The Rise and Fall of The Middle Kingdom in Thebes - H. E. Winlock - 1947 - New York The Macmillan Company - Anna's Archive

tt
oh
dates
Thebes
coeaded
sass
piditets hs
Het
patie
inate
ht
Che Reis Library
Allegheny College
Bought from the
John Raymond Cramford

Hund
THE RISE AND FALL
OF THE
MIDDLE KINGDOM
IN THEBES
THE MACMILLAN COM PANY
NEW YORE + BOSTON + CHICAGO
DALLAS + ATLANTA + SAN FRANCISCO
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED

LONDON + BOMBAY + CALCUTTA
MADRAS + MELBOURNE
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

OF CANADA, LIMITED
TORONTO
4” :
THE RISE AND FALL\\":

OF THE
MIDDLE KINGDOM
IN THEBES
By
H. E. WINLOCK
NEW YORK
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1947
Copyright, 1947, by
HERBERT E. WINLOCK
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Jan
ade NG
One day just before the outbreak of the First World War in 1914,
the groom and I were exercising my horses behind Sheikh Abd el
Kurneh Hill. The light was exactly right, and as I came to the highest
bit of path, with the towering cliffs to the right and the lower hill to
the left, I noticed below me for the first time a flat platform and the
upper part of a sloping causeway ascending from the cultivation.
In a flash I was spurring down the hill and up onto that level place
to look down the line of the ancient roadway to the point where it
disappeared behind the Ramesseum. I realized that in the flat terrace
under the cliffs we had the grading for a temple like the one built in
the Eleventh Dynasty at Deir el Bahri just to the north. Whose
temple site it might be | had only the foggiest notion, for everyone
then thought that two kings had been builders of the temple at
Deir el Bahri. | jumped to the conclusion then that two other kings
must have had a hand in preparing this new site, and that all four
kings had been named Montu-hotpe.
At that time, other than several Montu-hotpes at the end of the
dynasty, only three more Eleventh Dynasty kings were known—
two named In-yotef and another Montu-hotpe—and the stela of one
of the first pair had come from part of the cemetery north of the
Valley of the Kings, some 3 kilometers away. I knew nothing of any
of these kings that afternoon, but a visit to the part of the necropolis
where these last three had been buried led me to three enormous
tombs cut into the gravel plain. It was in the central one that Mari-
ette had found the stela of King Wah-tankh In-yotef over half a
century before. The tomb next north I assigned to the only other
In-yotef king whose name | then knew, and to this first Montu-hotpe
went the third and most southerly tomb of the series.
My conclusions were published under the title “The Theban
Necropolis in the Middle Kingdom” in The American Journal of
Semitic Languages and Literatures, October, 1915, and they had quite
a success—but one which was wholly undeserved. Of course, to have”
only two tombs for four kings Montu-hotpe was not a very happy
state of affairs, but we had no more tombs and apparently we had
four kings.
Skea
ALLEGHENY COLLEGE LIBRARY
VI PREFACE
Then in 1936 came an article by Vandier! to show that there was a

