an inscription of the Eighteenth Dynasty monarch
Ahmose practically verbatim quotes of the Loyalist text occur
in a speech of the king to his subjects (10):
"Listen 0 p't, hmmt, rfayt, everybody: Follow this

king in his duties. Promote the awe of him among
others. Be purified on behalf of his name, and
respect his oath. Behold, he is god in the land.
Give adoration to him like the sun, adore him like
the moon."
Although this attitude must have been regarded as pro forma
among all Egyptian monarchs, it is in the inscriptions of rulers
whose claim to the throne may have been perceived as insecure-
and in some cases, tenuous at best- that frequent quotations and
adaptions of the Loyalist literature are found. A particularly
striking example is that of Ramesses III whose throne was actually
threatened by an assassination attempt (11). The king's post
humous instructions to his subjects in the lengthy mortuary text
the Papyrus Harris, appropriate whole tracts of the Loyalist
Instruction. Ramesses III, after enumerating the benefits which
he had granted to his loyal subjects in the course of his lifetime,
enjoins these same subjects to fidelity to his son, and newly
ascended king, Ramesses IV (12):
"You were well in my care according to your bene

factions. You have adhered to my decrees and my
statements. Now I am at rest in the Land of Sil
ence like my father Re. I have mingled with the
416
Great Ennead in heaven, earth, and the Netherworld.

Amun-Re has fixed my son in my place, and he accepted
my office successfully as Ruler of the Two Lands who
resides upon the Seat of Horus of the Two Banks. . . (13)
"Cling to his sandals. Do obeisance in his presence,

cast yourselves down to him. Follow him constantly.
Adore him, magnify him, and promote his goodness,
like that which you do for Re at dawn. Control for
him your imposts to his august palace. Grant that
the services of all the flat-lands and hill-countries
be delivered to him. Adhere to his statements and
decrees. Thus I say to you: Observe his utterence,
that you may be preserved under his power. Serve him
unanimously in every deed. Drag for him monuments,
dig for him canals. That which is done for him (is)
that which your two arms shall do, that his favors
may accure to you under his grace every day - - - (14)
Whereas the beneficial aspects of the relationship between
the king and his subjects are frequently encountered in surviving
texts, the negative, and hence more dangerous aspects of dis
loyalty are also stated. Such references are clearly intended
as a warning against potential disobedience. For example, in
Merikare 5.9-12, the king is adjured and admonished by his father
on the proper course of action when dealing with troublemakers
and political demagogues (15):
"If you find him without a family and (his own)

citizens do not recognize him, but his adherents
who enthusiastically join him are many in total,
(and) he is enticing before his subordinates;
Insofar as he is the dregs: Suppress him, slaughter
his children, erase his name. Destroy his family,
suppress the remembrance of him, and the one who
loves him! He is an inciter of the citizenry, a dis
affected one. It is surely he who raises up adherents
from the youths (<j3mw)."
The Loyalist Instruction likewise defines the price of infidelity
to the crown, and the text contains the terrible threat of denial
417
of burial rites for the treasonous (16):
"He is Sekhmet to him who defies his command.

He whom he hates (sf3) shall bear want (sm3w).
Fight for his name and respect his oath so that
you may be free of punishment. The king's beloved
will be ritually buried (im3hyw), but there is no
tomb for the one who rebels against his Majesty, for
his corpse is cast to the water!"
Similar sentiments appear in the Thirteenth Dynasty decree
of Neferhotep (17). Following a declaration of the king's en
dowments to the cult of Osiris at Abydos, Neferhotep warns any
person who might oppose his actions (18):
"Hear these things, report my command. Moreover

endowments shall be made, namely in renewing the
diving offerings. Behold I am informing [you].
I [bring] (it) to yor attention, in order to
make you vigilant on behalf of the divine estate.
Concentrate on the endowments which I have made,
for I give you a counsel of eternity in accordance
with my wish. I seek benefactions for posterity
in placing this matter in your heart, namely which
is about to happen in the midst of his place. . .
It is a .king, Great of Strength, Beneficial of

Command and Decision that I am.
Not shall those who oppose me live. Not shall

those who rebel (itnw) breathe air. Not shall
his name be among the living. The presiding
judge (tjnty-srw) shall enjoin his k3, he shall
be an enemy to this god, (namely) he who shall
oppose the decree of my Majesty:
(Namely) those who shall not act in accordance

to the decaree of my Majesty; those who shall
not report me to this august god; those who shall
not be grateful for that which I have made as his
divine endowment; [those who shall not] give to
me jubilation in any festival of this temple in
the [midst] of the divine estate, in all their
auspices, or any office of Abydos.
The warnings and threats in these texts are not codified

418
legal stipulations in a strict sense, but rather are rhetorical
devices to dissuade the potential trouble-maker. It should not
be doubted, however, that the literature describes actual stan
dard punishments enforced under the authority of the king. Denial
of ritual burial, the forfeiture of rights and title of the trea
sonous individual and family, and capital punishment, all were
under the auspices of the king (19). This is explicit in later
additions to the Loyalist Instruction where it states that is
is the king's own authority which shall execute justice (20).
"It is his (ie. the king's) power (b3w.f) which fights on his
behalf."
Blatant acts of disloyalty, or thwarted actions such as
the attempted regicide of Ramesses III, were pursued and pros
ecuted under appropriate legal machinery designated by the king,
including courts, judges, and means and methods of execution (21).
Obviously plots, conspiracies, rebellious talk, rumors, and
quiet acquiesence among conspirators and sympathizers could be
concealed and hatched beyond the reach of even the most efficient
of legal authorities. Such contingencies, however, are alluded
to in Merikare, where it contrasts the capabilities of the king
in punishing criminal transgressors with conspirators (22):
"You may punish Qjsf) those who ought to be

beaten and detained- thus this land shall be
stable thereby. Except the rebel whose coun
sels have been discovered: For it is God who
is aware (rjj) of the disaffected (fa3kw-ib), and
God shall punish offences (frwi-sjb) on account
of blood."
419
As Lorton has noted, the injunction is directed against criminal
intent rather than action (23). Malicious thoughts were outside
of the jurisdiction of the royal tribunals, and could only have
been known to the guilty individual and the divine. Hence a
deity, here left unspecified (nfr), but most likely referring
to Osiris in his role as judge of the deceased, is invoked to
mete out punishment.
A similar principle underlies several stipulations of the
Nauri decree which had been promulgated by Seti I (24). The text
concludes with a case wherein people may hear of a crime commited
by officials of Seti's mortuary estate, but do not refer the
offense to the proper legal authorities (25):
"[As for any people] who are in the entire land

against whom anybody of the Chapel of Mn-M3't-R'
Contented of Heart in Abydos commits a transgression
saying: "[It was a certain controller] who il
legally seized my ox, or my ass, or my goat" - or
any property which one shall take from from people;
Or "A certain controller illegally seized my per
sonnel by seizure in order to perform any task-";
And they do not fly on account of his plea in order
that his adversary be apprehended quickly in order
that he be judged: Osiris, Foremost of the West,
(namely) the Lord of all the people and the Lord
of all the property, shall pursue him, his wife,
and his children, in order to obliterate his
name, in order to utterly destroy his 1^3, as to
prevent his corpse from resting in the Necropolis.11
In this instance, the situation is essentially one in which
the reporting of the crime to the authorities depended solely
on the integrity of witnesses to the case. This was a matter
of conscience, and as in cases of criminal conspiracy, was be
yond the discretion and monitoring abilities of the king. There

420
fore punishment is assigned to the divine sphere, with the
threat of Osiris' (theoretically the owner of the property,
and hence the injured party) prosecution extending not only
to the malefactor, but also to his immediate family, including
the subsequent generation (see above).
Obviously the efficient functioning of the state and the
ability of the king to prosecute malfeasance and to maintain
justice, depended upon the loyalty of his subjects. As noted
above, obedience to a ruler's decision, and the reporting of
any abuses to the king or his representatives was crucial in
this regard. The preceding discussion has shown that this was
an important concern of the wisdom texts. Moreover, the quo
tation from a strictly "legal" text, such as the Nauri decree,
deomonstrates that occasionally specific stipulations had been
formulated- in this instance, the invocation of the divine to
effect threats- in order to "guarantee" a subject's loyalty.
To a certain degree, juridical oaths sworn in the name of the
ruling king were designed towards the same objective. Tech
nically perjury was tantamount to treason, a capital offence,
since the oath was taken by the life of the ruler (26).
Other Ancient Near Eastern societies, however, dealt with
this problem in a specific manner, by having subjects or vassals

421
swear fealty to their suzerain. Moshe Weinfeld has been quite
successful ih'isolating a particular genre of juridical text in
a study appropriately entitled "The Loyalty Oath in the Ancient
Near East" (27). Utilizing primarily Hittite, Assyrian, and
Biblical materials, Weinfeld has demonstrated that the loyalty
oath remained fairly constant in form and content over a con
siderable period of time, and over a fairly wide geographical
area (28). Moreover, he was able to define certain structural
and typological characteristics of these texts which may be
summarized as follows (29):
1) Subjects pledged their loyalty and devotion to a king
by oath. Sometimes, as in the case of the treaty of the Assyrian
king Esarhaddon, fealty was sworn to the sovereign's son,
Assurbanipal, and his dynasty as well (30).
2) Stipulations were included to report rebellion, plot
ters, or any rumor of conspiracy, or instigation to rebel.
3) Curses were invoked for those who would transgress the
oath.
A wide variety of persons and groups was often foresworn: vassal
kings and their subjects, the native citizenry and their leaders,
, l
officials of the king, and soldiers and officers (31). Weinfeld
noted the use and importance of curses and maledictions in these
ceremonies, since they, and the deities invoked, were intended

422
to witness, validate, and theoretically to enforce any trans
gression of the oath (32). These elements appear to have been
a standard legal device, particulary in treaties throughout the
Ancient Near East (33). In the earlier Hittite texts, however,
blessings also were included for those who would maintain their
loyalty to the sovereign (34). The Assyrian fealty oaths, by
contrast, contain extensive curses with no corresponding bless
ing at all (35).
While considerable strides have been made in the study of
loyalty oaths, especially in dealing with the Biblical and
Akkadian documentation, the Egyptian material has remained
virtually untouched. This descrepancy is apparant in Weinfeld's
otherwise valuable and thorough study. After devoting consider
able discussion to the Hittite, Assyrian, Biblical, and even
Greco-Roman documentation, a brief appendix covers Egyptian
evidence, primarily the so-called sdf3-tryt oath (36). This
dichotomy in approach, to an extent is due to the nature of the
Egyptian sources.
It has already been noted above that the topic of loyalty
and its rewards and punishment were a major theme of a particu
lar genre of literary instruction. Such attitudes were in all
likelihood fostered in ancient Egyptian society prior to any
surviving legal or juridical evidence on the subject. Thus
in the Sixth Dynasty Pyramid Texts, the major source of funerary

423
literature from the Old Kingdom, examples of threats against
persons who would plot against the king appear (37):
"0 Osiris: Seize all who hate the king, who speak
evilly against his name. 0 Thoth, quickly seize
him on behalf of the Osirian, place him in your
power."
"May you fetter (?) anyone who shall speak evilly

against the name of the king."
The formulation of the texts have been applied to the situation
of the interrment of the deceased king, and therefore have been
adapted to the funerary ritual. Although the Pyramid Texts are
from a libation text, the language of the invocation and threat is
clearly political in nature, and probably should be viewed as
reflective of juridical terminology applied to the arrest of
potentially treasonous individuals. It seems likely that a
legal case dealing with disloyalty has been transferred parti
pris from theimmanent political world of the Old Kingdom court,
to the mortuary realm of the dead king (38). This also accounts
for the use of threats of divine punishment; both the offense,
namely treasonous talk, and the situation, the Afterlife, were
not under the jurisdiction of the king.
Likewise, it comes as no surprise that the well-known

If
Achtungstexte, or "Execration Texts" make their first appearance
almost contemporary to the Pyramid Texts (39). The basic studies
of the Middle Kingdom materials by Sethe (40) and Posener (41),
have been augmented with the more recent publications of Sixth
Dynasty figurines from Giza by Bakir-Osing (42). If the dating
of the Berlin texts to approximately the reign of Sesostris III

424
is maintained, examples of these texts and their formulae span
almost five centuries (43).
The more extensive examples of this type are those origi
nating from Thebes (the Berlin texts), and they seem to represent
a compendium of other lists (44). Incorporated into these texts
are the names and titles of foreign rulers, their functionaries,
military subordinates, and allies. Peoples include Nubians,
Asiatics (Semites), and "Libyans" (45). Groups of Egyptians,
including deceased individuals who may have been considered
dangerous are also mentioned (46). The basic similarities in
the Rebellionsformel of the Old and Middle Kingdom materials
indicate that the language and practice associated with the
texts must have been standard for a considerable period of
time.
Whatever the historical worth of the Execration Texts, they
should be seen as applying to situations intended to prevent,
rather than punish, treasonous activities, since listed are
found the following parties (47):
"Those who may rebel, who may plot, who may fight,
who may talk of fighting, who may talk of rebelling
in this entire land."
In addition to peoples, abstract concepts are also listed (48):
"Any evil word, any evil conspiracy, any evil

thought, any evil plot, any evil fighting, any
evil unrest, any evil counsel, any evil thing,
any evil dream, any evil sleep."
The gramatical formulation of the Rebellionsformel consists of
the future participial form sdm.ty.fy, and imperfective parti

425
cipial constructions, indicating that the texts were addressing
potential, rather than actual troublesome situations (49). Re
ferences to conspiracies, dangerous speech and those who would
make them, apply to cases which could not be handled by the
normal exegencies of criminal law and thus had to be relegated
to dramatized threats, or, for want of a better word "magical"
practices. A portion of an Einleitunsgformel preserved from
a group of the Berlin texts, consists of what appears to have
been an invocation to unnamed deities (ntrw) and spirits (b3w)
(50). This again suggests that the proscription of the individ
uals was beyond the jurisdiction of Egyptian legal authority,
and was assigned to the responsibility of the divine realm.
The supposed ritual practice associated with the texts is
a familiar one, whereby figurines or vessels were inscribed
with the names of individuals, groups, or abstract qualities
along with the Rebellionsformel, and subsequently smashed (51).
Difficulties arise, however, in the interpretation of the
materials since there is little firm historical, cultic, or
literary context in which to place the action. Moreover, there
is some question on whose behalf the Execration Texts were for
mulated. Most of them were found in or near private tombs, and
suggest that they were used by private individuals (52). The
language of the inscriptions, in which plots, conspiracies, and
warfare are invoked, however, belie juridical situations involv
ing royal, rather than private interests. Again, the inclusion

426
of deceased persons in these texts along with presumably living
Egyptians and foreigners complicates the picture further (53).
•Interestingly enough, in Sinuhe B 74-75 there is language
invoking comparison with the Rebellionsformel. The passage is
Sinuhe's long encomium on behlaf of the newly crowned Sesostris I
to the foreign ruler Amusanenshi. At the conclusion of his
speech, Sinuhe advises the Semitic chief to open diplomatic
and commercial contacts with the Egyptian monarch (54): "Write
to him, let him recognize (r.h) your name (ie. status). Do not
plot against him (m sn w3). He will not fail to do good to the
foreigner who is upon his water." The admonition to refrain

y
from conspiracy (sn w3) incorporates lexical items of the
Rebellionsformel, and it is noteworthy that this occurs in the
juridical context of assuring loyalty to a new king (55). It is
tempting to relate the Execration Texts to similar circumstances
in which various groups or persons were sworn to fealty to the
Egyptian king under a dramatized threat, but any suggestion in
this regard must remain speculative.
One of the more consistent formal aspects found in Ancient
Near Eastern materials dealing with the loyalty oath, is the
assembly of segments of the respective populations to proclaim
fealty to their lord. Weinfeld noted that this procedure is
well-attested in the ratification of Hittite treaties, Old
Testament convenant ceremonies, and Assyrian enthronement texts

427
(56). Following the congregation of subjects, they were thus
adjured to remain loyal to the king or his dynasty. A text has
been preserved, dating from the beginning of the Eighteenth
Dynasty which also seems to allude to such a procedure. In the
dedicatory inscription of the Theban king Ahmose to Amun at
Karnak, various segments of the population are gathered to de
clare thier allegiance to the sovereign (57):
"Southerners, northerners, easterners, and westerners

came to him when he was established as Lord Who
Established his Two Lands, after he had taken pos
session (iji) of the inheritance of the One Who had
Engendered Him. Everybody (t3w tmw) had retreated
to him, for it was to him that his august father had
granted it. Now after he had grasped (jif') the
bmmt, and seized (3mm) the rljyt, while it was the p't
who were giving adoration to him, everybody said
(hr nb frr): 'He is our Lord I' The fr3w nbwt truly
said: 'We shall serve him!' All flat-landers
said: 'We belong to him! He is king whom Re has
caused to rule, whom Amun has magnifed. They have
granted to him the banks and flat-lands together
over which Re has shone.'"
Subsequent to the declaration of loyalty from the nobility (p't),
and foreigners (fr3w nbwt, t3w nbw), Ahmose admonishes them to
honor their agreement to him (see above for text) (58). Inter
estingly enough, the groups thence are persuaded to pay homage
to the king's royal wife Ahhotep (59). To a great degree the
scene is quite similar to the description of the swearing of the
loyalty oath in extra-Egyptian material. Another mass-gathering
scene is described in P. Harris (see above) following the instal
lation of Ramesses IV into office (60). That such procedures are
described in conjunction with royal coronations supports a com

428
parison with the non-Egyptian texts.
Although these texts suggest some sort of affinity with a
"loyalty" ceremony, there are some major differences between them
and the other ancient Near Eastern material which Weinfeld cites.
There are no stipulations concerning the disclosure of rebellion
or unrest, a particulary important characteristic of the Hittite
documents, as well as the Biblical and Assyrian texts (61). More
over, there is no suggestion of the use of the "curse" in order
to prevent an infringement of the oath which is also typical of
this material. As Weinfeld had observed, the Egyptian evidence
in both regards is quite slim. It had been noted above, that
the Nauri decree contains a stipulation to report abuses against
the estate and personnel of the Temples of Osiris at Abydos.
The enforcement mechanism, moreover, had been placed under the
authority of the divine. While closely related to the contin
gencies of the fealty oath, this instance cannot be categorized
as a "disclosure of rebellion", since technically it refers to
acts of embezzlement. The Execration Texts, despite their lack
of context, however, would appear to have been designed to deal
with the situations similar to the dramatized threats found in
texts such as the Hittite soldier's oath (62), or later Sefire
treaties (63).
Weinfeld noted that in the Turin Strike Papyrus (64), an
individual swears sdf3-tryt not to conceal any crime from the
king (65): "Pharaoh, l.p.h., my good lord caused a sdf3-tryt

429
saying: 'May I not hear matters (mdw), nor see abuse (j;3y) in
the great and dark places and conceal it." There is, however,
no threat accompanying the statement, which is typical for
Ramesside juridical oaths. Indeed, it is not at all certain
whether the sdf3-tryt was even an oath per se, since it was not
always invoked either in the name of the king or a deity (66).
There is an Egyptian text dating to the reign of Hatshepsut,
however, containing many of the elements typical to the oath
and ceremony which is the object of Weinfeld's study. More
importantly, it antedates all of the Hittite, Assyrian, and
Biblical material which he cites. The text forms part of
Hatshepsut's "Coronation Inscription" from Deir-el-Birth" epi
sodes (67). That this text should appear during Hatshepsut's
sole regency is really of no surprise, since her claim to the
kingship rested upon rather slender support and was clearly
illegal once Thutmosis III had come of age (68).
Although the inscription has been discussed by a number of
scholars, it more or less has been dismissed as being merely a
copy from older Middle Kingdom literary models. This was ad
vocated by both Breasted (69) and Gardiner (70), who had claimed
that it had been based upon a fragment of an inscription now in
the Berlin Museum (71). It is undeniable that the text contains
phrases and language which are imitative of Middle Kingdom liter
ature (72). The most obvious examples occur in Thutmosis I's
instructions to his court, where clear echoes of the Loyalist

430
may be observed. Moreover, the setting of the episode contains
the I&nigsnovelle phrase, "Happening of an audience in the
Palace"; a literary motif borrowed directly from the Berlin
Leather Roll introducing Sesostris I's audience with his coun
sellors (73). Likewise, the king's discourse contains archaisms,
particularly in the use of older pronominal forms, and the depen
dence upon casus pendens, or anticipatory emphasis as a means
for stress (74).
The obvious literary antecedants, and even the fallacy of
Hatshepsut's claim to sole rule and support of her father, how
ever, do not obscure the more noteworthy and unusual features
of the inscription. Indeed the description of the scene has all
the characteristics of recording some sort of fealty ceremony.
The text shall be presented in extenso because of its extreme
interest.
Following a private audience with his daughter, Thutmosis I
summons his advisors into court (75):
"Then my Majesty had brought to him the royal

nobles (spsw), officials (s'hw), and courtiers
(smrw), namely the Retinue of the Residence
(Sntit nt bnw) (76), and the leader of the rfryt,
until they made a decree on account of placing
the Majesty of his daughter who is in his
embrace in his palace of the court (77).
"Occurence of a sitting of the king himself

in the audience-hall of the imy-wrt s3 (78),
while these people were on their bellies in
the palace (79).
Now his Majesty said to (foft) them: 'This

my daughter Hnmt-Imn H3t-spswt, may she live-
I have appointed [her] as my heir (sti), and
she shall surely be upon this wonderful (bi3)
431
dais. She shall issue orders (wd mdw) to the

rfayt in all their offices of the palace.
Indeed, she shall surely lead you.
"'Listen to her word (mdw). Assemble upon

her command. He who shall worship (dw3) her:
It is he who shall live. He who shall speak
an evil thing in plotting (w3) against her
Majesty: It is he who shall die (80). As
suredly, as for any one who shall hear the
denigration of the name of her Majesty (81):
Surely it is he who shall go immediately in
order to report to the king, just as one
does on behalf of the name of my Majesty. . . (82).
"Indeed, it is the gods who shall fight on

her behalf, (for) they render protection
around her daily."
Copy of the decree of her father, Lord of the

gods (83).
The text is accompanied by a depiction of the gathered officials
doing obesiance, with a caption denoting their ranks (84).
Thereafter, the inscription commences (85):
"Then the royal nobles, officials, and leader

of the commoners (rfayt) listended to this royal
decree for the promotion of his daughter, the
King of Upper and Lower Egypt, M3't-k3-R', may
[she] live forever.
Then they kissed the earth at his feet, when

the royal command (mdw nswt) fell upon them.
They worshipped all the gods on behalf of the
King of Upper and Lower Egypt, '3~bpr-k3-r',
may he live forever.
Then they departed from them rejoicing. They

danced, they jubilated. All the commoners,
and all the dwellings (sdrw) of the residence
heard, then they came to them rejoicing. It
was more than anything that they jubilated.
Dwelling by dwelling therein was opening
its mouth. The infantry, division by divi
sion . . . (86) they dance, they frollicked,
their hearts rejoiced.
432
They surely proclaimed (m3t) the name of her

Majesty as king, while her Majesty was a youth
(87). Indeed, the Great God motivated their
hearts on behalf of his daughter M3't-k3-R',
may she live forever. Indeed, they recognized
(rfr) that she was surely the daughter of the
god (88). Indeed, they assuredly were ben
efited through her great power more than anything.
As for anybody who shall surely love her

with his heart, who adores her daily, he
shall surely be exalted (?) (89), he shall
surely prosper more than anything. As for
anybody who shall speak against the name of
her Majesty: It is immediately that God
shall cause his death. Indeed, it is the
gods who render her protection daily.
When the Majesty of this her father heard

that all the commoners had proclaimed the
name of his daughter as king, although her
Majesty was as a child, then the heart of
his Majesty was moved more than anything.
The episode concludes with the summoning of the hry-frb who pro
nounce the titulary of Hatshepsut, acknowledging her as king (90).
Regardless of the propagandistic overtones of the text, and
the probable apologetic motives which prompted its formulation,
there are some important procedural features which should be
noted:
1) The summoning of the officials who make up the king's
entourage, and a representative of the general populace to pro
claim their loyalty.
2) The text stipulates that they are to obey the new regent.
Included are blessings for loyalty, and a threat for treason.

433
There is also the added condition to report anybody speaking
against the new king.
3) The acclamation of the new king by the general populace,
including communities around the Residence, along with the mil
itary.
4) Blessings and threats are invoked upon these grpups to
guarantee their future loyalty.
As noted previously, the language of the text has been very
much influenced by Loyalist literature. Typical of this genre
are the adjurations to subjects to "adore" (dw3) "obey" (s^m),
and "love" (mrr) the king "with one's (lit. his) heart" (m ib.f)
(91). But, despite the overwhelming insistence on the universal
acceptance of Hatshepsut's regency, there is also the added con
tingency stating that reports of disloyalty were to be conveyed
personally to the king. The term employed at this juncture is
s'r, which also has the added technical meaning "to (legally)
accuse" (92). Indeed, it is important to note that the duty
to be performed on Hatshepsut's behalf is categorized as: "Just
as one does on behalf of the name of my Majesty", obviously
referring to Thutmosis I. The reference to a specific judicatory
procedure predating Hatshepsut's reign would suggest that this
should not be considered to have been an isolated practice, but
rather a standard legal stipulation (93). Indeed, the command
to report disloyalty as well as the invocation of the blessing

434
and threat, are patterned on jurdicial formulae. This is par-
ticulary evident in the subsequent admonitions to the gathered
populace where the stipulations closely resemble codified legal
statutes. The already quoted sdf3-tryt from the Strike Papyrus,
stating that nothing would be concealed from the king suggests
that, at least by the Ramesside Period, the practice had become
a standard codicil in criminal law. Hence, in the preceedings
of the trial for conspiracy against Harnesses III, the so-called
Judicial Papyrus of Turin (94), malefactors are characterized
as those who had actually participated in rebellion (95), those
in league with the conspirators (96), and those who had known
of the plot, but had not divulged it to the authorities (97).
All three were capital offences and carried the death penalty
(98). This recalls the reference to report rumors of treasonous
behavior, and makes it likely that such a contingency was sub
sumed under a legal stipulation, which is preserved only in
Hatshepsut's Coronation Inscription.
The reliance upon deities for guaranteeing a subject's
disclosure of treasonous news, and in prompting an individual's
loyalty to the crown is striking. Once more, matters of personal
conscience and obedience, and their enforcement have been placed
under the authority of the divine realm. The gods (ntrw) implic
itly are witnesses to the ceremony, and as the text clearly
states, are the instruments of punishment for any breach of
faith. This is certain since the pronouncement of the blessing

435
and the threat also occurs in the "Divine Birth" narrative prior
to Hatshepsut's creation, and originates from the mouth of the
god Amun himself (99).
It would seem likely that the inscription of Hatshepsut is
a reflection of an Egyptian coronation ceremony. Indeed the
text employs the terms wdt hr rdit hm n s3t pn . . .m'h.f n ist,
"decree about placing the majesty of this daughter. . . in his
palace of the court" (100) and wd-mdw tn nt sjjnt n s3t.f, "this
decree for the promotion of his daughter" (101). Both expres
sions suggest a specific legal procedure referring to royal
succession had been enacted. On the other hand, Redford had
suggested that the text is actually a distortion of a "coming
of age" presentation to the court (102). If that be the case,
the inscription may allude to Thutmosis I's sponsorship of his
daughter -not as king- but rather simply to enlist the loyalty
of his courtiers to members of the royal family, a practice
well-attested in later Assyrian documents (103). The general
similarities in content in Hatshepsut's coronation - the public
gathering, adjuration to devotion and love towards the king,
blessings and threats - with what is known about the loyalty oath
from the Hittite, Assyrian, and Biblical documentation however,
suggests a real affinity, if not actual correspondence between
the different sources. It is quite natural, even expected, to
find parallels in terminology referring to disclosure of plots
and securing loyalty to the Egyptian king, since these were

436
concerns which affected the Egyptians as well as many other
ancient peoples. That such a procedure and its stipulations
should accompany the accession of a new king comes as no sur
prise. The Hatshepsut inscription, however, is much earlier
than Weinfeld's other material for the loyalty oath, and might
suggest another possible source and avenue for the dissemination
of common juridical language and practices throughout the ancient
Near East (104).
Besides the Coronotion Inscription, there are several other
texts from Hatshepsut's reign which reveal a sensitivity to, and
one might say, almost pathological obsession with what her subjects
think and say about her (105). Moreover, there is a real concern
with the queen's possible standing with posterity-an attitude
somewhat justified by the subsequent treatment of her reign by
her successor, Thutmosis III (106). Not surprisingly, it is
during Hatshepsut's reign, that a much stronger emphasis upon
the threat as legal device is evident. It has been noted that
one of the rare Eighteenth Dynasty threats against potential
violators of the deceased's property occurs in the tomb inscrip
tion of Senmut her favorite (107). Likewise, in an inscription
of Hapu-seneb from the Temple of Mut invoking the protection of
the goddess Sekhmet, there appears the following ominous remarks
on behalf of Hatshepsut (108): "0 Sekhmet, Powerful of Heart,
be powerful of heart against those who would hate her (msddyw
82)."
437
The invocation and dependence upon divine elements to en
force Hatshepsut's will and guarantee her political status,
clearly stresses the tenuousness of her claims to. the throne,
and to a great degree, is characteristic of, even unique to,
her reign.
It had been noted above that ancient Near Eastern sovereigns
compelled not only the domestic populations of their countries
to swear allegiance to them by oath, but that this practice
extended to vassal subjects as well. In such circumstances,
fealty was attested throught the arrangement of treaties, which
to an extent, were nothing more than elaborate loyalty oaths.
The variation in terminology is appropriate however, since trea
ties also dealt with such diverse matters as trade, diplomatic
procedures, the payment and delivery of tribute, extradition of
fugitives, and the behavior of the vassal in time of war (109).
The study of ancient Near Eastern treaty-texts is a subject
of extreme interest, and one in which substantial progress has
been accomplished. Modern scholarship has been especially suc
cessful in using literary criticism in the area of treaty and
covenant formulations. The fundamental study in this regard was
V. Korosec's analysis of Hittite treaty documents (110). He was
able to isolate and define specific "literary" characteristics
within the structure of these texts, and noted that they conformed
v
to what was more or less a generalized scheme. Korosec concluded
438
that the Hittite treaty consisted of six parts (111). 1) Pre
amble; 2) Historical prologue; 3) Stipulations; 4) Provisions
for preservation of the text and public reading; 5) List of
gods as witnesses to the treaty; 6) Blessings and curses.
George Mendenhall subsequently utilized Korosec's results in
a comparison of the Hittite suzerainty-treaty with the Biblical
covenants from Sinai and Shechem in Exodus 20 and Joshua 24,
respectively (112). From there, comparative studies in the area
of treaties and covenants has grown enormously, with a whole
body of secondary literature being devoted to the subject (113).
As in the case of the loyalty oath, the major documentation
originates from, though is not necessarily restricted to, Hittite,
Assyrian, and Biblical sources (114). This is due to the simple
reason that a substantial amount of material has survived from
these peoples, not only in references in literary and historical
texts to treaties and covenants, but the actual treaty-texts
themselves have been preserved. Unlike the situation with the
loyalty oath, however, the Egyptian evidence is a little more
substantial, although still scanty when compared with other
ancient Near Eastern documentation. What has remained from the
Egyptian side is nonetheless, quite valuable, since an actual
treaty - that between Ramesses II and the Hittite king,
Hattushilish III - is attested both in Akkadian cuneiform and
Egyptian hieroglyphic versions. Thus, it is beyond doubt that
by the Ramesside Period, the Egyptians were aware of the form

439
and structure of Late Bronze Age treaties.
The Egyptian-Hittite Treaty of Year 21 (ie. concluded in
Ramesses II's twenty-first year of rule) is usually considered
by scholars to be an example of a parity treaty, since both
partners are addressed as equals, and are, for the most part,
bound by mutual obligations (115). This is obviously quite
different from the better-attested suzerainty treaty, wherein
a superior (Great King) dictates the stipulations of the agree
ment to a subordinate or vassal (116). The designation of the
Treaty of Year 21 as a parity treaty, however, is utilized more
out of convenience. Firstly, it is the only complete example
of this legal type that we possess from the ancient Near East,
and is something of an anomalous document (117). Moreover, a
designation such as "Mutual Defense Pact" or "Mutual Assistance
Alliance" may be more accurate, since the text is very much
concerned with reciprocal aid in case of hostile actions against
either party (118). Likewise, there are some stipulations in
the text which seem to be applicable only to the Egyptian king
(119). These obligate Ramesses II to support the successor of
Hattushilish III to the throne of Hatti upon the demise of the
Hittite king (120). This section is not preserved in the
Akkadian copies, and there are some indications that it had not
been included as part of the original cuneiform text (121)
Nevertheless, the general structure of the agreement be

440
tween Ramesses II and Hattushilish III may be summarized as
follows:
1) Royal titles and Preamble (122);
2) History of the relations between the parties prior to the
present treaty (123);
3) Affirmation of parity (lit. "brotherhood") and stipulations
or terms (124);
4) List of divine witnesses (125);
5) Curse and blessing (126);
Unlike the better-attested suzerainty treaties, there are no
written provisions for the preservation of the text and public
reading. The Egyptian copies of the treaty, however, were en
graved upon the walls of Theban temples, and were easily acces
sible to the population (127). Moreover, in later cuneiform
correspondence of Ramesses II to Hattushilish III, the Egyptian
king proclaims his adherence to the treaty as follows (128):
"See, the document/tablet of the oath which I

[have made] for the Great King of Hatti, my
brother, lies at the feet of [. . .], and before
the Great Gods; They are witnesses of t[he words
of the oath].
"And see, the document/tablet of the oath which
the Great King, [the king of Hatti, my brother,]
had made for me, [lies] as the feet of the Sun-
god of [Heliopolis] and before the Great Gods;
they are witnesses of the word[s of the oath]."
This certainly attests to the practice of depositing copies of
the treaty in the respective temples of the partners to the oath,
although the stipulation has been excluded from the actual treaty-
text (129). The Treaty of Year 21, however, exhibits the same
441
basic features found in the standard Hittite suzerainty-treaty,
except for the obvious difference in the status of the correspond
ing parties.
As with the previously discussed loyalty oath, ancient Near
Eastern treaties contained maledictions, or "treaty-curses",
which were utilized in order to guarantee the observance of the
terms of the document through threat of divine punishment in
case of violation (130). Hittite treaties likewise, concluded
with this feature (131); this section, fortunately, has been
preserved in the Egyptian copies of the Year 21 treaty. Another
characteristic of the Hittite documents, however, is the inclusion
of a blessing for adherence to the oath. This feature also has
survived in the hieroglyphic versions (132).
"As for these words which are upon this silver

tablet of the land of Hatti and of the land of
Egypt: As for anybody who shall not observe
them- A thousand gods from the land of Hatti
and a thousand gods from the land of Egypt
shall destroy his house, his land, and his
servants.
"But as for anybody who shall observe these

words which are upon this tablet of silver,
whether they are in Hatti, or whether they
are citizens of Egypt, and they are not un
observant of them- A thousand gods of the
land of Hatti, and a thousand gods of the
land of Egypt shall grant him health and
life, along with his households, and his
land, and his servants,"
As noted, the Treaty of Year 21 has survived in several
copies, and this has enabled scholars to reconstruct some of
the lacunae that may be present in any one text. The Egyptian
442
hieroglyphic versions are from inscriptions found at Karnak and
the Ramesseum, while the Akkadian doucraents come from the royal
Hittite archives of Hattushash. When the two versions of the
treaty are examined, however, a basic difference in the composi
tion can be noted. The cuneiform copies exhibit the basic treaty-
form referred to above. Although the concluding sections of the
tablets have been lost, they most likely contained the god-list,
the curse and the blessing. The Karnak copy of the treaty, how
ever, opens with an Egyptian date formula, and a lengthy liter
ary introduction describing the arrival of the Hittite envoys,
and the delivery of the original treaty-tablet to Ramesses II
at the royal residence of Per-Ramesses (133). Then follows the
preamble to the actual treaty-document. Moreover, the Egyptian
versions conclude the stipulations with a description of the
original silver tablet from Hatti, and of the elaborate seal
of the Hittite king (134). The most significant difference
between the copies, however, is the arrangement of the hiero
glyphic texts. Unlike the cuneiform documents, the list of
divine witnesses and the curse and blessing sections are placed
in the midst of stipulations dealing with the extradition of
fugitives (135). Such an arrangement disrupts the legal portions
of the text; moreover, it does not conform to the standard
Hittite arrangement of treaty-texts.
Scholars have posited various suggestions to explain this
discrepancy in the formulation of the hieroglyphic texts.