fourth king to be classed with the three in the northern part of the
cemetery, and in 1940 I published a reconsideration of the place to
be given the ruler whom we had been calling Montu-hotpe V and
who I now put outside the Eleventh Dynasty proper, and also my
final admission that the names Montu-hotpe II and III in fact be-
longed to one and the same individual. These matters were published
in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology in 1940 under the title ““Neb-
hepet-Ré¢ Montu-hotpe of the Eleventh Dynasty.’’ Now we had
only six kings for the Eleventh Dynasty, in agreement with the
Turin Papyrus, and I published a longer article on “The Eleventh
Egyptian Dynasty” in The Journal of Near Eastern Studies for 1943.
That article somewhat rewritten is given here in the first three sec-
tions of the present book.
Meantime, there were two lots of inscriptions and graffiti which
had already been published by others, but without any hint of the
circumstances which had inspired those who carved or who scribbled
them on the rocks. Both had distinct bearing on the history of the
period of which the story was now occupying a good deal of my time,
and I sent my copies of them to The American Journal of Semitic
Languages and Literatures. The first lot came out in that Journal as
an article under the title ““The Court of King Neb-hepet-Ré¢ Montu-
hotpe at the Shatt er Rigal’ in 1940, and the second lot as ‘‘Graffiti
of the Priesthood of the Eleventh Dynasty Temples at Thebes” in
1941. In this book they are sections IV and V.
Another dubious period in Egyptian history comes along, and it
is even harder to reconstruct than the one at the start of the Middle
Kingdom, when the strength of Thebes was taking form. That period
was the end of the Middle Kingdom when Egyptian power went —
under during the Hyksos invasion. At that time the different civili-
zations of the Mediterranean world had developed enough to have
an extra interest for almost all modern historians, and answers with-
out end have been put forward for the questions posed by the rise
of new peoples.
During the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries it was
customary to shuffle as many names of kings as possible into the
Thirteenth and the Seventeenth Dynasties. Some of the worst con-
fusions in our texts of Manetho are at this point, and some historians
seem to have had a feeling that these two dynasties were to all intents
1 Bulletin del’ Institut Francais d’ Archéologie Orientale, 1936, p. 101.
PREFACE VII
and purposes practically one. However, this idea did not appeal to
Wiedemann, Maspero, Petrie, Bissing or Borchardt, or to anyone
else who consciously or unconsciously believed in the long chro-
nology, and who accepted the figures in Manetho much as we have
them today. Those historians set the date of Menes at just about a
Sothic Period earlier than it actually was, and packed most, if not
all, of the extra years into the period between the Twelfth and the
Eighteenth Dynasties.
Another group of historians began to write at about the turn of
the century, and of them the most important took about two cen-
turies as the length of the interval between those two dynasties.
When we come to look into the details of the matter, however, we
find enough disagreement among modern historians to make our
heads spin round and round. The Hyksos have brought still more
confusion into the matter, for many would have more than one line
of Shepherd Kings, and most of us have taken the badly written
hieroglyphs on some scarabs as mentioning a King Sheshi when I am
now convinced that they were really attempts to write the name of
King Apopi.
Max Pieper,? in his doctor’s dissertation of 1904 and in some later
articles, went astray because he did not differentiate between the
rulers who held Thebes only, and those who rightly belonged in the
North. Eduard Meyer’ was misled in his dealing with the Turin
Papyrus as it had been pasted together for the greater part of a
century, and he did not realize that being a northern compilation it
makes no mention whatever of the purely local kings of Thebes
belonging to the period. James Henry Breasted‘ was, in his day, a
great admirer of Meyer, and his writings are largely tinged with this
feeling, though some of the American’s books in their first editions
were actually published before the final printing of the German’s.
While Raymond Weill5 resolutely set the Turin Papyrus aside, he
came to equally false conclusions, largely, it would seem, because of
his grouping of kings together whenever their prenomens were alike.
He did collect an extraordinary amount of material, and I am far
more deeply indebted to his work than the footnotes which follow
2 Die Kénige zwischen mittleren und neuen Retch; also ZAS, 1913, p. 97; and Pieper and
Burchardt, Kontgsnamen.
3 Aegyptische Chronologie, 1904; Nachtrage 7ur Aegyptischen Chronologte, 1907; Geschichte des
Altertums, 1, 1913; Die altere Chronologie Babyloniens, Assyriens und Agyptiens, 1931.
4 Ancient Records of Egypt, 1903; A History of Egypt, 1st ed., 1905.
5 Journal Astatique, 1910-1917.
Vill PREFACE
here in this book would seem to indicate. These last generally refer
only to descriptions of the monuments, while Weill’s interpretation
of his gleanings is frequently useless. His articles remind me often of
what Professor George F. Moore called Petrie’s History of Egypt in
his lectures at Harvard when I was an undergraduate—“‘the dis-
carded notes which you will find in a true scholar’s waste-paper
basket after he has finished writing a real history.”
Personally I can not claim to have done any better than my pred-
ecessors when first | came to write about this period. In 1924 the
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology published an article which I had
written on ‘“The Tombs of the Kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty at
Thebes.”’ Following the example set by all of my pacemakers, I
totally neglected the versions of Manetho given us by Africanus and
by Eusebius and his Armenian translator. As many of my predeces-
sors had, I classified King Sekhem-Ré¢ Wadj-khatu Sobk-em-saf,
who actually was a Thirteenth Dynasty ruler, in the Seventeenth,
together with Sekhem-Ré¢ Shed-towi Sobk-em-saf, who really be-
longs in the Sixteenth Dynasty. Four other rulers who belonged in
the Sixteenth Dynasty I had put with Sobk-em-saf, and Sekhem-Reé¢
Heru-hir-mafet In-yotef went with them. His name had not been
counted by the ancient analysts, probably because he had reigned
less than a year and was not needed to fill out the annals. To these
seven names I added the three kings of the real Seventeenth Dynasty
which is, of course, part of the New Kingdom. Thus I got ten names
in all in my list, instead of only three as it is likely that Manetho
had, and could make no suggestion on how many more of the horde
of rulers who clearly belonged between the Twelfth and the Eight-
eenth Dynasties might have gone with them.
The matter remained thus in my mind until recently, when the
scheme here unfolded began to dawn on me. | sincerely hope it is
all right.
I have to thank a number of friends for corrections and suggestions
in the following pages, but there is one to whom I am especially
indebted. Before this book was printed Dr. Ludlow Bull read the
manuscript with ceaseless care and diligence. He has put me to
rights on facts and has straightened out clumsy mistakes of mine,
particularly in the spelling of Eyptian proper names. Rarely I have
not followed his suggestions, not because | could find fault with his
ideas, but rather because in a few cases I have hesitated to be right
when | have feared that my readers would not recognize to whom |
PREFACE IX
was referring. Without Dr. Bull’s help this book would be a very
different thing.
Dr. William C. Hayes, since his return to the Museum from the
United States Navy, has read the manuscript too, and has made
several most useful suggestions, and has compiled the List of Per-
sonal Names used in this book. Lindsley Foote Hall not only drew
many of the plates which appeared in the articles when they came
out before, but has been kind enough to prepare others especially
for this book. Then too, | must express my thanks to Professor Percy
E. Newberry for the great kindness shown me several years ago
when he gave me copies of two Sixteenth Dynasty inscriptions here
published, and to Dr. Sidney Smith of the British Museum for the
photograph which appears here as Plate 17.
However, none of these debts are greater than those I owe to four
of the members of the Egyptian Department of the Metropolitan
Museum. Charlotte R. Clark, Dorothy Phillips, Nora Scott, and
Sally Mather have helped me over a period of years, not only in
typing the first chapters for publication as separate articles and the
new sections of the present book, but in looking up references and in
helping me lick the whole thing into shape, and otherwise making a
rather rough path far easier for me.
H.E.W.
North Haven, Maine.
CONTENTS
Page
. The Nomarchs of Thebes before 2134 B.c. 3
. The Rulers of Upper Egypt in the Eleventh Dynasty. 8
1. Seher-Towi In-yotef, 2134 to about 2130 B.c. 10
2. Wah-tankh In-yotef, about 2130-2081 B.c. . 2
3. Nakhte Neb-tep-nefer Baie about 2081-
2070) B.C. 18
4. SetAnkh-ib-tow1 hate bets 2079-rat Bicy 19
5. Neter Hedjet, Later Neb-hepet-Re‘, Montu-Hotpe,
Ruler of the South only, 2061-2052 B.c. 5 ee
Il. The Rulers of all Egypt in the Eleventh Dynasty 30

. Neb-hepet-Ré¢ Montu-hotpe, as King of all see
from about 2052 to 2010 B.c. 30
2. Setankh-ka-Ré¢ Mn mict pe So rorreces BG 48
3. The Civil Wars, 1998-1991 B.c. 53
. The Court of Neb-hepet-Ré¢ at the Shatt er Rigal . 58
Graffiti of the Priesthood of the Eleventh cone
Temples at Thebes eit al: 77
. The Twelfth to the Fifteenth Dynasties . on
VIT. The Sixteenth Dynasty. 104
1. Nub-kheper-Reé¢ In-yotef. Sterreded parte
LOFT 5B CC 108
2. Sekhem-Ré¢ Wah- getan Recneioe Near oon BCagl20
3. Sekhem-Ré¢ owe In- oe the Elder. About
1655 B.C. . 126
4. Sekhem-Ré¢ Shed-tow1 Sine-em- bois About (titiweCui32
5. Sekhem-Ré¢ Semen-towi Thuti. About 1645 B.c. 141
6. The Hyksos in Upper Bt From about 1640 B.c.
to 1567 B.c. e e Pe kTAS
VIII. Hyksos Importations into Egypt 150

List of Personal Names . 171
PLATES
1. Fragment of limestone relief from the tomb of Weni-tankh. Metropoli-

tan Museum. See p. 3.
2. Stela of the Gate-keeper Matet mentioning In-yotef the Elder Son of

Ikui, p. 5; stela of Magegi called Amun-em-het, p. 19; and a seal of the
Horus Setankh-ib-towy Montu-hotpe, p. 21. Metropolitan Museum.
3. Looking west into the tomb of Seher-towy in the Theban Necropolis.

Bece-p. 11.
4. A stela of Wah-tankh from his tomb in Thebes. Metropolitan Mu-

seum. See p. 18. .
5. Bas-relief sculpture from an early chapel in Dendereh and a painted

sandstone statue from the Bab el Hosan, both of Neb-hepet-Ré¢. Cairo
Museum. See pp. 28 and 33.
6. A view from the top of the cliffs looking down on the Temple of
Neb-hepet-Ré¢ at Deir el Bahri in Thebes. See p. 39.
7. Looking up the proposed causeway of Setankh-ka-Ré¢ toward his

tomb beneath the cliffs in Thebes. See p. 52.
8. A distant view of the Tomb of Meket-Ré¢ in Thebes. See p. 53.
9. Looking west into the mouth of the Shatt er Rigal from the Nile bank.
See p. 58.
10. Looking east from the Shatt er Rigal toward the river, marked by
the trees along the bank. See p. 58.
11. Bay in the south side of the valley wall with prehistoric pictographs
and the great Eleventh Dynasty relief. See p. 60.
12. The great relief of Neb-hepet-Ré¢ in the Shatt er Rigal. See p. 62.
13. The little valley below the cliffs in the Theban mountain above
which were the lookout points of the Twelfth Dynasty priests of Amun.
peeip. 70:
14. The mask from a mummy with rishi decoration found in the Theban
necropolis. Cairo Museum. See p. 101.
XIV PLATES
15. Two coffins found by Carnarvon and Carter in the XVI Dyn.
cemetery at Thebes. Metropolitan Museum. See p. 101.
16. The Dira¢ Abu’n Naga and the plain in front of it where the ceme-
teries of the XVI and XVII Dyn. were located, looking east. See p. 106.
17. The coffin of Nub-kheper-Ré¢ In-yotef. British Museum. See p. 116.
18. The coffin of Sekhem-Rét Wep-matet In-yotef the Elder. The
Louvre. See p. 128.
19. The coffin of Sekhem-Ré¢ Heru-hir-matet In-yotef. The Louvre.

See p: 130:
20. Canopic boxes of Sekhem-Ré¢ Wep-matet, Sekhem-Ré¢ Shed-towy

and Sekhem-Ré¢ Semen-towy. The Louvre, Leiden, and Berlin. See pp.
129, 139 and 142.
21. Scarabs of Khian, Assis and Apopi. Metropolitan Museum. See

p. 146.
22. A groom exercising a black mare striped with white chalk. Metro-
politan Museum. See p. 154.
23. Four representations of horses of the New Kingdom. Metropolitan

Museum. See p. 154.
24. An XVIII Dyn. horse being exercised by a bearded groom. Bologna

Museum. See p. 155.
25. The chariot on a glazed tile. Metropolitan Museum. See p. 155.
26. A team of horses harnessed to a chariot, from El ‘(Amarneh. Metro-

politan Museum. See p. 156.
27. An XVIII Dyn. Egyptian war chariot. Florence Museum. See

p. 157.
28. Two swords and a lute from Thebes. Metropolitan and Cairo mu-
seums. See pp. 160 and 169.
29. XVIII Dyn. armor scales, one half actual size; and others of later
date, full size. Metropolitan Museum. See p. 163.
30. A peasant of the New Kingdom at work with a shaduf in the tomb
of Ipuki at Thebes. See p. 165.
31. Working the bellows of the bronze foundry shown in the tomb of
Rekh-mi-Ré¢ at Thebes. See p. 166.
PLATES XV
32. Two lyres, one partially restored and with six new strings, and the
other as found. Metropolitan and Cairo museums. See p. 168.
33. The Theban Necropolis in the Eleventh Dynasty. See p. 6 and fol-
lowing.
34. The Eleventh Dynasty Temple at Deir el Bahri. See p. 25 and
following.
35. Prehistoric graffiti on the sides of the Shatt er Rigal, and later
hieroglyphic inscriptions. See p. 61.
36. The names written beside the figures in the great relief in the Shatt
er Rigal. See p. 62.
37. The smaller relief in the Shatt er Rigal, showing Akhtoy before the
Horus Sam-towy King of Upper and Lower Egypt Neb-hepet-Ré¢, and -
the date—Year 39—when the audience took place. See p. 62.
38. Graffiti scribbled on the rocks in Thebes and in the Shatt er Rigal. A,
Pe Dp 777%, p00; DL, p. 69; E, p..60; F, p.“72.
39. Graffiti in the Shatt er Rigal. See pp. 66 and 72.
40-45. Graffiti of the priests who watched for the barque of Amtn in
the Twelfth Dynasty. See p. 79 and following.
46. The Theban Necropolis in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Dynas-
ties. See p. 113 and following.
47. Inscriptions on gold bracelet separators, and on a shawabti. British
Museum. See pp. 112 and 134.
48. Inscriptions on fragments of a stela and a shrine of Sobk-em-saf.
Metropolitan Museum. See p. 134.
SS
ae
8
ees
eee
=e «€ &
y
THE RISE AND FALL
OF THE
MIDDLE KINGDOM
IN THEBES
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE
MIDDLE KINGDOM
B.C.
2240 Nomarchs in Thebes IX Dyn. in Heracleopolis
In-yotef son of [kui
In-yotefi
In-yotef the Elder
In-yotef
Eleventh Dynasty in Thebes

2134 Seher-towi In-yotef
2131 X Dynasty in Heracleopolis
2130 Wah-ankh In-yotef
2081 Nakhte Neb-tep-nefer In-yotef
2079 Setankh-ib-towi Montu-hotpe
2061 Neb-hepet-Ré¢ Montu-hotpe
2052 Neb-hepet-Ré¢ Montu-hotpe conquers Heracleopolis
2010 Setankh-ka-Ré¢ Montu-hotpe
1998 Civil Wars start in Egypt in the days of the Divine Father
Se’n-Wosret
1993 Civil Wars are continued under Neb-towi-Ré¢ Montu-hotpe
1991 Twelfth Dynasty rules all Egypt
1778 Thirteenth Dynasty rules a XIV Dyn. in Xois
divided country
Sixteenth Dynasty in Thebes XV Dyn. the Hyksos in
1075 Nub-kheper-Ré¢ In-yotef Memphis. Salatis
1665 Sekhem-Ré¢ Wah-khatu
Ré¢-hotpe
1662 Bnon
1055 Sekhem-Ré¢ Wep-matet
In-yotef
1654 Apachnan
1650 Sekhem-R€é¢ Shed-towi
Sobk-em-saf
1645 Sekhem-Ré¢ Semen-towi
Thiti
1644 Sewoser-en-Ré¢ Khian (Hyksos in all Egypt)
1604 (O-hotep-Ré¢? Assis ( ” © in all Egypt)
1600 ‘O-woser-Réet Apopi ( ” in all Egypt)
1594 Xois is conquered by the Hyksos
1590? Seventeenth Dynasty in Thebes begins the New Kingdom
1567 Eighteenth Dynasty of Thebes, founded by Neb-pehti-Ré¢Ath-mose,
expels the Hyksos :
I
THE NOMARCHS OF THEBES BEFORE 2134 B.c.
In the Old Kingdom the settlements which were to become the