443
Schulman stated that the Egyptian texts were in all likelihood
translations of the Boghazkoi versions of the treaty (136).
Conversely, the Akkadian documents would have been the Egyptian
versions of the text. Schulman stressed (137): "The term 'Egyp
tian version' should always be understood to refer to the cunei
form text of the Boghazkoi tablets, and the term "Hittite version"
should always be understood to refer to the hieroglyphic texts
of Karnak and the Ramesseum." Indeed, the earlier study of
Langdon and Gardiner noted that the hieroglyphic texts were
translations of the silver tablet sent by Hattushilish III to
Ramesses II (138). Spalinger concurred with Schulman's assess
ment of the provenance of the respective texts (139). More pre
cisely, he concluded after a lengthy grammatical analysis of the
cuneiform documents, that they were Akkadian translations which
had been composed in Egypt by Egyptian scribes (140). He sup
ported this suggestion by noting that the Akkadian was marked
by some odd syntactical features which could only be explained
as a king of vulgarized "Egyptian-Akkadian" (141).
The attribution that the Hattushilish treaty is the Egyp
tian hieroglyphic texts, and the Ramesses II treaty is the
Akkadian versions is suggested by the respective documents them
selves. The inscription from Karnak notes that the treaty was a
"Copy (mitt) of the silver tablet which the Great Chief of Hatti,
Hattushilish, had brought to Pharaoh" (142); and "The customary

444
stipulations (nt-') which the Great Chief of Hatti, Hattushilish
. . . made upon a silver tablet for Wsr-m3't-R'-stp-n-R'" (143).
Likewise, the Akkadian tablets state: "[The treaty of R]eam-
ashesha mai Amana ([rikiltu]). . • with Hattushilish." Moreover,
the initial placement and primacy of Hittite, rather then Egyp
tian deities in the god-list and curse and blessing also bolsters
the contention that the Karnak and Ramesseum texts were the
Hittite version of the treaty (144).
Spalinger explained the (dis)placement of the god-list and
the curse and blessing formulations in the midst of the extradi
tion terms as an Egyptian mistake in translating the Hittite
treaty-tablet (145). He suggested that the Egyptian scribes
were unfamiliar with the physical arrangements of the Hittite
treaty, wherein the columns of the tablet were inverted from
recto to verso (146). Thus, the Egyptian translator(s) misread
the verso of the cuneiform text, copying the stipulations and
concluding parts of the treaty, including the god-list and curse
and blessing in the opposite, and hence, the wrong order (147).
While this explanation has its appeal, it leaves several
problems unresolved. The first is that the Akkadian copies of
the Egyptian treaty are in the correct order as far as the text
is preserved. This was noted by Spalinger who stated (148):
"This solution for the anomaly in the Egyptian version also
explains why such an error did not happen in the Akkadian
version. There, the scribes who translated their Egyptian into

445
Akkadian had no problems dealing with columns, as the original
document was in Egyptian." This, however, leads into endless
speculation regarding the Vorlage of the hieroglyphic texts.
Since the Akkadian=Egyptian translations are seemingly correct
in their formulation of the treaty, this suggests that the Egyp
tian scribes knew both, namely the proper order of the treaty,
and, more importantly, what they were translating. Spalinger's
explanation would suggest that the translation from Akkadian
into Egyptian represented by the Karnak and Ramesseum texts,
was accomplished by scribes who were unfamiliar with both the
rigid formulation of the treaty and the proper procedure for
reading diplomatic correspondence in Akkadian. This seems un
likely, since the Egyptians, though quite late in dealing with
cuneiform when compared with the scribal traditions of
Mesopotamia, had at least a century's experience with such docu
ments as attested by the extensive correspondence found in the
Amarna archives (149). Moreover, it seems probable that the
Egyptian translations from Akkadian into hieroglyphic (or hier
atic), and vice-versa, were undertaken by the same scribal and
diplomatic departments.
Schmidt, on the other hand, suggested that the provisions
for the amnesty of extradited fugitives which have been placed
after the curse and blessing section, were actually an addendum
to the major portions of the alliance (150). These were thus
added sometime after the initial negotiations had been concluded.

446
It should be stressed again, that neither the Karnak/Rame-
sseum inscriptions nor the Borghazkoy tablets were the originals
or exemplars of the treaty itself. To recapitulate the intro
duction of the Karnak text, the original treaty had been engraved
upon a silver tablet in Hatti and brought to the Residence at
Per-Ramesses; although it is not stated, a similar text written
on precious metal was probably conveyed to Hattushash. Likewise,
the later correspondence of Ramesses II to Hattushilish III
refers to another copy of the treaty which had been deposited
at Heliopolis. This suggests that several copies of the treaty
were circulated and used within Egypt itself. Indeed, it seems
probable that versions of the text were deposited at various
important shrines throughout Egypt. When one compares the Karnak
and Ramesseum texts, variations in spelling and othography are
evident, suggesting that different temples were in possession of
slightly divergent copies of the text (151).
Recently McCarthy has shown that although the Hittite trea
ties usually followed a standard scheme, there were some impor
tant departures from it. This was especially true with later
copies of treaties, where whole sections of the text might be
displaced or simply omitted (152). Indeed, some texts, such as
the series of Hittite-Kaska treaties, place the god-list in
media res similar to the Egyptian translation of the Treaty of
Year 21 (153). A particulary interesting example is the Ulmi-
Teshub treaty which contains a summary abridgement of earlier

447
agreements, two god-lists, a curse-blessing formulation, which
is followed by appended stipulations (154). This might support
Schmidt's contention that the extradition clauses had been added
sometime following the primary diplomatic negotiations. McCarthy
posited a suggestion along similar lines, stating that the Karnak
text may have been a copy of one of the first drafts of the
treaty (155). McCarthy's reasoning is attractive and suggests
that the hieroglyphic inscriptions, though containing all the
elements of the standard treaty-text, were simply copies (per
haps second or third generation versions of the original) in
tended for distribution and publication throughout Egypt. It
should be noted, however, that the discrepancy in the arrangement
of the hieroglyphic treaty-texts is the "fault" of the Hittite
version, not the Egyptian. The Akkadian cuneiform texts do
exhibit the proper sequence of clauses, and if one follows
Spalinger's thesis, were probably drawn up by Egyptian scribes.
Thus, this indicates that the Egyptians were knowledgeable of
both the structure and function of the international treaty-form.
It should not be assumed, however, that Egyptian familiarity
with treaties was limited to this single surviving example.
Indeed, the historical prologue to the Ramesses II-Hattushilish
III alliance mentions at least one prior agreement between the
two countries (156). The earlier Amarna letters, likewise, are
replete with "treaty-terminology", and strongly suggest that

448
the Pharaohs of the late Eighteenth Dynasty were well-acquainted
with the language and procedures of international diplomacy (157).
Difficulties arise, however, when any type of analyses of the
material is attempted. Mere references to "treaties" and "oaths"
in "literary" and "historical" texts are of little help in demon
strating the precise form such documents would have assumed in
actual diplomatic practices of the Egyptians. Indeed, it is
questionable if an earlier treaty, particularly a"suzerainty"-
treaty, would have been similar in form to the later Ramesses II
texts. Since the Hittite treaties normally exhibit a character
istic structure, it nevertheless seems logical to extrapolate
that any earlier agreement between Egypt and Hatti was generally
similar to the text of Year 21.
Especially relevant to our discussion of the use of the
threat in international relations, or so-called "treaty-curse",
are the references to an earlier agreement between Egypt and
Hatti, which is commonly referred to as the Kurushtama treaty
(158). Although it is uncertain when it had been negotiated,
the treaty was considered to have been in effect during the
reigns of Akhnaton and Tutankhamun, and the great Hittite king,
Shuppiluliumas (159). The major sources for this agreement
are the Hittite annalistic text, "The Deeds of Shuppiluliumas"
(160), and the religious document, "The Plague Prayers of
Murshilish" (161), both dating from the reign of Murshilish II.

449
The former relates how Shuppiluliumas referred to the treaty-
tablet itself, while negotiating the marriage of one of his sons
to the widow of an Egyptian king, probably Ankhesenamun, the
wife of Tutankhamun (162):
"Then my father asked for the tablet of the

treaty again, (in which there was told) how
formerly the Storm God took the people of
Kurushtama, sons of Hatti, and carried them
to Egypt and made them Egyptians; and how
the Storm God concluded a treaty between the
countries of Egypt and Hatti, and how they
were continuously friendly with each other."
Likewise in the Plague Prayers of Murshilish II, a reference
to the same treaty occurs. The text describes the out-break of
a deadly epidemic in Hatti, and how the diseased ravaged the
royal Hittite household, killing Shuppiluliumas and a number of
his family. In order to appease the Hittite deities, Murshilish
undertook an investigation to discover the cause of the pesti
lence which was regarded as a sign of divine anger. After de
scribing a search through the Hittite archives, Murshilish's
account refers to two tablets in which there was a clue for the
reason of his country's affliction (163):
"The second tablet concerned Kurushtama.

When the Hattian Storm-god had brought peo
ple of Kurushtama to the country of Egypt
and had made an agreement concerning them
with the Hattians, so that they were under
oath to the Hattian Storm-god, the Hattians
ignored their obligations; the Hattians
promptly broke the oath of the gods. My
father sent foot-soldiers and charioteers
who attacked the country of Amqa Egyptian
territory. . .
"When they (the Hittites) moved the

450
prisoners (ie. Egyptian soldiers) to the

Hatti land, these prisoners carried the
plague into the Hatti land. From that
day on people have been dying in the
Hatti land. Now when I found that tablet
dealing with the country of Egypt, I made
the matter the subject of an oracle of
the god (and asked): 'Those arrangements
which were made by the Hattian Storm-god,
that the Damnassaras deities were present
in the temple of the Hattian Storm-god,
and that the Hattians promptly broke
their word - has this perhaps become the
cause of the anger of the Hattian Storm-
god, my lord?' And (so) it was estab
lished."
Apart from the important historical information concerning
Hittite-Egyptian relations at the close of the Amarna period,
the accounts are interesting on a number of other points. Firstly,
both texts refer to the negotiation of a treaty whose stipulations
were equally binding upon both countries. This suggests that
procedurally, both parties would have been in possession of
documents that were identical in structure and content, as with
the later Ramesses II-Hattushilish III text. Not unexpectedly,
the agreement is said to have been sworn in the presence of gods.
The text describes the divine parties as the "Storm-god" and the
"Damnassaras deities", thereby reflecting the Hittite bias of
the references (164). It seems certain that Egyptian gods also
would have been invoked by both parties. Such deities are prob
ably included in the general designation of the treaty as the
"oath of the gods". The Hittite failure to maintain their treaty-
obligations- explicitly cited as an attack on Egyptian territory

451
near Damascus- resulted in a violation of the divine oaths, and
ultimately provided a raison d'etre for the Black Plague in Hatti
(165). The manifestation of divine vegeance, thus, demonstrates
the underlying motivation for the divine witness list in inter
national agreements, as well as the efficacy of the oath and
threat in sealing a treaty (166). Again, it is significant
that Kurushtama references describe how both parties, Hittite
and Egyptian, had been forsworn. Therefore, the Egyptian part
ners to the oath were considered to have been under the sanction
of divine punishment in case of violation of the agreement.
Unfortunately, the form such "treaty-curses" would have assumed
in the Kurushtama treaty are not noted in the literary references
to the document.
The preceding discussion of the use of the threat in inter
national agreements has been limited primarily to Egyptian-
Hittite contacts. Some scholars, notably Liverani, have argued
that Pharaonic relations with their vassals in Syria-Palestine,
especially during the Eighteenth Dynasty, were of a fundamentally
different nature than that represented by the Hittite system of
suzerainty reflected in their treaties (167). It had been
briefly noted, however, that the diplomatic correspondence from
the Amarna archives contains terminology frequently encountered
in other Near Eastern treaties and covenantal contexts. For
example, the Amarna letters typically refer to parity status

452
between kings as "brotherhood", using the Akkadian term afcfcutu,
as does the later Treaty of Year 21 (168). Not surprisingly, the
benefits resulting from recognition of, and loyalty to, the Egyp
tian crown are called in the Amarna texts, tabutu, "goddness";
or the hendiadys, ahfautu u tabutu, "brotherhood and goodness"
(169). Likewise, both allies and vassals are said to "love"
(ra'amu), or to have "love/treaty-friendship" (ra'amutu) for the
Egyptian king, as do other Near Eastern treaty-documents (170).
Characteristically, great kings are addressed as "brothers/equals"
whereas vassals employ the well-attested designation "servant"
(ardu), or "loyal servant"(arad kitti) of the Pharaoh, in ref
erences to themselves (171). Occasionally the Egyptian monarch
is called the "father" (172) of the vassal, though he is usually
addressed as "lord" (belu) (173). In a few rare instances, the
subordinate is mentioned as the "son" of the king (174). Thus,
the diplomatic terminology present in the Amarna letters is
characteristic of other ancient Near Eastern treaty-material,
and indicates that the Egyptians were aware on some level, of the
nunaces of international "legal" language (175).
The Amarna letters themselves do reveal something of the
dynamics of the relationship between the Pharaohs and their
vassals in the latter part of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Upon
recognition of the Egyptian king as "overlord", vassals obliged
themselves to pay tribute, to appear at the king's court at
regular intervals, to be faithful only to the Egyptian suzerain,

453
and to report any news of potential trouble against Pharaonic
authority (176). The extensive correspondence of Rib-adda, for
example, in which he relays rumors and hear-say of insurrection
to the Egyptian court provides vivid testimony to the actual
implementation of treaty-stipulations (177).
In EA 24, Tushratta, the king of Mitanni, an ally of Amenophis
III, invokes the Hurrian deity Teshub and the Egyptian god Amun
to oversee the legal aspects of the parity relationship between
his country and Egypt, thereby recalling the function of the god-
list in other treaty-formulations (178). There are, however, no
explicit references to imprecations or "curses" sworn in this
circumstance.
References to "oath" or "treaty-documents", themselves,
however, are scarce. In EA 148.35, Abimilki of Tyre writes to
the Egyptian king that another chieftain had initiated hostil
ities, and thus had not fulfilled his "oath" to the Egyptian
monarch (179). Elsewhere (EA 67.13; 149.60), it is stated that
potential trouble-makers had entered into "oaths" with each other
(180). The use of the Akkadian word mamltu, "oath", occasionally
is a term for "treaty" and does occur frequently in Hittite texts
with that meaning (181). The mlmitu, while usually referring
to a "sworn agreement", also has the technical meaning of the
"oath" along with the punitive clauses, usually formulated as
"curses" or threats (182). These were, of course, the enforcement

454
mechanism, and were used as a guarantee against violation of the
terms of the treaty. Whether this is the case in the preceding
Amarna references is not at all clear. EA 149.35 may be an attempt
to translate the Egyptian term 'ntji or _]_rfc, "oath" into Akkadian.
Hence, the usage would have reflected an Egyptian understanding of
the legal term; it is not certain whether an "Egyptian" "oath"
formally included a threat or "curse" in its implementation.
Indeed, the material which has survived is limited to examples
used in litigation in the local Egyptian courts (183). Moreover,
cases in which an oath included an invocation of punishment for
its violation, are later than the Eighteenth Dynasty (184). Thus,
the comparison of the oath as it was routinely used in the tribu
nals of Egypt, with a "vassal's oath" or "treaty" is probably
not helpful. On the other hand, the references to oath-taking
among Semitic chieftans, as in the case of the examples cited
above, could possibly allude to the more technical meaning of the
term as "treaty" or "pact", including maledictions, since this
seems to have been standard procedure in the political and cultural
back-ground of Syria-Palestine (185).
There are however, two specific references in the Amarna
correspondence to "curses". The first occurs in EA 179.25 ff. in
a letter from an unnamed vassal to the Egyptian king: "And I
curse (erar) my brother, and protect (the city of) Tubilji for the
king, my lord, my god, [my Sun]." Earlier in the letter, the
correspondent states that the unnamed vassal's "brother", pre

455
sumably an ally residing in Tubihi, had stirred up enmity against
the Pharaoh (186). The vassal's "cursing" of his "brother" is
contrasted with his own "protection" of the king's property, and
thus seems to have the general nuance of "to denounce", rather
than any religious implications of divine vengeance associated
with the term (187). More interesting perhaps is EA 193.17.
Again the emphasis of the letter is the loyalty of a vassal,
namely Diyati, to the king: "But the man who will not serve
(la iuradu), the king will curse him (yirarusu)." The word araru
is a common Akkadian term for "curse" (188), and the nominalized
formation arratu, refers to maledictions sanctioning legal docu
ments (189). In this instance, however, it is stated that the
Egyptian king himself, is the instigator of the "curse", and not
any divine or supernatural agency which is typical of Mesopotamian
documents. Hence, this might be an instance where the terminology
reflects Egyptian usuage (190).
Due to the limited context of the Amarna correspondence, it
is impossible to ascertain whether references to "oaths" or "curs
ing" are evidentiary of a treaty-text itself, or any of its con
stituent parts. It should be emphasized that the letters from
vassals to the Egyptian court clearly allude to legal matters.
Unfortunately, the situations, problems, and possible solutions
to which the sender and recipient refer and respond, though
obvious to the parties involved, have become obscured or complete
ly lost to us (191). This is quite disappointing when one attempts

456
to find traces of the threat or "treaty-curse" in these documents.
The letters, however, do give considerable evidence regarding
the complexity of the contacts and responsibilities between the
Pharaonic court and its foreign holdings. The correspondence
from Egypt's Syro-Palestinian vassals, though overtly self-serving,
stresses an ideal of loyalty which bound the petty chief to the
king (192). Indeed, some of the expressions employed in these
letters recall very much the Loyalist Instruction of the Egyptian
literary texts. Considering the universal esteem that the concept
of loyalty had among the royal courts of the ancient Near East,
it is not surprising to find its reflection in the Amarna corre
spondence (193). Foreign vassals considered themselves to be
servants of the Egyptian king, and thus, were obliged to fulfill
certain obligations to their lord. Hence, in EA 147, a highly
poetic letter of the Tyrian ruler, Abimilki, to Akhnaton, the
vassal proclaims his fidelity to Pharaoh (194):
"On my belly, on my back, I bear the word

of the king, my lord. As for him who hearkens
to the king, his lord, and serves him in his
place, the Sun-god shall rise over him, and the
sweet-breath from the mouth of his lord
shall give him life (!); But as for him who
does not listen to the word of the king,
his lord, his city shall perish, his dynasty
shall perish, his name shall not exist in the
whole land forever. Behold, the servant who
hearkens to his lord- it shall be well with
his city, it shall be well with his house; his
name shall exist forever."
In a study of the correspondence of Abimilki to the court of
Amenophis III and Akhnaton, Albright remarked upon the "rampant"

457
Egyptianisms in these texts (195). He particularly noted the
striking similarity of the paen to the Egyptian king to Amarna
hymnology (196). Especially tantalizing, however, are the threat
and blessing quoted by the Tyrian king above. Their use in the
letter emphasizing the possible punishment for disloyalty and
rewards for obedience, precisely parallels maledictions found in
treaties and loyalty oaths. The quotations of Abimilki, however,
are not used in a technical or legal sense. They do not refer
to the imposition of an oath per se or the provisions of a treaty.
Instead, the vassal's statements are utilized more in a "proverbial"
manner, and are obviously meant to remind the Egyptian king that
the ruler of Tyre has conformed to the ideal of the loyal vassal.
Again, the discourse of Abimilki is very much like the admonitions
typical of the Loyalist texts. Indeed, the Loyalist attained
considerable expression during the reign of Akhnaton, and its
popularity is reflected in a number of inscriptions surviving
from that time (197). Albright, moreover, has suggested that EA
147 had been composed by an Egyptian scribe who had resided at
the Tyrian court (198). Such an identification, however, has been
disputed in a later study by Gevirtz (199). Nevertheless, there
must have been considerable literary and cultural contacts between
the two countries at this time.
Structurally, the syntax of the threat and blessing super
ficially resembles a "treaty-curse" and corresponding blessing;
both contain a protasis and apodosis typical of "legal" formulae

458
(200). Albright had noted, however, that the tense sequence and
verbal forms used in the apodictic statements of Abimilki are
fairly rare in standard Akkadian (201). On a contextual level,
moreover, there appears to be an interesting admixture of what
might be termed "Asiatic" and Egyptian elements in the composition
of the threat. The punishment, namely the demise of the offender,
his city, and his "house" or "dynasty" (bitusu) is typical of
Hittite and Mesopotamian curse formulae, and is quite similar to
the previously quoted example from the later Ramesses II-Hattush-
ilish III treaty (202). Albright has suggested, on the other
hand, that the threat against the name (Akk. sumu) or "status" of
the person was characteristic of Egyptian thought (203). Indeed,
he easily re-translated the Akkadian into its Egyptian prototype.
The malediction quoted by Abimilki, hence, suggests something
akin to the use of the "treaty-curse", although it cannot be stated
with any certainty that this is an allusion to some injunction
from an actual treaty between Tyre and Egypt. Moreover, there is
a fundamental difference between the contemporary Hittite male
dictions and the Amarna quotation: The former almost always invoke
the power of some divine agent ("the lords of the oath") to exact
punishment against the treaty-breaker (204). In EA 147, no god is
mentioned to enforce a possible breach of faith.
It is clear, however, from subsequent portions of the same
letter, that the Egyptian king alone was considered to be respon
sible for the welfare of his vassal. Immediately following the

459
threat for disobedience, Abimilki praises the life-sustaining
quailities of the Pharaoh (205). Hence, it seems likely that
it was the Pharaoh himself, rather than the divine forces prom
inent in the Hittite "treaty-curses", who was considered by his
foreign subject to have been the agent for punishment and reward
within the Egyptian "imperium".
Fidelity is clearly a major theme of the Amarna correspondence;
it is not however, confined solely to the examples sent from
subjects to Pharaoh. There are a few cases wherein the letters
from the king to a vassal have survived. Liverani has stressed,
however, that this is a relatively rare event (206). A notable
and telling exception is the correspondence of the king to the
rulers of Amurru (207). The Egyptian relations with Aziru, and
his father and predecessor, Abdi-Ashirta, the chiefs of Amurru,
are marked by intrigue, political maneuverings, and guile.
Situated between the growing influence of Hatti, the collapsing
Mitannian state, and the apparent neglect by Pharaoh of his posses
sions in the north, the chiefs of Amurru sought to consolidate
and expand their influence among disaffected groups of the small
city-states of northern Syria and the coastal cities of Lebanon.
(208). Amurru's expansive tendencies were noted with alarm by
the threatened chiefs who were allied to Egypt, and who had relied
upon Pharaonic troops for protection. The letters of the ruler
of Byblos, Ribadda, provide the most eloquent testimony to a

460
deteriorating political situation. Although the letters of the
Byblian ruler are characterized by excessive rhetoric and a tendency
to exaggerate, his concerns over the activity of Abdi-Ashirta and
his son should be viewed as genuine (209). Egypt's response to
the problem, especially during the reign of Akhnaton, was for the
most part ineffective (210).
One letter from Pharaoh to Aziru, however, is particularly
revealing. EA 162 is one of the few surviving examples of an
attempt by the Pharaonic court to curb the machinations of the
chief of Amurru. The letter contains a stern warning to Aziru (211):
"But if you do become serviceable to the king,

your lord, then what would it be that the king
would not do for you? But if you wish to do
any evil, or to incite evil, or if you plot evil
(and) words of hate in your heart - Then you
will die by the axe of the king, together with
all your family."
The king's dispatch had been prompted by reports of Aziru's at
tempts to entice elements within Byblos to rebel against Egyptian
authority, and to remove the Pharaonic client, Rib-adda, from
office (212). The ruler of Amurru was also reported to have given
sanctuary to a claimant to the Byblian throne, and had refused
to deliver the harbored fugitive to the proper authorities. Else
where in the letter, Aziru's failure to extradite Rib-adda's enemy
is denounced by Akhnaton as a "sin" (bltu) (213). The use of this
term, as well as the designations of Aziru's activities as "evil"
and "words of hate" (ie. hostility) are frequently encountered in

461
treaty-literature, and commonly refer to rebellion or the formal
dissolution of an oath or treaty (214).
The language and terminology used in EA 162 are very similar
to that found in the Hatshepsut Coronation Inscription noted above.
It is not unreasonable to assume that the king's recitation of a
threat was a reference to some legal provision for rebellion; one
need not posit necessarily the adaption of an "Asiatic" practice.
Indeed, one wonders whether the king is quoting an actual legal
stipulation to Aziru, although this is speculative. It is evident
from Egyptian historical texts of the New Kingdom, however, that
defeated vassals occasionally swore sdf3-tryt, ostensibly never
to rebel against Pharaoh again. Unfortunately, the literary
contexts in which such statements or "oaths" appear are quite
brief. It is unlikely, however, that the quoted material repre
sents the full scope or contents of the fealty procedure. Despite
the physical absence of a treaty-text itself, it is nevertheless
tempting to relate the king's threat in EA 162 to some sort of
fealty provision sworn by an Egyptian vassal, similar to the con
tents of the Coronation text referred to previously.
The threat itself is a "corporate" one, similar to a "treaty-
curse", whereby not only the offender, but his entire family is
to be punished for an individual's breach of faith (215). Again,
the concept is quite common to Hittite treaties, which usually
invoke disaster upon an individual, his relations, and his de
scendants (216). Unlike the "treaty-curse", however, the king,

462
or as EA 162.37-38 specifies, "the axe/weapon of the king",
is the agency by which the threat is to be carried out (217).
The actual implementation of punishment depends solely upon
the viability of Pharaonic forces, not divine intervention.
Indeed, at the conclusion of the letter, Aziru is reminded
that "His (ie. the king's) troops and his chariotry are
numerous and indeed situated in the Upper and Lower country
from the rising of the sun until the setting of the sun"(218).
Both EA 162, and the Abimilki quotation of a threat in EA
147, represent a seemingly more "rational" approach to
enforcing potential problems within the Egyptian political
sphere. This certainly does not mean to imply that the
Egyptian king did not rely upon the gods to maintain order
in his dealing with foreign powers. Indeed, Egyptian military
texts consistently portray the king as executor of divine will
through the god's commissioning and dispatch of the monarch
to quell rebellion (219). Likewise, it has already been
mentioned that in certain circumstances, such as the Hatshepsut
text, deities were invoked to exercise punishment in those
circumstances which were beyond the capabilities of the Egyp-
tain authorities to enforce the law. Once more, it must be
stressed that the Amarna letters are woefully inadequate as
a basis of formal comparison with the provisions of actual
threaty-texts. The few examples from the Amarna correspondence,
however,- if they do relate to the Egyptian use of threats com

463
parable to the "treaty-curse"- are striking when one compares
them with extra-Egyptian evidence.
Not surprisingly, similar sentiments are recorded in
contemporary inscriptions from Egypt itself. Again the
sources, like the cuneiform correspondence to the Pharaonic
court, are not legal documents per se, but are primarily the
autobiographical tomb inscriptions from el-Amarna, the site
of the ancient capital of Amenophis IV, Akhetaton. In the
tomb of the official Twtw, for example, it states (220):
"Everyone whom you favor (hsy.k) is witnessing That One
(ie. the Aton) while rising; (But) every criminal (hbt)
shall be destined for the execution-block of [ . . .]" It
is difficult to make any specific observations due to the
fragmentary nature of the text. The expression, however,
occurs in the midst of a paen to the king and the Sun-disk (221).
Interestingly enough, the quotation appears to be in the context
of welcoming the arrival of foreign officials to the Royal
Residence (222): "... fH3rwl aTndl Kush are ushered in,
having come to you in bowing. They come to Akhetaton, Southerners
as well as Northerners. They do obesiance to you, and give
adoration [to you] ..." The literary influence of the
"Loyalist" instruction can clearly be observed in the formulat
ion of the scene (223). Likewise the admonition cited above
may more accurately be termed a "proverb" or "aphorism" rather

464
than a quotation of a "legal" stipulation. The scene, however,
has a juridical context, most likely the reaffirmation of a
vassal's allegiance to his suzerain. The term frbt, lit.
"hated one", is noteworthy, since it occurs in a contemporary
threat of the Eighteenth Dynasty in reference to persons
guilty of sacrilege (224). Moreover, the specification of
the fate of the criminal as "the executioner's block"-an
element in later Egyptian maledictions- provides a good
parallel to the threat in Akhnaton's letter to Aziru (225).
In the same inscription, there occurs an unusual passage
referring to the treatment of potentially disloyal elements
"(If) he
becomes a rebel among you, he shall be covered with [...]."
Davies' examination of the subsequent gap in the result clause,
(227).
This suggests a restoration of something like ssf, "ashes/
burned one", a well-attested metaphor for punishment (228).
The citation appears to be in a context concerned with non-
Egyptian ie. foreign, factions. There are, moreover, some
tantalizing passages, unfortunately poorly preserved, which
refer to the judgement of the king upon foreigners (229):
" . . . a country which is distant, the Ruler (hk3) judges
(w^') it . . . "; and there are references to "reports" (smi)
and "accusations" (s'r) to the Aton (230). The use of terms
such as wd' "judgement/investigation" and sbi "rebel" clearly

465
belie a juridical situation. As a result:," one wonders whether
we are faced with some legal contingency dealing with rebell
ious vassals: "(If) he becomes a rebel among you- He shall
be covered with [ashes (?); fire (?)] (ie. punished)" (231).
Indeed, in EA 162.30-31, the king similarly warns Aziru,
prior to the pronouncement of his threat of execution: "S[ee]
those things which have [en]ticed you, they seek to cast you
into fire" (232).
Moreover, the text contains another general threat as well
as a blessing, again having definite overtones of the Loyalist
(233): "He exercises power/wrath (b3w) against one who does
not recognize Qjm) his teaching (sb3yt.f); while his rewards
(hsyw.f) belong to the one who knows (ie. acknowledges, rji)
him." Twtw concludes the inscription with the final observa
tions of daily life and the mechanics of government and the
exercise of authority. Indeed, the texts point to the exist
ence and recognition of actual legal practices, as does the
threat of EA 162 cited above. More pointedly, the threats in
the Twtw inscription seem to refer to foreign groups considered
to be under Egyptain authority. Again, it is likely that the
scene presents the formal presentation of vassals to the king,
and their acceptance of him as suzerain (235). As in the Amarna
correspondence, punishment for potential disobedience is attri
buted to the power and authority of the Pharaoh rather than a
reliance upon supernatural forces.

466
Extra-Egyptian evidence concerning the juridical relations
of Egyptian rulers with foreign countries is not restricted to
the Amarna letters or Hittite texts and treaties contemporary
with the Eighteenth and Ninteenth Dynasties. The Old Testament
also provides information concerning diplomatic contacts between
the Nile Valley and the Israelite monarchy, subsequent to the
New Kingdom (236). The invasion of Israel by Sheshonk I, the
founder of the Twenty-second Dynasty, is a well-known episode;
one of the rare cases where some sort of synchronism can be
established by both Egyptain and Biblical sources ( 1 Kgs 14:25)
(237). A later remark by the Chronicler, moreover, notes that
as a result of Egyptian military activity, Rehoboam had become
the "servant" of the Pharaoh (238). This indicates that the
territory of Judah was considered to have become a vassal or
cliant-state of Egypt. It is likely, moreover, that the
removal of the treasure from the Temple in Jerusalem was a
form of tribute or payment (2 Chr 12:8) (239). Likewise,
Hoshea's later dispatch to So as related in 2 Kgs 17:4, suggest
some sort of "diplomatic" contact between the last king of
Israel and one of the rulers of Sais, most likely Tefnakhte (240).
Prophetic admonitons to refrain against dependance upon Pharaonic
aid-both diplomatic and military (241) and the confrontation
between Egyptain-Kushite forces and Assyrian troops under
Sennacherib at Eltekeh, provide evidence of aspirations of
Egyptian suzerainty in the Levantine area (242). Moreover,

467
the subsequent removal of the Judahite king, Jehoahaz, his
replacement with Jehoiachim by Necho, and the imposition of
tribute to Egypt is a clear indication of the extent of
Pharaonic influence (243). Again, contemporary documentation
from the seventh and sixth centuries B.C., such as the Lachish
letters (244), and the Aramaic dispatch of a king Adon of
Ekron (?) (245) found at Sakkara requesting Egyptain support
against the armies of Nebuchadrezzar, attests to Egyptian
legal and military responsibility towards the small city-
states of Palestine and the Phoenician coast. While such
texts would seen to presuppose the existence of a legal
relationship between the rulers of Palestine and the Nile
Valley - presumably expressed by formal oaths or treaties -
nothing has been preserved to suggest the structure of terms
of such agreement (246).
Assyrian texts of the seventh century B.C., referring to
the conquest of Egypt, however, do provide some information
in this regard (247). It should be noted that the Assyrian
kings were in a position to dictate terms to the petty-rulers
of the Nile Valley, who were thus addressed as vassals rather
than as equals of Assur. The Annals of Ashurbanipal narrate
how he and his predecessor Esarhaddon had imposed "oaths"
upon the Egyptian officials whom the invading Assyrians had
appointed to office (248). Subsequently, however, a number
of Egyptain kinglets had sought to conclude an agreement with

468
the Kushite king, Taharqa, in order to expel the Assyrian
garrisons from the Nile Valley (249). The actions of the
conspirators are denounced by the Assyrian historiographer
of the Rassam Cylinder as (250): "Afterwards, all those
kings whom I had installed, sinned against my "treaty"
(ade), they did not observe (lit. grasp hold of) the "oath"
(mamit) of the Great Gods ..." The plot was discovered
and the budding revolt was swiftly quelled by the Assyrian
forces. Those engaged in the conspiracy were arrested and
brought to justice (251): "They (ie. the Assyrian officals)
seized them with iron chains and shackled their hands and
feet with iron fetters. The 'oath' (mamit) of Assur, the
King of the Gods, overtook those who had sinned against the
'treaty' (ade) of the Great Gods." A number of conspirators
were executed with their mutilated corpses displayed in Tanis
and Sais (252). The remaining prisoners were conveyed to
Ninevah where they were subsequently punished (253). Necho,
however, was pardonned by Ashurbanipal and installed as a
vassal of the Assyrians in Sais (254): "Out of all of them,
it was upon Necho that I showed mercy, and granted him life.
I concluded a 'treaty' (ade) with him more imposing than the
former (treaty)."
Especially interesting in the preceding accounts are the
references to the agreements by which the Egyptains had been
forsworn. The term ade, is employed in Assyrian legal and

469
historical texts signifying an "oath" or "treaty" (255). It
is often used in conjunction with mamitu, "oath", and in some
instances, the two appear to be interchangeable. The ade and
mamitu approximate something like "sworn oaths and obligations",
although the precise meaning is difficult to render in English
(256). McCarthy has suggested, however, that the use of the
terms ade and mamitu in the Annals of Ashurbanipal actually
refer to formal treaties (256), and there is little reason to
dispute the assertion.
Both adS and mamitu were invoked by deities, as the above
reference make clear: "the Great Gods", and "Assur, King of
the Gods". As in the earlier Hittite treaties, such deities
were expected to uphold the provisions of the agreement. Divine
sanction was represented by an invocation of maledictions or
"treaty-curses" upon the vassals. Thus, elsewhere in the
Annals of Ashurbanipal it unequivocally states how the violation
of a treaty brought havoc and destruction upon the offender
and his country. An often-quoted example of the relationship
between a breach of oath and the implementation of "treaty-
curses" by the gods ocurs in a description of the revolt of
an Arab chief against Ashurbanipal (257). This action precip
itated a famine among the inhabitants of Arabia. The ultimate
cause of the disaster is attributed to divine vengeance in the
Assyrian texts (258):
Ashur, Sin, Shamash, Adad, Bel, Nebo, the

Ishtar of Ninevah - the Queen of Kidmure-
470
the Ishtar of Arbela, Ninurta, Nergal (and)

Nusku (thus) inflicted quickly upon them (all)
the curses written (down) in their sworn agree
ments . . . (259)
" . . . Whenever the inhabitants of Arabia

asked each other: 'On account of what have
these calamities befallen Arabia?' (they
answered themselves:) 'Because we did not
keep the solemn oaths (sworn by) Ashur,
because we offended the friendliness of
Ashurbanipal, the king, beloved by Ellil!'"(260)
The treaty of Esarhaddon with Ba'al of Tyre, and the loyalty
oaths imposed upon vassals to protect the succession of
Ashurbanipal to the Assyrian throne, demonstrates the extent
and importance of curses in the formulation of these legal
documents (261). Although the treaty-documents cited in the
campaigns against Egypt have not survived, it is probable
that the "oaths" (ade/mamltu) imposed upon the Egyptain
vassals of Ashurbanipal contained an impressive list of
maledictions similar to other contemporary Assyrian treaties.
Hence, the statement in the Annals that "the oath of Ashur. . .
overtook" the Egyptian kings who had violated the treaty-
stipulations by plotting a revolt, attests to the knowledge
and use of "treaty-curses" in the Nile Valley as an instru
ment of international diplomacy in the seventh century B.C.
The campaigns of the monarchs of the New Kingdom resulted
in the gradual incorporation of Syro-Palestinian territory into
an administrative system under some sort of Egyptian "hegemony"
(262). As an outcome of a policy of Pharaonic intervention

471
among the smaller city-states of Syria-Palestine, adaptions
and new formulations in Egyptian legal terminolgy can be
observed as they relate to international affairs. Thus,
it is during the Eighteenth Dynasty that reference to ''oaths"
begin to emerge with some regularity in Egyptian inscriptions
referring to Pharaonic military exploits.
There is, however, evidence for the use of the "oath"
in Egypt's dealings with foreigners prior to the New Kingdom,
although it is limited to one example (263). In a fragmentary
inscription of Nebhepetre' Montuhotep from Ballas, published
.by Henry Fischer (264), it is related how some Nubians, after
arriving at Elephantine, made an 'nfa n£r, "oath of the god",
w' nb hr d3d3.f lit. "each one upon his head", to "serve"
(b3k) the king (265). Due to the condition of the text, any
historical conclusions to be drawn are tentative. Nevertheless,
Lorton has suggested that the unusual designation fcr d3d3.f,
might signify "each one for the sake of his skull". Hence
this would have been a graphic allusion to the death penalty
should the oath be violated (266). He further suggested that
the foreigners may have been admitted into royal service as
mercenaries at the Egyptian garrison at Elephantine, and
thus the oath was mandatory upon their acceptance (267).
Although the inscription itself contains elements of the
literary genre known as the Konigsnovelle (268), there is
little need to doubt the basic historicity of the event, or

472
the authenticity of the juridical procedure described above. It
is significant that an unnamed deity (n£r) is invoked in the oath,
rather than the ruling Egyptian king (269). This suggests that
the group was not under the direct authority of the Egyptian
monarch. Rather, enforcement of the agreement or obligation
has been relegated to divine powers in the case of infringement.
More interesting to our study, is the implied threat sworn by
the soldiers. Presumably the execution of punishment would have
been the responsibility of the "god" (a Nubian deity ?) in cases
of breach of oath. Again, the Ballas fragment preserves the
earliest example of a threat accompanying an oath administered
to foreigners, excluding the possible case of the Execration
Texts.
Lorton has presented a cogent analysis of the juridical
terminology of the Egyptians as it relates to international
relations throughout the Eighteenth Dynasty, and there is no
need to recapitulate his findings here (270). He has aptly
demonstrated that both adaptions and borrowings of "Asia"
terms and the employment of purely Egyptian legal concepts can
be discerned in the terminology of the inscriptions (271).
Particularly important to the present study are those phrases
demonstrating the use of oaths and treaties in international
relations. Thus, explicit references to legal documents them
selves probably occur in the Annals of Thutmosis III in the term

473
nt-', primarily "what is documented", which Lorton renders as
"stipulations" (272). The term itself is used in reference to
annual deliveries of wood from Lebanese ports to Egypt, along
with Pharaonic.compensation for the goods rendered (273). In
actual, physical form the nt-' probably were similar to the texts
kept on record by Zakar-Baal of Byblos and used in his negotia
tions with the Egyptian envoy Wen-Amun (274). This example,
however, appears essentially to have been a series of business
contracts - although they were in effect over a considerable
length of time- .rather than "oaths" which formed the basis of the
international treaty (275). The term nt-', which is also used
in the later Treaty of Year 21 as a translation of the Akkadian
rikiltu, "treaty/oath" (276), unfortunately contains very little
information suggesting the structure of such documents, and
whether there were any punitive clauses included for abrogation
of the agreement.
Lorton, however, noted that terms such as j;3w n 'nfa, lit.
"the breath of/for life" (277), and s^f3-tryt, possibly "oath of
allegiance" or "fealty oath", were used in reference to the /
formal, legal relationship between the Egyptian king and for
eigners (278). While Egyptian texts refer to such terms, occa
sional speeches accompanying a request for a treaty by foreigners
are also recorded. These discourses, though quite brief and
often "sterobyped", give some important indications concerning
the content, if not the actual structure of the oath or treaty

474
administered to a vassal. Generally, main tenets of the pledges
include recognition and exaltation of the ruling king, a promise
to be a loyal servant (b3k) of the Pharaoh, and never to rebel
against Egypt, along with the regular delivery of tribute (279).
Historical texts likewise portray subservient foreigners as
cognizant of the potentially destructive power of the king,
evidenced in the records of their adulation and praise to Pharaoh.
There are no explicit threats included in these speeches approx
imating the "treaty-curse" of Hittite and Assyrian documents.
In the Tombos stela of Thutmosis I, however, there is a specific
reference to an oath sworn by foreigners (280). It is noteworthy
that the pledge is said to be dependant upon the king's power
or wrath (b3w). This is followed by references to Thutmosis I's
benefactions to those who are loyal to him (281):
One swears by him (ie. the king) among all the

flat-landers (t3w nbw) through the greatness of
the wrath of his Majesty. One never witnessed
such things in the Annals of Those of Past Times,
since the Followers of Horus. For it is to him
who serves him that his breath (£3w.f) is given,
and his largess ('3b[t].f) to him who adheres to
his path.
During the Ramesside Period, adjustments in the juridical
terminology become evident. Alongside the older phrase, di fc3w
n 'nfo, "granting the 'breath of life'", signifying the inaugu
ration of relations between the king and his subjects, additional
terminology seems to have been developed (282). Ssn (p3) t3w/
'nh, "'breathing' (the) breath/life", representing the observance
or "maintenance of the relationship, indicates that an "oath"

475
had been in effect (283). By contrast nhm/frtm ^3w "removing/
destroying the breath" designates the dissolution of political
bonds (284). Both expressions occur regularly in the Ramesside
inscriptions of the Nineteenth and Twentiety Dynasties. Not
surprisingly, the appearance and influence of foreign terminology
increases during this period, commensurate with the growing
contacts of Egypt with the people of Levant.
In the previously quoted Treaty of Year 21, parity relations
between the Egyptian king and his Hittite counterpart, lit.
"peace and brotherhood", have been translated from an original
Akkadian term afauttnu salamu into their Egyptian equivalents
htp snsn (285). The terminology occurs again in the Marriage
texts of Ramesses II, describing his impending union with the
daughter of Hattushilish III (286). Particularly interesting
is the description of the "relations" among the soldiers of the
entourage accompanying the Hittied princess to Egypt (287).
"Now when the daughter of the Great Chief

of Hatti was traveling to Egypt, the infantry
and chariotry of his Majesty were in her retinue.
They were mixing with the army and chariotry of
Hatti, and they were as thr.ty as well as infantry.
They ate and drank together while they were as one
heart like brothers. There was no animosity of
one to his companion, for there was peace (btpw)
and brotherhood (snsnw) between them according
to the counsel of God himself . . . "
"Peace" and "brotherhood" certainly refers to the legal relation
ship of parity between the two rulers, marked by their continued
adherence to the Treaty of Year 21.
Moreover, in the later inscriptions of Merneptah and

476
Ramesses III, direct borrowing of Semitic terms is apparent,

y A
S-r-m, "peace" (Akk.sulummu; Heb. shalom) (288), and b-r-t (Heb.
berit) "treaty/covenant" are sometimes used to describe the
political arrangements between a Pharaoh and vassal groups (289).
While lexical items are an important indication that the
Egyptians were aware of the existence and usage of treaties,
again, any assessment regarding the details of such documents
must remain tentative. Like the Amarna letters, Egyptian histor
ical inscriptions clearly contain references to "legal" situa
tions. Thus, warfare, one of the major themes of New Kingdom
royal inscriptions, most certainly arouse out of juridical
circumstances, such as the violation of specific obligations,
ie. vassal's refusal to pay tribute, or the transgression of
some internationally recognized boundary (290). The Hittite
violation of the Kurushtama treaty with Egypt is a good example
of the latter. Such contingencies certainly would have been
defined in the oaths and treaties concluded between the opposing
parties. Lorton, however, has remarked upon the difficulty of
comparing essentially "historical" texts, such as Egyptian royal
inscriptions, with treaty-documents per se (291). While some
correspondence in terminology and practice may be observed,
the evidence for specific structural features, such as the in
vocation of threats to seal international agreements, (ie. "treaty-
curses" is difficult to discern.

477
As noted in the discussion of the Amarna evidence, however,
"loyalty" was the most important factor in the relationship
between the.king and his vassal. Fidelity offered rewards,
while disobedience and rebellion could result in punishment.
This is an omnipresent theme in Egyptian texts and it can clearly
be observed in inscriptions dealing with foreign relations.
Thus, in one of the Karnak war scenes of Seti I, there is a
direct adaption of the Loyalist Instruction, now applied to an
international situation (292): "When he (ie. the king) is at
peace, they (ie. foreign subjects) breathe his air."

•*
Although Egyptian historiography is quite explicit in its
description of the disasters befalling rebellious groups at the
hand of Pharaoh, it is rare that references are made to viola
tions of an "oath" or "treaty" per se. However, Lorton has
cited an inscription from the tomb of Horemheb probably referring
to conditions during the reign of Tutankhamun, in which a group
of foreigners request an agreement with the Egyptian king (293).
The fragmentary text notes (294): "Some foreigners who 'do not
know how to live1 (famw 'nfr.sn) have come on account of (?) (hr)
[....] Their countries are hungry, they live like wild
animals, [their] child[ren] [ . . . .]". Lorton has stated that
the term "Hmw 'nfo.sn could be simply 'who do not know (how to
find) their (means of) sustenance,' but it could also be a pun on
'who do not recognize their treaty obligations', the famine being
regarded as a just punishment, probably of divine origin" (295).

478
Thus, we have a specific reference in an Egyptian text, in which
a disaster is attributed to a vassal's abrogation of an agree
ment or oath with the Egyptian king. This relationship between
misfortune and the violation of a treaty neatly parallels the
"doctrine of casuality" attested in Hittite and Assyrian accounts
referring to the course of similar events.
Likewise, in a later fragmentary text from Amarah, dating
to the reign of Ramesses II, there is a depiction of Nubians
seeking peace from the Egyptian king (296). Although full of
lacunae, the gist of the inscription seems to be a narration
of the misfortunes accompanying the Nubian's defeat in battle.
After requesting an agreement (t3w; lit. "breath") from Ramesses
II and pledging vassalage (b3k), (297), the conquered party's
speech concludes with the phrase (298): bw famt.n (sic) p3 'nb,
lit. "We do not know the life". Hm, however, would seem to have
the juridical connotation "not to legally recognize", similar to
its usage in the Horemheb inscription (299). Likewise, the
specification of the term 'r\h "life" by the definite article,
suggests that the term "the life" is again a pun on "the oath".
Hence, "we did not recognize the oath" is another reference to
the violation of some prior agreement similar to the example
cited above. Moreover, the Nubians' defeat in war is the natural
and logical outcome of an abrogation of their oath. Ramesses II
and his military, however, avenge the breach of faith in the

479
Amarah text; whereas in the Horemheb inscription it seems that
"supernatural" or "divine" agents, represented by an outbreak
of famine, were considered as punitive agents. Whether male
dictions had been sworn by the blighted parties prior to the
ratification of the oaths on the order of the Hittite and
Assyrian treaties, unfortunately cannot be determined from
the contents of the previously cited texts.
A particularly interesting inscription in this regard is
found in the updated Karnak war scenes of Seti I, probably
relating to the king's first campaign in central Palestine
and the coastal states of Lebanon (300). In the scenes of
Seti's triumphal return, there is a depiction of Syro-Palestinian
prisoners. The groups are identified by a caption as (301):
"Foreign chiefs (wrw h3swt) who do not recognize (bmw) Egypt
which his Majesty brought back through his victories from the
foreign country of defeated Retenu." Subsequently a text refers
to their adoration of Seti I (302):
"It is in magnifying his Majesty and pro

claiming his victories that they have said:
'Hail to you! How great is your name! How
powerful is your strength! May the country
who acts upon your water (ie. be loyal)
rejoice, (but) may the one who attacks your
borders mourn! As your k3 endures: We have
not known Egypt, nor have our fathers treaded
on it. Give us the breath voluntarily.
The speech though brief, allows us to recognize a certain
procedure which is being followed by the foreign delegation:
1) The recognition of the power and authority of the king;

480
2) A "blessing" for loyalty, and "lamentation" for violation
of Pharaonic boundaries;
3) An oath is sworn vowing that the lack of relations between
the foreigners and Egypt had not been intentional;
4) A request for a treaty/oath from the king.
Spalinger has noted that the episode is entirely of a peace
ful nature (303). Indeed, the petty rulers had been depicted
in accompanying scenes as presenting cedar for the sacred
barque of Amun to the "victorious" Egyptian forces (304).
Their limited discourse, moreover, specifies that they had
not recognized (jimw) Egypt, by which we should understand
that they had no diplomatic relations with the Pharaoh prior
to the reign of Seti I (305). The reference to the previous
generations, lit. "our fathers", suggests that this had been
the prevailing political climate for a considerable period
of time. The text, thus, relates the .opening of relations
between some of the small coastal states with the Ramesside
rulers at the beginning of the Nineteenth Dynasty (306).
The inclusion of a blessing and wish for woe or lamentation
is of extreme interest and importance, since it suggest some
affinity with the use of the blessing and curse formulae
found in contemporary Hittite treaties. Apart from the Treaty
of Year 21, this is one of the few examples in a Egyptian text
containing some sort of imprecation accompanying the making of

481
a treaty or oath. An important difference, however is that
the blessing and threat precede, rather than conclude the
request for an agreement, and not part of the assertory oath
sworn by the submissive party. Moreover, the "threat" invoked
by the vassals is applied to a specific legal circumstance, ie.
in case of an attack (tktk) or violation of Pharaonic territory,
rather than referring to adherence to the oath itself (307).
Also, unlike the typical ancient Near Eastern treaty, no divinity
is summoned to witness the agreement or to carry out the threat.
A similar text occurs later among the reliefs relating to
the capture of Ashkelon after it had revolted against Pharoanic
suzerainty (308). The event had been dated to the reign of
Ramesses II, although scholars more recently have ascribed the
action to Merneptah (309). The label to the scene identifies
the town as (310): "The defeated city which his Majesty had
carried off when it was bad, Ashkelon". The inhabitants of
the town are subsequently shown as speaking to the attacking
Egypian forces (311):
"It (ie. Ashkelon) says: 'The one who acts

upon your water rejoices, (but) he who trans
gressed your borders laments. Forgive, o heir,
that we may relate your power to every unknown
country!'"
A comparison of the Seti I text and the Ashkelon scene reveals
similar phraseology and sentiment. The latter, however, has
been cast in a slightly different fashion. The difference in
lexical items suggests that this is a case of a variation in

482
the blessing and lamentation, rather than merely "copying" the
earlier Seti I text:
_ ... -> k
Seti I (312): ^^ ,9^ ^ .<=.. *=* J» o a X
^ =* *=*
Ashkelon (313): acf?.
^ S£<==" "4=k
More important are the historical circumstances which the re
spective texts relate. As noted, in the Seti I inscription,
the blessing and imprecation have been placed in the context
of the inauguration of relations between the groups and the
Egyptian king. The recognition of the advantages of loyalty
to the Egyptian crown provide the impetus for the inhabitants
of Retenu to seek out the protective suzerainty of the Pharaoh.
The Ashkelon text by contrast, records a revolt; that is the
violation of a vassal's responsibility to its overlord, and
hence, the abrogation of the legal arrangement between the two
parties. The word used to describe the city's action, namely
bin, "bad, evil" has a connotation of moral impropriety (314).
In this context, however, it probably has a technical meaning
"to be in rebellion", and ostensibly is the casus belli for
the siege of the city. Hence, the Egyptian attack against the
place is presented as just and legal retribution for the city
state's failure to maintain the proper relations with the
Egyptian king. The revolt against Pharaonic authority is a
violation of an ethical principle, ie. the contract between

483
the king and his vassal. Indeed, the subsequent plea by the
beleaguered inhabitants of Ashkelon for "forgiveness" emphasizes
the lack of moral ethos which their action entails (315). The
term used w3h, "to lay aside, ie. forgive", is repeated else
where in penitential prayers of the Ramesside period, and refers
to the dissolution or pardon of some fault (316).
As "in the earlier Seti I text, no deity is invoked to
punish the transgression of Ashkelon in the imprecation. The
rhetorical texts accompanying the scene, however, makes it
clear that the responsibility and prestige for restoring order
among Egypt's foreign possessions fell upon the Egyptian king
himself (317):
"One who makes his border wherever he gives

attention. Not is his arm opposed among all
the flat-lands. Victorious king who protects
Egypt, who smashes a throng of rebellious
foreigners. He causes the chiefs of H3rw
to cease all the boasting of their mouth.
His scimetar is powerful like Montu's, and
his strength is like the Son of Nut. Mighty
one who overthrows his o[pponents]; [Who
smites the chiefs] of e[very] f[oreign
country]. [He is braver] than myriads
assembled . . . "
Again, due to a lack of definitive evidence of a documentary
nature such as an Egyptian "suzerainty" treaty, it is difficult
to ascertain whether a vassal would have been forsworn to the
king under the threat of punishment. Although the Ramesside
examples cited above are highly suggestive in this regard, as
comparative material, their usefulness is limited when juxta

484
posed with other ancient Near Eastern treaty-texts. In the
much later Triumphal Stela of the Ethiopian king, Piye, composed
in the eight century B.C., however, there are instances of such
a use of the oath in fealty and tready ceremonies (318). In
one instance a petty ruler, Padiese, swore submission to the
Kushite ruler following the latter's capture of Memphis (319).
The basic component of the oath was a pledge that Padiese had
not withheld tribute from Piye (320). According to the text,
the oath was taken in the presence of other rulers from the
Delta, who subsequently were adjured to testify to the truth
fulness of Padiese's pledge (321):
"He (Padiese) purified himself with the

Oath of the God in the presence of these
kings and great chiefs of the Delta region:
'Each one of you, should be conceal his
horses, after hiding his property - He
shall die the death of his father. I have
proposed these things that you may support
this your humble servant through every
thing which you may know about me . . . '"
The other dignitaries are directed by Padiese to declare their
loyalty to the Ethiopian ruler by repeating the same pledge (322):
"'Thus you shall state: '(If) I have hidden

anything from his Majesty from my patrimonial
estate - - - '"
The punishment, in this instance death, has been omitted in the
repetition of the oath, although it should be understood to
have been an element of the pledge similar to Padiese's prev
ious statement.
Spalinger has remarked that the "ratification of the oath

485
was a secular one, not at all connected with the gods but
rather supported in full view of the Libyan kings themselves.
In essence, it was a military oath"(323). It should be noted,
however, that the pledge is explicitly called an 'nj} ntr,
"oath of the god" which indicates that it had been considered
to have been pronounced under divine jurisdiction (324).
Ethiopian control of Egypt, however, was at best nominal in
the North even following Piye's military intervention (325).
Kushite political influence did not effectively extend beyond
Herakleopolis at this time. The enforcement of the "obligations"
of Piye's vassals in the Delta would have had to depend on some
authority other than the presence of Kushite troops. Hence,
it is probable that a god (ntr) was regarded by all the parties
as the guarantor of the vassal's pledge. Moreover, considering
Piye's excessive piety in his claims of support by Egyptain
deities in his campaign, it is unlikely that there was any
sharp distinction between "secular" and "religious" oaths (326).
The nondescript term 'nfa ntr, however, might have been utilized
as a scribal device merely to save space. Each kinglet (nswt)
and chief's (wr) pledge has been subsumed under one general
oath. The pledge, in all likelihood, would have been invoked
in the name of the individual's local or patron deity.
More interesting is the subsequent account of an arrange
ment of a truce by Tefnakhte, the ruler of Sais, with Piye (327).

486
Although Tefnakhte is portrayed in the Piye Stela as a defeated
opponent of the Kushite monarch, there is no evidence to support
the contention that he had become a vassal of Piye. Whereas
other vanquished chiefs in Egypt were required to pledge their
fealty to the Ethiopian monarch in person, the "armistice" with
Tefnakhte was negotiated by envoys. Indeed, Tefnakhte is never
required to travel to Piye, nor is there any assignation of
tribute to Kush. Likewise, there are indications that the poli
tical arrangement between the two parties had been negotiated a
considerable time after Piye had withdrawn to the South (328).
The text describes the agreement as having been sought by
Tefnakhte. The instigation for such an action supposedly was
the report of Piye's brutal repression of an insurrection
against Kushite dominion in the town of Mesed (329). Rather
than concede any parity to the ruler of Sais, the historiographer
of the Piye Stela maintains that Tefnakhte's refusal to see the
Kushite ruler in person is due to the former's unworthiness and
awe of the victorious Piye (330):
"Then when the Chief of Ma, Tefnakhte, heard

it, a message was dispatched to the place
where his Majesty was, in supplication say
ing:
'Peace to you. I could not see your

face in time of anger, nor stand before your
flame (331). I tremble in awe of you. Surely
you are Nwbty, the Foremost of the South, and
Montu, the Victorious of Arm. As for every
place to which you have turned your attention,
you could not find this your servant, since I
reached the islands of the W3d~Wr, for I am
fearful of your power, saying - - 'His flame
487
• is an adversary against me!'
'Has not the heart of your Majesty been

satisfied in these things which you have (al
ready) done to me. I am surely under condemna
tion. Did you not strike me according to the
extent of the crime? 0 you who weighs with the
balance, who knows the weight, you have added
it to me three-fold. Leave the seed, that
you may gather it in time. Do not hew the tree
to its roots!'"
Tefnakhte subsequently swears an oath to the Kushite ruler (332):
"As your k3 endures, as the terror of you is

in my body, and the fear of you is in the midst
of my marrow:
Never shall I sit in the beer-hall, nor shall

one present to me the harp. Surely I shall eat
the bread of hunger, and drink the water of
thirst. When on that day you hear of my name,
bitterness shall be in my bones, my head shorn,
and my clothes be spoiled, until one propitiates
Neith on my behalf. . .
Numerous explanations for the contents of the oath by Tefnakhte
have been proposed. Breasted (333) and Yoyette (334) have compared
the woeful description to a tradition preserved in Diodorus
Siculus (I, 45) where it states that the ruler of Sais had
to resort to eating the food of common people while on a cam
paign to "Arabia" (335). This resulted in Tefnakhte's reputation
as an excessively pious and austere ruler (336). More recently,
Grimal saw this as a highly poetic account of the travails
supposedly inflicted by Piye upon Tefnakhte, with strong
influence of the language of earlier wisdom texts (337).
Spalinger, however, viewed this passage as an illustration of
the prevailing moral tenor of the Egyptians at that time (338):

488
"This passage reveals in a striking fashion the

concern for the self prevalent in this era. The
^ms-ib concept, so common during the Herakleopolitan
period, was reinvoked but given a more pregnant
feeling, and connected with the concept of 'mirth-'
(ndm-ib). This period of continual war and invasion
led to the lack of care so well enunciated by
Tefnakht. The ruler of the West stresses an ideal
wherein one could satiate himself, ignoring the
problems of the land. This is what he wants and
what Plye has prevented his doing, not any loss
of territory or soldiers. This statement, given
by the major enemy of Piye to his victor, is the
best reflection of Egypt's special mores at that
time. Was is merely an interruption of one's
daily relaxation - ndm-ib and sms-ib - nothing
more. 'Let me return to the beerhall and forget
all worries' is the essence of Tefnakht's concil
iatory words to Piye . . . "
In all these explanations, the oath has been taken, in varying
degrees, as descriptive of conditions in Sais as a result of
Piye's campaign in Egypt. With the exception of prestige and
political influence, Tefnakhte and his own forces from Sais
suffered no substantial physical losses. Sais, situated in
the Western Delta, was still isolated and relatively safe
from the Kushite troops during this initial period of Ethiopian
expansion.
Rather than translating the oath as primarily referring to
past events, it may also have a prospective emphasis (339).
Thus, it is tempting to view Tefnakhte's statements as an
invocation of punishment upon his person, should be oppose
the ruler of Kush in the future (340). The oath, therefore,
would be comparable to the use of "curses" in treaties and
fealty pledges throughout the ancient Near East. "Hunger"

489
and "thirst" are attested elements in Egyptian threat formulae,
and are common components in imprecations throughout the ancient
Near East (341). The ceasing of music, likewise, is a well known
topos in Biblical and Akkadian curses (342). It also occurs
in an Egyptian text of Ptolemaic date in a malediction against
Seth and his adherents (343). Particularly interesting, how
ever, is the mention of Neith as the party to be mollified on
Tefnakhte's behalf should he commit an act against Piye. This
suggests that Neith, the patroness of Sais, was the deity
invoked to witness and guarantee the agreement sworn by
Tefnakhte (344). As such, she represents the divine agent
for the enforcement of the oath. As noted above, Ethiopian
troops had no firm control of the Delta at this time. Any
oath or treaty sworn by the chief of Sais would have been
dependant on some guarantor other than Kushite power for its
observance. Indeed, a subsequent pledge sworn by Tefnakhte
is called an 'njh ntr, "oath of the god" (345). The oath it
self is merely a promise not to attack any other Delta official
(h3ty-'), nor to upset the political status quo relating to the
Kushite king (346):
"It was with the oath of the god that he

(Tefnakhte) purified himself saying:
'I shall not violate the king's decree;

I shall not annul that which his Majesty
has said. I shall not commit a crime
against an official without your knowing.
I shall act according to that which the
king has said. I shall not violate what
he has decreed.'"
490
Oaths were not restricted to parties offering their sub
mission to Egypt. Spalinger noted that the swearing of an oath
by Pharaoh was a common literary feature of Egyptian military
texts of the New Kingdom (347). This topos usually accompanies
the so-called "messenger reports" in which the king is informed
of an enemy's rebellion or plot against Pharaonic authority (348).
Sometimes an oath is simply used to enhance the truthfulness of
a king's statement or account, as in the case of Thutmosis Ill's
promise to march through the Aruna Pass to Megiddo, or Ramesses
II's claim of fighting the Hittites outside of the city of Turnip
without his body armor (349). Occasionally, threats against an
enemy accompany an oath sworn by the king. Wilson had stressed
in his study of the oath in ancient Egypt, that such pledges
of the king were to be regarded seriously, since a deity was
solemnly invoked to witness or sanction the monarch's actions (350).
Spalinger, likewise, has suggested that the king's vow is possibly
reflective of a ritual performed prior to the onset of a campaign,
and that it was intended to link the secular event with the
divine (351). Thus, the contents of the oath should be viewed
as having some trace of veracity. The oaths themselves have a
less restricted or "stylized" form than the narrative accounts
in which they appear. Indeed, the threats made by a king seem
to be of a more "personal" nature than the phraseology often
found in Egyptian military texts.

491
One of the lengthier threats in a military inscription
accompanies an invocation to the god Amun, by the Theban ruler
Kamose in the "Second Kamose Stela" (352). The setting of the
discourse is supposedly outside of the city of the Hyksos king,
Avaris (353):
"As Amun allows the Brave One (354): I shall

not endure you nor allow you to tread the
arable land without my being upon you. May
your heart fail thereby, defeated Asiatic - -
After interrupting the address with an account of his success
against the Hyksos thus far, Kamose resumes his litany of
threats (355):
"Behold I shall drink wine from your vine

yard, while Asiatics of my plunder strain
(wine) for me. I shall hack up your place
of residence. I shall cut down your groves.
After I have carried off your women to the
cattle-barges, I shall seize your chariotry-"
The climax of the speech occurs wherein the Theban ruler presents
the casus belli for his attack (356):
"May your heart fail thereby, o defeated

Asiatic, who had said: 'I am Lord, with
out equal up to Hermopolis to Pr-Hwt-ffr!'
"I shall leave them in destruction, without

people therein! After I have hacked up their
towns, I shall burn up their places, being
made into ruin-heaps forever, on account of
the destruction which they made in the interior
of Egypt, (namely they) who had allowed them
selves to obey the summon of Asiatics, when
they transgressed against Egypt their mistress."
Although the mention of the god Amun is used to strengthen
the threat of the king, similar to an oath, the invocation if-
self, is merely a wish for divine support. Nor is Amun role

492
comparable in function to the "god-list" of a treaty. There
deities are invoked to witness and guarantee the provisions of
an agreement between two parties. By contrast, all of the threats
in the Kamose stela are personal in nature. There is no reference
to a formal "oath" or "treaty" between the combatants (357).
Kamose's promise of destruction of a town by conflagration and
transforming a place of habitation into a ruin-heap (i3wt), is
a stock threat in ancient Near Eastern "treaty-curses" (358).
The adverbial qualification appended toithe threat of devastation,
n dt "forever", moreover indicates that the destruction was to
be regarded by the afflicted party as permanent. The imagery
is so common throughout the ancient Near East, that it is not
necessary to posit any real connection with similar maledictions
attached to treaties per se.
Kamose's discourse should be regarded as having incorporated
actual threats pronounced against the Hyksos ruler, Apophis. Such
an observation, however, is of little help in comparing the king's
threats with their use as an element of a treaty, other than
noting that both have the basic characteristic of being a wish
for harm upon an opposing party. Indeed, even if it is assumed
that Kamose's threats were delivered in some "ritual" context,
such as a formal appeal to a god prior to a campaign, such a
background has been lost or omitted in the composition of the
account (359). The Egyptian inscriptions available to us are

493
primarily literary accounts, whereas treaties are essentially
legal or juridical in nature. This dichotomy in sources,
coupled with the lack of any real parallel to a formal "treaty-
curse"-other than in the much later Treaty of Year 21 of Ramesses
II prevents any comment other than to note that Pharaohs did pro
nounce threats against their enemies.
Interestingly, what possibly was a threat spoken against
a city, namely the total annilihation of a place without hope
of reoccupation, becomes something of a stereotyped phrase in
Egyptian military writing (360). Thus, in the Gebel Barkal
Stela of Thutmosis III, in an ennumeration of the king's
valorous deeds against Mitanni we find (361):
"I hacked up its towns and its tribes. I

set fire among them. My Majesty made them
into a ruin-heap never shall they be (re-)
founded.
In the narrative context of the Stela, the destruction of a
locale has already taken place. The threat has been reduced
to a retrospective statement. However, the clause nn hpr grg st,
"Never shall they be (re)founded", might itself have the nuance
of a wish, and could be translated optatively: "My Majesty
made them into a ruin-heap-May it never be (re)founded!—" The
wish has been depersonalized; there is no mention of any divine
or human agent who will punish the party attempting to rebuild
the devastated area, as for example in Josh 6:26 (362).
In the Assuan-Philae Stela of Thutmosis II, there is an

494
instance of a threat attendant upon a royal oath preceding a
campaign (363). The text contains the report of a rebellion
of some tribes in Kush against Egyptain garrisons. The news
is presented in a typical messenger-scene (364):
"One came to inform his Majesty concerning

those of vile Kush who had plotted to rebel,
who had been vassals of the Lord of the Two
Lands."
Subsequently, a "reaction" sequence is described, in which the
king's angry response to the report is compared to the actions
of a panther, followed by the invocation of an oath and threat
by Thutmosis II (365):
"Then his majesty raged concerning it like a

panther after he heard it. Then his Majesty
said:
"As I live, as Re' loves me, as my Father, the

Lord of the Gods, Amun, Lord of the Throne of
the Two Lands favors me: I shall not allow
any of their males to live, I shall leave ruins
among them!'" (366)
In the account of the outcome of the campaign, we read that
the king's orders were executed by the Egyptian forces (367):
"Then this army of his majesty arrived at vile

Kush. It was the power of his Majesty which led
them, and his murderous power which protected
their travels. Then this army of his Majesty
overthrew those foreigners. Not did they allow
any of their males to live according to every
thing which his Majesty decreed, excepting one
of those children of the chief of vile Kush,
who was brought back alive with their inhabitants
to the place where his Majesty was residing."
The frame of the narrative contains stereotyped elements found
in Egyptian military documents such as the messenger report,

495
reaction, and oath. The contents of Thutmosis II's oath,
apart from the divine invocation, however, should not be
considered "typical". Indeed, the personal threat contained
in the promissory oath, is most likely reflective of an actual
pledge by the king. The later statement that the threat of
Thutmosis II had been "decreed", ie. officially sanctioned
and executed, is extremely interesting (368). Unfortunately,
there is no surviving complementary evidence as to whether an
actual "document" had been issued prior to the campaign authoriz
ing the execution of the threat upon the rebellious parties.
Again the invocation of Amun in the oath itself, merely points
to his role as a witness to the king's pledge rather than as
agent for its enforcement. As in the earlier threats from
the Kamose stela, the appeal to the god by Thutmosis II is to
strengthen or "emphasize" the king's threat, and thus is not
comparable to a "treaty-curse".
Threats uttered by an Egyptian king against his enemies
also appear in the "Hitite Marriage" texts of Ramesses II (369).
The inscriptions themselves contain a particularly detailed
historiographic account of Egyptian-Hittite relations up to
Ramesses II's thirty-fourth year, and culminate in the marriage
of a daughter of the Hittite king, Hattushilish III, to Ramesses
II (370). An important aspect of the accounts is the documenta
tion of the hostile state of affairs between the two countries,

496
serving as a contrast to the peace presently in effect. Inter
estingly, the Egyptian historiographer is quite frank in noting
Hittite opposition and success to Pharaonic expansion in the
Levant (371): "Then every foreign country was in recognition
under the sovereignty of this 'Good God' (Ramesses II). He
made his boundry according to where he desired. There was no
one who opposed him, except That One of this land of Hatti."
Consequently, an oath by Ramessees II against the recalci
trant Hittites is recorded. The oath contains a threat to defeat
the only country which had thwarted Pharaonic ambitions (372):
"I shall bring an end to the land of Hatti,

overthrowing it under your (ie. the god Re-Atum)
feet forever! I shall cause them to retreat
from fighting upon the battle-field. (Although)
they persistently boast in their land, I know
that my father Swtfa has decreed for me victory
against every land, for it is to the height of
heaven that he has made my sword victorious,
and my power to the breadth of the land - -
The invocation of the god Swttj as one of the patron deities of
Ramesses II is significant in the account. It is probable that
Seth/Swtb in this context is to be understood in his role as
Semitic Storm-god, either as Ba'al or as Teshub (373). The mention
of the god as protector of the Egyptian king is subsequently
juxtaposed in the narrative with the deity's rejection of his
own clients, the Hittites.
There are further references to the campaigns of Ramesses II
against Hatti, and a likely allusion to the Battle of Kadesh.
The retrospective account, however, concludes with the statement

497
that Ramesses II had "cursed" (sfrwr) the Hittites. This action
resulted in a host of misfortunes befalling the Pharaoh's enemies
(374):
"Then he equipped his army and his chariotry,

and they were set against the land of Hatti.
He plundered it alone by himself, in the
presence of his entire army, that he might
make for himself an eternal reputation in its
midst, that they might remember the victory
of his sword and the deed of his hand.
"He 'cursed' them, while his wrath (b3w.f)

was among them like a torch, burning forever.
Their chief could not sit upon their throne ..."
Thus, according to Egyptian historiography, the Hittite
problem of succession, including the inter-necine conflicts
within the royal household, were due to the "power" of "wrath"
of Ramesses II (375). Indeed, the theme is amplified in the
succeeding sections of the text. Natural disasters and political
instability among the client-states of Hatti force the Hittite
king to acknowledge the authority of Ramesses II. Significantly,
all of these misfortunes are supposedly regarded as a sign of
divine displeasure towards the Hittites. The text attributes
to Hattushilish himself the claim that his own patron deity,
Swtfr- again to be understood as Ba'al/Teshub- has withheld rain
from Hatti (376):
"Now after many years had passed, their (the

Hittites). land was perishing, disrupted in
strife year after year, through the great
power of the Great God, the Lord of the Two
lands, Ruler of the Nine Bows - - -
"Then the Great Chief of Hatti inquired in

propitiating his Majesty, magnifying his
power and exulting his victories saying:
498
'May your condemnation pass by and your

offences driven away. May you cause that we
breathe the breath of life, (for) you are
truly the child of Swtb- He has decreed to you
the land of Hatti. We shall adhere to whatever
you desire. We shall levy it for your august
palace. Behold we are under your feet,0 vic
torious king, we shall act according to what
ever you decree.'"
"Then the Great Chief of Hatti sent propitiations

to his Majesty year after year. But he never
listened to them. Now after they were seen to be
in this condition of troubles, under the great
power of the Lord of the Two lands, then said the
Great Chief of Hatti to his army and his officers
repeatedly:
'Our land is destroyed, our Lord Swtfr is

angry with us. Not does heaven give water in
our time. Every land is in uproar, for we
are fighting continually. We have plundered
all our possessions with the Great Daughter
before them: Let us bring a gift to the 'Good
God', that he may give to us peace that we mav
live.'"
The account concludes with a description of the arrival of
Hattushilish's daughter at the Pharaonic court, and the jubilia-
tion over the peace between the two powers (377).
Although the Marriage Texts are quite prejudiced in favor
of an Egyptian historical viewpoint concerning the conflict and
the competition between Hatti and Egypt, the inscription should
not be dismissed solely as Ramesside propaganda. The references
to the problems afflicting Hatti appear to be historically accu
rate and reflect Egyptian knowledge and interest in the internal
politics of another country (378). Likewise, the Hittite king's
pronouncement that such afflictions were a manifestation of
divine disfavor are also quite believable, and should not be