great city of Thebes were little villages centering about what the
Arabs call ‘Luxor’ and ‘‘Karnak,” and in this Fourth Nome of
Upper Egypt—Waset—there were other little centers of population,
none of which became as gigantic as these two. Up river a bit less
than 30 kilometers and on the east side of the Nile, was T6d; op-
posite it, across the river, was Erment; and downstream, near the
eastern desert and not quite half so far away, was Medamit. When
first we hear of these villages toward the end of the Old Kingdom,
each had a temple of Montu, lord of the nome, and his temple in
each must have been the only one of importance. Now and then one
runs across a mention of Osiris and perhaps of the ithyphallic Min,
but never of Amin until after 2130 B.c., and even then it is rare.!
At the end of the Old Kingdom the principal inhabitants of the
villages which became Thebes chose as their burial place a low,
rocky hill across the river on the western desert called today ‘‘the
Kho-kheh.”’ “The Vice-regent, Governor of the South, Controller of
the Granaries Weni-tankh” (Pl. 1) and his son chose the spot in the
Sixth Dynasty for a burial place.? In the same period a tomb was
cut for a certain Ihy and his wife Imy, a “Great Chieftainof the
Nome, Controller of the Granaries, Beloved of the King, the First
on his Two Shores, and Supporter of the King’s Head”’;3 and ‘““The
Hereditary Prince and Divine Chancellor Seni-oker’’4 was buried
close by.
After these few sparse mentions of Old Kingdom Thebes the name
of the town appears more rarely. Its district was one of the twenty-
two nomes of Upper Egypt governed by Shemay’s under King Neter-
bau, but on Shemay’s death the same king gave to his son Idy only
the seven nomes from Elephantine to Diospolis Parva. This last
1Stela of Magegi; see below, p. 109.
2 MMA. 22.3.325; Davies, MMA Bulletin, March, 1918, Part II, p. 23, Fig. 34.
3 Tomb 186; Newberry, Annales du Service des Antiquités, 1903, p. 97, Pls. I-III.
4 Gardiner and Weigall, Private Tombs of Thebes, No. 185.
5 Sethe, Urkunden des Alten Reich, 1, p. 299, Moret, Comptes rendus de l’Académte des
14.7.11.
Inscriptions, 1914, p. 565, based on the stelae Cairo 43053 and MMA
4 THE MIDDLE KINGDOM IN THEBES
town was near the bold height of the Gebel et Tarif, where the Nile
makes a sharp, right-angled bend at the northern boundary of “‘the
South.”’ We know nothing more than that these seven nomes were
considered as a group under the rule of Koptos toward the close of
the Old Kingdom and that, as we learn from the tomb at Mitalla,®
Elephantine, Edfu, and El Kab revolted against Thebes and its
neighbors, and again the entire Southland disintegrated into short
stretches of the valley.
According to the tradition followed by the author of the Turin
Papyrus the end of the Eighth Dynasty seems to have been the con-
clusion of what we today call the Old Kingdom. A summary in the
document, of the annals to that point states that 955 years and 15
days had already passed since the accession of Menes.? After this
note there follows a now very much destroyed list of the kings who
made the two dynasties of Heracleopolis, with the note ‘““Total:18
kings,’ at its end. When the papyrus was found by Drovetti, either
in 1823 or in 1824, it was apparently complete, and he put it intoa
jar which he tied about his waist, mounted his donkey, and pro-
ceeded to ride into town.8 The joggling which the jar got along the
path was disastrous. When Drovetti opened it the extraordinary
document had been reduced to mere scraps which have been arranged
and rearranged during the past hundred years, but so much had dis-
appeared in dust on that ride on donkey-back that only the barest
outline of the original document remains today.
Manetho, who wrote about a thousand years after the Turin
Papyrus was compiled, followed another tradition. In the late epit-
omes given by both Eusebius and the Armenian scribe who copied
his book, we read that “the Ninth Dynasty consisted of 4 kings of
Heracleopolis who reigned for 100 years. The first of these, King
Akhtoy (Khety), behaving more cruelly than his predecessors,
wrought woes for the people of all Egypt. Afterwards he was smitten
with madness and was killed by a crocodile. The Tenth Dynasty
consisted of 19 kings of Heracleopolis who reigned 185 years.”
If emphasis is placed on the earlier Turin Papyrus, it would seem
that some of the kings have been reduplicated by Manetho, and that
6 Drioton and Vandier, L’ Egypte, pp. 215, 233.
7 Farina, Paptro dei re, p. 32. Meyer, Nachtrag, p. 68.
8 But see Farina, ibzd., p. 7.
* Cory, Ancient Fragments, p. 106. Waddell, Manetho, p. 61. The version of Manetho given
by Africanus has 19 kings who reigned 409 years for the 1X Dyn. The X Dyn. in Africanus is
identical with the other two versions given here.
THE NOMARCHS OF THEBES BEFORE 2134 B.C. 5
he copied 100 years twice when he gave the length of time to be
assigned to the two families. Actually 185 years for 18 kings must
be very close to right, and those are the figures taken here, with
the Ninth and Tenth Dynasties ruling from close to 2240 B.c. to
2052 B.c. These figures may have been doctored slightly, it must be
admitted, but they are probably within about five years of being
correct,!0 and we may accept them as the dates of the Heracleopolitan
Period. And since the nome of Thebes was for the first century of this
period part of the kingdom of Heracleopolis, its nomarch became
one of the subjects of the new line of Pharaohs.
Somewhere around the middle of the twenty-two hundreds before
our era, a Theban woman named Ikui bore a son who was to be
called In-yotef and from him were to be descended in due course a
line of princes of Thebes and eventually of Pharaohs of Egypt. No
contemporary monument of his has been recognized, but a stela of a
certain Gate-keeper Matet, who was probably a contemporary of
the great King Neb-hepet-Ré¢ and of his Chancellor Bebi, calls for
a “funerary prayer for In-(yotef) the Elder !! son of Ikui. May he
give me offerings in the necropolis, to the amount of my daily needs”’
bP, 2).
About a century after Matet composed his inscription, S’en-
Wosret I dedicated a little statue in gray granite, of a man seated
cross-legged upon the ground, with arms crossed humbly upon his
chest. He has a scroll laid out across his lap and that there might be
no difficulty in reading it, the papyrus was carved right side up to
the observer, saying: “Made by the King of Upper and Lower
Egypt Kheper-ka-Ré¢ as his monument for his father Prince In-yotef
the Elder... . born of Ikui.’’!2
That the ancestor of the line of Theban nomarchs, and after them
of Theban sovereigns, was called In-yotef was so well known that
eight hundred years later, when Thut-mose III built his Hall of
Ancestors in the Temple of Karnak, the first name he recorded for
the Eleventh Dynasty was that of the ‘Count and Hereditary Prince
In[-yotef], justified” without any cartouche.18
The nomarch stela which Mariette found in what he called the
DiratAbu’n Nega was made for “the Hereditary Prince, Count,
10 1f the XII Dyn. began in 1991 B.c. See p. 8 below.