499
ascribed to Egyptian religious biases alone (379). Indeed, the
Marriage Texts' attribution of disaster to the anger of a Hattian
deity, the Storm-god Swth-Ba'al/Teshub, is theologically akin to
the earlier Plague Prayers of Murshilish, and the Hittites' own
doctrine of casuality. There is no reference to a specific
fault committed by the Hittites, however, which could account
for divine punishment against the country.
By contrast, the Egyptian historiographer has made an un-
mistakeable link by juxtaposing the Hittite's misfortunes with
the pronouncement of Ramesses II. The king's "curse" (shwr) of
Hatti is primarily intended to demonstrate the prestige of the
Egyptian king, viz-a-viz his opponents (380). Indeed, there could
be some allusion to the well-attested Egyptian threat or maledic
tion denying a criminal's descendants a share of their office,
in the reference to the Hittite problem of royal succession (381).
Thus, the influence of Ramesses II is such, that conflicts within
the Hittite royal line are a result of his denigration of them.
The attribution of the kings "cursing" or more aptly, his "denun
ciation", of the Hittites is assigned to a period following the
Battle of Kadesh and prior to Hattushilish's usurpation of Urhi-
Teshub and ascension to the Hittite throne (382). Hence, the
hostility of Ramesses occurs in the time subsequent to the formal
truce established by Ramesses II and Muwatallish at Kadesh in
the fifth year of the Egyptian king. It is difficult to decide
whether the term shwr reflects some "formal" action having polit
500
ical or religious implications. It may be that the word shwr,
aside from its primary meaning of "denigrate" or "denunciate"
(see below), carries a juridical nuance referring to the "dis
solution" of legal ties (383). Thus, the term might be a refer
ence to the formal break of an agreement (ie. the Treaty/truce
of Year 5) and the resumption of a state of war between the two
countries.
Although the connection between Ramesses II's shwr and the
travails of Hatti accords well with an Egyptian historical view
point, the Hittite's acknowledgement of the suzerainty of Ramesses
II should not be regarded literally. Nevertheless, the contrast
between the stability of Egypt, and the insecurity of Hatti,
could well have supported the contention that Ramesses II had
been favored by the Hittite deity Swtfci. Likewise, the Hittite
king's concern over the lack of rain and anger of the god are
significant (384). Indeed, the denial of rain is a well-known
manifestation of divine punishment in religious literature and
and maledictions throughout the ancient Near East (385). Again,
it is not too far-fetched to see in the description of Hittite
woes, a reflection of a theological concept predominant in the
ancient Near East, and not necessarily an invention of the
Egyptian writer of the texts.
It is worth noting, however, that the Egyptian historiographer
connects the misfortune of Hatti to its opppoition of Ramesses
II's suzerainty in the Levant. Indeed, the king's denunciation

501
of the Hittites immediately precedes the succinct account of
the problems of royal succession and the "disintegration" of
Hatti's political and territorial possessions (386). As a
result, it is tempting to relate the reference to Ramesses II's
shwr or "curse" of Hatti to the dissolution of the Treaty of
Year 5 with Muwatallish. Whether the term shwr implies a formal
"repudiation" for a breach of oath, along with the pronouncement
of maledictions or "treaty-curses" is difficult to say due to the
lack of detail in the account.
The term sbwr occurs again in the so-called "Israel Stele"
of Merneptah (387). The text, preserved in copies from Cairo
and Thebes, commemorates the triumph of Merneptah over the chief
of the tribe of R3bw, M'ry, in the Egyptian king's fifth year.
Although the inscription has been described as an encomium to
the king, a considerable portion of it is devoted not to the
beneficence of Merneptah, but to the denunciation and condem
nation of M'ry (388). Unlike other contemporary records of this
event, however, Merneptah has no active role in the chief's
condemnation except by allusion (389). Instead, the author of
the text has stressed the animosity of M'ry's own countrymen
towards him. It is therefore significant that a considerable
portion of the account is attributed to the-people of R3bw, and
is presented in brief discourses relating the course of actions
of their deposed ruler. The culmination of M'ry's disastrous
s
502
actions against Egypt occurs in his hostile reception by his own
countrymen after his flight from pursuing Egyptian forces (390):
"Every survivor in his country refused to

accept him. 'A chief whom fate has rejected,
rebellious of feather,' they all said against
him, namely those of his town. 'He is in the
power of the gods, the Lords of Memphis. The
Lord of Egypt 'cursed' his name: M'ry is a
criminal for Memphis (and) a son of one from
his tribe forever. B3-n-R'-Mry-Imn is after
his children, Mr-n-Pth-gtp-br-M3't has been
given to him as fate, for he has become a
'Smitten One'."
It is interesting to note that the sftwr of M'ry is linked specif
ically to "his name" (rn.f), by which we should understand a
reference to his "legal status" (391). The action of the king
is directed solely against the chief and his own familial line
(392). This suggests that the historiographer regards M'ry
alone as legally responsible for the state of hostilities, rather
than condemning the group as a whole. Indeed, as noted above,
the author of the text has drawn a sharp distinction between the
singular provocation of M'ry and the response of his own followers
towards him. Thus, as an immediate aftermath of the conflict,
R3bw rejects him as leader of the tribe. The context in which
the sfrwr appears, again suggests that the term has some connnec-
tion with the "dissolution" or "abrogation" of a formal relation
ship. This is supported by a specification of M'ry as "criminal
of/for the White Walls" (ie. Memphis). The term bwty is a later
variant of bwt, lit. "abominated one", and refers to royal condem
nation of M'ry's illegal incursion into territory around Memphis

503
(393). The legal basis for the king's reduction of the chief's
status is amplified in the subsequent narrative.
Although the royal punishment of M'ry is clearly stated,
and should be understood as the rejection of him and his descend
ants as chiefs of R3bw by Pharaonic authority, it is important
to note the assumed emphasis on divine participation in the
conflict. Indeed, some of the references made by the R3bw refer
to a manifestation of divine "wrath" (b3w) against M'ry (394).
Likewise, there are phrases used in these discourses which recall
similar language in Egyptian maledictions or threats (395).
This is most evident in the "lamentation" for R3bw, a speech
attributed to "wise men" of the tribe (396). This group, which
is characterized further as "those who gaze at the stars, and
know their spells in looking to the wind" (397), recognizes the
futility of attacking Egypt, due to the country's privileged
position among the gods (398):
"'As for Egypt', one says, 'It is since the

gods that she is the sole daughter of P're,
and his son is the one who is upon the throne
of Shu. No heart has achieved success in
transgressing her people. The 'eye' of every
god is in pursuit of its plunderer. It shall
surely bring an end to her enemies,' so they
say . . . "
Interestingly, the reference to the pursuit (m-s3) by the irt,
lit. "eye" of a deity against violators of law occurs elsewhere
in Egyptian religious texts and threats (399). The expression
"eye", usually that of Horus, contains a pun on the term irt,
eye/deed, action" of a god (400). It is regarded as the

504
mechanism through which criminal actions are answered, in order
to maintain m3't, "justice" in the world. The action of the irt
ntr is therefore quite similar to the role assumed by the goddess
Sekhmet, who is also identified with the "Eye of Re", ie. the
divine agent of retribution in the world (401). In the context
of the Israel Stela, however, it is clearly not rendered as a
malediction pronounced in some formal legal setting such as the
invocation of an oath. It is nevertheless significant that the
condemnation of M'ry has been attributed to foreign groups rather
than to the Egyptian king. The recitation of the "wise men" of
R3bw is intended to warn their chief against violating Egyptian
territorial integrity on pain of divine punishment. The dire
results of the battle are clear vindication of their statements.
The admonition, of course, has been composed retrospectively
and foreshadows the outcome to the conflict between Pharaonic
troops and M'ry. The section quoted above is itself a literary
fiction and it is unlikely that foreign groups would have invoked
an Egyptian theological concept (ie. irt) as justification for
their warning. However, their acknowledgement of divine protec
tion of political boundaries is not to be summarily dismissed as
an invention of the author. The speech demonstrates that the
Egyptians themselves regarded their own territory to have been
under the sanction of the gods (402). The attribution of the
concept to a foreign group, despite certain "Egyptianizing"
elements in the composition of the address, suggests that

505
Pharonic vassals were also acquainted with this belief. Whether
a "threat" such as that referred to by the R3bw invoking the
"eye of every god" was a formal provision of a treaty unfor
tunately cannot be answered without corroborating documentation.
The maintenance of a country's boundaries and a vassal's promise
to adhere to them, however, would most likely have been a major
element of an oath or treaty (403).
The Israel Stela also states that a major factor in the
defeat of M'ry was the rejection of the tribe by their own deity
(404): "Swtfr turned his back to their chief, their tribal set
tlements were abandoned under his authority." The contention is
further bolstered by a description of the appearance of M'ry and
Merneptah before the divine court at Heliopolis (405). There,
each party presents his case before an assembled tribunal of gods,
prior to the actual military engagement (406). It results that
M'ry is condemned by the Ennead, lit. "The Ennead made him a guilty
one on account of his crimes"; Merneptah, by contrast, is consid
ered "innocent" lit. "exonerated" (m3'ty) "against his enemies
before P'Re" (407). He is subsequently awarded the fcps sword in
order to defeat his foe (408). The scene itself should be taken
as the formal presentation of the casus belli to the gods who
are to grant to the king a declaration of war. Indeed, the divine
verdict against M'ry is specified as being based on the legal
charge of "his coming to transgress (th3) the 'Walls of the
Sovereign'", again a reference to the violation of Memphite

506
territory (409). It is significant in this regard that Ptah,
the patron deity of Memphis, pronounces the actual sentence
against the chief: "Ptah said against the Fallen One of R3bw:
'All his gathered crimes be turned back upon his head. Deliver
him into the hand of Merneptah . . .(410) In the Great Karnak
Inscription relating events of the same conflict, however, the
Egyptian king's decision to go to war is supported by the oracle
of Amun in Thebes (411), while the commissioning is done by Ptah
in a dream to the king (412). There is an allusion to a similar
scene in the later Medinet Habu inscriptions of Ramesses III.
The king's enemies bemoan the fact that the gods had passed a
condemning verdict against them, thus accounting for their defeat
at the hand of the Egyptian king (413).
Texts such as the Marriage Stelae of Ramesses II, the Israel
Stela of Merneptah, and to a lesser degree, the Medinet Habu
inscriptions of Ramesses III, demonstrate that by the Ramesside
Period, a concept of divine responsibility for overseeing, and
ultimately, enforcing the political relations between Egypt and
her neighbors had become normative. It is clear however, that
such a belief was well-established long before this time (414).
It is nevertheless significant that explicit references to "divine
jurisdiction" over boundaries emerge during a period in which
Egyptian, or better, Pharaonic, contacts with foreign peoples
were at an apex. Hence, while Egyptian documentation concerning

507
the actual use of "treaty-curses" is quite meager -restricted
to the Treaty of Year 21- the underlying concern that a breach
of an international "agreement" could result in divine prosecu
tion of the guilty party is fairly common in Egyptian inscrip
tions by the close of the Late Bronze Age (415).
a-
In the preceding discussion, we have examined the available
evidence in order to discern whether the Egyptians, like the
other contemporary societies of the ancient Near East, employed
"curses" - to use a convenient term - in documents of interna
tional law represented by formal treaties (416). It has repeat
edly been noted, and lamented, that such a task is hampered by
both the paucity and nature of the evidence available to us. In
contrast to the Hittite, Assyrian, and Biblical records, which
consist of treaty-texts themselves, or adaptions of them, little
material of this sort has survived from ancient Egypt. Again,
the Treaty of Year 21 between Ramesses II-Hattushilish III is
our only sure witness to this practice in Egypt. Therefore, we
have been forced to make some assumptions and hypotheses based
upon indirect references and allusions. Among such assumptions
is that juridical practices attested within the Nile Valley
itself would have been applied in a similar manner to the foreign
peoples who had come under Pharaonic control (417). Nevertheless,
there are reasons to assume that the Egyptians could have used
"curses" or "threats" in the same manner as other ancient Near

508
Eastern societies. This is supported by the very fact that
"threats" were not unknown to the Egyptians themselves; indeed
the use of the "threat-formula" is attested well before the
development of some kind of Pharaonic hegemony in the Levant.
Thus, if anything, the "treaty" would simply have been another
type of "legal" document to which threats could have been applied.
Moreover, the treaty between Ramesses II-Hattushilish III proves
Egyptian acquaintance with the practice of including such clauses
in international agreements by the Thirteenth century B.C.
iTideed, the Ballas fragment of Montuhotep II refers to a
"divine oath", "oath of god" sworn by Nubians, which seemingly
contains a self-imprecation or punitive clause. This suggests
some formal provisions for foreigners entering into Egyptian
military service -the Nubians seem to be mercenaries- already
by the beginning of the Middle Kingdom. From the Eighteenth
Dynasty, there is considerable evidence that Pharaonic subjects
were required to pledge their loyalty to the king by means of a
public ceremony of allegiance. Similar to practices attested
from Hittite, Assyrian and Biblical texts such an event included
a mass-gathering and a pledge of loyalty, including a promise
to report rumors of conspiracy to the monarch. Sealing the cere
mony were blessings and "curses" upon the forsworn parties.
Although public gatherings are attested in inscriptions before,
and after Hatshepsut's Coronation texts, it is only here that
formal threats are included (418). Nevertheless, there are

509
indications within the text that the practice was not restricted
to her reign alone. Moreover, Hatshepsut's inscription shows
that the mass-gathering of subjects, pledge of fealty, and bless
ings and curses-all characteristic of Near Eastern loyalty oaths-
were known to the Egyptians well before evidence from Hittite
sources (419). Not surprisingly, the military is included among
the groups described as participants in the ceremony. Owing to
the hetereogenous make-up of the Egyptian military, it is logical
to assume that the practice would have been extended among
foreign garrisons as well (420).
What has survived concerning "loyalty oaths" among Pharaonic
vassals indicates that foreign subjects were required to pledge
their personal fealty to the king, send tribute at prescribed
intervals, and swear never to rebel against the ruler (421).
Accordingly such promises were made in the monarch's name, or
sometimes by "the greatness of the wrath of his Majesty" (422).
Therefore, it appears that in many cases, the king's power, rather
than an invocation of divine punishment - represented by a "treaty-
curse" - functioned as the binding element of the pledge (423).
Indeed, in the few instances where "curses" occur in the Amarna
letters, this observation seems to be valid. In EA 147, Abimilki
of Tyre proclaims that the disobedient vassal shall suffer the
loss of his city, his familial line, and his name -elements common
in Egyptian threats, as well as treaty-curses. However, no deity
is invoked to sanction the threat. Indeed, the context in which

510
Abi-milki's statement occurs indicates that the Pharaoh was the
actual agent for its enforcement. Likewise, in a letter from
Akhnaton to his rebellious vassal Aziru (EA 162), it is clear that
the king himself shall punish his disloyal servant. There are
no references in the Amarna correspondence that treason was to
be punished by the gods as a breach of oath or treaty (424).
Similarly, a contemporary Egyptian description of a formal loyalty
ceremony between the king and foreign vassals corroborates this
observation. During the convocation, a blessing and threat are
pronounced over the assembled parties; the latter refers to the
disobedient being destined for the "executioner's block", rather
than subject to divine wrath as would be typical for contempoary
Hittite practice (425).
Again it must be noted, that the evidence available to us
does not always provide a coherent, or consistent picture. Thus,
elsewhere in the Amarna letters (EA 24) the Mittanian king,
Tushratta, states that relations with the Egyptian king had been
conducted under divine auspices (426). Likewise, the Hittite-
Egyptian treaty formalized in Ramesses II's twenty-first year,
contains the expected god-list and treaty-curse (427). However,
in the examples just cited, it should be noted that the documents
clearly refer to "parity" relations. Obviously, since both
parties would have been of equal legal status, the oath or treaty
would not have been sworn in the name of either individual in
voked in the agreement (428). As a result, some higher authority,

511
ie. deities, had to be invoked as guarantor of the contract.
The threat of divine punishment in the "parity" treaty, therefore,
was the equivalent of the vassal's invocation Pharaonic power
in a suzerainty treaty. Hittite documents of the latter type,
however, regularly include "curses" (429). One would tentatively
suggest that Egyptian relations with their vassals, as evidenced
by fealty-oaths, were of a fundamentally different nature than
those attested in Hittite treaties (430). It was the power of
the Pharaoh which guaranteed a vassal's adherence to the oath,
and not fear of divine vengeance. Admittedly, such a hypothesis
could radically change should an actual Egyptian vassal-treaty
come to light. Likewise, in the Amarna letters themselves,
Akkadian words for oath (mamxtu) and "curse" (vb. araru) appear.
It is not clear, however, whether they would conform to Pharaonic
"juridical" practices, or those of other contemporary societies
(431). Thus, Hittite and later Assyrian use of the term mamitu
refers to "oaths" or "treaties" in which threats are a putative
element. Likewise, Akkadian araru "to curse", has applications
to the invocation of divine wrath, which is not always evident
in Egyptian idioms usually translated "to curse" (see below).
Again, epistolary references and allusions are an inadequate
source for actual "documentary" or "literary" forms.
As far as undisputed evidence for the use of actual treaty-
curses among the Egyptians is concerned, it is restricted to the
agreement between Ramesses II and Hattushilish III. However,

512
the document itself refers to two earlier treaties between Egypt
and Hatti which were in effect during the reigns of the Hittite
kings, Shuppilulimas and Muwatallish (432). As noted, treaty-
curses constituted a formal element in Hittite treaties, and
there is no reason to doubt that they were not present in these
earlier documents as well. To a certain extent, this is supported
from Hittite writings. In the Plague-Prayers of Murshilish and
the Annals of Shuppilulumas, there are clear references to an
earlier treaty between Egypt and Hatti. Both Hittite texts
cite Shuppilulimas1 violation of this agreement, which has been
called the Kurustama Treaty. The breach of the treaty, or what
the texts' call "the oath of the gods", carried with it the
threat of divine vengeance (433). This was manifested as an
outbreak of the plague in Hatti. The "oaths of the gods" un
doubtedly is an allusion to the treaty and its characteristic
list of divine witnesses and treaty-curses themselves. Thus, by
the reign of Amenophis III at least, "treaty-curses" must have
been an element in international agreements between Egypt and
Hatti.
An Egyptian text from the Third Intermediate Period, the
Piye stela, indicates that divine oaths sometimes contained
threats to seal agreements between the native Egyptian kinglets
and their Kushite opponent. An "oath of the god" sworn by a
Delta chieftain, Padiese, pledging allegiance to Piye, has an

513
imprecation ("He shall die the death of his father") should he
withhold tribute from the king. Likewise, the ruler of Sais,
Tefnakhte, swore an oath to Piye, invoking "hunger", "thirst"
and "bitterness" upon himself if he would oppose the Kushite
monarch in the future. The use of threats to sanction oaths are
reflective of the Kushite's tentative military and political
hold of the Nile Valley at this time. Such pledges were plainly
dependant upon forces other than Kushite authority for enforce
ment. Thus, divine parties act as guarantor of the oaths (434).
Similarly, Assyrian texts referring to their invasion of
Egypt specify that the defeated Egyptians swore "oaths" (ade;
mamitu) by the "Great Gods" (435). Assyrian vassal-treaties,
to which these oaths clearly refer, always contained weighty
threats, or treaty-curses, as a formal element (436). Thus, it
should be assumed that the conquered Egyptians placed themselves
under the ban of divine vengeance just as other defeated opponents
of the Assyrians had done.
Egyptian royal inscriptions of the New Kingdom contain
threats accompanying oaths sworn by a Pharaoh preceding a mili
tary campaign. Such threats, sometimes referring to the destruc
tion of the enemy and reduction of his place of habitation, how
ever, appear to be "personal" rather than reflective of a "formal"
treaty-curse. Indeed, the invocation to a god, ie. the oath it
self, is an assertory device; the appeal to divine forces contains
no reference to their enforcing a breach of oath. As Spalinger

514
and Vernus have pointed out, however, such oaths probably were
sworn in the presence of a god as part of a ritual before battle.
Indeed, it becomes clear from later texts, that during the
Ramesside Period, the casus belli was presented before deities
for their jurisdiction (437). This is most evident in the Israel
stela of Merneptah. The text depicts the Egyptian king and his
opponent as appearing before a divine court where their claims
are arbitrated. As an outcome of the trial, the foreign chief,
M'ry is declared guilty and assigned defeat in battle. Inter
estingly, his own tribal deity abandons him and his people due to
their- crimes against Egypt. Although there is no explicit ref
erence to a treaty itself between the two parties, the text is
at least indicative of a concept that legal relations between
Egypt and her neighbors were considered to have been under divine
arbitration.
We would summarize our discussion by the following observa
tions. Treaties between Egypt and Hatti undoubtedly would have
contained "curses" as a normal constituent element. Whether
this was true of Pharaonic agreements with their vassals during
the New Kingdom is not clear. However, it seems that foreign
subjects would normally have considered such "oaths" to have
been enforced by the king, rather than under the sanction of
"gods". Therefore, punitive clauses, rather than invoking divine
punishment- as is typical of contemporary Hittite treaties -seem

515
to have been sworn with an emphasis on Pharaonic power (438).
Threats of divine vegeance are included in a loyalty ceremony
from Hatshepsut's reign, and so a similar possibility cannot
be entirely ruled out in cases of oaths sworn by foreign subjects.
In later texts from the eighth century B.C., threats are included
in oaths sworn among the defeated Egyptian opponents of the
Kushites. Likewise, references to "oaths" in treaties imposed
by the Assyrians upon defeated Egyptian officials suggest that
the use of maledictions to seal these documents would have been
likely. One would conclude that the Egyptians were acquainted
with the treaty-curse similar to the other people of the Ancient
Near East. As to the extent of their applications as a formal
element of an Egyptian vassal treaty, unfortunately cannot be
ascertained due to the nature of the Egyptian evidence itself.
A definite conclusion can be reached, only -if and when- docu
mentary evidence comparable to a Pharaonic suzerainty treaty
itself emerges.
516
NOTES TO CHAPTER THREE
1) Note for example some of the typical phrases listed by

Janssen, De traditioneele egyptische Autobiografite (Leiden,
1946) see for example those epithets listed under mh ib, (ibid
67), or §ms (111).
2) See for example ibid., 86 ff.
3) Urk. IV 651. 16-17.
4) See Posener, L'Enseignement Loyaliste (Paris, 1976)

llff.
5) Ibid.. 53, § 1.1; 1.6; 1.7.
6) See for example, Helck, Merikare 24-26 (XIV. P 7-10;M 13-16):

"Make your courtiers great that they may execute your laws. The
one wealthy in his estate does not show partiality for he is a
property owner, who has no lack. But wretches cannot say, 'By
his truth'; nor is it fitting to say, 'Would that I have!' He
is partial to his rewards. The Chief of courtiers is great, and
a warrior is the king, the possessor of a retinue. Rich is he who
is wealthy with courtiers,"; Ibid., 36 (XXII. P 3-5; M 16-18):
"Make all your courtiers great, promote your [warrior]s. Give
largess for the recruits of your [ser]vice-paid with revenues,
endowed with fields, provided with cattle."
7) Posener, op. cit., 3.
8) Ibid. , 70 ff., § 3.3-3.8.
9) See Posener, ibid., 4-11;

Redford, History; and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty: Seven
* Studies (Toronto, 1967) 78.
10) Urk. IV 20. 9-16.
11) For the Harem conspiracy and assassination attempt, see de

Buck, JEA 23, 1937, 152 ff.; Goedicke, JEA 49,1963, 71ff.; and
Breasted, ARE IV §§ 416-454.
12) W. Erichsen, Papyrus Harris I (Brussels, 1933) 79.4-12.
13) The king's titulary is given.
14) Ibid.
517
15) Helck, Merikare, 9-10 (V. P 9-III 1; M 7-10)
16) Posener, Loyallste , 91ff., § 5.13-6.5.
17) The text is published by Helck in Historisch-Biographische

Texte, 21-29.
18) Ibid., 28-29 (lines 32-39).
19) See the general discussion of Lorton, "Treatment" 50-53.
20) Posener, op. cit., 80, § 4.1
21) So See the proceedings of the trial of the conspirators against

Ramesses III supra, note 11.
22) Helck, Merikare, 28 (XVII. P 2-4; M 2-4).
23) Lorton, op. cit.,13.
24) Supra, note 227 (Chapter Two).
25) KRI I 58.1-7.
26) See Wilson, JNES 7, 1948, 130, 154-55.
27) M. Weinfeld, "The Loyalty Oath in the Ancient Near East",

UF 8, 1976, 379-414.
28) Ibid. 379 ff.
29) Ibid., see esp. 383.
30) Ibid., 379-380; see the translations of D.J. Weisemen, Iraq

20, 1958, 1 ff.; E. Reiner in ANET (3), 534 ff.; see for example the
stipulation in section 4 (41-61) (ibid., 535) regarding the crown-
prince Assurbanipal.
31) See Weinfeld, UF 8, 1976, 381-383.
32) Ibid., 381; 394-401.
33) See the fundamental study of D. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the

Old Testament Prophets (Rome, 1964) 1 ff.; D.J. McCarthy, Treaty
and Covenant (2nd ed.) (Rome, 1978) esp. 27-152.
34) See V. Korolec, Hethitische StaatsvertrSge: Ein Betrag zu

juristischen Wertung (Leipzig, 1931) 12 ff.; Hillers, Covenant:
The history of a Biblical idea (Baltimore and London, 1969) 37-38;
518
McCarthy, op. cit., 66-67; Weinfeld, UF 8, 1976, 397 ff.. See for
example the treaty of Murshilish and Duppi-Teshub translated by
A. Goetze in ANET (3) 205, and that of Suppiluliumas and Kuriwaza
(ibid. 206). The blessings are for the divine protection of the
vassal, "his person", his wife, off-spring, house, and country.
35) Weinfeld, op. cit., 397; Hillers, Treaty-Curses, 6; idem.,

Covenant, 38; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 106 ff.; 150 ff.
See see the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon (ANET, 538-541) for the
overwhelming list of curses.
36) Weinfeld, UF 8, 1976, 413.
37) PT 16a-c; 137d.
38) One might point out the assassination attempt of Teti as

some sort of stimulus for the concern over plots and conspiracy,
but this cannot be proven.
39) See in addition to the specific studies cited below, the

lengthy summary of Posener in LA I 67-69 under "Achtungstexte".
40) Sethe, Die Achtung feindlicher Fursten (Berlin, 1926) 5 ff.
41) Posener, Princes et pays d'Asie et de Nubie; Textes hier-

atiques sur des figurines d'envoutement du Moyen Empire (Brussels
1940).
42) A.M.-Bakr-J. Osing, MDAIK 29, 1973, 97 ff.; also Osing,

MDAIK 32, 1976, 133 ff.
43) See Posener, Princes et pays, 31-35; Sethe, op. cit. 23,
dated the texts to the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty.
44) Sethe, Achtung feindlicher Fursten, 31 ff.; the OK texts

are directed primarily towards Nubians, Bakr-Osing, MDAIK 29,
1973, 128 ff. The list of proscribed actions and things is not
as lengthy in the OK material (ibid., 177 ff.): MDAIK 32, 1976,
146 ff.
45) Sethe, op. cit., 32 ff.
46) Ibid., 62 ff. believed that the term mwt was a wish for the
death of the Egyptians named. But see Posener, MDAIK 16, 1958,
252 ff.,, who explained it as a reference to the deceased who were
still considered dangerous.
47) See Sethe, op. cit., 42-43, 58-59, 62.
48) Ibid., 71-72. See also the partial translation of Wilson

in ANET (3) 328-29.
519
49) This makes it extremely difficult to draw any historical con

clusions from these texts. However, the extensive references to
foreign toponyms and groups reveals some sort of Egyptian know
ledge and interest in Africa and Palestine.
tf
50) Sethe, Achtung feindlicher Fursten, 32, preceding a list
of Asiatic names (Taf. 10).
51) Ibid., 20, and the supposed link with the "breaking of the
red pots" in PT 244. This is by no means certain.
52) Ibid. 21; see Bakr-Osing, MDAIK 29, 1973, 97 for the OK finds.
53) For the possible explanation for the "dead", again see
Posener, MDAIK 16, 1958, 252 ff.
54) See Blackman, Middle Egyptian Stories, 22 3-6.

\/
55) Note p.3, sntt nb dwt, "any evil conspiracy" and h.2, w3.t
(y).sn, "those who plot". See below Chapter IV.
56) Weinfeld, UF 8, 1976, 392-393.
57) Urk. IV 17.1-18.2.
58) See the remarks of Lorton, JT,89 on the juridical signifi

cance of the scene.
59) Urk. IV 21.3; for the veneration of this queen, see C.

Vandersleyen, Les Guerres d'Amosis, Fondateur de la XVIIIe Dynastie
(Brussels, 1971) 134-191.
60) Erichsen, P. Harris I 75.1 ff.; special emphasis is placed

on the gathering of the military.
61) See Weinfeld, UF 8, 1976, 380-382, 386 ff. Note for example
in the Murshilish-Duppi-Teshub treaty: "If anyone utters words
unfriendly toward the king or the Hatti land before you, Duppi-
Tessub, you shall not withhold his name from the king" (ANET,
204; tr. Goetze); for Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon, "If you hear
any wrong, unseemly, improper plans, which are improper or detri
mental to the exercise of kingship by the crown prince designate
Ashurbanipal. . . and conceal it and do not come and report it
to the crown prince designate Ashurbanipal-" (ibid., 535, tr.
Reiner); see also Dt 13.6-9.
62) See Weinfeld, op»cit., 400; ANET 353-354.
63) See ANET 659-661; Hillers, Treaty-Curses, 19-21; Covenant,

41; Weinfeld, UF 8, 1976, 400.
520
64) Weinfeld, op.cit., 413.
65) Gardiner, Ramesside Administrative Documents (London, 1948)

57.8-10; see Edgerton, JNES 10, 1951, 141.
66) For a discussion see Lorton, JT 132; Goedicke, JEA 49, 1963;
Baer, JEA 50, 1964, 179; Wilson, JNES 7, 1948, 130. The sdf3-tryt
is the subject of a forth-coming study of mine. I believe that
the term has been misunderstood and actually refers to "the ex
punging" or "wiping away" of "sins, crimes". It is not an oath,
but rather the king's grant of amnesty before admitting rebellious
vassals or suppected criminal's back into "society".
67) Urk. IV 255 ff.
68) See W. Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Coregencies (Chicago, 1977)

32 ff.; also Edgerton's earlier study The Thutmosid Succession
(Chicago, 1933) esp. 31 ff., for a good survey of the problem
of royal succession at this time. Also, Redford, History and
Chronology, 50 ff.
69) Breasted, ARE II, 95.
70) Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs . 186.
71) Breasted following a suggestion by Gardiner claimed that

fragments of an inscription of Amenemhat III in Berlin (Nos. 15801-
4), Aegyptische Inschriften aus den Koniglichen Museen zu Berlin
(Heft III) 138, were the inspiration; the fragments do not lend
to such a thesis.
72) See generally Redford's comments in History and Chronology,

on the influence of MK literature on the culture of the early 18th
dynasty, 78f.; see also Habachi in Melanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar
(Cairo, 1985), 353.
73) See Goedicke, in Festschrift zum 150, j^hrigen Bestehen des

Berliner Agyptischen Museums, 88f.
74) For the use of the archaic pronoun swt see Gardiner, EG3
450.5e.
75) Urk. IV 256.9-258.5.

V 7
76) Sntit, "retinue" is an apposition to spsw, s'hw, and smrw.
For the officials attached to the Residence see Helck, Zur Ver-
waltung des Mittleren und Neun Reiches (leiden, 1958) 65ff.; see
also 121; The courtiers would seem to be those persons granted
special social privileges (spsw, s'hw) as well as bureaucrats
(smrw). It is interesting to note that only one person is desig
nated as representative of the "common" people.
521
77) The text is quite explicit in formulation in specifying those

who sponsored the young queen. R irt.sn wdt could be translated
"until they carried out the wdt; wdt "order", lit. "that which was
commanded" is further specified as hr dit hm. . . m 'h.f, "on
account of placing the Majesty. . . in his palace." For hr with
a juridical sense, see Wb. Ill 132.1, 13. Apparently, the court-
theoretically at least- was considered to be a partner in the
elevation of Hatshepsut to the throne. There is, however, a
strong apologetic motive throughout the inscription.
78) for imy-wrt-s3 designating the audience chamber on "the West-

side", see Redford, History and Chronology 82; Wb. I 73.8, it is
derived from nautical terminology; see Sethe, ZAS 54, 1918, 3
(and note 5).
79) This is the typical formula of obeisance.
80) See below Chapter IV.
81) For dm rn see Wb. IV 449.19. Note for example the transla
tions of Breasted ARE 11,97, "Whosoever proclaims with unanimity
the name of her majesty" Sethe, Urk. IV (Deutsch), 119; "Jeder
aber, der horen wird, wie man den Namen ihrer Majestat proklamiert".
82) The subsequent clause is difficult,althoughit seems to refer

to Thutmosis' recognition of his daughter: "for this 'goddess'
is the daughter of a god (?)".
83) Or else, "according to that which her father, Lord of the gods
decreed."
84) See Urk. IV 258.8; E. Naville, Deir el Bahari III 61.
85) Urk. IV 259.1-261.1.
86) For the graphic archaism see Gardiner, EG3 § 73.
87) For inpw, see Murnane, Coregencies, 254-255; Meeks, RdE 28,
1976, 87-92.
88) Rh in this instance clearly has the meaning "to recognize"

someones's legal claim or status, see Morschauser, op. cit., 188
(note 486). For the use of semantic terms meaning "to know" in
treaty and covenantal contexts see H. Huffmon, BASOR 81,
1966, 31-37; idem, and S. Parker, BASOR 184, 1966, 36-38; Goetze,
JCS 22, 1968-69, 7 f.
89) Sfat.f (?) is problematic; perhaps a variant of Sb' (Wb. IV

237.18) "shine"?
522
90) Urk. IV 261.2-11; see the recent discussion of Goedicke;

Melanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar, 1985, 315ff.
91) For the use of the term to "love" cf. W.K. Simpson in Fragen
an die Altagyptische Literatur (eds. J. Assmann, et. al,) (Wies
baden, 1977) 494-495. It is tempting to see the Egyptian usage
in this context as a semantic parallel to Akk. ra'amu denoting
"loyalty" to one's suzerain, see W. Moran, CBQ 25, 1963, 77-87.
92) Wb. IV 33.8-12; Note for example, Urk. IV 46.17 the epithet
of an official, "One who reported (s'r) claims to the Inner
palace".
93) Note similarly thephrase used in the Intf decree, referring

to the treatment of criminals, "as is done to his like, namely
a rebel" (mi irt r mitty.f sbi); Petrie, Koptus PI. 8 (line 6).
94) So see de Buck, JEA 23, 1937, 152-164; the text is publshed
in KRI V 350-360.
95) See the designation of Pai-bak-kamen: "-he had been in

collusion with Tiye - - - he acted, one with them. He took their
words outside to their mothers and brothers who were there saying
'Stir up the people. Incite hostility'-in order to make rebellion
against their lord" (KRI V 352.3-6=4:2).
96) Note the description of Mesud-su-Re: "-he had been in collu

sion with Pai-bak-kamen" (KRI V 352.10-11=4:3).
97) Pa-tjau-emdi-Amun: "-he heard the matters which the men had
plotted with the women - - - but failed to report them (lit. come
forth concerning them)" (KRI V 353.14-16=4:6).
98) The standard verdictis "They caused his punishment to over

take him", see de Buck, op. cit. 154; Lorton, "Treatment", 28.
99) Urk. IV 217.14-17 (the text is heavily reconstructed).
100) Urk. IV 256.14-16.
101) Urk. IV 259.2-3.
102) This was Redford's view in History and Chronology, 82-83.
103) See Weinfeld, UF 8, 1976, 379-381; see especially Wiseman,

Iraq 20, 1958, 1 ff.; note also examples cited by Weinfeld, op. cit.
381, 386-387 for Hittite oaths taken by the military to obey the
king and his descendants.
523
104) The earliest examples cited by Weinfeld, op. cit., 381, are
Hittite documents of the 13th-14th centuries. See E. von Schuler,
Hethitische Dienstanweisung fur hohere Hof-und Statsbeamte (Archiv
fur Orientforschung 10 1959) 1-35. Weinfeld, JOAS 93, 1973,
190 ff., believes that the formal structure of treaties was crys
tallized in the Amarna Period.
105) Note the strange oath sworn by Hatshepsut upon her reign,
recorded upon her Karna;k obelisk, Urk. IV 365.15-366.12.
106) See generally Schulman, JARCE 8, 1969-70, 29 ff.; C.F. Nims,

ZAS 93, 1966, 97-100.
108) Urk. IV 480.7.
109) See the discussion of McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 29 ff.

on the treaty material; also J.M. Munn-Rankin, Iraq 18, 1956, 86 ff.
110) Korosec, Hethitische Staatsvertrage, 12-14; note also G.