_11MMaA 14.2.7, Polotsky, Inschriften der 11. Dynastte.
12 Legrain, Statues et statuettes, No. 42005; Evers Staat aus dem Stein, Pl. 25.
13 Prisse, Monuments, Pl. 1; Sethe, Urkunden, lV, p. 608.
Great Lord of the Theban Nome, satisfying the King as Keeper of

the Gateway of the South, Great Pillar of him who makes his Two
Lands to Live, the Chief Prophet .. . . In-yotefi.”!4 The name In-
yotefi suggests that we have here the stela of another nomarch,
distinct from the son of Ikui.
Perhaps a third In-yotef is named on the stela of an individual
confusingly bearing the same name, In-yotef, who, from the excellent
style of his sculpture, was perhaps rather later in the same period.
He says: “The Chancellor, the Count, the Superintendent of Drago-
mans, the General In-yotef. | went up and down stream [with] the
Hereditary Prince and Overlord of the South In-yotef ....”’. Behind
him stands the spouse of the first of these two individuals, “His
beloved wife, the Only Ornament of the King, the High Priestess
_Tru.’715
Finally, from Dendereh comes a fragment of the stela of a “prophet
of Hat-Hor, Lady of Dendereh” which mentions a ‘“‘Great Prince of
the Southland In-yotef the Elder,’’ who may be any one of these
individuals or still a fourth nomarch.!6
We thus have at least two, and possibly as many as four, members
of the family with confusingly similar names—In-yotef son of Ikui,
In-yotefi, In-yotef the Elder, and perhaps still another In-yotef—
and they filled up the century between the rise of Heracleopolis and
the rebellion of the Thebans.
In the Old Kingdom it is quite likely that the largest settlement
was around the site of modern Luxor, in ancient days known as
“Epet.’!7 However, the settlement of the dead seems to have been
moved northward as the village of the living moved on the eastern
side of the river to the neighborhood of the temple of Montu at
Karnak. On the west side of the Nile there were no near-by cliffs in
which to quarry their eternal dwellings, for the desert north of the
mouth of the Valley of the Kings is a flat, monotonous gravel plain
cut across by water channels. However, one could readily cut a pit,
oblong so that the coffin would not have to be tipped as it was being
lowered; or if the tenant could afford the expense, he might have a
tomb with a sunken court in front of a more or less rudimentary pil-
14 Mariette, Monuments divers, p. 16, Pl. 50; Maspero, Dawn of Civilization, p. 115; Lange
and Schafer, Grab- und Denksteine, 20009; Breasted, Ancient Records, Vol. I, par. 420.
18 Spiegelberg and Portner, Grab- und Denksteine aus siiddeutschen Sammlungen, Vol. |, PI.
XI, No. 18; Spiegelberg, AZ, 1912, p. 110.
16 Daressy, Annales, 1910, p. 185.
17 Steindorff and Wolff, Thebanische Graberwelt, p. 9.
THE NOMARCHS OF THEBES BEFORE 2134 B.C. 7)
lared portico. In the course of the next century or so this cemetery

covered well over a kilometer of desert north and south, and possibly
nearly as much back into the desert to the west.18
We may assume that the nomarchs themselves were buried in
some of the larger tombs at the northern end of the cemetery, near
the big watercourses which cross the plain just opposite the temple
of Montu. Actually, we do not know where they were laid; but we
can feel fairly safe in this assumption, for within any given dynasty,
as long as there was sufficient unoccupied space for tomb-building,
the shift was always from north to south, and even in this cemetery
the tendency is well enough attested by the slight, modern excava-
tions which have been made there.
While we are considering these tombs there is a certain fascination
in reading the first description of them in English as it was written
on December 9, 1826, by Robert Hay.!9 “After leaving Piccinini’s
house I rode along the foot of the mountains to some distance beyond
the commencement to the road to Farshout, to look at some small
tombs but found them quite rough. I then moved down towards
the river to examine those tombs not far from its banks and which
are seen conspicuously from it just opposite Carnac. I entered
several of these, some of which are large, but all quite rough. Some
are supported by columns and have a few chambers in them besides
the principal one. One I remembered had a passage like that of the
pyramids but I had no light to examine it. In front of most of them
there is a kind of area or open space forming a species of court to the
tomb though it is not closed in front. Many are very small and there
is no particular direction to which their fronts are exposed. Some of
them have names as Bab el Cadi, Saff vellib Abdalla and Saff
Mexura, round which are many that are inhabited and where there
is a solitary tree not far distant from the broken doors that give this
part of the tombs the name. | then rode up towards the mountain.”
Possibly some of the tombs described by Hay are those in which
the kings to be noted in the next chapter were buried, but others
were doubtless to their north and had been dug for the In-yotef
nomarchs who were their ancestors.
18 Petrie, Qurneh, p. 2.
19 British Museum Add. MSS, 29186 folios 177-9. _
2” In 1826 the Nile occupied the position of the Fadliyeh Canal in the map, Plate 33.
II
THESRULE RStOPSUPRERPEG YP Si Nene

BUEVENTHIDYNASITY.
Before beginning the stories of the different princes who made up

the two halves of the Eleventh Dynasty—that of Kings of Upper
Egypt only, and that of Pharaohs of the whole land—a word should
appear on their dates.
The question of dates in the early Middle Kingdom depends
wholly upon what we take as the first year of the Twelfth Dynasty,
or the last year of the Eleventh. Long ago an approximate date was
set for the beginning of the reign of Amun-em-het I and of the
Twelfth Dynasty. Experience proved that this date of 2000 B.c.
must be very close to being right. In fact, it fitted so well, and it was
so easy to remember, that many of us had forgotten for years that
it was only an approximation which we hated to give up. Faith in
it was shaken a bit by the discovery of the ““Kahiin Papyri’” nearly
half a century ago, but the exact effect of these latter documents
was for a long time fogged by uncertainty.
Very recently Edgerton recalculated the date of the heliacal rising
of Sothis under an unnamed king, which is recorded in the papyri.!
From this event he established a number of dates, each from 5 to 30
years later than those which followed the acceptance of 2000 B.c.
as the start of the dynasty. He instructed his readers, however, to
make this date earlier by as many years as the reign of Se’n-Wosret II
might eventually be found to exceed 19. This, of course, left us just
about where we already were, and did not seem to me to justify the
giving up of so convenient a date for the beginning of the Twelfth
Dynasty as was 2000 B.C.
The state of our knowledge now seems greatly improved. An
article has recently appeared, written by Lynn H. Wood, which puts
greater emphasis on the lunar data in the Kahiin Papyri than on the
heliacal rising of Sothis.2 By this means he exactly places the first
year of Amun-em-hét I as being 1991 B.c. This change from 2000 B.c.
1 Egerton, JNES, 1942, p. 307.

2 Wood, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 1945, p. 5.
THE RULERS OF UPPER EGYPT IN THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY 9
is only one of nine years, which can not alter our conclusions in any
important way, and taken with a very similar change in the same
direction for the outset of the New Kingdom,’ it leaves us just about
where we have been for some time past as regards the length of the
Middle Kingdom.
If the Eleventh Dynasty ended in the year 1991 B.c., the next
point is to establish its beginning. As early as the reign of Thut-
mose III the list of rulers of Egypt had the names of a nomarch
In-yotef, followed by that of a Montu-hotpe, and then those of three
Kings In-yotef. The only titles of these rulers are those of Horus
and of King of Upper and Lower Egypt, while the names of Neb-
hepet-Ré¢ and Setankh-ka-Ré¢, who were actual Pharaohs of the
Two Lands, are written separately in another line of inscription in
the chapel.4 A few centuries later the Turin Papyrus, drawn up in
the reign of Ramesses II, has a list of all six kings written one after
another. On the bit of papyrus where the dynastic total comes, one
can still read: ‘““Total 6 kings, making yeal[rs] 1[36; plus] years 7;
total 143.’’5 Of about this same period are the lists of rulers from
Sakkarah and Abydos where, however, only the last two names are
written.§
Then when next we run across an epitome of the dynasty, as given
by Manetho this time, an error has crept into it. Manetho’s text as
we have it reads: ““The Eleventh Dynasty consisted of 16 kings of
Diospolis (or Thebes) who reigned for 43 years. In succession to them
Amun-em-hét ruled for 16 years.’”’7 Here a hundred years have. been
omitted, and ten kings have been added through a scribal error. The
great interest of this document is, however, that it clears up all un-
certainty in the Turin Papyrus and sets the dynastic total at 143,
rather than a suggested 142 years as adopted by Farina. As far as
the papyrus itself goes, there can be no objection because the
dynastic total comes on the edge of a break, and originally the
higher number was clearly written.
The length of the Eleventh Dynasty—both that part which ruled
in Upper Egypt only and that which ruled the entire country—was
thus 143 years, and its dates were from 2134 to 1991 B.c. The first”
3 See above, p. 3.
4 Prisse, Monuments, Pl. 1; Sethe, Urkunden, IV, p. 608.
’ Farina, Papiro dei re, p. 35, Pl. 1V; Winlock, JEA, 1940, p. 118.
6 Porter and Moss, Bibliography, III, p. 192; VI, pp. 25, 35.
7 Cory, Ancient Fragments, p. 108; Waddell, Manetho, p. 63.
ice) THE MIDDLE KINGDOM IN THEBES
group of kings, who held Thebes from 2134 to 2052 B.c., were the
following:
1. SEHER-T ow! IN-YOTEF, 2134 TO ABOUT 2130 B.C.

The last In-yotef to become nomarch felt himself powerful enough
to usurp a sort of kingship in the South, but neither he nor his first
three successors ever had themselves shown wearing the Double
Crown, in spite of calling themselves ‘‘Ni-sut Biti,’’ which we com-
monly translate as “King of Upper and Lower Egypt.” Later gener-
ations preserved his name as “‘the Horus Seher-towi’—the Pacifier
of the Two Lands—‘‘Son of Ré¢, In-yotef,”! with no prenomen or
any of the other names of those sovereigns who ruled both lands. To
history he is only the first of the rulers who composed the Eleventh
Dynasty,? assuming a quasi-royalty one hundred and forty-three
years before the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty, or about 2134
B.c. He was the first Theban ever to write his name within a car-
touche and to declare himself an open and avowed rebel—even a
rival of the Pharoah who ruled in Heracleopolis and in Memphis.
Seher-towi seized the five most southerly nomes and declared
himself their chieftain apparently just about the time when there
was a change in the rulers in Heracleopolis. Manetho stated that
the Ninth Dynasty ruled Egypt for 100 years, which may be taken
as the century between 2240 and 2140 B.c., and Africanus may have
had before him a copy which had 109 years and would put the
dynastic change in 2131 B.c., a date which in some ways is prefer-
able. Probably the latter year saw another Heracleopolitan family
take over the throne in Memphis, and while we have not a single
detail as to the circumstances surrounding this change, it is a striking
fact that it comes extremely close to the revolution in Thebes,
according to the traditions both in the Turin Papyrus and in
Manetho—the revolution of 2134 B.c. Whether we should trust
these dates literally and suppose that the rebellion of Seher-towi
followed the change of dynasty in Heracleopolis or preceded and
caused it it is hard to say. It would seem that the Tenth Dynasty
ruled the north, at least, for 85 years, which would put its overthrow
1 Vandier, BIFAO, 1936, p. 102; F. Blisson de la] R[oque], Téd, p. 75, Figs. 27, 30.
7 Winlock, JEA, 1940, p. 119. His name seems to appear in the Karnak list before that of
Wah-tankh; Prisse, Monuments, Pl. 1; Sethe, Urkunden, lV, 608.
See page 4 above. The Africanus version makes this 409 years, which might be emended
to 109 years.
THE RULERS OF UPPER EGYPT IN THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY II
in 2057 B.c. However, all of these conflicting considerations need