Kestemont, in Diplomatique et droit internationale en Asie
occidentale (1600-1200 av. J.C.) (Louvain, 1974) 130ff. for a re
classification of the treaty.
111) Korosec, op. cit.
112) G. Mendenhall, "Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient

Near East" reprinted in BA Reader 3, 1970, 32 ff.
113) See generally McCarthy's summary of the subject in Old

Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinions (Oxford, 1972);
and his remarks in the second edition of Treaty and Covenant, 1-24.
114) See generally McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 37 ff.; also

W. Baltzer, The Dovenant Formulary (trans. D. Green) (Philadelphia,
1971) 9 ff.; Hillers, Covenant, 25 ff. For earlier treaties see
the summary of McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 29-36; also Munn-
Rankin, op. cit., 86 ff.
115) The text is published in KRI II 225-232; see McCarthy,

Treaty and Covenant, 37 ff., and esp. 46-48.
116) McCarthy, op. cit., 51 ff.; see also Goetze, Kleinasian

(2nd ed.) (Munich, 1957) 98. Kestemont, op. cit., rejects the
idea of "vassal" treaties.
117) McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 46; see ibid., 48-52 on

possible parity treaties between the Hittites and kings of
Kizzuwatna.
524
118) So see J. Schmidt, Ramesses II; A Chronological Structure

for his Reign (Baltimore, 1973) 140; Schulman, JSSEA 8, 1978, 115.
119) So see Schulman, op. cit., 114-115 who believes this is due
to an accident of discovery, since only two copies of the treaty
have been found in the Hittite archives.
120) See KRI II 228.13-229.1;- the text is fragmentary at this

point.
121) See Spalinger's remarks in SAK 9, 1981, 357-358 on this

point.
122) KRI II 226.11-227.2 (Karnak 5-7); see Wilson's translation

in ANET (3), 199-201.
123) KRI II 227.2-6 (Karnak 7-9).
124) On parity, KRI II 227.6-14 (Karnak 9-13); stipulations,

KRI II 227.15-229.11 (Karnak 13-25).
125) KRI II 229.11-230.12 (Karnak 25-31).
126) KRI II 230.12-231.3 (Karnak 31-32). See for example Schmidt,

op. cit., 139, for a more detailed analysis of the structure; also
McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 48.
127) See KRI II 225 for the location of the texts.
128) Edel, ZA 15, 1950, 195 ff., for the publication of the texts
(KBo I 24 + KUB III 84); ibid., 196-197, 210-211 (KBo I 15 +19).
129) We have evidence, however, attesting to the practice in

Egypt as well. See for example, the passage in the Wadi Mia
text of Seti I discussed in Chapter II. Note also the later P.
Harris 6.8 where Ramesses III claims that he has deposited decrees
and official documents with Amun for protection. Similarly in
P. Ebers 856a (1031-2) describes a medical text as having been
found "under the feet of Anubis in the shrine" (Grapow,
Medizinischen Texts in Hieroglyphischen Umschreibung, 11-12);
and similarly, P. Berlin 163 a (15.1) states that medical texts
had been "found in ancient writings in a chest containing documents
under the feet of Anubis" (Ibid., 12). The practice described
should be considered authentic, if not the actual date ascribed
to the medical texts themselves (First Dynasty).
130) See primarily Hillers, Treaty-Curses, 1 ff.; F.C. Fensham,

ZAW 74, 1962,1-9; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant 66 f. But cf.
Kestemont, Droit international, 61, 257 f. who calls the god-list,
the curse and blessing grande acte solennel; see McCarthy, op. cit.,
40-41 for criticism of K.'s classification.
525
131) Hillers, op. cit., 7; McCarthy, op. cit., 66-67, 148-150.
132) KRI II 230.11-231.3 (Karnak 30-32; Ramesseum x + 304).
133) KRI II 226.2-226.11.
134) KRI II 232.1-232.15; see Langdon-Gardiner, JEA 6, 1920,

198-199; Spalinger, SAK 9, 1981, 348, and studies cited on the
seal itself; C.F.A. Schaffer, E. Laroche, et. al., Ugaritica III
(Paris 1956) Iff.; Kitchen, Pharaoh Trimuphant (Warminster, 1982)
79.
135) So see the convenient chart of Schmidt, op. cit., 139.
136) A. Schulman, JSSEA 8, 1978, 114.
137) Ibid.
138) Langdon-Gardiner, op. cit. 199-201.
139) See Spalinger, op. cit.
140) Ibid., 299-300, 355.
141) Ibid., 355.
142) KRI II 226.9-10.
143) KRI II 226.12-13.
144) For the Akkadian text see E. Weidner, Politische Dokumente

aus Kleinasien (Leipzig, 1923) 112-113. For rikiltu see von Soden,
Akkadisches Handworterbuch II (Wiesbaden, 1972) 984; McCarthy,
op;, cit., 40, 105; also now Murnane, The Road to Kadesh (Chicago,
1985) 44 f. (note 63). For the displacement of the god-list see
generally, Gardiner-Langdon op. cit. 195-197; Edel, ZAS 90, 1963,
31-35, (who demonstrated that the Egyptian is based on cuneiform
originals). For god-lists in general, see now the study of M.
Barre, The God-list in the Treaty Between Hannibal and Philip V
of Macedonia (Baltimore, 1983) 18-37.
145) Spalinger, SAK 9, 1981, 348-349.
146) Ibid., 348-349.
147) Ibid., 149. This had also been suggested by Schulman,

op. cit., 120.
148) Ibid., 149.

I
526
149) For the pecularities of the Akkadian of the Egyptian scribes

see Spalinger, op. cit., 356-57, who suggests a date as early
as Thutmosis III for the introduction of the cuneiform script
into Egypt. Also, Moran in Unity and Diversity (eds. Goedicke
and Roberts) 146 (and note 8), 158 (and note 26), 160; Czermak,
WZKM 51, 1948, 1-13 (for the use of Akkadian by Egyptian scribes).
150) Schmidt, Ramesses II, 139, 141.
151) Note for example:
K 32 <©471^—
R.X + 4 O L yy
(KRI II 231.1-2); also K 35
Rx + 8 =At)1) 0 —1
(KRI II 231.15). For a similar phenomenon in the Kadesh texts ,

see Spalinger, in Perspectives on the Battle of Kadesh, 73-75.
152) McCarthy, op. cit., 70-77.
153) Ibid., 75-76 (note 73).
154) Ibid., 71-73.
155) Ibid., 48 (note 28). As McCarthy (ibid., 72) notes, this

simply involved copying the older texts, then adding the needed
material. There is no reason to doubt that several versions of
the Egyptian translation of the treaty were in existance, similar
to the Hittite practice of having several cuneiform copies. Thus,
as the later correspondence between Ramesses and Hattushilish
shows, a copy was kept in Heliopolis, probably one in the Delta
Residence of Per-Rameses (KRI II 226.4), and undoubtedly Thebes
as the Karnak and Ramesseum copies shown.
156) In the rather bland historical retrospective, it mentions

the "sworn document" (nt-' mty) in the reign of Suppilulium as,
and one in the reign of Muwatallish (KRI II 228.1-2). See now
the remarks of Murnane, op. cit., 43-51; Schulman, JSSEA 8, 1978,
112-114.
157) See below for some examples. Generally see McCarthy, Treaty
and Covenant, 125. A. Alt, Kleine Schriften III (Munich 1953-59)
104 suggested that the Egyptians used treaties as early as
Thutmosis III; also generally Lorton, JT, 1-4.
158) See now Murnane, Road to Kadesh, 41-43; and references cited
527
in note 58. Also Houwink ten Cate, BiOr 20, 1963, 274-275;
Spalinger, SAK 9, 1981, 358 (note 93).
159) Murnane, Road to Kadesh, 42-43; Goetze, CAH (3) II 29;

Malamat, Vetus Testamentum 5, 1955, 1-12.
160) See Guterbock, JCS 10, 1956, 97-98; a translation is also

given by Murnane, op. cit., 42, based on Gilterbock.
161) See Goetze's translation in ANET (3), 394-396; also Murnane,

op. cit., 42.
162) Translation of Guterbock, op. cit., 98 (lines 26-30: E 3 iv

of "Deeds").
163) ANET (3) 395 (4) and (5).
164) It seems unusual that no Egyptian deities are mentioned.
165) But see now Murnane, op. cit., 47, 49-50 who argues that
Suppiluliumas did not view his actions in this way. The motif
occurs 20 years post factum.
166) See especially, Malamat, op. cit., 1-8; Hillers, Covenant, 42.
167) See M. Liverani, Three Amarna Essays (Malibu, 1979) 10-13;

idem., in Berytus: Archeological Studies, 31, 1983, 41 ff. on
the difficulties inherent in the political terms used in the
letters. Lorton, JT, 4 and 177, however, argues that the Egyptian
system essentially was not contradictory to the "Asiatic"; see
also the general remarks by Frandsen in Power and Propaganda (ed.
Larson)171-175, 200 (and note 50); Helck, Die Beziehungen, 246-
255.
168) See CAD 1 (.1) 187f.; J.A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna Tafeln
(Leipzig, 1915), EA 4:15; 4:17; 11:22; 29:166.
169) EA 11:22; 4:17. See McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 106;

Moran, JNES 22, 1963, 173-176; Hillers, BASOR 176, 1964, 24;
Weinfeld, JAOS 93, 1973.
170) EA 20:72; 26:23; 26:26; 26:30; 26:45; 26:57; 27:72, 73,

29:166; McCarthy, op. cit., 106.
171) Moran in Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel

Iwry (Winona Lake, 1985) (ed. Kort-Morschauser), 178-181.
172) Fensham in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell

Albright (ed. Goedicke) 126-128.
528
173) See CAD II 191-199; AHw I 118 ff.; Lorton, JT, 16.
174) See Fensham, op. cit., 126-128.
175) However, again see Liverani's remarks in Berytus 31,

1983, esp. 44-56.
176) So generally Frandsen in Power and Propaganda, 175;

Helck, Die Beziehungen, 246-255.
177) For somewhat differing views of this correspondence see

generally Liverani, Three Amarna Essays, 3-13; and Moran,
Biblical and Related Studies, 173-181.
178) See Knudtzon's remarks in El Amarna Tafeln, 1056-1057.
179) "When he had committed hostilities and had not fulfilled

his oath (mamita)." See Knudtzon, op. cit., 614-615 (EA 148:34-27).
Letter of Abi-milki to the king. (The translations are based on
Knudtzon's rendering).
180) EA 67:13-14: "And he made an oath/agreement [wi]th the man

of] Gubla and the m[an] of . . ."; EA 149.60; see especially 149:
54-63: "The King my Lord has written to me in a message: 'What
ever you hear-Report it to the King!' Zimrada of Sidon and Aziru,
the enemies of the king, and the people of Arwada have again taken
oaths (made pacts) with each other, and they have gathered their
ships, wagons, their - people (some type of soldiers) in order to
conquer Tyre, the servant of the King."
181) See CAD 10 (.1), 190; cf. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 33,
70, esp. 141-142 on nuances for seemingly synonomous terms; Korosec,
op. cit., 21-23, 34-35.
182) CAD 10 (.1), 192-193; see also Hillers, Treaty-Curses, 21-23

who quotes E. Reiner, Surpu: A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian
Incantations (Graz, 1985) 55; also briefly, Speiser, JOAS.
183) See generally the study of Wilson, JNES 7, 1948, 129-156.
184) Ibid.
185) See McCarthy, op. cit., 97, 142; see Kuhne, UF 3, 1971
369-371 (RS 19.68 = PRU IV 284-286) quoting a "treaty" between
Aziru and Niqmadu II. It is likely that EA 149.60 does refer to
a "treaty". As McCarthy points out RS 19.68 obliges Aziru to aid
Ugarit in time of war. Though the text is broken, McCarthy sus
pected that a curse was included. As he points out, it is signif
icant that the agreement is between Hittite vassals, and is perhaps
an adaption of the Hittite system.
529
186) EA 179:11-24.
187) See CAD 1 (.2), 236.
188) CAD 1 (.2) 234 ff.
189) CAD 1.2 304(b).
190) See below Chapter IV, perhaps the equivalent of Egyptian

shwr.
191) See Liverani's remarks in Threee Amarna Essays, 12-13;

Berytus 31, 1983,42.
192) See Moran, in Biblical and Related Studies, 178-181.
193) Ibid., 178-180; as Moran notes the concept is related in

the so-called "covenant of grant" see Weinfeld, JAOS 90, 1970,
184-203.
194) EA 147:39-51. The translation is that of Albright and

Mendenhall in ANET (3) 484.
195) Albright, JEA 23, 1937, 190-203; esp. 196ff.
196) Ibid. 198-200.
197) See J. Assmann in SAK 8, 1980 Iff; note also his remarks in
Studien zu altagyptischen Lebenslehren (Gottingen, 1979) (ed.
Hornung, et.al.) 54 ff.
198) Albright, op. cit., 201; also ANET (3), 484 (note 2).
199) S. Gevirtz, Orientalia 42, 1973, 162-177; esp. 176-177.
200) Albright, JEA 23, 1937, 199.
201) JEA 23, 1937, 199; note 5): "The sequence of tenses (preterite
in the protasis, stative in the apodosis) is possible in Accadian,
though rare in all periods)."
202) See for example the treaty of Murshilish with Duppi-Teshub:

"-may these gods of the oath destroy Duppi-Tessub together with
his person, his son, his grandson, his house, his land and
together with everthing he owns" (trans. Goetze, ANET, 205); also
in the rather lengthy curses of the Suppiluliumas-Mattiwaza
treaty: "-may the gods, the lords of the oath blot you out,
(you) Kurtiwaza, and (you) the Hurri men, together with your
530
country, your wives and all that you have" (Ibid., 206). See
also Murshilish II-Niqmepa of Ugarit: "[-may these divine oaths
destroy] Niqmepa himself utterly togehter with his wife, his sons,
his city, his country and all his possessions" (trans. McCarthy,
Treaty and Covenant, 302); Tudhaliyas IV-Ulmi-Teshub: "-then
let these thousand gods utterly destroy you, your wife, children,
country, estate, threshing floor, garden, field, orchard, cattle,
crops, (and) prosperity" (McCarthy, ibid., 305). See also
Weidner, op. cit., 68-69 Suppiluliumas-Tette treaty (Rs. IV 50-
52), and probably Suppiluliumas-Aziru treaty (ibid., 74-75; RS
14-16).
203) See JEA 23, 1937 199 (note 8); So see above Chapter One,
the earliest references are in the Siut texts. But note in the
treaty of Niqmepa of Alalakh and Ir-(d)Im of Tunip the following
malediction: "Adad,[. . . ] and Shamash, the lord of judgement,
Sin, and the great gods will make him perish, [will make him
disappear] his name and (his) descendents from the lands,[. . . ]-"
(trans. Reiner in ANET 532); McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (1st ed)
(Rome, 1963), 188 translates as "memory"; see D.J. Wiseman, The
Alalakh Tablest (London, 1953) 30 (line 78).
See also Gevirtz, VT 11, 1961, 144f. for other maledictions
against a person's name. "Name" is not a particularly unique
element to posit any type of cultural influence.
204) So see the preceding examples. Again, however, these male

dictions are from actual treaties, whereas EA 147 is not. This
could be an example of the "simple malediction" as Hillers,
Treaty-Curses, 26-27 terms it. See especially his note 44 where
he disputes Gevirtz's assertion made in IDB I, 750 that this type
of curse was typical of West-Semitic tradition as opposed to
Mesopotamian (East Semitic). Examples cited in Chapter One above,
show that "simple maledictions" were quite common in Egyptian
threat-formulation as well, and a sharp distinction is probably
not valid (see Hillers, op. cit.). Generally, there are admixtures
of threats directly linked to a deity and "simple maledictions"
in Egyptian texts.
205) EA 147: 52-56: "You are the Sun-god who rises over me,
and a brazen wall which is reared for me, and because of the
mighty power of the king my lord, I am tranquil" (trans. Albright
in ANET, 484). Note the similar sentiment in the Song of Deborah,
Jdg 5:31 to the Abimilki malediction and benediction: "Thus perish
all of your enemies, 0 Yahweh, but all your faithful are like the
sun rising in its might."
206) Liverani, Three Amarna Essays, 3-5, 10-13.
207) Ibid., 4.
531
•V
208) See now Murnane, op. cit., 5-9, 183 ff.; Liverani, op.
cit., 14-20.
209) See Moran in Biblical and Related Studies, 173-181, for

a characterization of Rib-adda's correspondence, but note
Liverani, op. cit., 8-13.
210) See Murnane, op. cit., 7-9, 186-242; also Spalinger,

BES 1, 1979, 55 ff. 5 Moran, Eretz Israel 9, 1969, 94-99;
also Schulman, JARCE 3, 1964, 53-54; idem., JARCE 15, 1978,
45-4 6.
211) EA 162:33-38. This section of the letter is discussed

by N. Waldham in JBL 98, 1979, 407-408, and its use of "treaty-
terminology".
212) EA 162.1-6.
213) EA 162:9.
214) See Waldham, op. cit,; see McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant,
107, 112 (note 18).
215) Hillers, Covenant, 38.
216) See the examples, supra, note 202.
217) Waldham, JBL 98, 1979, 408.
218) EA 162:78-81; the same warning is given in EA 163:1-5(Ro.).
219) The emphasis on "imperial" power, however, is clearly evident

in the historical prologues to the Hittite vassal treaties, see
McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 53,55, 77-78, and especially 139
(note 52) where in the treaty with Manapa-Dappas, the actions of
the Hittite king are simple an element of divine punishment.
Note however, EA 164:39-40, in a letter from Aziru to the Egyp
tian official where he seems to mention an oath sworn by Egypt
not to harm the chief of Amurru: "And thus Dudu, and the King,
my Lord, and the Great Men: 'Truly, we shall not devise any
thing whatsoever against Aziru which is not good.' Indeed, thus
you swore (tumutami) to my gods and the god A ." (EA 164:
35-40). This certainly seems to be some reference to an oath
witnessed by the gods of Amurru, and most likely an Egyptian
deity (Aton ?).
220) See Sandman, Texts from the Time of Akhenaten (Brussels,

1938), 85, 3-4.
532
221) Ibid., 84.4 ff.
222) Ibid. , 84.15-16.
223) Again see Assmann in SAK 8, 1980, 1 ff., although he stresses

the "positive" aspects of the genre in his study.
224) See above Chapter One on ]ibd; the dentals have simply been
interchanged.
225) In Egyptian threats, the nmt is usually associated with a

god (see above Chapter One), although it is more than likely that
such a traditional element would have been suppressed during this
time. Probably "king" or some title or epithet referring to
Akhnaton should be restored.
226) Sandman, op. cit, 86.3. "
227) Davies, El Amarna VI (London, 1908), 28; pi. XXI, the sign
look like -'"jl (col. 20).
228) See Wb. IV 276.8,10. Note especially the latter where it is

used in Ramesside texts in descriptions of the king's enemies: Abu
Simbel LD III 195 a 19); Med Habu 31.7, 46-34.
229) Sandman, op. cit., 1-2; the preceding line appears to be a

direct quote in which foreigners (?) seemingly proclaim safety
from punishment: "Our (?) body is hidden and land distant-"
Unfortunately the text is very broken.
230) Ibid., 3.
231) The first clause certainly seems to indicate a condition

as Davies, op. cit., 28, translated, upon which li3p.f is sub
ordinate.
232) The king's admonition, however, is not to be taken as a

literal reference to death by fire.
233) Sandman, op. cit., 8615-16.
234) Ibid, 86.19.
235) It is tempting to date the text to Aziru's visit to Egypt.
236) See generally for an overview and bibliography, Redford in

JAOS 93, 1973, 6ff; and the remarks of Kitchen in TIP, 294 ff.
237) See Redford, op. cit., 10-11; Kitchen, op. cit. 294 ff.;
432 ff.
533
238) See J.M. Myers, II Chronicles(Garden City, 1965) 74-75.
239) So Redford, op. cit., 11.
240) See Goedicke, BASOR 171, 1963, 64 ff.
241) See for example, Hosea 12:2; Jeremiah 2:18; see Hillers
Covenant, 40; Veenhof, Bibliotheca Orientalis 23, 1966, 208-313.
242) See ANET 287-288.
243) II Kgs 24:33-35.
244) Note Lachish Ostracon III (Recto 14-16) (trans. Albright

in ANET 322); F.M. Cross in Biblical and Related Studies, 41-^47
which mentions the dispatch of Coniah to Egypt. See also K.S.
Freedy-D.B. Redford, JAOS 90, 1970, 470 ff.
245) See now Bezelel-Porten, BA 44, 1981, 36 ff for a summary of

earlier views. He suggests that the term ^_d "treaty/oath" should-
be restored in the text (ibid., 36, line 7).
246) Although Freedy-Redford, JAOS 90, 1970, 477-478 does believe

that such "treaties" existed.
247) For a discussion of the historiography of the Assyrian

accounts see Spalinger, JAOS 94, 1974, 316 ff.; idem, Orientalia
43, 1974, 295 ff. See also Grayson's brief overview if JSSEA
11, 1981, 85 ff.
248) See the translation of Oppenheim in ANET 294-297 of the

campaigns of Ashurbanipal in Egypt.
249) Ibid., 294-295.
250) See ibid., 294; also M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzen
assyrischen KSnige bis zum Untergange Nineveh's (Leipzig, 1916)
vol. II, p. 12-13 (Col. I 11.118-119).
251) Ibid., 295; Streck, op. cit., 12-13 (Col. I 11.130-133).
252) Ibid., 295.
253) Ibid.
254) Ibid.; Streck, op. cit., 14-15 (Col. II 8-9).
255) For ade(adu) see CAD 1 (1) 131 ff.

534
256) See McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 107-108, 119-120,

also 142-143.
257) For the text see ANET 299-300.
258) The translation is Oppenheim's, ibid., For brief comments,

see Hillers, Covenant, 139-140; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant,
119, who discusses the imposition of a new treaty following this
event, portions of which have been found.
259) See Streck, op. cit., 76-77 (Col. IX. 60-64) (Rassam Cylinder).
260) Ibid., 78-79 (Col. IX 68, 69-74) (Rassam Cylinder).
261) See ANET (3), 534-541; Wiseman, Iraq 20, 1958, 1 ff.;
Hillers, Treaty-Curses, 9-10. See also Noth, Gesammelte Studien,
155 who notes the emphasis on such curses, and states that it
was precisely these punitive clauses which gave the treaty
validity. (See also Deller and Parpola, Orientalia 37,
464-466, where a portion of the "historical prologue" seems
to have been included in the fragmentary treaty of Ashurbanipal
with Qedar, and element not usually found in Assyrian treaty-
texts).
262) See Lorton, JT, 178, for the use of the term rather than
"empire".
263) Dr. Goedicke has pointed out to me that a text dating from
the First Intermediate Period contains a series of admonitions to
soldiers upon entering the service of the Herakleopolitan king-, and
is sealed by-an oath. The text had originally been published in
E. Ayrton, et. al., Abydos III 42, 52, pi. I (though dated to the
Roman period). It also appears in Stewart, Egyptian Stelae II,
22 (no. 91), PI. 21 (dating it to the early Middle Kingdom).
The pertinent lines state: "He makes a statement in truth: 'I
shall be free from neglecting his lord. (I) shall not rob. (I)
shall not take his possessions. Not shall (I) spend the night
in the district from which I go forth (?). Not shall I lust
after a man's wife. Not shall (I) covet that which the nds
desired. As for the s3-z who does it: His father shall abandon
him in court. Not shall he receive the property of an heir."
The text is to be discussed by Goedicke in a forthcoming study.
264) Fischer, Inscriptions of the Coptite Nome (Rome, 1964)

113, fig. 16 (b), x + 10.
265) Ibid., fig. 16 (b) x + 9-x + 10.
266) Lorton, JT, 157 (note 21).

535
267) Ibid., 94.
268) See Fischer, op. cit., 112-118; also Spalinger, Aspects,

114-115 who discusses it under the "oath" and "reaction" in
military writing.
269) See the tentative remarks of Wilson in JNES 7, 1948,

153 f. on the "oath of god".
270) See Lorton, JT, 3 for references to earlier works.
271) Ibid., esp. 176 ff.
272) JT, 114.
273) See Urk. IV 719.7-8; 723.4-5; 732.6-7; and Lorton, op. cit.,
114.
274) See LES 68.1-2: "He had the rolls of his fathers' time
brought, and had it read before me."
275) Although essentially "business" documents, there certainly

is a clear indication of the role of the gods, especially Amun,
in overseeing the whole affair. Similarly, I am wondering whether
the difficult saying of Zakar-Ba'al in LES 68.8-10 (2.13-14) is
not some sort of allusion to the witness of his own deities to the
fulfillment of his obligations: "As I invoke ('s sgb) the Lebanon,
-as surely as the sky opens- the wood is here- lying on the sea
shore." Natural phenomena such as mountains, the sea, and sky, are
familiar elements as divine witnesses to treaties and are retained
in the Biblical rib or "law-suit".
276) See now Murnane, Road to Kadesh, 44-46 (note 63) who summarizes
opinions on nt-'.
277) Lorton, JT, 136 ff.
278) Ibid., 132. Again I believe that the sdf3-tryt refers to

the granting of amnesty prior to the acceptance of the defeated
opponent as a vassal.
279) See generally Frandsen, in Power and Propaganda, 175; Helck,

Die Beziehungen, 515 ff. For the stereotyped elements in the
speeches of defeated foreigners in the Ramesside Period, see
Morschauser, op. cit., 132-134.
280) See Goedicke, GM 10, 1974, 13-17, and Spalinger, Aspects,

45-46, who suggest that this might have been a boundary stela.
The text is published in Urk. IV 82.11-86.15.
536
281) Urk. IV 86.1-6; see also Wilson, JNES 7, 1948, 149 (no.131),
who takes n '3t n b3w hm.f as "because of the greatness of the
potency of his Majesty". I would take n as expressing means,
Gardiner, EG3 § 164.5.
282) See Lorton, JT, 142-144; Morschauser, op. cit., 133-134.
283) See Morschauser, op. cit., 184-186; Goedicke, The Report of

Wen-Amun (Baltimore, 1975 ) 176-177.
284) Morschauser, op. cit., 185 (note 469).
285) KRI II 227.6.
286) KRI II 233-256; 256-257 (Abridged Version).
287) KRI II 250.9-251.11. It is tempting to view the meal as

some sort of ritual (re)affirmation of the treaty. It is sign
ificant that the meal is mentioned and linked to the st}r, "counsel"
or "ordinance" of God. The same term is used in the treaty itself,
in description of the alliance (KRI II 251.8-11). For covenantal
meals, see generally, McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 254 (and
note 19).
288) See generally, Edgerton-Wilson, Historical Records, 30 (note

50a), and further references in the Medinet Habu texts. Helck,
Die Beziehungen, 570 f. (225); M. Burchardt, Altkanaanaischen
Fremdwflrte (Leipzig, 1909) nos. 866-868. For its use as a term
for treaty, see McCarthy, op. cit., 34,35; Munn-Rankin, Iraq 18,
1956, 85; Weinfeld, JAOS 93, 1973, 191f.
289) See now Kitchen, UF 11, 1979, 453 ff. for Egyptian occurences
of the term.
290) See generally Schulman, JSSEA 8, 1978, 123 f. (note 21); Munn-
Rankin, Iraq 18, 1956, 31, for abrogations of agreements.
291) Lorton, JT, 2, 143.
292) KRI I 8.11.
293) Lorton, op. cit., 167, note 16; see also Schulman, JARCE 3,
1964, 54 ff. for the date.
294) Urk. IV 2085.15-18.
295) Lorton, op. cit.
296) Texts are published in KRI II 221-221;

537
297) KRI II 221.15-16.
298) KRI II 222.1.
299) See Lorton, JT 124.
300) For the campaign, see now Murnane, Road to Kadesh, 60-61;
Spalinge, JARCE 16, 1979, 32; Faulkner, JEA 33, 1947, 34-37;
Helck, Die Beziehungen, 189-94.
301) KRI I 10.15.
302) KRI I 10.15-11.3.
303) Spalinger, JARCE 16, 1979, 32.
304) See RIK, PI. 10.
305) Lorton, JT, 124.
306) This should probably be seen in the aftermath of the Amarna

Period, and the resulting warfare among the local chiefs; see
Murnane, Road to Kadesh, 53 ff.; Spalinger, JARCE 16, 1979, 29 ff.
307) For tktk, see Wb. V 396,13. A systematic study of terms

relating to violations of international "law", hopefully, will
be undertaken in the near future.
308) See Wrezinski, Atlas 11,58.
309) For the date to Merneptah's reign, see Schulman, JSSEA 8,

1978, 125 (note 32); Kitchen, Pharaoh Triumphant, 215, 220 (nol.70)
310) KRI II 166.3.
311) KRI II 166.4; for the scene see Wrezinski, Atlas II 58.
312) KRI I 11.1-2.
313) KRI II 166.1-2.
314) See Wb. I 443.6.
315) This is clearly what the granting of sdf3-tryt entailed.
316) For w3U in this sense, see Lichtheim, AEL II, 107 (note 5).
317) KRI II 166.7-9.

538
318) For the full text, with translation and commentary see
now N.-C. Grimal, Le Stele Triomphale de Pi('ankh)y au Musee du
Caire (Cario, 1981); see also ibid., 242-246, 264-265 on the
submission of defeated opponents.
319) Grimal, Stele Triomphale, *40 8-21; *41 1-13; Ibid., 147
(note 444).
320) See the earlier translations of Breasted ARE IV 438-439;

Lichtheim, AEL III 66-84.
321) Grimal, op. cit., *40 15-20 = lines 110-111. For sw'b
"to purify" oneself with an oath, see ibid., 147 (note 444);
Wb. IV 67.1.
322) Grimal, Stele Triomphale, *41 1-2 =lines 111-112.
323) Spalinger, SAK 7, 1979, 288f.; see also -Wilson, JNES 7, 1948,
142 (nol. 80).
324) For 'nfo-ntr, see Wb. I 203.1; generally Wilson, op. cit.,
152-154.
325) See Spalinger, SAK 7, 1979, 366 f.

generally Grimal, op. cit., 224 ff.» esp. 252; Kitchen, TIP, 366 f.
326) See in particular Grimal, Stele Triomphale, 265-270 for the

characterization of Piye as an exceptionally pious ruler.
327) Ibid., *45 2- *47 13 = lines 126-144.
328) See Grimal's remarks, ibid., 232, 246; Spalinger, SAK 7,

1979, 292 ff.; also Yoyette, MIFAO 66, 1961, 158 (§ 57).
329) Grimal, Stele Triomphale, *44 2-13. Although fragmentary,

the revolt seems to have been reported by Padiese-, who is sub
sequently rewarded by Piye: "Then his Majesty dispatched his
soldiers on account of seeing what had happened among the in
fantry of the official, Padiese. One came to report to his
Majesty: 'We have slaughtered every person whom we found
there.' Then his majesty rewarded it to the official Padiese."
(*44 7-13 = lines 123-126).
330) Ibid., *45 2-21 =lines 126-133.
331) See Grimal, ibid., 165 (note 491) and 274 on the literary
motif linked to the scene.
539
332) Ibid., *46 1-8 =lines 133-137.
333) Breasted, ARE IV 442 (c).
334) Yoyette, Kemi 21, 1971, 40-42.
335) The account of Diodorus Siculus may possibly be a remin

iscence of a disastrous campaign of Tefnakhte against the
Assyrians, and the Egyptian defeat at Raphia near the "Brook
of Egypt" by Sagon II (see ANET, 285).
336) Diodorus' account is the subject of a forth coming study.
337) Grimal, op. cit., 167 (note 503).
338) Spalinger, SAK 7, 1979, 295 f.
339) See Gardiner, EG^ § 418.3 for n scjm.n.f referring to the

future.
340) Tefnakhte had previously made an appeal to Piye in *45 5-21=

lines 127-133 about the Ethiopian king's "awesomeness".
341) So see above Chapter One.
342) See Hillers, Treaty-Curses, 57-58.
343) See Edfou I, 333: "May the name of his priest fall into
oblivion, may there be no singers among the women of the temple,
may his sacred boat catch fire, may his channel dry up, may his
grove be destroyed and treeless, may his festival be miserable
to all eternity"; also te Velde, Seth, 147; Montet, Kemi 11, 1950,
91.
344) For a similar role of Neith, see the Athens Stela, above
Chapter Two.
345) Grimal, op. cit., *47 6=line 141-142.
346) Ibid., *47 6-12; on the future tense, see Grimal, ibid.
170, 174 (note 518); T.J. Logan-Westenholz, JARCE 9, 1972,
18. But cf. Spalinger, SAK 7, 1979, 291.
who believes the speech refers to the past, and is a denial of
wrong-doing rather than a pledge.
347) Spalinger, Aspects, 114 ff.
348) Ibid., 114; on the messenger reports, see ibid. 1 ff.
\
540
349) So Urk IV 651; KRI II 174; see also Spalinger, Aspects,

91; Wilson, JNES 7, 1948, 132 (no. 10), 140 (no. 66).
350) Wilson, op. cit., 154 ff.
351) Spalinger, Aspects, 108; note also Vernus, BIFAO 75,

1975, 55-56.
352) The text is published in Helck, Historisch-Bio graphische

Texte, 91-97. See earlier Habachi, The Second Stela of Kamose
(Gliickstadt, 1972); also the major study by H. and A. Smith in
ZAS 103, 1976, 48 ff. Note also the remarks and additional
bibliography by Spalinger, Aspects, 193-199, esp. 197 f. A
translation by Wilson appears in ANET 554 f.
353) Helck, op. cit., 92-93 (lines 10-11).
354) Dr. Goedicke has suggested to me that w3fr is not used in

the sense of introducing the oath formula in this case.
355) Helck, op. cit., 93 (lines 11-13). See Spalinger's

remarks, Aspects, 197 (and note 17) on reading the s<H"-f's
as future, rather than past as Smiths, op. cit., 57, 60 have
translated.
356) Helck, op. cit., 93-94 (lines 16-18).
357) See now, however, Goedicke's remarks, in The Quarrel of

Apophis and Seqenenre' (San Antonia, 1986) 32-36, esp. 35 who
points out some sort of legal, "binding" arrangement in the
country during the Hyksos occupation. Similarly, in the
Carnarvon Tablet, lines 5-7 (Helck, op. cit., 85 f.) the
king's officials rightly point out the legal arrangements
concerning the boundaries between the Hyksos and Thebans.
358) See generally Hillers, Treaty-Curses, 44 (ruined places

inhabited by wild-animals); Fensham, BA 25, 1962, 48-50;
Gevirtz, Vetus Testamentum 13, 1963, 52-62.
359) See again, Spalinger, Aspects, 108. Kamose does

mention going off to war under the command of Amun: "It
was by the command of Amun, Proven of Counsels, that I
headed north, with my reinforcement in order to repel the
Asiatics" (Helck, op. cit., 88).
360) Generally see Grapow, Stidien zu den Annalen Thutmosis

des Dritten (Berlin, 1949) 15-16, 59-60. Note also KRI II
173.14, "Who (Ramesses I I) makes all their places into red
ruin heaps"; KRI IV 20.14, "Their settlements were made
into red ruin heaps".
541
361) Urk. IV 1231.7-9.
362) See Gevirtz, Vetus Testamentum 13, 1963, 52 ff.
363) The text is published in Urk. IV 137.9-141.9.
364) Urk. IV 139.9-16. For the messenger report, see

Spalinger, Aspects, 3.
365) Urk. IV 139.9-16; Spalinger, Aspects, 115.
366) Reading the last clause as w3fr(.i) i3w im.sn. For

i3w, derived from 33 see Wb. I 2.6, "Ruine".
367) Urk. IV 140.3-13.
368) Urk. IV 140.11.
369) The texts are published in KRI II 233-257. I am

aware of a recent study by Borghouts, but have not had
access to it during the writing of this thesis.
370) See the general remarks of Kitchen, Pharaoh Triumphant

85-88; Schulman, JNES 38, 1979, 186 (esp. notes 41-42).
371) KRI II 242.4-13.
372) KRI II 242.13-243.10. The passage ends in the king's

name which serves as a type of literary divider, see Spalinger,
Aspects, 208 (note 53).
373) See te Velde, Seth, 119-120.
374) KRI II 243.11-244.10.
375) Particularly the struggle between Hattushilish and Urhi-

Teshub, a point on which the former was especially sensitive,
see Goetze, CAH II.2, 256 f.; Hoffner, in Unity and Diversity,
49 ff.; Schulman, JSSEA 8, 1978, 117-119.
376) KRI II 244.8-247.3.
377) KRI II 253.7-255.14.
378) This is indicated by the considerable correspondence between

the courts, and the dispatch of Ramesses' physicians to tend to
Hattushilish and his household, see Edel, Agyptische Arzte und
agyptische Medizin am hethitischen Konigshof (Opladen, 1976).
542
379) Note particularly the little taunt-poem in P. Anastasi

(LEM 13.2-4):
"Hattis in his wrath alone, God
does not accept its offerings
(so that) it does not see the
rain. It is in the wrath of
Wsr-M3't-R'."
380) See below Chapter IV on sfowr.
381) For threats of this type, see above Chapter One. Whether
the phrase, "Their chief could not sit upon his throne " is
to be taken as the "verification" of an Egyptian threat pron
ouncement (or similarly the rejection of Hatti's offerings by
God in P. Anastasi)-cannot be ascertained.
382) See generally Faulkner, CAH II.2, 228 f.; Goetze, ibid.,
254 f., and Kitchen, Pharaoh Triumphant, 67-70, for proposed
dates for the campaigning against the Hittites following the
Battle of Kadesh. The dating for the later actions against
Kode, Tunip, and Dapur are not certain. See also Schulman,
JSSEA 8, 1978, 115-116, 125-126 (nn. 32-33).
383) See Below Chapter Four.
384) Again this is reflected in other texts as well, such as

the Miscellanies (supra, note 379), and the later Great
Karnak inscription of Merneptah referring to the dispatch
of grain to Hatti: "It was in order to sustain this land
of Hatti that I had grain taken in ships" (KRI IV 5.3).
385) See for example 1 Kgs 17:1; W.G.E. Watson, UF 8, 1976,

377-378.
386) See generally Goetze, CAH II.2, 258 ff., for Hittite
apprehension with Adad-Nirari's annexation of Mitannian
territory, the difficulties with Kashka and the Lukka lands.
387) The texts are published in KRI IV 12-19 (Cairo and

Karnak stelae).
388) See the pertinent remarks of Spalinger, Aspects, 206 ff.;

also Breasted, BAR III 265, § 602; Wilson, MET, 276; Lichteheim,
AEL II, 73.
389) The other records are the Karnak War Inscription (KRI
IV 2-12); Kom el-Ahmar stela (KRI IV 20 ff.); note also the
inscription from Amada (KRI IV 1-2); see Spalinger, Aspects,
209-213. Compare the Israel stela with KRI IV 4.4-5.2, KRI
IV 10.5-14 for Merneptah's reaction and denunciation (Karnak
War inscription).
543
390) KRI IV 14.16-15.5.
391) See Above Chapter One.
392) So note especially the specific remembrance of the incident

in the later records of Ramesses III, see Edgerton-Wilson, Histor
ical Records, 24-25.
393) See Spalinger's brief, but pertinent remarks in Aspects,

208. The conflict arises not over an "invasion", but rather over
the infiltration of the group into Memphite territory. See also
KRI IV 15.9: "Fury belongs to R3bw; They have ceased living
according to the proper custom of moving about within the field".
This could possibly indicate that the tribe was permitted to
dwell within a specific area in the Western Delta, but were denied
access to Memphite territory. The whole affair should be seen as
an outgrowth of the practice of allowing foreign groups into the
Delta, as reflected in P. Anastasi IV 54-61 (see Caminos, LEM,
293).
394) KRI IV 15.1. Indeed, the punishment is ascribed to the "gods,

the Lords of Memphis", clearly a reference to the local deities of
the violated area.
395) Especially the references to "pursuing" the tribes (KRI IV

15.5). Note also Kom el-Ahmar (KRI IV 21.2): "They belong to the
knife in the hand of Merneptah"; (KRI IV 21.4) "-seizing them like
hawks"; (KRI IV 21.5) "-the likeness of Sekhmet, not do his arrows
fall away from the limbs of those who rebel against him" (KRI IV
21.5). Also the Amada texts (KRI IV 1.14-15): "while sending out'
the flame (hh) of his mouth against the land-".
396) KRI IV 15.9-16.5.
397) KRI IV 16.2-4.
398) KRI IV 16.1-2; see also the remarks of Spalinger, Aspects,

208.
399) Cee CT II 106 b-c: "As for delaying, erring, or withholding

your bringing him to me: The Eye of Horus be against you like
wise".
400) So see Sethe, Kommentar.
401) See Germond, Sekhmet, 315 ff.
402) It is the same principle which underlies the CT spell

cited in Chapter Two. Note also in much later religious texts
denouncing Seth (who is clearly the prototype of the foreign
invader) Urk. VI, 31.12 ff. "If you come to the South:
544
This God shall repel you ... Great Satis is with her flame
against you. She shall burn up your limbs with her fire.
If you come to the North: The Northern Gods shall repel
you. Amun, the Chief shall seize you... If you come from
the West: The [Western Gods] shall repel you... If you
come from the East: The [Eastern Gods] shall repel you...."
403) See for example, McCarthy's discussion in Treaty and

Covenant, 58-59, and the Tudhaliyas IV-Ulmi-Teshub treaty
(ibid., 304 f. and trans.), especially the delineation of
borders (lines 15-37). Such details were not a fixed element
in the Hittite treaties. The Egyptian texts, however, usually
cite some sort of border violation (thi, "trespass", tktk/tk,
"attack", or t£i, "overstepping"- t3& "border") as justifica
tion for war. The Semnah dispatches of the Middle Kingdom
demonstrate Egyptian concern for maintaining the integrity
of their boundaries against foreign incursions.
404) KRI IV 15.11. Similar phrases also occur in the

Restoration Stela of Tutankhamun in describing divine anger
against Egypt (see above Chapter Two), and cf. the Historical
section of P. Harris I, 75.6.
405) KRI IV 16.4-17.14.
406) See van Seter's remarks in In Search of History (New

Haven and London, 1983) 156-57. The scene clearly presents
the legal justification for the conflict, being presented
as the outcome of the divine verdict. As such it should be
seen in the context of other Near Eastern texts, and generally
falls into what is often termed rlEb (to use the Biblical
appellation) or "law-suit". So see the remarks of P. Machinist,
concerning the Tukulti-Ninurta epic and the "law-suit" against
the Babylonian Kashtiliash in CBQ 38, 1976 455 ff; also J. Harvey,
Biblica 43, 1962, 172 ff.; McCarthy Treaty and Covenant, 137-138.
407) See KRI II 16.5-6: "It was through the counsel of the
godly king, namely he who was justified against his enemies
before Pa-Re, that her (Egypt's) hand has made the one who
attacked him a prisoner of war M'ry-, the evil-doer, whom every
god who is in Memphis has cast down. He is litigated with him
in Heliopolis. The Ennead made him a guilty one on account of
his crimes."
408) KRI IV 16.10. For the motif, see Kitchen-Gaballa, ZAS

96, 1969, 23,27.
409) KRI IV 17.8.