not cause us too much worry. The remarkable fact is that they come
so near to agreeing that we may consider the births of the Tenth and
the Eleventh Dynasties as being closely related, one to the other,
and as growing out of the same conflicts in the Nile Valley.
The rebellion of the five southern nomes succeeded when Seher-
towi had only three or four years left to live, but after he himself
had finished his enormous tomb on the western side of the river
(Pl. 33). He must have been ruler over Thebes itself for many years,
for in the north of the cemetery, somewhere near the tombs of the
nomarchs, he dug this great saff, or “row,” the name given by the
Arabs to the first royal tombs of Thebes with their rows of doorways
sunken in the desert plain (Pl. 3).4 These saffs were oriented more
or less toward Karnak. Here in the flat, gravel plain nearly 3 kilo-
meters across the river from the temple of Montu was his saff, some
5 or 6 meters deep but appearing much deeper because of the enor-
mous piles of chips heaped on either hand. Its width was nearly 80
meters, and its length was well over 100 meters before the modern
irrigation canal cut across its eastern end.
One walked from the river bank opposite Thebes across a narrow
plain where the Eleventh Dynasty brickmakers made their very
sandy bricks. In later years the river swung to the east, and the finer
clay then deposited near the cemetery made bricks more like those
we know today. A few paces beyond the brickmakers’ pits came the
desert and the great sunken court with doors all around which led to
the last resting places of Seher-towi’s courtiers. And, if we are to
believe the stories told me by the modern Arabs from whom |
acquired the stela of Magegi,5 the descendants of some courtiers
were being buried among their grandfathers half a century later. At
the back of the saff are the dozen or so doorways of the prince’s own
tomb, descending at an angle into the rock from a projecting and
slightly sloping facade. It is possible that this facade served as the
base of the mudbrick pyramid which Seher-towi surely built over
his tomb.
By usurping a cartouche and some of the style of kingship Seher- -
towi had ended the line of nomarchs who had ruled Thebes for per-
4 Winlock, AJSL, 1915, pp. 19, 22, Figs. 1, 4. Cf. Bonomi (ed. Newberry), Annales, 1906,
p. 85, ‘Bab es-Sat.”
5 See below, p. 19.
haps a century, but we know of no event which took place during

his lifetime in the war which convulsed Egypt for the next eighty
years or so.
2. WAH-fANKH IN-YOTEF, ABOUT 2130-2081 B.C.

When Seher-towi died, he left his throne to a youth destined to
rule over Thebes and the four other nomes of Upper Egypt for only
a few months under half a century. Subject to an uncertainty of not
more than a couple of years in his successor’s reign, it is safe enough
to set him down as succeeding to the throne at about 2130 B.c.,
when he took as his name “the Horus Wah-‘tankh’’—Established
in Life—‘‘In-yotef” who was eventually called “the Elder.”
In the list of kings drawn up for Thut-mose III by the priests in
Karnak his Horus name has been destroyed,! and in the Turin
Papyrus it has not only been lost but had been put third instead of
second in the dynasty, to judge from the position given his reign
length of 49 years.?
He was doubtless a son, but not the oldest son, of his predecessor.
The Egyptians of the Middle Kingdom often alternated names as
one generation succeeded another; and it is possible that Seher-towi
In-yotef named his eldest son “Montu-hotpe”’ and that, with the
latter dying before the father, the oldest surviving son, another
In-yotef, succeeded as the Horus Wah-¢ankh.
The new ruler of Thebes, who as we have noted was doubtless
little more than a boy at his accession, attacked the northerners with
the fire of youth. A certain Djari, who was buried at Thebes, has
left us a stela of extraordinary crudeness and, since the sculptor was
very ignorant, one which misspells the names even of Elephantine
and Abydos.’ Djari, ‘“‘the son of the Prince and Sole Confidential
Friend Hesi,”’ was himself “Prince, Sole Confidential Friend, Gover-
nor of the Residence, and Superintendent of the Granaries.’’ He
tells us that “the Horus Wah-tankh, King of Upper and Lower
Egypt, the Son of Ré¢ In-yotef, Creator of Beauty, sent me a mes-
sage, after | had fought with the House of Akhtoy in the nome of
1 Prisse, Monuments, Pl. 1; Sethe, Urkunden, 1V, 608.

* Farina, I] Papziro dei re, p. 35, Pl. V; Winlock, JEA, 1940, p. 119. The statement of In-
yotef-oker on his stela in Leiden that the thirty-third year of Se’n-Wosret I fell in the lifetime
of the great grandson of a man living in the days of Wah-tankh becomes meaningless chrono-
logically in view of Winlock, Exvacations at Deir el Babri, p. 70.
3 Walker in Petrie, Qurneh, p. 16, Pls. II, III.
THE RULERS OF ALL EGYPT IN THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY 1
Thinis, .... that the prince had given me a ship to protect the land
of the southerners . . . . southwards to Elephantine and northwards
to Aphroditopolis. ... . I was promoted among the elders because
I was fierce on the day of battle. Greatness came upon me for I did
excellent things, and was head of my nome, a mighty man, a prince.”
Obviously, Djari and his wife, ‘the Royal Favorite and Priestess of
Hat-Hor, Senet-Montu,” lived when the Thebans were first break-
ing out of the five nomes to overrun the sixth—that of Thinis and
the sacred town of Abydos.
Seher-towi had rebelled against the Pharaoh of Heracleopolis with
only the five nomes of the Head of the South under his rule. Koptos,
which had been the capital of the five nomesin the Old Kingdom,
was no longer their chief town, for it had given way to Thebes,
located in one of the most southerly broad plains along the river
banks; and now the inhabitants of some 200 miles of valley began to
move restlessly with covetous eyes on Thinis and Abydos.
When Seher-towi was still alive, he probably had but little trouble
with the North. He must have been regarded by the Pharaoh in
Heracleopolis as a troublesome noble of the five most distant
provinces of Upper Egypt, who had delusions of grandeur; nor had
the nomarch of Asyit any comments to make on him. After all,
Asyit lay roughly halfway between Thebes and Heracleopolis and
was still far from any trouble with the South.
In Asyit Akhtoy was “Prince and Count, Treasurer of the King,
Sole Companion, High Priest of Wep-wawet Lord of Asyit,” but he
has little to say about his duties with the local militia. In a couple of
brief phrases he tells us that he “raised a troop of soldiers... . and
bowmen as a vanguard of Upper Egypt. I had a fine fleet [and was]
the beloved of the King whenever he came up river.’’4 He speaks of
digging canals when all the land was parched, and about attending
to his people in time of famine; but all this smacks as much of
formulas as the inscriptions of the next princes, which almost
literally repeated his words.é
Akhtoy tells us how the king “‘made me a ruler as a boy of only a
cubit in height. He put me at the head of the children and made me ~
learn swimming with the royal princes..... Asyiit was happy under
my leadership; Heracleopolis thanked me; Upper and Lower Egypt
said, ‘He is like those brought up with the king’.
b oc fe
4 Brunner, Graber der Herakleopolitenzeit, Tomb V, line 1.