545
410) KRI IV 17.10.
411) KRI IV 5.6.
412) KRI IV 5.11-13.
413) See Edgerton-Wilson, op. clt.,.30 (Med. Habu PI. 27-28, line
47-48=KRI V PI. 27-28. KRI V 25.1.
414) Note as early as the Old Kingdom, the granting of foreign

territory to the king by gods. See Sahure's temple inscription
at Abusir: "I grant to you all foreigners, Westerners and
Easterners, and all the Bedouin warriors who are in every foreign
land" (Urk. I 168.7-8).
415) Van Seters, In Search of History, 144, note 75, suggests

that the Dedicatory Text of Seti I at the Wadi Mia, closely re
sembles the treaty-form with its historical prologue, stipulations,
and blessings and curses (although the latter far outweigh the
former). Although it cannot be proven, it is interesting that
such a structure is exhibited during a period of intense contact
between Egypt and Hatti. The terminology used in describing the
power of the king in battle is often quite similar to that used
in "threats" (supra, note 395). Note also Urk. IV 269.15: "One
who cuts off the head of rebellious foreigners"; Urk. IV 286.16:
"My fiery flame (hhi m sdt) is against your enemies".
416) See Lorton, JT, 178-179 who argues that there was some sort
of international law, or standard with which foreign vassals
complied, although there was no regular means of enforcement, cf.
Mendenhall, BA 17, 1954, 26; Hillers, Covenant, 27 ff.
417) It is uncertain whether the loyalty oath, as it appears in

Hatshepsut's coronation text, would be precisely the same for
"foreigners (to use a political rather than ethnic term), as for
the Egyptian population. Nevertheless, from the preceding study,
it seems that certain aspects of the vassal's pledge-promise of
loyalty, the reporting of rebellion and plots - would have been
substantially the same for "Egyptians" and Pharaonic vassals.
418) So note the above Pyramid Texts which denounce "evil speech"
on pain of divine vengeance. Similarly the Execration Texts
could have some sort of connection in this respect.
419) But see McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 29 ff. for treaties
from Mesopotamia from the third millenium (the Vulture stela from
Lagash); also the Mari texts, where there is considerable evidence
for treaties and oaths, see Munn-Rankin, Iraq 18, 1956, 68 ff.
546
420) But see Albright BASOR 89, 1943, 30. Labayu claims to
have made a "pact" (salimu) with an Egyptian officer.
421) I have written that the Kadesh texts of Ramesses II have a

considerable amount of information concerning the relationship
between the king and his troops: 1) There was an oath (p3 _t3w)
2) The king was recognized as personal suzerain 3) The vassal
reported directly to Pharaoh 4) The vassal was required to
provide troops at the king's behest 5) The vassal was required
to provide information regarding enemy troops movements (see
Morschauser, op. cit., 203 f.). This is quite comparable to the
Hittite system of vasslage, see McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 57.
422) The recognition of the king's power (b3w, phty) and name
(rn) is a common element in the speech of defeated foreigners,
see Morschauser, op. cit., 133.
423) Monuments such as the Semnah-Uronarti stelae of Sesostris III

and the Tombos stela of Thutmosis I which serve as boundary markers
relate the king's power against foreigners. Though written as
narratives, such texts clearly have the rhetorical intent of
demonstrating that similar royal vengeance could easily be "un
leashed".
424) See Morans' remarks in Biblical and Related Studies, 117,

on Rib-adda's recognition of sin as manifested by illness.
425) Again note, however, that the military might of the Hittites,
and clearly the Assyrians, is regarded as an instrument of divine
vengeance (McCarthy, op. cit., 145).
426) The letter is primarily written in Hurrian, and the contents

are not entirely clear. However, the witness of the deities
seems certain.
427) It is interesting that in the Grant of Ptah to Ramesses III

("The Blessing of Ptah"), heaven, earth, the mountains, waters,
walls, and "what is on earth" are invoked as joyous participants
in the king's rule, see Edgerton-Wilson, Historical Records, 126-
127.
428) Although note in Hatshepsut's dedication of her obelisk

she invokes her own kingship to attest to the veracity of her
claim, Urk. IV 365.14-366.12.
429) See McCarthy's convenient chart, Treaty and Covenant, 84-85.

Curses are omitted in the treaties of Hattushilish III-Inara
(LAMA), Muwatallish-Talmisharruma, Suppiluliumas-Hugganas, and
some of the Kaska treaties.
547
430) This is, however, simply a matter of form, rather than

content.
431) For example the famous letter of Thutmosis I to the vice

roy of Kush, affixing the oath (Urk. IV 80.17), there is no
reference to any type of penalty.
433) See McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 146; Malamat, VT 5,

1955, 2 ff.
434) Note however, the text published by Vernus, BIFAO 75,

1975, 55 ff. and comments by Spalinger, CdE 58, 1978, 29 ff. on
Taharqa's appeal to Amun following a military defeat.
435) See McCarthy, op. cit., 107-108.
436) Ibid., 148-151.
437) Also note P. Sallier I 2.1 (LES 87.1) that Sekenenre refers
to Amun as his protector (nbwy) against Apopiis; Kadesh Battle
(KRI II 56.5-11), Amun is Ramesses II's protector in war.
438) This would simply be a continuation of the concept demon

strated in wisdom literature such as the Loyalist.
548
CHAPTER FOUR
EGYPTIAN CLASSIFICATION OF THE THREAT-FORMULA
In the preceding chapters, it was noted that the threat-
formula in ancient Egypt was primarily composed of a conditional
clause, accompanied by a punitive clause. Again the latter, ie.
the injunction, technically formed the actual threat. The con
servatism in the structure of the threat formula - it was vir
tually unchanged for over two millenia- suggests that the Egyp
tians regarded it as a particularly effective type of composition.
Given that the Egyptians had many different categories of liter
ary compositions to which they applied a name or title, ona
might expect that some term would have been used in respect to
the threat (1). It becomes apparent, however, from examining
the texts in which threats appear, that the Egyptian scribes
felt no need to use a special descriptive label for this sort
of formulation. Indeed, the threat, with its protasis and
apodosis, was often used in inscriptions without any sort of
specification accompanying it. From this general observation,
one may infer that -to the Egyptians at least- the threat-formula
was not some distinct "literary" type in a formal sense. However,
if the Egyptians did not regard the threat as a special "textual"
genre, did they consider it to be part, or sub-category within
some broader "literary" spectrum?

549
It is evident that the threat in its origin, was something
primarily pronounced or verbal rather than written. Indeed,
this basic relation with a verbal pronouncement is maintained
throughout Egyptian history. From its use in Old Kingdom mor
tuary inscriptions, we find that the threat is sometimes intro
duced by the verb dd, "to speak, say". It must be noted that
in such cases, however, the threat-formula appears as only part
of an individual's procouncement. That is, it is merely a single
element within the context of a broader oration. Thus, in the
inscription of the official Htp-hr-3ht(y), the typical Old King
dom threat against entering a tomb in an impure state and dam
aging the owner's mortuary property is subsumed under the intro
ductory phrase gtd.f, "he says" (2). The stipulation and injunc
tion, however, are subsequent to the official's description of
his acquistion of mortuary property. From the tomb of Inti,
the threat-formula also appears in the context of a pronouncement
concerning the deceased's propriety in the purchase and construc
tion of his tomb (3). That a threat appears in such contexts is
not surprising. We have noted that the stipulations of Old King
dom threats were overwhelmingly concerned with the protection
and purity of the deceased's chamber and equipment. This sug
gests that the threat-formula- theoretically, at least- was
intended to have been pronounced at some point in the construc
tion of the tomb, most likely by its future occupant.
Indeed, the basic validity of this observation is borne
out by the appearance of threats in the inscription of Snni

550
which records the gift of. mortuary property to his wife 's.n.k
(4). The text specifies that both husband and wife had invoked
(dd) threats against parties who might dispute the familial
arrangement (5). It seems certain that such an action was a
normal element in juridical arrangements of this sort. Indeed,
Goedicke has commented upon the "verbal" aspects underlying the
formulation of legal documents of the Old Kingdom, stressing
their origin as a Verbalakt (6). He further noted that in
actual Old Kingdom "contracts", the promissory oath often was
the binding or formalizing element in the legal process (7).
Indeed, the similarites between the legal promissary oath and
the threat -in form and function- provides a close parallel for
the latter!s appearance in Old Kingdom inscription. Given the
"ritualistic" aspects of Egyptian society, it is quite likely
that the building of the tomb was accompanied by some "formal"
ceremony including the invocation of a threat consecrating it
against trespassors.
As noted above, however, the threat's primary role as an
"oral" invocation is well-attested throughout its long use in
ancient Egypt. In Hatshepsut's Coronation Inscription, for
example, maledictions against potential conspirators are con
tained in formal declarations (dd) by Thutmosis I to his court-
officials (8), and in a public proclamation (m3t) by the populace
at large (9). In the latter case, threats are invoked by the

551
citizenry upon themselves in what must have been a public demon
stration of fealty to the newly crowned regent Hatshepsut. Also
to be mentioned in this context, is the supposed declaration of
the god Amun recorded in the Divine Birth eposodes. Here, bless
ings and threats are included in the promises made by Amun speak
ing (dd) on behalf of the gods for the infant girl (10). Else
where, a legal deposition concerning a mortuary cult of the High
Steward of Memphis, Amenhotep, dating to the latter half of the
Eighteenth Dynasty, concludes with his recitation (dd.f) to
future personnel of his estate (11). In the speech, stipulations
regarding the provision of the foundation are enumerated, accom
panied by threats in case of their violation (12).
In the late Ramesside Period, texts include the pronounce
ment of threats in the context of dedicatory inscriptions and
donations to religious establishments. Thus, in the autobiog
raphy of the High Priest Amenhotep during the reign of Ramesses
IX, a threat is delivered (ifld) by the official against parties
who might distort or refuse to recognize the claims insisted
upon by the author of the text (13). In a like manner, Herihor
is described as pronouncing (dd.f) a threat on the occasion of
his donation of a statue to the Temple of Karnak (14).
However, it is during the Third Intermediate Period that
threats are plainly linked to public statements, often in jurid
ical contexts. In descriptions of "oracular consultations"
both officials and private citizens are portrayed in the act of

552
pronouncing threats before deities, in order to guarantee fu
ture adherence to some "legal" action. This usually involves
property transactions or depositions of wills, although actual
legal "verdicts" are attested as well. The most detailed de
scription of this sort occurs in the texts relating the transfer
of land to the daughters of Psusennes II (15). Here, a procedure
is outlined whereby a priest, acting as agent for the recipients
of property, repeatedly approaches the gods Amun-Re, Mut, and
Khonsu, the actual guarantors of the documents. The official
thence recites (whm dd, lit. "again says") the conditions of
the agreement followed by threats of divine punishment for in
fringement of the contract (16). After each consultation, the
gods assent to the priest's requests- a procedure also described
as "speaking" (jd) (17). This amounted to a divine recitation
of the official's threats (which had previously been formulated
as questions). In the slightly later case of a gift made by
Sheshonk I on behalf of his deceased father, a text describes the
then-reigning king, Smendes II as verbally petionning (dd m-b3h)
a "Great God" (ntr '3)-a common designation for the deity pre
siding over an oracle-to protect the endowment on pain of divine
vengeance (18). The Twenty-Second Dynasty will of Nfct-mwt.f
on behalf of his daughter records how the former, and his wife,
invoked (dd) threats in the presence of Amun, to guarantee the
testament against future litigants (19). In other contemporary
texts, however, such threats are ascribed to a divine pronounce

553
ment (dd) alone, without the mediation of a petitioner (20).
Likewise in donation stelae of the Third Intermediate
Period, private gifts to temples are accompanied by the donor's-
or a representative agent's- recitation of a stipulation and
injunction against any people who might annul or disturb the
transaction. In the so-called "Smaller Dakhleh Stela" dating
to the reign of Piye, the text records the oral confirmation of
a gift followed by the recitation (dd.f) of a blessing and a
number of threats (21). However, the pronouncement of a threat
as a means of guaranteeing a grant is succinctly described in an
earlier donation text of the Twenty-Second Dynasty. In the record
of a property-transfer to the goddess Bastet, it states that
the transactions contains a "regulation (hnw) against interfer
ing with them by any transgressor saying (dd) (22): 'As for
any scribe, controller, or anybody dispatched on business to
(this) field who interferes with them (ie. any part of the donated
acreage)-They shall belong to the [knife] of the Lord of the
Two Lands and the Slaughtering-Block of Sekhmet."' Therefore,
the threat, which clearly functions as a kind of "oath", is
itself designated as a hnw, "(contractual) regulation, provision"
formally "pronounced" (dd) by the donor (23).
Another case where a descriptive term is applied to threats
occurs in the decree made on behalf of the famed Amenophis son
of Hapu. As noted earlier in this study, the initial part of
the text contains a lengthy series of maledictions against

554
officials who might interfere with the personnel of the mortuary
cult of Amenophis. Secondary stipulations subsequent to the
threats themselves, however, concern magistrates, religious
personnel, and civil officials who are to ensure that the estate
receives the proper fiscal support. The text specifies (24):
As for the vizier, treasury official, high-steward,

official of the store-houses, high-priests, god's
fathers, and priests of Amun to whom these things
which I (ie. the king Amenhotep III) have said ought
to be done for this mortuary estate are read, and
they do not maintain his mortuary estate:
That which has been said above shall overtake them.
As for the police-officers attached to the Necropolis

and mayor of the West who shall not guarantee my
financial support on any day of any of my monthly
mortuary feasts:
That which has been said shall overtake them and

stretch out their limbs-
The terms designating the penalties which are to "overtake" and
"stretch out" the negligent parties are respectively ddwyt iw(.w)
^m"^ tpw, lit. "that which has been said above (ie. previously)"
(25) and ddwyt "that which has been said." They undoubtedly
refer to the maledictions themselves encountered earlier in the
text. Thus, the summary expression ddwyt again indicates that
the threat was something that was primarily regarded as being
formally "spoken" or "pronounced".
Therefore, in certain circumstances, the threat-formula
was considered to have been an oral expression. However, as
noted above, £d, as applied to the threat usually appears as a

555
verb describing the act of "speaking", rather than as a titular
designation of the stipulation and injunction. The use of a
nominalized participle, ddwyt, "that which has been said" is
restricted solely to the Decree for Amenophis son of Hapu.
Unfortunately, in either case, whether the threat appears as the
contents of a verbal pronouncement or is actually described as
"that which is spoken", the word dd is far too imprecise a term
to be used as a "literary" or "legal" designation or category.
A threat could be "spoken", but quite obviously, not every pro
nouncement was, or contained, a threat. The word frnw, "(legal)
provision, regulation" seems to be a more exact expression for
the threat-formula itself. Indeed, the full expression hnw r tm
dit th.w n thi nb m dd, lit. "provision so as not to allow the
transgression of them by any transgressor saying"-followed by
the stipulative-injunctive clauses, seems to refer to-and indeed
could be translated as-a "prohibitory statute against abrogation",
an extremely precise term for a threat (26). Indeed, it is clearly
descriptive of its use and purpose in documents of this sort.
Its singular use in an isolated donation text, however, is hardly
indicative of a broader literary category. Moreover, the general
observation that threats could be "spoken" does not preclude the
fact that they were important written elements of a document. It
goes without saying, that their very existence in inscriptions
attests to the practice of their formal recordings as well.
It has been suggested, however, that the threat-formula

556
was used in much the same way as a promissory oath. In fact,
in the Ramesside adoption text of Ren-nefer, the threat of
sexual assault by an ass occurs within the context of an oath
replacing standard punitive clauses (27). Thus, it is clear
that the threat-formula or "curse" could be subsumed under an
oath. As Wilson had pointed out in his classic study, the
"oath" itself designated the divine appeal, while the invocation
of penalties-a common element in the Ramesside examples- is
plainly a later, secondary development (28). Therefore, the
punitive clauses are merely an element within the oath. The
Egyptian terms for "oath", the noun 'nl} and verb 'rk, are nei
ther descriptive of the injunctive clauses accompanying the
divine or royal invocation, nor are they applicable to the
threat (29). Thus, although there is a relation between the
threat-formula and the oath as a juridical instrument the two
are not synonomous.
Another Egyptian word which might have some bearing on the
threat-formula is w£, "decree, inscription" (30). In the pre
ceding chapter it was demonstrated that maledictions, which
were dependant upon divine elements for their enforcement, could
appear in royal decrees. Decrees of the kings Dmd~ib-t3wy,
Intf, Seti I, and Tefnakhte, all contain threats. Indeed, with
the exception of the Athens stela of Tefnakhte, the threats
appear alongside what may be termed "laws" or legal injunction.

557
Thus, maledictions could be included in a wd-nswt "royal decree".
The latter term, however, is clearly not descriptive of the
formal threat itself.
The term wj} is likewise used in reference to the donation
stelae and legal testaments of the Third Intermediate Period.
Although Meeks has asserted that w$} indicated the "stela" it
self (31), the term is indicative of both the physical object
(the stela) and the contents (the decree, inscription) of the
text (32). Similar to royal decrees, threat-formulae could be
included in a w$|, or "official" document, ie. inscription con
cerned with a legal matter. However, the threat again is an
element of the wjJ-being the punitive clauses guaranteeing the
transaction described in the text.
As noted, legal depositions and testaments of the Third
Intermediate Period were often conducted under the direct
sanction of deities. As a result of this historical and theo
logical development, such documents are specifically designated
as wd(t)-ntr, a "divine decree" (33). Thus, in a fragmentary
inscription from Luxor dating to the Twenty-Second Dynasty,
maledictions attributed to the pronouncement (jjd) of the god,
Amun-em-Opet, are included within a wd~(t)-nj:r (34). It is likely,
however, that parallel to a wjj-nswt "royal decree" or wjJ "(private)
inscription", the term .wd(t)-nj:r is descriptive of the text as
a whole, and not restricted to the injunctive clauses.
A similar observation is valid for terms describing other

558
kinds of documents in which threat-formulae appear. Thus, Seti I
notes that his endowment on behalf of the mining establishment at
the Wadi Mia had been recorded in a "testament" (imyt-pr) and
placed under the protection of the divine owners of the estate
(35). The reference is certainly to the actual deposition of a
document whose contents contained the multiple threats recorded
on the walls of the temple itself. Thus, threats formed part
of the provisions of some imyt-pr. Likewise, the terms used for
the international agreement between Ramesses II-Hattushilish III,
nt-' "treaty" (36) and mdt n p3 nt-', . . [iw.w m ss] frr p3y
'nw n hd, "words of the treaty. . . which were written on this
plate of silver" (37) refer to the entire treaty-text itself;
the latter term denotes the actual physical object. The "curse"
sealing the text is part of the mdt "words", ie. "terms" of the
agreement.
As a result of this survey, our earlier observation should
be reiterated: there apparently was no descriptive label or
title for the stipulative-injunctive clauses which made up the
threat-formula. This implies that the Egyptians must have con
sidered the threat to be a rather mundane element found in var
ious types of documents -wills, agreements, decrees, deeds; and
simple ordinary writings, such as the graffiti left by pilgrims
to religious sites, or mining parties to remove quarries. That
the Egyptians felt no need to define the threat -apart from
attesting to their familiarity with such clauses- inevitably

559
leads to a problem in modern translations: what about those
words or expressions which have been variously translated as
"curse" or "to curse"? The modern, nominal use of the word
"curse" is not applicable to the Egyptian threat-formula, at
least as any distinct "literary" type. Moreover, the complete
absence of any "magical" practice in the contents of expressions
of this sort suggests a dichotomy between "threats" as they
appear in juridical and quasi-legal situations, and pronounce
ments appearing in "ritual" contexts, ie. so-called "spells"
and "incantations". The problem is one of semantics, and a
modern translation of an ancient word as "curse", often times
fails to convey the nuance or meaning of the original term (38).
Hence, we shall discuss some of the Egyptian phrases supposedly
referring to "curse" in its nominal and verbal applications and
attempt to see whether such translations are faithful to the
meaning and intent of the original Egyptian.
Worterbuch VI (39) lists only the term w3 under the entry
Fluch, referring to Wb. I 246.14-16: "Fluch (dem N.N.); Ver-
derben uber (N.N., N.N.'s Namen)!" Belegstellen cites Urk. IV
257; Koptus 8,5; and Sinuhe 74 in support of the translation.
Upon examination, however, it becomes apparent that w3 in each
case conveys a slightly different meaning. Urk.IV 257.15 occurs
in Hatshepsut's Coronation Inscription in the context of
Thutmosis I's admonitions to his officials to be loyal to the
about- to- be-crowned regent, Hatshepsut (see Chapter III above).

560
After proclaiming that the faithful supporters of the queen
shall live, Thutmosis warns:
"He who shall say an 'evil thing'-
He shall surely die!"
The expression m w3 hmt.s has been translated elsewhere as "im
Fluch ihre Majestat"; "Fluch ihrer Majestat!" (40) It is evi
dent from the context, however, that the word w3 has some rela
tion to the concept of "disloyalty" or "treason", supported by
its condemnation as a capital crime. M w3 is in apposition to
ht dw, "bad word" "evil word", which has the technical meaning
of "treason(ous speech); conspiracy". Elsewhere in the text,
people who dm rn n hmt.s "denounce the name of her Majesty" (41)
are to be immediately accused before the king; those who mdw m
rn n hmt.s, "speak against the name of her Majesty" (42) are
ascribed to the vengeance of the gods. W3 hmt.s, therefore has
a similar relation to the concept of "rebellion" or "treason".
Indeed, w3 has an attested meaning of "to plot" evidenced by its
use in the Execration Texts. The future participle w3.t(y).sn
those who shall plot" stands in paralled to (43):
sbit(y).sn Those who shall rebel

w3.t(y).sn Those who shall plot
ddw 'h3.sn Those who contemplate fighting
ddw sbi.sn Those who contemplate rebelling
Sethe had translated w3 as "Ranke spinnen" (44); and is to be
related to the Old Kingdom legal formulation: w3 n mdw sbit pw -
"It is participation in a criminal matter" (45). As Goedicke
had observed, w3 has some etymological relation to w3, "bind up

561
(with a rope, net)"; from which a secondary development arose-
"make a binding (plot)", ie. "to plot" (46). As a result, it
is likely that the expression w3 n hmt.s in Urk. IV 257.15 refers
to "in plotting (against) her Majesty", specifying the preceding
bt flw, "bad word", flmt.s is an objective genitive, lit. "plotting
of/against her Majesty".
Sinuhe B 74 m sn(y) w3 r bm.f, "Do
not sn(y) w3 against his Majesty!" should be taken in a similar
manner (47). The translation of w3 as "curse", "Lasterungen"
makes little sense (48). There is no apparent reason as to why
the Semitic ruler to whom the advice is given, would, or even
could, pronounce a "curse"or"blasphemy" against Sesostris I.
Again, the context refers to the concept of the proper relation
between a monarch and his subject. Sinuhe subsequently states
that those who are faithful will be treated well by the recently
crowned Egyptian king (49). Thus m sn w3 indicates an action
that is inimicable to the concept of a subject's loyalty to his
suzerain, and undoubtedly is a warning against some treasonous
or rebellious act. W3 therefore indicates a "plot" and is the
object of the preceding verb sn, "spin, form a (binding) plot;
conspire"-and is part of a hendiadys "Do not plot a plot", ie.
Refrain from plotting against his Majesty!" (50)
The other occurence of w3 quoted by the Belegstellen occurs
in the Koptus Decree of Intf (51):
w3 n rn.f
562
The expression has been discussed above, and will be summarized
here. Posener had noted that the phrase refers to the practice
of "debaptism" by which a condemned criminal's "name", or in
some cases, "office" was taken away or changed (52). W3 thus
means "to be far (from)" "be separated (from)" (Wb I 245.4 f.).
W3 n rn.f appears to have been a standard criminal sentence since
it also used in P. Brooklyn 35.1446 in reference to persons
guilty of conspiracy (53). Hayes rendered the expression as "one
deprived of his name" in his translation of the text (54). He
noted, however, that the phrase was probably a pronouncement of
an actual punishment (55). W3 n rn.f is clearly formulaic, and
should be taken as the verbatim quote -"Away to his name!"- that
became fossilized in usage (56).
Kees translated hwi sdb(r) as "jem. verfluchen, verdammen",
adding that "verdammen=Strafe auferlegen" (57). The rendering
"verfluchen" has been followed by Otto (58), and more recently
by Lorton in a discussion of its use in Merikare (59). Wb. IV
382.3-4 gives the meaning: "Unheil verhangen uber jem. . . bes.
als Strafe der Gotter." In his recent study of the Siut texts,
Edel reiterates Kees' older translation of "verdammt" (60).
It is evident that hwi sdb indicates some undesirable action
that could be visited upon a guilty party. Indeed, it is used
in Egyptian threats as descriptive of divine wrath against per
sons who might violate a tomb, or interfere with an endowment.

563
Hwi sdb, however, would seem to refer to an actual physical man
ifestation of "punishment" rather than the concept of "cursing"
except in the broadest sense of the term as "sign of divine dis
favor". The expression frwi-sdb is composed of two elements. The
first, hwi, is a verb with the meaning "to strike" "beat" (61).
Sdb, therefore, is direct object of hwi- lit. "to beat/strike
a sdb". Wb. IV 381 translates the second word sdb as "Schaden,
Unheil" relating to moral failings, and is supported by the
frequent use of ~<St~ as determinative (62). gwi sdb essentially
indicates "to strike/beat (ie. punish) 'moral wrongs'". This is
clear in contexts where a person or group is described as being
"condemned" or "hated" by a god. Thus in Ptahhotep 217, L2 it
says of the wicked son (63):
w' im pw fabd.n.sn "that one is one whom they hate-"
1 11'.Tt"— frwi.n ntr sdbw.f pw m-ht
The second clause is in parallel and describes the fate of one
declared hbd, "hated": "-(namely) one whose faults god has
punished in the body" (64). Sdbw.f refers to "his faults" with
the connotation of "sins" "moral improprieties". The adverbial
qualification m-ht, lit. "in body" could refer to the verb hwi,
"to beat, punish in the body" having the sense of "bodily, phys
ical affliction"; or it could modify sdbw.f, lit. "his faults
in body" "his bodily faults", ie. sins committed while alive.
In Admonitious 12.2, a similar use is attested. In a complaint
referring to the baseness of man it states (65):

564
h3 'd.f bit.sn m ht-tpt "0 that he would recognize

/ . their character at first glance-"
a;
a—A O v k3 hwi.f sdbw d3.f ' r.s^n>
• S I M /
"that he might punish improprieties (namely) against

which he is opposed (lit. he extends an arm against them)."
Note also a passage in Merikare concerning potential rebels:
"For it is God who is aware of the disaffected (]}3kw-ib)-(66)
hwi sdbw.f hr snf
"-God shall punish his faults on account of blood", ie.
"-(namely) whose faults God shall punish on account of

blood."
Sdbw again refers to "moral faults", probably referring to treason
or rebellion, flr snf contains the reason for divine condemnation,
"on account of blood", referring to the trouble-maker's "pedigree"
or background (67).
In the same manner hwi sdb is used in threat-formulae them
selves. Siut IV 80 states (68): "He shall belong to the burn-
ting] [w]it[h] the damned (jabntyw)-
"-whose sdb God [has] [punis]hed."
The expression sdb r.sn should be taken as "the fault to/against
them", r expressing a notion of disadvantage. The later Saitic
adaption of the Siut text, however, has slightly modified the
threat (69): :"He shall be ^to> the conflagration w]ith the
damned-"
565
"-whose fault against him Thoth [has] punished."
Sdb.w r.f is literally "their fault against him"; the suffix
.if referring to the God.
In the Twenty-Second Dynasty threat from Saft-el-Henneh it
warns (70): -"everyone who violates it (an endowment)-"
i(w) ntr (r) hwi sdb n r3w.f
"God shall punish his expressed fault (sin)."
Sjb n(w) r3w.f, lit. "fault of his words", ie. "spoken sins".
We should conclude, therefore, that hwi sdb, essentially meant
"to punish a (moral) wrong", and may only be translated as "curse"
in the sense of "condemn".
The verb shwr has been translated at "to curse" "make ac
cursed" (71). Indeed, the Coptic word CAZOY does have this
meaning, as evidenced by its use to translate Hebrew 7 ?17X
"cursed be-" (72). Wb. IV 213, however, renders shwr as "schmahen,
tadeln; den Namen verachtlich machen: vom Gott, der den Menschen
verdammt." Faulkner CD 238 gives "villify". Etymologically,
shwr is a causative of the word hwr, "be wretched, poor, weak;
a 'wretch'" (73). The latter noun, "wretch", however, may have
a juridical sense of "one without status" "criminal" rather than
simply a term of perjoration or insult (74). Shwr, therefore,
literally means "to make wretched" "degrade" with both physical
and social connotations. Shwr, appears in various contexts,
from which the meaning is not always clear. It is frequently

566
used in magical literature as a term of condemnation against
illnesses and demonic entities (75). Although often translated
as "cursed", it probably means "to be made weak: weakened" as
from hwr "be (physically) weak". (Wb. Ill 55.9). Thus a spell
against a disease states (76): "Be weakened (shwr tw), be killed!"
The term also refers to improper speech, ie. "vulgar" or impolite
language. An admonition from P. Bologna I states (77): "Another
message to my Lord: Do not shwr; refrain from speaking-" Shwr
probably indicates "Don't speak vulgarly (use 'gutter' language)"
(78).
Shwr has the sense of "degrade" "make someone poor, wretched"
"treat wretchedly". In the grave of the vizier Ahmose, also
called 'mtw it says of the deceased (79): "Never did he beat
his father, or degrade (shwr.f) his mother." Indeed, sfrwr is a
common term in wisdom texts referring to improper, especially dis
respectful behaviour. In his instruction (sb3yt) the Eighteenth
Dynasty priest Amenemhat, states to his children (80): "I did
not have intercourse with his house-girl, nor impregnate his maid
servant. I did not degrade (shwr) his butler, nor block his path
by force." Similarly, Amenemope 25.17 gives advice on the treat
ment of the elderly (81): "Do not treat one older than you
wretchedly (shwr)."
As noted above, in its later Coptic form shwr has the meaning
of "to curse", which would approximate Biblical applications of
the term (82). Likewise, in the late Egyptian religious liter

567
ature shwr is used in the sense of "to curse", ie. "condemn".
Urk. VI 65.7 states concerning the allies ofSeth and the enemies
of Osiris: "And they shall condemn them (shwr.w) forever, that
they be burned up-".
Particularly interesting, however, are those cases in which
shwr is used in reference to Egyptian relations with foreigners.
The term has been discussed in the preceding chapter, and we
have suggested that it may indicate a "rupture" of political ties.
Sfrwr appears in the following texts referring to foreign rela
tions:
a) iry.f shwr st
(KRI II.244.2, 4)
b) iry P3-R' ds.f shwr.w rmt th[i.sn r . . .]

(KRI IV 21.1)
c) iry p3 nb n Kmt shwr rn.f M'ry m bwty n Inbw-hd

(KRI IV 15.3)
The first example occurs in the Marriage Texts of Ramesses II and
refers to the hostilities between the Egyptian and Hittites prior
to the Treaty of Year 21. The context indicates some translation
reflecting a state of war between the Pharaoh and the Hitties.
"Denounce", "villify", "treat" (like a) criminal", seems justifi
able: "He denounced them-". The remaining examples are from
texts from Merneptah's reign, referring to his war of year 5.
The Kom-el-Ahmar stela (b) is particularly interesting since its

568
states: "Pa-Re himself made their shwr, namely the people [who]
transgressed [. . . ]" There seems to be a cause and effect
relation between the shwr of the god, and the action described
as thi. The latter is a common term meaning to "commit an
offence", and is used in international contexts with the meaning
"to trespass". The lacuna following thi should perhaps be re
stored as [t3s n Kmt] "[border of Egypt]" (83). If so, the
context would clearly indicate a juridical situation, specifically
the violation of sovereign territory, and ultimately a casus belli
against the guilty party. Thus, shwr would again have a meaning
of "to denounce" "treat like a criminal", indicating a declaration
of hostilities.
The final example (c) is from the Israel Stela. Here it is
specified that the "Lord of Egypt", ie. Merneptah, has made a
shwr of "his name". The subsequent phrase M'ry m bwty n Inbw-hfl,
is in apposition to shwr rn.f and qualifies it (84): "The Lord of
Egypt made a sfowr of his name- M'ry is a criminal for the White-
Walls (ie. Memphis)". Bwty indicates criminal condemnation or
pronouncement of guilt. Again the context is juridical and refers
to M'ry's illegal incursion into Memphite territory. Shwr rn,
ie. "the denunciation, villification" of the name or status, in
dicates the commencementof hostilities between the chief of R3bw
and Egypt. Sfrwr, therefore, in these contexts suggests the
severance of relations, possibly to be linked to the formal dec
laration of war. Before ensuing combat, the opponent was declared

569
a "criminal" (sfrwr), thereby providing the legal justification
for the prosecution of war. That a deity could declare the ex
istence of such a situation, as in the Kom-el-Ahmar stela is
quite interesting. It suggests a close affinity to the invocation
of gods as witnesses to treaties, and the parties to whom one
appealed in case of breach of oath. In certain cases, there
fore, shwr might indicate "to curse", in the sense of a formal
statement of condemnation for a criminal misdeed.
y
Egyptian sni is used as a term of divine condemnation in a
u
threat of the Twenty-Second Dynasty. The verb sni in fact, has
occasionally been translated "to curse". For example, Faulkner

V V
has translated the clause in PT 492 a -sniw W sniw Itm- as, "if
I be cursed, then will Atum be cursed" (85). Sethe rendered

y
sni as "bezaubert" for the same text (86). Anthes translated
y
sni in the Pyramid Texts as "bannen" (87). He however, noted
y
that the etymology of the Egyptian word came from sni "to sur
round", from whence arose derivatives "to bind (round); entangle";
"entangling (speech), ie. "conspiracy"; "argument" (88). Thus,
the extended use of sni as "in magischem Bann halten" "bannen"
(89). The precise meaning is difficult to render in English;

y
however sni has the meaning of "something spoken with binding
force or efficacy". It is used in this manner frequently in
verbal and nominal forms in reference to the act of "conjuring"
"conjurations", especially in magical and medical literature (90).

570
A similar force is probably intended for its use in a threat from
a fragmentary text from Luxor, dating to the reign of Takelothis
II (91). Referring to violators of a divine decree it notes
that they will be "among the damned" (m-m fabntyw).
sn s(t) St m r3 js.s
"whom Isis has 'banned' with her own mouth-" (92)
^ni clearly refers to a pronouncement of "binding force" indi
cating divine condemnation. This is supported by its application
to criminals that have been declared jjbntyw, "damned", ie. con-

v
signed to Hell. Sni, therefore, indicates a "curse", in the
sense of a word which has "binding" efficacy against its victim.
Egyptian 'rfc, the usual verb for "swearing an oath" may
occur in a threat in the Athens Stela. In this context, it prob
ably is synonomous with 'sni, "to make a binding pronouncement
"referring to divine punishment. As Wilson had noted, 'rlc "to
swear" is to be related to 'rk, "bind up"; thus there was a close
association between the act of "binding" and "a word which binds",
ie. "swearing an oath" (93). In the Athens stela, 'rfc refers to
divine action against persons who might embezzle from a divine
endowment (94):
'rk Nb-(r).Dr njrw dm^ p3 nty iw.f hb n p3y hnk Nt
"The All-Lord and the gods entirely shall 'bind up'

the one who shall diminish this endowment to Neith."
571
It is difficult to determine whether 'rfc indicates a verb of
speaking ("make a binding pronouncement") or is simply connotative
of "bind up", ie. "capture: arrest", due to lack of determina
tives (95).
There are many other terms for "banning" "conjurations",
"spells" "recitations" "imprecations" and the like in the Egyptian
lexicon (96). This is not surprising considering the sheer volume
of texts relating to ritual and magic which have survived from
ancient Egypt. However, these expressions are not normally
associated with those clauses which we have termed "threat-
formulae". Therefore, we shall conclude with the following
observations:
1) There was apparently no specific title consistently applied
to the threat-formula, ie. clauses made up of a stipulation and
injunction. The closest to defining such clauses occurs in a
donation stela from the Twenty-Second Dynasty. Here the threat
is called a "provision (hnw) for preventing abrogation by any
violator". Such clauses were considered to have been pronounced
(dd) by the party involved in the transaction described.
2) Threats were otherwise simply the enforcement clauses of
various kinds of legal documents: royal decrees (wd-nswt);
divine decrees (wd-ntr); private legal documents (wj?); testa
ments (wills and endowments) (imyt-pr); oaths ('njj.); and
treaties (nt-').
572
3) The threat, when specified at all, was often described as
being spoken, ie. pronounced (dd). Indeed, in the Twenty-first
Dynasty Decree for Amenophis son of Hapu, threats are called
"that which has bean spoken" indicating maledictions included
in the document itself.
4) Although some Egyptian words or expressions are translated
as "curse", they are not used in such a manner by the Egyptians
themselves as a formal descriptive title for the threat. More
over, various terms rendered as "curse" have divergent etymol
ogies, as well as unrelated nuances in meaning that are not
evident in modern translations. Thus, the following Egyptian
words and idioms have all been translated as the verb "to curse"
w3, "conspire"; hwi sdb, "to punish a moral wrong"; shwr, "make,
declare (a person) a criminal (ie. denounce, villify); sni, "a
binding pronouncement, ban". Moreover, although the Egyptians
did apply specific titles to different categories of magical and
ritual pronouncements, the threat-formula is no where so named.
This suggests that such clauses were routinely considered to be
formal units of legal texts and inscriptions, without any rela
tion to the concept of magical "spells" "incantations" and the
like.
573
NOTES TO CHAPTER FOUR
1) Spalinger, Aspects, 222 f.; see also Lorton, GM 23, 1977,

55 ff.; P. Kaplony, "Die Definition der sch3ner Literatur im
alten Agypten" in Fragen an die altagyptische Literatur (eds.
J. Assmann, et. al.) (Wiesbaden, 1977) 289 ff.
2) Urk. I 50.12-51.1.
3) Urk. I 69.15-71.2; note also Urk. I 23.11-16; 201.16-202.9.

In Urk. I 72.16-73.5, the threat formula follows a nswst htp di
(htp di nswt).
4) Goedicke, PRI, Taf. 18; Urk I 115.17-117.6. See now Edel,

Hieroglyphische Inschriften (Abb. 4), 16 ff.
5) Urk. I 117.17 (line 1); 117.2 (line 11).
6) Goedicke, op. cit., 195; see also idem., JARCE 3, 1964, 34 f.
7) Ibid.
8) Urk. IV 257.5.
9) Urk. IV 260.2; For m3£ see Wb. II 34.19; Faulkner, CD 104.

The term may be linked with the word m3(w)t, "granite" and has a
sense of "confirm, affirm". See also Urk. IV 261.3, 11, where
the titulary of the queen is affirmed.
10) Urk, iv 216.10; Urk. IV 217.14-17 (for blessing and threat).

The restoration seem certain.
11) Urk. IV 1799.14.
12) Urk.IV 1799.15-1800.7.
13) KRI VI 533.1.
14) KRI VI 844.2.
15) See Maspero, Momies Royales, 694-95; 705-706; Gardiner, JEA

48, 1962, 57 ff.
16) Maspero, op. cit., 695 (line 4); see Gardiner, JEA 48,65.
17) Maspero, op. cit., 695 (line 6); 706 (lines 22,26).
18) Blackman, JEA 27, 1941, PI. X (lines 2-5).

574
19) Cairo 42208 (c.2; d.l).
20) Ljsgrain, zKs 35, 1897, 14 (line 1); the threats commence
in line 26 of the text.
21) Ash. Museum 1894.107 b; see Janssen, JEA 54, 1968, PI.
XXV-XXV a (line 10).
22) Daressy, RT 18, 1896, 52; Sottas, Preservation, 147.
23) For frnw see Wb. Ill 101.12-14 (verb), 102.1 (frnt, of which
hnw is a late variant).
24) Varille, Amenhotep, 71 (lines 11-13) 72 (lines 16-18).
25) Ibid., 71 (line 13); The preposition m has been ellided

from iw.w^m^ tp, see Wb. V 271.13.
26) Supra, note 22.
27) KRI VI 737.11 ("She said, 'As Amun and the Ruler endure-1");
Gardiner, JEA 26, 1940, PI. 5/a-7/a (P. Ashmolean, 1945.96, vs.
1-6).
28) Wilson, JNES 7, 1948, 154 f.
29) Ibid., 130.
30) See Spalinger, Aspects, 230-231; see also Goedicke, KDAR 11;
idem., JARCE 3, 1964, 34-35; E. Zaba, Archiv Orientalni, 24, 1956,
272 ff.
31) Meeks, Hommages a Serge Sauneron I, 1979, 255 f.
32) See Leahy, Rde 34, 1982-83, 84 (t).
33) Note in the Saft-el-Henneh inscription published by Daressy

in ASAE 11, 1911, 142, the threat is introduced by Wjj.nfcr.f,
"His god commands", probably in imitation of royal decrees.
34) Daressy, RT 16, 1894, 125.
35) KRI I 69.16.
36) KRI II 226.11; 227.5,6; 228.1.
37) KRI II 229.11-12 introducing the god-list.
38) See the cogent article by E.A. Speiser in JAOS 80, 1960,
198 ff.
575
39) Deutsch-Aegyptisches Worterverzeichnis (Berlin, 1982) 54.
40) See Schottroff, Altisraelistische Fluchspruch, 72-73.
41) Urk. IV 257.16.
42) Urk. IV 260.12; also probably 217.16.
43) Sethe, Achtung feindlicher Fiirsten, 42-43 (Taf. 13 d.l).
44) Ibid., 42; but cf. also Bakr-Osing, MDAIK 29, 173, 119.
45) Goedicke, KDAR 102 f.
46) Ibid.
47) See Blackman, Middle Egyptian Stories, 22.5.
48) Cf. Grapow, Die stilistische Bau der Geschichte des Sinuhe
(Berlin, 1952) 40-41; Schotroff, op. cit., 73 (and note 1);
Wilson, ANET (3), 19.
49) See above Chapter III.
50) Note the use of snt nbt <fot, "any evil conspiracy" in the
Execration Texts (p 3); cf. Sethe, op. cit., 71; see also W.V.
Davies, JEA 61,1975, 45f.
51) Petrie Koptus, PI. 8; Sethe, Lesestucke, 98; Helck,

Historische-Biographische Texte 73-74.
52) Posener, RdE 5, 1946, 51 ff.
53) Hayes, A Papyrus of the Late Middle Kingdom, PI. VI 58 d

(recto).
54) Ibid., 57.
55) Ibid., 57 f.
56) See Lorton, "Treatment", 19; and cf. Gardiner, EG3 § 506.2.
57) Kees, ZAS 63, 1928, 75 f; idem., ZAS 64, 1929, 136 f.
58) Otto, Biographischen Inschriften, 55.
60) Edel, Siut-Graber, 125 f.
61) Wb. Ill 46.

576
62) Wb. IV 381.8; cf. also J. Spiegel, ASAE 53, 1956,423 ff. on
the supposed ritual of hwi-sdb in the Pyramid Texts.
63) Zaba, Ptahhotep 33 (216-217); see also Edel, op. cit., 126.
64) For hbd see above Chapter One.
65) See Gardiner^ The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage (Leipzig,

1909) PI. 12.3; Kees, ZAS 63, 1928, 75; Faulkner, JEA 50, 1964,
33; Fecht, Per Vorwurf an Gott in den "Mahnworter des Ipu-wer"
(Heidelberg, 1972) 55, 59.
66) Helck, Merikare, 28 (XVII; P4).
67) I owe this suggestion to Dr. Goedicke.
69) Ibid., 190.
70) Daressy, ASAE 11, 1911, 142 ff.
71) See for example, Lichtheim, AEL II, 75; Wilson, ANET (3),
377.
72) W. Crum, Coptic Dictionary 387a where it is used in Gen3:14,

for GK.
73) Wb. Ill 55.5,9.
74) So See Wb. Ill 55.8; see especially Sinuhe B 184; Goedicke,
Neferyt, 164 (note 307).
75) See A. Massart, The Leiden Magical Papyrus (I 343 + I 345)

Leiden, 1954), 101 (Vo. I 1-6).
76) Massart MDAIK 15, 1957, 180, Taf. 33 (P. Geneva MAH 15274,
Recto VI 8).
77) P. Bol 1094.11 (7); see LEM 10.15; Caminos, LEM,30.
78) Cerny, LRL 67.10 (P. Bibl.Nat. 198 II.4); Wente, LRL 80,
translates as "reproaches".
79) Urk. IV 490. 11-12; also Urk. IV 122.13.
80) See Gardiner, ZAS 47, 1910, Taf. I (line 5).
81) See Lange, Amenemope, 127; Grumach, Untersuchungen zur

Lebenslehre des Amenope, 166.
577
82) ForTHX , see Schottroff, Altisraelitische Fluchspruch,

25ff.; H.C. Brichto, The Problem of "Curse" in the Hebrew Bible
(Philadelphia, 1963) 77ff.
83) For thi t3s see Wb. V 236.7.
84) KRI IV 15.3.
85) Faulkner, Pyramid Texts, 96-97.
86) Sethe, Kommentar ii, 329.
87) Anthes, ZAS 87, 1961, 86-89.
88) Ibid., 86-87.
89) Ibid., 89.
90) See von-Deines-Westendorf, Worterbuch der Medizinischen

Texte, 856.
91) Daressy, RT 16, 1894, 125.
92) Ibid, (line x + 5).
93) Wilson, JNES 7, 1948, 130.
94) El-Sayed, Documents Relatifs a Sais, 43 (PI. VII) line 9;

ibid., 50 (cc).
95) Wb. I 211.19; or perhaps Wb. I 212.3 "to end", probably

derived from 'rk, "to wrap up", see El-Sayed, op. cit.,50.
96) See for example, Worterbuch VI under "bannen": stwh3 (V

334); sn' (IV 504); "Behexung" hmwt-s3 (III 85); "Verwunschung":
n3& (II 458); "beschworen": shs.j (IV 220); sdj (IV 564). These
are terms which are attested in magical literature.
578
CONCLUSIONS
An examination of the available material reveals that there
were changes in the ancient Egyptian threat-formula. The Old
Kingdom injunctions were almost entirely based on the concept
of litigation, and were probably modeled upon procedures used in
civil arbitration. In its original form no presiding agent is
mentioned. However, by the end of the Fifth Dynasty, it is
evident that a god of the local necropolis was considered as arbi
trating the complaints of the deceased against the violator of
his mortuary property. Evidently, the possibility of an appear
ance before court was considered sufficient enough of a threat,
since in the initial stages of the formula there are no further
citations of punishment. During the Sixth Dynasty, however,
litigation was supplemented with the personal threat of physically
remanding the violator before a divine tribunal. Moreover, in
certain cases the pronouncement of a sentence accompanies a brief
reference to litigation. This is most evident in G. 2001 where
a capital sentence is to be passed over parties guilty of steal
ing mortuary property of the deceased.
To a certain extent, the concept of litigation is retained
in the threats of the First Intermediate Period. One can observe,
however, a general lessening in the procedural aspects of "arbitra
tion" and an increase in the punishments themselves. Indeed, it
is during this period, that the threat-formula is more or less

579
fixed typologically. Prominent features of the Siut threats
which frequently occur in later formulations include the denial
of ritual burial, rejection of temple offerings, the interdiction
of inheritance privileges, condemnation by gods and men, and
eternal punishment in the Afterlife. Some of these elements
have their roots in the Old Kingdom. Thus,' the suppression of
the survivor's claims to property, and villification of the memory
of the transgressor are already found in the Sixth Dynasty.
Similarly, the Old Kingdom threat of the "crocodile and serpent"
implicitly refers to the destruction of the violator's corpse and
denial of ritual burial.
The threats of the Old Kingdom and the examples from Siut
emphasize the loss of civic status, both in life and death, and
have a decided eschatological focus (1). It is during the First
Intermediate Period, however, that the threat also acquires a
more immediate impact. In the formulae from the inscription of
Ankhtify of Mo'alia, threats to the corporeal existance of the
transgressor accompany references to expulsion from the community
and denial of inheritance privileges. The dichotomy between the
mundane punishment of a violator and eschatological consequences
of a crime are characteristic of the long history of the threat-
formula. It is not surprising that at certain times, such as the
Ramesside era, physical punishment is stressed rather than the
concept of final judgement and condemnation.
The Middle Kingdom threats basically retain the elements

580
typical of the First Intermediate Period examples. Not surpris
ingly, this is most evident in the Siut inscription of ffp-gf3.
Thus, a reference to a god's rejection of a violator's offering
also appears in the earlier Tf-ib (.i) text (2). The Hp-Df3
threats also emphasize divine punishment which is specified as
the "fury" of Thoth. This is coupled with an invocation, to
what are probably mundane legal agencies. The bifurcation
between divine intermediaries and the auspices of the king is
characteristic of later threats as well. This suggests that the
concept of the monarch's responsibility as legal arbiter was
never entirely abandoned in favor of divine "justice" alone.
The direct intervention of gods, however, is typical of the
Middle Kingdom threats from the quarries of Hatnub. Thus both
local deities ("gods of the Hare nome") and individual gods
(Thoth, Anty) are invoked to punish those who would deface in
scriptions left at the site. Simple maledictions including wishes
that a transgressor never reach home or see his children again
(obviously devised with other miners in mind) are found among
this corpus. Familiar threats referring to the criminal's loss
of status and denial of legal heirs are also found in texts from
this time.
In New Kingdom threats two stages may be discerned, gener
ally corresponding to the historical periods of the Eighteenth
Dynasty and Ramesside Period. In the former, there is an in
itial emphasis upon the physical destruction of a malefactor.

581
typical of the First Intermediate Period examples. Not surpris
ingly, this is most evident in the Siut inscription of Hp-Df3.
Thus, a reference to a god's rejection of a violator's offering
also appears in the earlier Tf-ib.i text (2). The Hp-Df3 threats
also emphasize divine punishment which is specified as the "fury"
of Thoth. This is coupled with an invocation, to what are prob
ably mundane legal agencies. The bifurcation between divine
intermediaries and the auspices of the king is characteristic
of later threats as well. This suggests that the concept of
the monarch's responsibility as a legal arbiter was never en
tirely abandoned in favor of divine "justice" along. The direct
intervention of gods, however, is typical of the Middle Kingdom
threats from the quarries of Hatnub. Thus both local deities
("gods of the Hare nome") and individual gods (Thoth, Anty)
are invoked to punish those who would deface inscriptions left
at the site. Simple maledictions including wishes that a trans
gressor never reach home or see his children again (obviously
devised with other miners in mind) are found among this corpus.
Familiar threats referring to the criminal's loss of status and
denial of legal heirs are also found in texts from this time.
In New Kingdom threats two stages may be discerned, gener
ally corresponding to the historical periods of the Eighteenth
Dynasty and Ramesside Period. In the former, there is an in
itial emphasis upon the physical destruction of a malefactor.

582
Thus, in Hatshepsut's Coronation inscription "God" is invoked
to cause the immediate death of conspirators against the queen.
Similarly, a contemporary threat from the tomb of Senmut refers
to the premature death of parties violating his mortuary property.
In texts dating to the reigns of Amenophis II and III, potential
malefactors are said to be "hated" (fobd) by the gods and excluded
from office. There are also references to the interdiction of
inheritance rights and denial of ritual burial. By the beginning
of the Ramesside Period there is a decided emphasis upon the
immediate intervention of deities to punish the individual. Thus,
gods are often invoked to pursue the criminal as well as his
family. In a graffito from Deir el Bahari, a deity is invoked
to persecute a malefactor by striking him with illness. The
stress on physical suffering is explicit in threats dating to
Dynasty Twenty- hunger, thirst, and affliction are to befall
violators of stipulations. Although the threat-formula of the
Ramesside Period has more emphasis upon corporeal punishment (a
characteristic of legal concepts of this time as well), the notion
of litigation and exclusion from the community is not entirely
supplanted. Indeed, in the Wadi Mia decree of Seti I, litigation,
clearly in an eschatological setting, is a direct consequence of
violating the king's directives for his royal estate. Similarly
in the Bilgai stela of Twoseret from the end of Dynasty Nineteen,
divine and royal condemnation (hbd), rejection by the criminal's
own relatives and loss of legal rights feature prominently in

583
the threats attached to the decree. Indeed, gods are frequently
invoked as legal opponents (iry-n-'h3) of a transgressor in
threats of this era. The familiar maledictions referring to
the loss of burial privilieges are attested as well. A common
threat referring to sexual violation by an ass is first used
in Dynasty 20, and is attested in inscriptions throughout the
succeeding Third Intermediate Period.
It is during the Twenty-first and Twenty-second Dynasties
that the threat-formula reaches its apex. Threats in the Decree
of Amenophis son of Hapu, the so-called Apanage stela, and a
fragmentary inscription from Luxor invoke the loss of status,
burial, and physical affliction for both the violator and his
family, culminating in eschatological condemnation. Although
such punishments are attested in earlier formulations, they are
not as developed in terms of scope and imagery as in these texts.
There is repeated stress upon physical afflictions which are
described in gleeful and macabre detail. Gods are to plague the
violator by beheading, plunging "arrows" into his suffering
corpse, consume him with fire, and rend open his entrails with
horns. Wives are to be ravaged before the criminal's eyes, while
familial property is to be confiscated and handed over to servants.
Rejected by family and friends, the transgressor is to suffer
hunger and thirst, and be wracked with sickness. Ultimately, his
fate is confinement with the damned in Hell. Clearly the length
and variety of threats were meant to influence the potential
violator of the text. It is not surprising that the emphasis

584
of the threat on the terrible wrath of the gods occurs during
the time when an Egyptian theocracy was in full-flower. Indeed,
many threats from the Third Intermediate Period are found in
oracular contexts and are often attributed to the actual pro
nouncement of deities themselves.
It is also during this time, however, that threats commonly
refer to the king as the instrument of enforcement as well.
Although always coupled with a parallel invocation to a divine
agent (usually Sekhmet), it is indicative of a continuing belief
in the king as arbiter of law and order in the society. What is
unusual, however, is that such threats occur at a time when the
monarchy was severely weakened by internal political conflicts.
Another important development is the emphasis upon punishment
to groups other than the actual violator of a stipulation. Invoca
tions for the molestation, death, and condemnation of the crim
inal's wife and children are prominent elements of the formula of
the Third Intermediate Period. Another common feature is the deni
al of office to the offspring. These threats are retained in the
Late Period and Ptolemaic era as well. The Twenty-sixth Dynasty,
however, is noteworthy more for the succinctness and brevity of

y
its threats, which simply call for the destruction (sj_) of a
violator with little embellishment.
It is clear that there were threats which were regarded as
effective, or at least impressive, by the Egyptians themselves.
Thus, it may be possible to speak about a "traditional" corpus

585
of maledictions which are recurrent throughout the long history
of the use of the threat in ancient Egypt. Typologically, this
would include the concept of litigation, the violator's loss of
status (represented by the "name"), denial of ritual burial, and
rejection of the criminal's heirs. Chronological periods, how
ever, are characterized by certain kings of threats, and are prob
ably reflective of some sort of "popular" tradition. Thus, the
Old Kingdom emphasizes civil arbitartion (wj ' '/mdw); Middle
Kingdom, "punishment" (frsf); New Kingdom, divine pursuit (iri m-
s3), and divine opposition (iry-n-'he). The threat of molestation
(nk) by an ass is frequent for Dynasties 20-24. Fire (hh) and

\/ V
"cutting/knives" (s'd/s'(t)) are common metaphors for punishment
in the Third Intermediate and Late Periods. Moreover, there
were probably certain threats which were popular in different
geographical areas, although it is difficult to decide whether
the surviving evidence is indicative of "local" use or reflective
of some type of "literary" dependance. For example, it is prob
able that the use of the term fasf in the Hatnub graffiti is an
example of simple copying from one inscription to another. On
the other hand, the Siut threats of the First Intermediate Period
and Middle Kingdom possibly reflect some sort of traditional
corpus of maledictions. These same threats seem to have exerted
a particular fascination to later generations of scribes, and
portions were re-used in the New Kingdom and Saitic Period.
In our study, we have suggested that the threat was to a

586
certain extent based upon legal concepts or models in its formu
lation. We would not go so far as to state that the injunctions
themselves, despite their citation of Legal penalties (such as
denial of burial, interdiction of office), were representative
of actual punishment for the violations listed in the stipulation.
Indeed, the stipulative clauses are primarily concerned with prop
erty damage, which could be considered as both civil and criminal
offences, while the injunctions themselves are indicative of
capital sentences. Of course, such exaggerated malevolence was
intended to deter future violators of property (3). On the
other hand, it is not too far-fetched to view some of the stip
ulations as indicative of actual criminal transgressions (4).
This observation is certainly valid with those delicts referring
to theft and effacement of mortuary property, desecration of the
deceased's corpse, conspiracy to commit treason, interference
with land donated to religious institutions, abuse of cult per
sonnel, and illegal claims made again§t inherited property. As
Lorton has noted, evidence suggests that written law in ancient
Egypt was quite extensive and detailed "resembling modern statute
law more than the codes of contemporary cultures-" (5). The few
citations of law which have survived in the late Middle Kingdom
papyrus published by Hayes (6) along with assorted texts from
Deir el Medina (7), demonstrate just how specific these formal
legal provisions were. Indeed, Ramesside documents concerning
tomb robberies show that offences like those listed in the stip
ulations of the threat-formula were routinely prosecuted under

587
existing laws. Whether the conditional clauses of the threat-
formula itself were contained in legal statutes verbatim, cannot
be ascertained without corroborating documentation(8).
Perhaps the most striking feature of the threat-formula
is its use by private individuals. Although attested in royal
decrees, the threat is almost exclusively restricted to inscrip
tions referring to personal legal transactions. Thus, the maledic
tions were primarily used to "protect" tombs and mortuary prop
erty, sanction wills and testaments, and guarantee the integrity
of private donations of land to temples and religious estates.
This "personal" aspect is evident as well in the use of the for
mula in colophons to literary texts and graffiti left by private
citizens. Gardiner had suggested that the threats accompanying
the depositions for Psusennes II's daughters constituted actual
legal claims to the property transferred (9). This observation
is undoubtedly valid and it is likely that the pronouncement of
a threat was regarded as evidence of a binding juridical arrange
ment. This is certainly the case in the use of the threat in
oracular contexts, such as the presentation of the will of
Nfct-mwt.f before the god Amun. Similarly land transfers recorded
in donation stelae of the Third Intermediate Period are indicative
of this concept as well (10). The use of the threat in this manner
was undoubtedly related to the swearing of an oath; indeed, the
threat-formula was probably regarded as a kind of promissory
oath. However, the rather uneven use of maledictions in wills

588
and donation stelae is again suggestive of its "personal" origin,
reflecting the piety of the individual making the document. Sim
ilarly, the type of invocation-whether to the king or a god-seems
to have been the choice of the party itself.
To the modern mind, the threat-formula is indicative of
"primitive" (11) superstition and ignorance, and conjures up
ideas of magic, ghosts, and demons. The Egyptians, however,
clearly recognized the limitations of their law, and the efficacy
of legal institutions. Many crimes could escape prosecution,
and the guilty could go free. The tomb robbery papyri demonstrate
the unfortunate reality of the situation. Thus, in a society
such as that of ancient Egypt's, in which law and order repre
sented by the concept of Ma'at, was held in such high esteem,
the possibility that criminals could go unpunished posed enormous
ethical problems. A statement from the tomb Petosiris, though
late in date, clearly conveys this dilemma, as well as the
Egyptians' solution for it. Addressing future visitors to his
tomb Petosiris says (12):
0 every man who would commit sacriliege in this

pure and august chamber: Do not reach out your arms
against me I Perform the rite, namely the rites which
are for the deceased. It is here that Thoth answers
him who acts. He shall not rest, without judgement
being afforded to him of deeds either good or bad.
He shall repay him on account of [it] immediately.
As for [him who] is on earth, who is not punished
on account of it: He shall be punished in the Necro
polis in the presence of the Possessors of Ma'at.
Petosiris' statement that those unpunished on earth would receive
their just rewards in the Afterlife, was the underlying purpose

589
for the use of the threat-formula itself. To the Egyptians,
whose world was ordered by divine influence, the threat was a
natural and logical response to the dilemma posed by the failings
of their legal agencies. The use of the threat-formula, of
course is not an isolated phenomena, but is simply reflective
of the beliefs of the society as as whole. Thus the development
of the concept of the "Last Judgement" by the Egyptians is im
plicit in the threat itself. The moral system of the Egyptians
was invested in a belief in individual responsibility. There
could be no evasion of justice since the entire cosmos was under
divine guidance. Moreover, all actions were conducted with a
view towards eternity. It is therefore, not surprising that
the punishments invoked in the threat-formula are characterized
by their recourse to eschatological litigation, loss of civic
status, and denial of ritual burial. The development and use
of the threat may be seen as a practical, and indeed, necessary
answer to a moral quandary which faced the Egyptians. Rather
than reflecting ignorance, the threat-formula demonstrates the
Egyptians' belief in the primacy of Ma'at, and the importance of
justice in maintaining an ordered and harmonious society.

590
NOTES TO CONCLUSIONS
1) This parallels criminal law during the O.K., see Lorton,

"Treatment", 11-12, 50-51.
2) Note also Elephantine 1373, cited by Edel, Siut-Graber, 193,

"Not shall he go forth from T3-Zti. Not shall his tomb be in
the cemetary. Not shall his god accept his white-bread offering.
He shall belong to the fire, and his children to the flame."
3) The texts are a form of rhetoric, and clearly intended to

dissuade persons from damaging the property of the deceased. To
a certain extent, however, this parallels Egyptian "legal"
practice, especially the invocation of extremely harsh penalties
in the oath of the Ramesside Period (for relatively miRor offenses
in some cases). A modern parallel can be drawn from the proverbial
"Trespassors will be shot" and the like.
4) In this conjunction, see the late P. Jumilhac XII.16-20

(Vandier, p. 123), where forbidden activities are listed, some
in parallel, or similar to, the stipulations found in threat
formulae: "Knowing the restrictions (bwt) of the district
eating pork; boisterousness in the Presence committing violence
in the City cutting down the measuring cords of the field
falsifying the granary measure stealing grain from his field
diminishing the divine endowment of his temple (illegally)
removing a son from his hereditary office of his temple testi
fying (falsely) against his citizens the violent not respecting
his field's borders eating the flesh of any sacrifices ."
5) Lorton, op. cit., 61 f.
6) See Hayes, A Late Middle Kingdom Papyrus, 47 ff.
7) Lorton, op. cit., 63.
8) See Lorton, ibid., 60 ff. on suggestions that the law (hp)

actually referred to the stipulations cited in a code.
9) Gardiner, JEA 48, 1962, 59.
10) See above Chapter IV. Indeed some of the donation texts such
as Ash. Museum 1894.107 b contain witnesses to the act, see
Janssen, JEA 54, 1968, 167.
11) The term is of course, relative. The use of the threat formulae
is quite logical within the culture of the ancient Egyptians.
12) Lefebvre, Tomb of Petosiris, (Cairo, 1923) 27 (no. 55) (Part 2).
591
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
AND ABBREVIATIONS
Abu Bakr, A.M. - Osing, J. "Achtungstexte aus dem Alten Reich."

MDAIK 29 (1973) 97-133.
AHw: Akkadisches Handworterbuch I-II, von Soden, W. Wiesbaden,

1965.
Albright, W.F. "The Egyptian Correspondence of Abimilki, Prince

of Tyre". JEA 23 (1937) 190-203.
Allen, J.P. The Inflection of the Verb in the Pyramid Texts.

Bibliotheca Aegyptia Vol. 2. Malibu, 1984.
Alliot, M. "Un nouvel exemple de vizier divinise dans I'Egypte

ancienne." BIFAO 37 (1937) 93-160.
Alt, A. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I-III.

Munich, 1953-1959.
ANET (3): Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testa
ment, third edition, ed. Pritchard, J. Princeton, 1969.
Anthes, R. "Das Sonnenauge in den Pyramiden texten". ZAS 86

(1961) 1-21.
. Die Felseninschriften von Hatnub. Leipzig, 1928.
. "Das Verbum sni 'umschliessen, bannen' in den Pyr-

amidentexten". ZAS 86 (1961) 86-89.
ASAE: Annales du Service des Antiquities de I'Egypte.
Assmann, J. "Die loyaliste Lehre des Echnaton". SAK 8 (1979)

Iff.
. Sonnenhymnen in Thebanischen Grabern. Mainz, 1983.
. "Weisheit, Loyalismus und Frommigkeit." In Studien

zu altagyptiscehn Lebenslehren ed. Hornung, E-Keel,
0., 11-72. Gottingen, 1979.
Baer, K. "The oath sdf3-tryt in Papyrus Lee 1, 1" JEA 50

(1964) 179-180.
592
Bakhry, H., "A Donation Stela From Busiris During the Reign
of King Neko." Studi Classici e Orientali 20 (1971)
325-337.
Bakir, A. "A Donation Stela of the Twenty-Second Dynasty."

ASAE 43 (1943) 75-81.
Baltzer, W. The Covenant Formulary. Trans. Green, D. Phila

delphia, 1971.
Barre, M.L. The God-list in the Treaty Between Hannibal and

Philip V of Macedonia. Baltimore, 1983.
BASOR: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.
Barta, W. "Der Terminus twt auf dem Grenzstelen Sesostris III.

in Nubien." In Festschrift Berlin Museum, pp. 51-54.
Berlin, 1974.
von Beckerath, J. "Die 'Stele der Verbannten' im Museum des

Louvre." RdE 20 (1968) 7-36.
. Tanis und Theban: Historische Grundlagen der

Ramessidenzeit in Agypten. Gluckstadt-Hamburg-
New York, 1951.
Bedell, E.D. Criminal Law in the Egyptian Ramesside Period.

University Microfilms. Ann Arbor, 1973.
Berlandini, J. "Une stele de donation du dynaste libyen Roudamon."

BIFAO 78 (1978) 147-164.
BIFAO: Bulletin de 1' Institut francais d' archeologie orientale

du Caire.
Bjorkman, G. Kings at Karnak. Uppsala, 1971.
Blackman, A. Middle Egyptian Stories. Brussels, 1932.
. "Oracles in Ancient Egypt." JEA 11 (1925) 249-255.
"The Stela of Sheshonk, Great Chief of the Meshwesh."

JEA 27 (1941) 83-95.
Blumenthal, E. Untersuchungen zum agyptischen Konigtum des

Mittleren Reiches I: Die Phraseologie. Leipzig,
1970.
Borghouts, J. Ancient Egyptian Magical Texts. Leiden, 1978.

593
Bostico, S. Museo Archaeologico de Firenze, Le Stele Egiziane

di Epoca Tarda. Rome, 1972.
Breasted, J.H. Ancient Records of Egypt I-V (BAR). Chicago,

1906-07.
. Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt.

New York, 1912.
. The Edwin-Smith Surgical Papyrus Vol. 1. Chicago, 1930.
Brichto, H.C. The Problem of "Curse" in the Hebrew Bible. Phila

delphia, 1963.
Brugsch, H. "Mittheilungen von Emil Brugsch-Bey." ZAS 34 (1896)

83-84.
. "Ueber eine Grabformel auf einer Stele im Museum von

Bulaq." ZAS 3 (1865) 89-91.
Burchardt, M. Alt kanaanaischen Fremdworte Leipzig, 1909.
. -Roeder, G. "Einaltertumelnder Grabstein." ZAS 55

(1918) 50-61.
CAD: The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the

University of Chicago I-. Chicago, 1964.
CAH^ The Cambridge Ancient History I-II Cambridge, 1975.
Caminos, R. The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon. Rome, 1958.
. Late Egyptian Miscellanies. London, 1954.
CdE. Chronique d' Egypte

y
Cermak "Akten in Keilschrift und das Auswartige Amt des Pharao."
WZKM 51 (1948) 1-13.
v
Cerny, J. "Le culte d' Amenophis Ier chez les ouvriers de la
necropole thebaine." BIFAO 27 (1927) 159-197.
. "Egyptian Oracles." In A Saite Oracle Papyrus from

Thebes, by Parker, R. pp. 35-48. Providence, 1962.
. "Une expression designant la response ne'gative d'un

oracle." BIFAO 30 (1930) 491-496.
. Late Ramesside Letters (LRL) Brussels, 1939.

594
. and Gardiner, A.H. Hieratic Ostraca. Oxford, 1957.
. and Groll, S.I. A Late Egyptian Grammar (LEG).

Rome, 1975.
Cross, F.M. "A Literate Soldier: Lachish Letter III." In

Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samue
Iwry, ed. Kort, A and Morschauser, S. pp. 41-47
Winona Lake, 1985.
Crum, W.E. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford, 1939.
Daressy, G. "Inscriptions inedites de la XXlle Dynastie." RT

18 (1896) 46-53. ~~
. "Note additionelle". RT 15 (1893) 174-175.
. "Notes et remarques." RT 16 (1894) 123-133.
. "Une statue de Saft-el-Henneh." ASAE 11 (1911) 142-144.
Davies, N.dG. The Rock Tombs of El Amarna VI London, 1908.
. The Tomb of Puyemre at Thebes. New York, 1922-23.
. The Tomb of Rekh-mi-Re at Thebes. New York, 1943.
Dawson, W.R. "An Oracle Papyrus B.M. 10335." JEA 11 (1925)

247-248.
De Buck, A. The Egyptian Coffin Texts. 7 vol. Chicago 1935-61.
_. "The Judicial Papyrus of Turin." JEA 23 (1937)

152-164.
von Deines, H.-Westendorf, W. Worterbuch der Medizinischen Texte.

2 vols. Berlin, 1961-62.
Deller, K.H. - Parpola, S. "Ein Vertrag Assurbanipals mit dem

arabischen Stamm Qedar." Orientalia 37 (1968)
464-466.
Devaud, E. "Etudes et notes de grammaire, de lexicologie de

paleographie, etc., egyptiennes et coptes." Kemi
1 (1928) 136-146.
Drenkhahn, R. Die Elephantine-Stele des Sethnacht und ihr

historischer Hintergrund. Wiesbaden, 1980.
595
Dr.lotin, E. "Une stele de donation de l'an Xlll d'Apries" ASAE

39, 1939.
Dunham, D. Naga-ed-Der Stelae of the First Intermediate Period

London, 1937.
Edel, E. Altagyptische Grammatik (AaG) 2 vols. Rome 1955 and

1964.
. "Die Biographische des K3j-gmjnj (Kagemni)." MIO 1

(1953) 210-26; MIO 2 (1954) 187-88.
. Hieroglyphische Inschriften des Alten Reiches. Abhand-

lungen der Rheinisch - Westfalischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Vo. 67 (1981).
. Die Inschriften am Eingang des Grabes des 'Tef-ib'.-"

Abhandlungen fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes 39(1), 1970.
. Die Inschriften des Grabfronten der Siut-Graber in

Mittelagypten aus der Herakleopolitenzeit. Abh der
Rheinisch - Westfalischen Akademie Vo. 71 (1984).
. "KBO I 15 & 19 ein Brief Ramses ' II mit einer Schild-

erung der Kadesschlacht." ZA (NF) 15 (1950) 195-210.
U
. Untersuchungen zur Phraseologie der Agyptischen Inschrif
ten des Alten Reiches. MDAIK 13 (1944) 1-90.
. "Zur Schwurgotterliste des Hethitervertrags." • ZAS 90

(1963) 31-35.
Edgerton, W.F. "The Nauri Decree of Seti.l.A- Translation and

Analysis of the Legal Portion." JNES 6 (1947)
219-230.
"The Strikes in Ramses Ill's Twenty-ninth Year. JNES 10(1951)

137-45.
. The Thutmosid Succession Chicago, 1933.
. Wilson, J. Historical Records of Ramesses III. Chicago,

1936.
Edwards, I.E.S. "Appendix' ,to the Decree of Amonrasonther for

Neskhons." JEA 41(1955) 96-105.
. Oracular Amuletic Decrees of the Late New Kingdom. 2 Vols.

London, 1960.
596
El-Sayed, R. Documents relatifs a Sais. Cairo, 1975.
Erman, A. Neuagyptische Grammatik. (NaG) Hildesheim, 1968.
. "Zu den Legrain'schen Inschriften." ZAS 35, (1897)

19-29.
Fachry, A. Sept tombeaux a' 1' Est de la grande pyramide de

Guizeh. Cairo, 1935.
Faulkner, R.O. The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts. 3 Vols.

Warminster, 1978.
The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, 2 Vols.

Oxford, 1969.
. "Coffin Texts Spell 313." JEA 58 (1972) 91-94.
A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian (CD).

Oxford, 1962.
. "Notes on the Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage."

JEA 50 (1964) 24-36.
. The Papyrus Bremner-Rhind (British Museum No. 10188)

Brussels, 1933.
Fecht, G. Per Vorwurf an Gott in den "Mahnworter des Ipu-werl

Heidelberg, 1972.
Fensham, F.C. "Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern

Treaties and Kudurru-Inscriptions Compared with
Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah." ZAW 75 (1963)
155-175.
. "Malediction and Benediction in Ancient Near Eastern

Vassal Treaties and the Old Testament." ZAW 74
(1962) 1-9.
. "Salt as Curse in the OT and the Ancient Near East."

BA 25 (1962) 48-50.
Fischer, H.G. Inscriptions from the Coptite Nome. Rome, 1964.
. "Notes on the Mo'alia Inscriptions and some Contempor

aneous Texts." WZKM 57 (1961) 59-77.
Frandsen, P. "Egyptian Imperialism." In Power and Propaganda, ed.

Larsen, M.T. (Mesopotamia 7) pp. 167-190. Akademisk
For lag, 1979.
597
. An Outline of the Late Egyptian Verbal System.

Copenhagen, 1974.
Frankfort, H. "The Cemetaries of Abydos: Work of the Season

1925-26." JEA 14 (1928) 235-245.
Freedy, K.S. - Redford, D.B. "The Dates in Ezekiel in Relation

to Biblical, Babylonian and Egyptian Sources."
JAOS 90 (1970) 462-485.
Gardiner, A.H. The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage. Leipzig, 1909.
. "The Gods of Thebes as Guarantors of Personal Property."

JEA 48, (1962) 57-69.
. "Hymns to Amun from a Leiden Papyrus." ZAS 42 (1906)

12-42.
. Late Egyptian Miscellanies (LEM), Brussels, 1937.
. Late Egyptian Stories (LES). Brussels, 1932.
. "The Origin of Certain Coptic Grammatical Elements."

JEA 16 (1930) 220-234.
. "The Stele of Bilgai." ZAS 50 (1912) 49-57.

»•
. "The Tomb of Amenemhat, high priest of Amon." ZAS

47 (1910) 87-99.
Peet, T. The Inscriptions of Sinai. Part II. London,

1955.
. Sethe, K. Egyptian Letters to the Dead: Mainly from the

Old and Middle Kingdoms. London, 1928.
Garnot, J.S.-F. L'appel aux vivants dans les textes funeraires

Egyptiens. Cairo, 1938.
Germond, P. Sekhmet et la Protection du Monde Geneva, 1981.
Gevirtz, S. "Curse" in IDE 1, 749-750.
. "The Evidence of the Amarna Letters From Tyre."

Orientalia 42 (1973) 162-177.
. "Jericho and Shechem. A Religio-Literary Aspects of

City Destruction." VT 13 (1963) 52-62.
598
. "West-Semitic Curses and the Problem of the Origins

of Hebrew Law." VT II (1961) 137-158.
GM: Gottinger Miszellen.
Goedicke, Hans. "Comments on the Satrap Stela." BES 6 (1985)

33-54.
. "The End of 'So, King of Egypt'." BASOR 171 (1963)

64-66.
. "The Inverted Water" GM 10 (1974) 13-17.
. "Juridical Expressions of the Old Kingdom." JNES

15 (1956) 27-32.
. Konigliche Dokumente aus dem Alten Reich. Wiesbaden,

1967.
• Die Privaten Rechtsinschriften aus dem Alten Reich.

Wien, 1970.
. The Protocol of Neferyt. Baltimore-London, 1977.
. The Quarrel of Apophis and Seqenenre. San Antonio,

1986.
. "CJuotations in Old Kingdom Inscriptions." In

Agyptologische Studien, ed. Firchow, pp. 93-106.
Berlin, 1955.
. The Report of Wen-Amun. (Baltimore-London, 1973).
. Die Stellung des Konigs im Alten Reich, Wiesbaden,

1960.
• "Untersuchungen zum altagyptischen Rechtsprechung."

MIO 8 (1963) 333-367.
. "Was Magic Used in the Harem Conspiracy against

Ramesses III?" JEA 49 (1963) 71-92.
. "Zm3-T3wy." In Melanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar, 307-324.

Cairo, 1985.
Goe tze, A. "Hittite sek/sak- '(legally recognize)' in the Treaties."

JCS 22 (1968) 7-8.
. Kleinasien (2nd ed.) Munich, 1957.

599
Gorg, M. Reden in Israel und Agypten. Stuttgart, 1975.
Grapow, H. "Bedrohungen der Gotter durch den Vorstorbenen".

ZAS 49 (1911) 48-54.
. Die Medizinischen Texte in Hieroglyphischer Umschreibung.

Berlin, 1958.
. Die stilistische Bau der Geschichte des Sinuhe.

Berlin, 1952.
. Studien zu den annalen Thutmosis des Dritten und zu

ihnen verwandten historischen Berichten des Neuen
Reiches. Berlin, 1947.
Grayson, A.K. "Assyria's Foreign Policy in Relation to Egypt in

the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C." JSSEA 11
(1981) 85-88.
Green, M. "B3w Expressions in Late Egyptian." In Glimpses of

Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honor of H.W. Falrman, ed.
ed. Ruffle, J., Gaballa, G.A., Kitchen, K., pp. 107-115.
. "A Means of Discouraging Perjury,? GM 39, (1980) 33-39.
Griffith, F. "The Abydos Decree of Seti I at Nauri." JEA 13

(1927) 193-208.
. The Demotic Papyri in the John Rylands Library.

3 Vols. Manchester, 1909.
. The Inscriptions of Siut and Der Rifeh (London, 1889),
Griffiths, J.G. "Remarks on the Mythology of the Eyes of Horus."

CdE 65 (1958) 182-192.
Grimal, N.C. Le Stele Triomphale de Pi('ankh)y au Musee du Caire.

Cairo, 1981.
Groll, S.I. "A Ramesside. Grammar Book of a Technical Language of

Dream Interpretation." In Pharaonic Egypt: The
Bible and Christianity, ed. Groll, pp. 71-118.
Jerusalem, 1985.
Grumach, I. Untersuchungen zur Lebenslehre des Amenemope.

Munchen-Berlin, 1972.
Guentsch-Ogloueff, M. "Noms propres imprecatoires." BIFAO 40

(1941) 117-133.
600
Gugliemi, W. Reden, Rufe, und Lieden auf altagyptischen Darstel-

lungen. Bonn, 1973.
Gunn, B. "The Decree of Amonrasonther for Neskhons." JEA 41,

(1955) 83-95.
. "The Religion of the Poor in Ancient Egypt." JEA 3

(1916) 81-94.
. Studies in Egyptian Syntax. Paris, 1924.
Guterbock, H. "The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as Told by his Son,

Mursili II." JCS 10 (1956) 41-68; 75-98; 107-130.
Habachi, L. "Devotion of Thutmosis III to his Predecessors: A

Propos of a Meeting of Sesostris I with his Courtiers."
In Melanges Mokhtar, pp. 349-359. Cairo, 1985.
. The Second Stela of Kamose and his Struggle against

the Hyksos Ruler and his Capital. Sluckstadt, 1972.
Harvey, J. "Le 'rib-Pattern' re'quisitoire prophetique sur la

rupture de 1'alliance." Biblica 43 (1962) 172-96.
Hayes, W.C. A Papyrus of the Late Middle Kingdom in the Brooklyn

Museum [Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446] New York, 1955.
Helck, W. Die Beziehungen Agyptens zur Vorderasien im. 3. und

Z. Jahrtausand v. Chr.2 Wiesbaden, 1971.
. Historisch-Biographische Texte der 2. Zwischenzeit und

neue Texte der 18. Dynastie. Wiesbaden, 1975.
. Die Lehre fur Konig Merikare. Wiesbaden, 1977.
. Die Prophezeihung des Nfr.tj. Wiesbaden, 1970.
. Ramessidische Inschriften aud Karnak. ZAS 82, (1957)

98-140.
. "Wirtschaftliche Bemerkungen zum privaten Grabbesitz

im Alten Reich." MDAIK 14, (1956) 63-75.
. Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reiches. Leiden,

1958).
Hillers, D.R. Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea.

Baltimore, 1969.
. "A Note on Some Treaty Terminology in the OT."

BASOR 176 (1964) 46-47.
601
. Treaty-Curses and the OT Prophets. Rome, 1964.
Hoffner, H.A. "Propaganda and Political Justification in Hittite

Historiography." In Unity and Diversity, 49-62.
Hornung, E. "Altagyptische Hollen-vorstellungen." In.Abh.d.

Sachs. Akad.d.Wiss. 59, 1968.
. Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the

Many. Trans. Baines, J. Ithaca, 1982.
Huffmon, H.B. "The Treaty Background of Hebrew Yada'." BASOR "

181 (1966) 31-37.
. Parker, S.B. "A Further Note on the 'Treaty Back

ground of Hebrew Yada'." BASOR 184 (1966) 36-38.
Iversen, E. Two Inscriptions Concerning Private Donations for

Temples. Copenhagen, 1941.
James, T.G.H. Apted, M.R. The Mastaba of Khentika called Ikhekhi.

ASE 30. London, 1953.
Janssen, J. De traditioneele Egyptische Autobiographie voor het

Nieuwe Rijk. 2 vols., Leiden, 1946.
Janssen, J.J. "The Smaller Dakhla Stela" JEA 54 (1968) 165-172.
Janssen, J.M. The Stela (Khartoum Museum No. 3) from Uronarti

JNES 12 (1953) 51-55.
JNES: Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JAOS: Journal of the American Oriental Society.
JARCE: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt.
JBL: Journal of Biblical Literature.
JCS: Journal of Cuneiform Studies.
JEA: Journal of Egyptian Archaeology.
JESHO: Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient.
Junker, H. Giza. 12 Vols. Denkschriften Akademie der Wissen-

schaften in Wien, Philos.-hist. Kalasse. Wien and
Leipzig, 1929-1955.
Kees, H. "Textkritischekleinigkeiten." ZAS 63 (1928) 75-78.

602
. Totenglauben und Jenseits-vorstellungen der Alten

Agypter: Grundlagen und Entwicklung biz zum Ende des
Mittleren Reiches. (Totenglauben). Leipzig, 1926.
Kestemont, G. Diplomatique et droit internationale en Asie

occidental (1600-1200 av. J.C.). Louvain, 1974.
Kitchen, K.A. "Egypt, Ugarit, Qatna and Covenant." UF 11 (1979)

453-464.
. Ramesside Inscriptions. (KRI): Historical and

Biographical. Oxford, 1968-1983.
The Third Intermediate Period (TIP). Warminster,

1973.
"Two Donation Stelae in the Brooklyn Museum."

JARCE 8 (1969-70) 59-67.
. Gaballa, G.A. "Ramesside Varia II." ZAS 96 (1969)

14-28.
Knudtzon, J.A. Die El-Amarna Tafeln. Leipzig, 1915.
Koenig, Y. "Notes sur la stele de donation Caire JE 30972."

ASAE 68 (1982) lllff.
Korol?ec, V. Hethitische Staats- vertrage: Ein Betrag zu juristichen

Wertung. Leipzig, 1931.
Kruchten, J.M. Le Decret d'Horemheb. Brussels, 1981.
Kuhne^ ,C. "Zum Text RS 19.68." UF 3 (1971) 369-371.
Labib, P. "The Stela of Nefer-ronpet." ASAE 36 (1936) 194-196.
Langdon, S.-Gardiner, A. "The Treaty of Alliance between Hattusili

King of the Hittites and the Pharaoh
Ramesses II of Egypt." JEA 6 (1920)
179-205.
Lange, H.O. Das Weisheitsbuch des Amenemope. Kopenhagen, 1925.
Leahy, A. "Two Donation Stelae of Necho II." RdE 34 (1982-83)

71-91.
Lefebvre, G. "Herihor, vizier (statue du Caire, no. 42190) ASAE

26(1926) 63-68.
. Le Tombeau de Petosiris I-III. Cairo, 1923.

603
Legrain, G. "Deux steles trouvees a Karnak en fevrier 1897."

ZAS 35 (1897) 12-19.
Lexa, F. La Magie dans 1'Egypt Antique. Vol. 1-2. Paris, 1925.
Lichtheim, M„ Ancient Egyptian Literature (AEL). Vols. 1-3.

Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1972-76.
Liverani, M. "Political Lexicon and Political Ideologies in the

Amarna Letters." Berytus: Archaeological Studies
31 (1983) 41-56.
. Three Amarna Essays. Malibu, 1979.
Logan, T.S.-Westenholz. Sdm.f and sdm.n.f forms in the Pey

(Piankhy) Inscription." JARCE 9 (1972)
111-119.
Lorton, D. The Juridical Terminology of International Relations

in Egyptian Texts Through Dyn. 18. Baltimore and
London, 1974.
. "The King and the Law." VA 2 (1986) 53-62.
. "The Title 'Book of Knowing the Creations of Re and of

Felling Apophis': A Grammatical Note on the Titles
and Headings of Egyptian Religious Composition."
GM 23 (1977) 55-63.
. "The Treatment of Criminals in Ancient Egypt through

the New Kingdom." JESHO 20 (1977) 1-64.
Luck, G. Arcana Mundi: Magic and the Occult in the Greek and
and Roman Worlds. Baltimore and London, 1985.
Lurje, Studien zum altagyptischen Recht. Wien, 1971.
Malamat, A. "Doctrines of Causality in Hittite and Biblical

Historiography." VT 5 (1955) 1-12.
Malinine, M. Choix de Textes Juridiques en Hieratique Anor mal

et en Demotique (Pt. 2). Cairo, 1983.
Marciniak, M. Les Inscriptions hieratiques du temple de

Thoutmosis III: Deir el Bahari I (DB). Warsaw,
1974.
. "Une texte inedit de Deir el-Bahari." Supplement au

BIFAO 81 (1981) 283-291.
604
Maspero, G, Les Momies Royales de Deir el-Bahari. Paris, 1889.
. "Notes sur quelques points de Grammaire et d' Histoire."

ZAS 21 (1883) 62-84.
. "Sur deux steles recemment decouvertes." RT 15,

(1893) 84-86.
Massart, A. "The Egyptian Geneva Papyrus MAH 15274." MDAIK 15

(1957) 172-185.
. The Leiden Magical Papyrus. Leiden, 1954.
McCarthy, B.J. Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the

Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old
Testament. Rome, 1963.
-A
. Treaty and Covenant (Second edition). Rome, 1978.
MDAIK: Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts

Abteilung Kairo.
Meeks, D. "La donations aux temples dans l'Egypte du Ier

millenaire avant J.-C." In State and Temple Economy
in the Ancient Near East II, ed. Lipinski, E. pp. 605-687.
Leuven, 1979.
. "Notes de Lexicographie." RdE 28 (1976) 87-96.
. "Une foundation memphite de Taharqa." Hommages a Serge

Sauneron I, pp. 221-259. Cairo, 1979.
Mendenhall, G. "Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition." Biblical

Archaeologist (BA) 17 (1954) 50-76 (= BA Reader
3 [1970] 25-53.
Mercer, S.A.B. "The Malediction in Cuneiform Inscriptions."

JAOS 34 (1915) 282-309.
. The Pyramid Texts in Translation and Commentary.

4 Vols. New York-London-Toronto, 1952.
MIO: Mitteilungen des Instituts fur Orientforschung.
Moller, G. "Das Dekret des Amenophis, des Sohnes des Hapu."

SPAW 17 (1910) 932-948.
Montet, P. "Le fruit defendu." Kemi 11 (1950) 86-116.
. "Les Tombeaux de Siout et Deir Rifeh." Kemi 3 (1930-

35) 45-111.
605
Moran, W.L. "The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of

God in DT." Catholic Biblical Quarterly (CBQ) 25
(1963) 77-87.
"A Note on the Treaty Terminology of the Sefire

Stelas." JNES 22 (1963) 173-176.
"Rib-Adda: Job at Byblos." In Biblical and Related

Studies, pp. 173-182.
Morenz, S. Egyptian Religion. Ithaca, 1973.

it
Religion und Geschichte des alten Agypter. Koln-Wien,
1975.
Moret, A. Catalogue de Musee Guimet: Galerie egyptienne. Paris,

1909.
Muller, M.M. Egyptological Researches I. Washington, 1906.
Munn-Rankin, J.M. "Diplomacy in Western Asia in the Early Second

Millenium." Iraq 18 (1956) 68-110.
Murnane, W.J. Ancient Egyptian Coregencies. Chicago, 1977.
. The Road to Kadesh: A Historical Interpretation

of the Battle Reliefs of King Sety I at Karnak.
Chicago, 1985.
NAWG; Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaf ,ten in Gottingen.
Niwinski, A. "Problems in the Chronology of the XXst Dynasty:

New Proposals for their Interpretation." JARCE
16 (1979) 49-68.
Otto, E. Die Biographischen Inschriften der Agyptischen Spa-

tzeit. Leiden, 1954.
Pap. Harris I Papyrus Harris I; Hieroglyphische Transkription,

Erichsen, W. Brussels, 1933.
Parker, R.A. A Saite Oracle Papyrus from Thebes. Providence, 1962.
Petrie, W.F. Koptos. London, 1896.
-Wainwright, G. and Gardiner, A. Tarkhan I and Memphis V.

London, 1913.
Piehl, K. "Les paroles finales du Papyrus d'Orbiney." ZAS 29

(1891) 49-52.
606
"Saitica." ZAS 32 (1894) 118-122.
Porten, B. "The Identity of King Adon." BA 44 (1981) 36-52.
Posener, G. "Les criminels debaptises et les raorts sans noms."

RdE 5 (1946) 51-56.
. "Les empreintes magiques de Gizeh et les morts

dangereux." MDAIK 16 (1958) 252-270.
. L'Enseignement Loyaliste. Geneva, 1976.
. Prince et pays d'Asie et Nubie: Textes Hieratiques

sur des figurines d'envoutement du Moyen Empire.
Brussels, 1940.
. "Sur l'emploi euphemistique de hftj(w) 'ennemi(s)'.11

ZAS 96 (1969) 30-35.
. "Une Stele de Hatnoub." JEA 54 (1968) 67-70.
PSBA: Proceedings of the Society of Biblica Archaeology.
Ranke, H. "Eine spatsaitische Statue in Philadelphia." MDAIK 12

(1943) 107-138.
Redford, D.B. History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty

of Egypt: Seven Studies. Toronto, 1967.
. "The Hyksos Invasion in History and Tradition."

Orientalia (N.S.) 39 (1970) 1-51.
. "Studies in the Relations Between Palestine and

Egypt During the First Millenium B.C.: The Twenty-
Second Dynasty." JAOS 93 (1973) 3-17.
RdE: Revue d'egyptogie
RT: Recueil de travaux relatifs a la'philologie eta1'arch..eologie

egyptiennes et assyriennes.
Revillout, E. "Un Papyrus Bilingue du Temps de Philopator."

PSBA 14 (1891-92) 237-238.
RIK Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak. Epigraphic Survey.

Chicago, 1936-85. Vol. III. The Bubastite Portal. Chicago,
1954. Vol. IV. The Battle Reliefs of King Sety I. Chicago,
1985.
Rowe, A. "Three new stelae from the south eastern desert." ASAE
39 (1939) 187-97.
607
Sadek, A.I. The Amethyst Mining Inscriptions of Wadi el-Hudi

Warminster, 1980.
. "An Attempt to Translate the Corpus of the Deir el-

Bahri Inscriptions.11 GM 71 (1984) 67-91; GM 72 (1984)
65-86.
SAK: Studien zur altagyptischen Kultur.
Sandman, M. Texts from the Time of Akhenaten. Brussels, 1938.
Sauneron, S. "La restauration d'un portique a Karnak par le grand

pretre Amenhotpe." BIFAO 64 (1966) 11-18.
Schafer, H. "Die aethiopische Konigsinschrift des Louvre." ZAS

33 (1895) 101-113.
Schenkel, W. Memphis-Herakleopolis-Theban. Wiesbaden, 1965.
Schmidt, J. Ramesses II: A Chronological Structure for His Reign.

Baltimore, 1973.
Schott, S. Kanais: Der Tempel Sethos I im Wadi Mia. NAWG 1961

(6).
Sthottroff,. W. Der altisraelitische Fluchspruch. Neukirchen-

Vluyn, 1969.
Schulman, A. "Ankhesenamun, Nofretity, and the Amka Affair."

JARCE 15 (1978) 43-48.
, "Aspects of Ramesside Diplomacy: The Treaty of

Year 21." JSSEA 8 (1978) 112-130.
. "Diplomatic Marriage in the Egyptian New Kingdom."

JNES 38 (1979) 177-193.
. Military Rank, Title and Organization in the Egyptian

New Kingdom. Berlin, 1964.
. "A Problem of Pedubasts." JARCE 5 (1966) 33-41.
. "Some Remarks on the Military Background of the

Amarna Period." JARCE 3 (1964) 51-69.
Seidl, E. Einfuhrung in die agyptische Rechtsgeschichte bis zum

Ende des neuen Reiches. Gluckstadt, 1957.
Sethe, K. Die Achtung feindlicher Fursten. Volker, und Dinge

auf altagyptischen Tonge fasscherben des Mittleren
Reiches. APAW (Abh.der Preussichen Akad. der Wiss.,
608
Phil.-hist. Klasse) 1926 (5). Berlin, 1926.
. Aegyptische Lesestucke zum Gebrauch in akademischen

Unterricht. Second edition, Leipzig, 1928; Third
edition (reprint), Hildesheim, 1959.
. Die Altagyptischen Pyramidentexte I-IV. (PT).

Leipzig, 1908-22.
•I
. Ubersetzung und Kommentar zu den altagyptischen Pyramiden-
texten I-VI (Kommentar). Gliickstadt, no date.
. Urkunden der 18. Dynastie I, bearbeitet und ubersetzt.

Leipzig, 1914.
Simpson, W.K. "A Hatnub Stela of the Early Twelfth Dynasty."

MDAIK 16 (1958) 298-309.
. "An Additional Fragment of a 'Hatnub Stela'." JNES

20 (1961) 25-30.
Smith, H.S. A. "A Reconsideration of the Kamose Texts." ZAS

103 (1976) 48-76.
Sottas, H. La Preservation de la Propriete Funeraire dans l'Ancienne

Egypte. Paris, 1913.
Spalinger, A. Aspects of the Military Documents of the Ancient

Egyptians. New Haven and London, 1982.
. "Considerations on the Hittite Treaty Between

Egypt and Hatti." SAK 9 (1981) 299-358.
. "The Military Background of the Campaign of Piye

(Piankhy)."SAK 7 (1979) 275-301.
. "A New Reference to the Egyptian Campaign of Thut-

mose III in Asia." JNES 37 (1978) 35-41.
Spiegelberg, W. Hieratic Ostraca and Papyri. London, 1898.
. "The Hieratic Text in Mariette's Karnak." PSBA

22 (1902) 320-324.
. "Das Kolophon des Liturgischen Papyrus aus der

Zeit des Alexander IV" RT 35 (1913) 35-40.
. "Die Tefnachtosstele des Museums von Athens."

RT 25 (1903) 190-198.
609
Speiser, E.A. "An Angelic 'Curse': Exodus 14:20." JAOS 80

(1960) 198-200.
Stewart, H.M. Egyptian Stelae Reliefs and Paintings 3 Vols.

Warminster, 1976.
Streck, M. Assurbanipal und die letzten Assyrischen
Konige bis zum Unter-gange Nineveh's. Vol. II.

Leipzig, 1916.
Te Velde, H. Seth, God of Confusion. Leiden, 1967.
Theodorides, A. "De la pretendue expression juridique pn' r mdt.

RdE 19 (1967) 111-121.
. "Mettre des biens sous les pieds de quelqu'un."

RdE 24 (1972) 188-192.
Till, W. Koptische Grammatik Leipzig, 1961.
UF:- Ugarit Forschungen.
Urk. I Urkunden des Alten Reichs, Sethe, K. Leipzig, 1935.
Urk. II Hieroglyphische Urkunden der griechisch-romischen Zeit.

Leipzig, 1904.
Urk. Ill Urkunden der alteren Athiopenkonige? Schafer, H. Leipzig,

1905.
Urk. IV Urkunden der 18. Dynastie, Sethe, K. Leipzig, 1927-30;

reprinted, Berlin, 1961. Urkunden der 18. Dynastie,
Helck, W. Berlin, 1955-58.
Urk. VI Urkunden Mythologischen Inhalts, Schott, S. Leipzig,

1929-39.
Urk. VII Historisch-biographische Urkunden des Mittleren Reiches

Sethe, K. Leipzig, 1935.
Vandersleyen, C. Les Guerres d'Amosis, fondateur de la XVIIIe

Dynastie. Brussels, 1971.
Vandier, J. Mo'alla: la tombe d'Ankhtifi et la tombe de

Sgbekhotep. Cairo, 1950.
. Le Papyrus Jumilhac. Centre National de la Recherche

Scientifique.
610
Varille, A. Inscriptions concernant l'architechte Amernhotep, flls

de Hapou. Cairo, 1968.
Vercoutter, J. "New Egyptian Texts from the Sudan." Rush 5 (1957)

66-82.
Volten, A. Zwei altagyptische politische Schriften. Copenhagen,

1945.
Wb.: Erman, A. and Grapow, H, eds., Worterbuch der aegyptischen

Sprache im Auftrage der deutschen Akademien I-V;
Belegstellen to Vol. I-V; VI, Deutch-aegyptisches Worter-
verzeichnis; VII, Rucklaufiges Worterverzeichnis. Leipzig,
1926-63; reprinted, Leipzig, 1972.
Weidner, E. Politische <Dokumente aus Kleinasien. Die Staatsver-

trage in akkadischen Sprache aus dem Archiv von
Boghazkoi. (Boghazkoi Studien 8-9). Leipzig, 1923.
Weinfeld, M. "The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and the

Ancient Near East." JAOS 90 (1970) 184-203.
. "Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and

its Influence on the West." JAOS 93 (1973) 190-199.
"The Loyalty Oath in the Ancient Near East." UF 8

(1976) 377-414.
Wente, E. "The Suppression of the High Priest Amenhotep." JNES

25 (1966) 73-87.
Westendorf, W. Grammatik der Medizinischen Texte. Berlin, 1962.

»
Wildung, D. Imhotep und Amenhotep: Gottwerdung im alten Agypten.
Munchen, 1977.
Wilson, J. The Culture of Ancient Egypt. Chicago, 1956.
. "The Oath in Ancient Egypt." JNES 7 (1948) 129-156.
Wreszinski, W. Atlas zur altaegyptischen Kulturgeschichte I-II.

Leipzig, 1923-36.
WZKM: Weiner Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes
Yoyette, J. "Notes et documents pour servir a I'histoire de Tanis."

Kemi 21 (1971) 35-45.
(Yoyette) "Les principaute's du Delta au temps de l'anarchie

libyen (Etudes d' histoire politique)." In Melanges
Maspero I (MIFAO 66), pp. 121-179. Cairo, 1961.
611
Zaba, Z. "Deux mots du Worterbuch reunis." Archiv Orientalni 24

(1956) 272-75.
. Les Maximes de Ptahhotep. Prague, 1956.
ZA Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie.
Zandee, J. Death as an Enemy According to Ancient Egyptian Con

ceptions. Leiden, 1960.
<1
ZAS Zeitschrift fur Agyptische Sprache.
ZAW Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft.
Zivie, A. Hermopolls et le nome de Ibis I Cairo, 1975.

612
VITA
Scott Neal Morschauser was born on November 5, 1955 in
Gettyburg, Pennsylvania. He graduated from Highland Regional
High School in Blackwood, N.J., in June 1973. Upon earning
a B.A. from Gettysburg College and graduating cum laude with
departmental honors in Greek and Religion in 1977, he was
accepted into the Department of Near Eastern Studies of The
Johns Hopkins University. In 1980, he was awarded an M.A.
in Egyptology. He has also taken courses at the Gettysburg
Lutheran Theological Seminary (1976) and Catholic University
in Washington (1978-79). While a resident at Johns Hopkins,
he has taught courses in Ancient Egyptian and Coptic as well
as a lecture series at the Smithsonian Institute. In addition
to the present dissertation, he is the author of "Observations
on the Speeches of Ramessess II in the Literary Record of the
Battle of Kadesh" (Baltimore, 1985), and "On the 'Plunder'
of Dapur" which is to appear in the forth-coming Bulletin of
the Egyptological Seminar. He is also co-editor of Biblical
and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry (Winona Lake,
1985).
613
CORRIGENDA
Page vi.-bbd for Hdb.
Page xv, note 4. Epoque for Epogue.
Page xv, note 12. Herakleopolitanzeit for Herakleoploitenzeit.
Page xvi, note 22. flbhandlunqen for flbhandlunqed.
Page 8. Add PT 1278a.
Page 9. Add CT 1,46.
Page 57. JNES 20,1961,29 for JNES 20,29.

O r
Page 61, no. 4. Read . for a .
Page 76, no. 2. (DB 11) for (BD 11).
Page 96, no. 9. Read [tz].f, "his [neck]" for [tz].sn, "their [neck]",
Page 108, top. (Louvre 256) for (Louvre (256).
Page 134, no. 3. tpy n Imn for typ n Imn.
Page 147, no. 2. Graffito for Graffit.
Page 149, no. 2 (top). Omit (Metropolitan Museum 55.144.6).
Page 150. (Nn) ssp n for (Nn) sspn.
Page 173, no. 6. Hdb forjdbd.
Page 178. HP-Df3 for H-Df3.
Page 195. Siut for Suit.
Page 203, no. 275. l'Ibis for l'bis.
Page 214, no. 523. Nfr.t.j for Nfr.t.
Page 219, no. 637. Totenqlauben for Totenqlaube.
Page 340. Bastet for Basted.
Page 373, note 28. KDAR, 247-248 for KDAR.
Page 378, note 110. Einqanq for einqanq.
Page 386, note 208. cast for case.
Page 387, note 214. Horemheb for Hormenah.

614
Page 391, note 270. JSSEA for JESSfl.
Page 392, note 294. KRI I 69,15-16 for KRI I.
Page 397. Spiegelberg for Speigelberg.
Page 404, note 478. divine for divien.
Page 404, note 487. Amenemope,56.
Page 406, note 517. Add Manetho, tr. W.G. Waddell (Loeb Classi
cal Library) (Cambridge, 1940) 166-167.
Page 408, note 553. EG3 § 363.
Page 409, note 565. Morgenlandes for Morqenlands.
Page 500. opposition for opppoition.
Page 516, note 1. Autobioqraphie for Autobioqrafite.
Page 530, note 203. Tablets for Tablest.
Page 534, note 261. Add to Noth, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Test
ament (Munich, 1957).
Page 538, note 318. Cairo for Cario.
Page 539, note 335. Sargon for Sagon.
Page 540, note 357. San Antonio for San Antonia.
Page 575, note 48. Schottroff for Schotroff.
Page 575, note 51. Koptos for Koptus.
Page 591, ASsmann. altaqyptischen for altaqyptiscehn.
Page 598. Goetze for Goe tze.
Page 601. Hollenvorstellunqen for Hollen vorstellungen.
Page 602. Staatsvertraqe for Staats-vertrage.
Page 606. Revue d'eqyptoloqie for Revue d'eqyptoqie.
Page 610. Deutsch-aegyptisches for Deutch-aegyptisches.

Morschauser - 1987 - Threat Formulae in Ancient Egypt

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Morschauser - 1987 - Threat Formulae in Ancient Egypt

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO USERS

The most advanced technology has been used to photo­

Accessing the World's Information since 1938

300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA

Threat formulae m Ancient Egypt

Morschauser, Scott Neal, Ph.D.

1. Glossy photographs or pages

2. Colored illustrations, paper or print

3. Photographs with dark background

4. Illustrations are poor copy

5. Pages with black marks, not original copy

6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page

7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages

8. Print exceeds margin requirements

9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine

10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print

12. Page(s) seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13. Two pages numbered . Text follows.

14. Curling and wrinkled pages

15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received ^

A dissertation submitted to The Johns Hopkins University

in conformity with the requirements for the degree of

This dissertation proposes to examine the threat-formula

in Ancient Egypt, its structure, nature, and use. This study

concentrates upon those "threats" composed of a stipulation

and injunction, and which predominantly refer to juridical

situations. Chapter One deals with the form and structure

of the threat, with an analysis of the grammatical and lexical

characteristics of its stipulative and injunctive clauses.

Chapter two presents a history of the threat-formula, and its

primary use as a "legal" device. Chapter Three discusses the

threat in treaties and loyalty oaths, and compares Egyptian

evidence with what is known from other ancient Near Eastern

societies. Chapter Four analyzes Egyptian terms for the threat-

formula itself, and briefly examines those words or phrases

which are often translated as "curse". Conclusions reached

are: 1) In structure, the threat-formula is imitative of

indeed probably based on- "codified law" in Ancient Egypt.

2) The threat was used in cases where the delict concerned

an undetectable offense. 3) The threat-formula is predomin­

antly an instrument of "private" law, and is particularly con­

cerned with transgressions against personal property. 4) The

threat-formula is to be regarded as a type of oath, used to

sanction legal "acts" such as donations to religious cults,

or the deposition of a will. 5) The use of the threat-formula

was an attempt to cover the inadequacies of the Egyptian "legal

system", by guaranteeing that an offender would eventually be

device, the threat should be considered as having validity among

the Ancient Egyptians.

Dedicated to My Mother and Father

CHAPTER I. THE FORM AND STRUCTURE OF THE THREAT IN ANCIENT

A. Injunctions with Perfective (Prospective)

III. TYPOLOGICAL AND LEXICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF

Iri bt (dw) (m/r) "To do an (evil) thing (a-

Iri d3t r "To commit a violation a-

Wdi nkn "To inflict damage"

Ft "To erase; delete"

Zin "To erase"

It3 "To illegally seize (persons)

Embezzlement; Withholding or Suppression of

Isls "To hinder; withhold; hold

Annulment or Suppression of a Claim

Mnmn "To move; disturb; annul"

The most advanced technology has been used to photo

an undetectable offense. 3) The threat-formula is predomin

antly an instrument of "private" law, and is particularly con

regarding law and legal practice in Ancient Egypt. Apprecia

It has been long recognized by both historians and anthro