5 The same stock phrase in 1bid., Tomb V, 1, 21, and in Tomb III, 1, 13.
However, the whole North was breaking up. We know how the
princes of the Hare Nome near el Bersheh arrogated to themselves
many of the attributes of royalty.6 The Pharaoh living in Heracleo-
polis did not count for a great deal in the ‘(Amarneh country, and
years were dated to the local chieftain’s reign. For example, “Year 8
of Count Nehri, L.P.H.,” was written exactly as if he were king;
“when it was hot on the day of battle,” as if everyone would of
necessity know when that was. Still farther down river, at Beni
Hasan, people’s interest in the struggle fell in direct proportion to
its distance; and, on the other hand, the independence of the nobles
in the up-river provinces rose as the king in Heracleopolis was forced
to dissipate his strength upon the enemies of the land.
In Asyiit the nomarch Akhtoy passed away, and his son Tef-ibi
followed him as nomarch with the same high-sounding titles. He
goes on to tell us that throughout his country, ‘‘when night fell, they
who slept by the way lauded me because they were as safe as a man
in his own house. Terror of my soldiers was their protection when the
beasts of the field lay beside them.”? One Dawiid Pasha, who once
ruled Keneh from a great gir filled with cool water in the days of the
Khedive Isma¢il, never boasted more than that.
But no matter how peaceful the country around Asyit may have
been, things were very different up the river. Tef-ibi goes on to tell
us how8 “‘at the first battle between my soldiers and the southern
nomes which had banded together from Elephantine on the south
down river” to some unknown place near Abydos, in all likelihood,?
he had beaten them badly. “I came to the city and I overthrew” the
king’s enemies and pursued them “‘to the fortress of the dyke of the
Head of Upper Egypt, and the king gave me land” as a reward.
Tef-ibi carried the war on against the Thebans and their ‘“‘confede-
rates, who fled to the east of the land, while others chased them
southward like a greyhound which comes with long” bounds after
some terrified gazelle.
As one reads such phrases, he is not expected, obviously, to have
any doubt of the eventual success of the Heracleopolitan arms, but
things did not go so easily for the northerners as Tef-ibi would have
us think. He had to meet the Theban rebel again “with another force
® Anthes, Hatnub, pp. 25, 60, etc.; ZAS, 1924, p. 100.
7 Brunner, op. cit., Tomb III, |. 10.
8 [bid., p. 18, ll. 16-37.
9 Brunner copied in the text a standing woman with garlanded head, but his note uses the
sign as copied by Griffith, which seems to be a man. Neither form is translatable.
when he attacked for a second time. I went forth against him with
only one,” small regiment, and so soundly beat him that “‘he left off
the battle as though” he were in terror, and “the nome of Asyit
returned like a bull which attacks” a pack of dogs. “There was no
peace for me until I had beaten them down.” The leader of the
southerners appears to have gone into battle “in beautiful clothes,
but he fell into the water, his ship went aground, and his army, like
ducks,”’ fled before the hunter. “‘I set fire to” their vessel, and the
flames shot up “higher than the mast. I had overcome him who had
risen in rebellion, . . . and I could then say to the chief of Upper
Egypt: ‘Listen,’ ” and be sure that he would hearken to me. Then
toward the end of the inscription we read that ‘‘the land was in fear
before my soldiers and there was no foreign country that was un-
afraid of Heracleopolis’” when it beheld ‘‘the smoke arising in the
southern nomes.”’
Wah-tankh had inherited the five southernmost nomes below
Aswan; and he had added the sixth nome, of Thinis, and had estab-
lished his northern boundary somewhere near Aphroditopolis on
the west and Panopolis on the east of the Nile.!0 But the great prize
was Abydos and its Old Kingdom temple of Osiris and the tombs of
the early kings in the desert behind. What part the pilgrimages to
the holy places by both dead and living played in the early Eleventh
Dynasty it is hard to say. Doubtless, it was much less than in the
Twelfth Dynasty; but still the possession of the old temple of Osiris
must have meant a good deal in early Middle Kingdom Egypt, even
if a generation or so later it meant a lot more.
From Thebes itself very little evidence has survived of the war
which must have racked Egypt throughout Wah-tankh’s days. An
official who survived into the next reign starts his grave stela!! “Long
live the Horus Wah-tankh, King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Son
of Ré¢ In-yotef, Fashioner of Beauty and living like Ré¢ forever,”’
and then goes on to say that he, the Chief Treasurer Tjetji, “passed
many years under Wah-tankh when this land was under his au-
thority, up river as far as Elephantine and down river as far as This
of the Thinite nome.” Once he had been put in charge of the treasury, .
he ‘made a barque for the city, and a ship for following my lord... .
10 Meyer, op. cit., par. 276; Scharff, Der bistorische Abschnitt des Lebre fir Konig Mertkaré
in “Sitzungsberichte des Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften” (1936), pp. 18 ff.
11 [Scott-Moncrieff], Hieroglyphic Texts in the B. M., Vol. I, Pi. 49; Winlock, AJSL, 1915,
p. 17; Blackman, JEA, 1931, p. 55; Budge, Egyptian Sculpture in the B.M., Pl. VIII.
ALLEGHENY COLLEGE LIBRARY

until he journeyed to his horizon.’”’ There is nothing here of war,

perhaps because this stela was carved during a truce in the short
reign of Wah-tankh’s successor.
Briefer, but of the same sort, is the biography of Ka-wer In-yotef,
who starts a list of his royal masters with the words: “I was made a
chosen one by the Lord Horus Wah-tankh, son of Ré¢ In-yotef the
Elder.’’!2 Or, still again, a certain Henwen tells us how he had a long
life, “‘great in years, serving under three kings. ... . I served the
Horus Wah-tankh, the Son of Ré¢ In-yotef, for a long period of
years.”13 Also undated to any specific year in the reign is an in-
scription at Aswan which must have been carved there by officials
looking for red granite. On the rocks at Elephantine the name of
“the Horus Wah-tankh, Son of Ré¢ In-yotef the Elder’’!4 shows
that his workmen had been there prying loose boulders, as their
ancestors had done in the Old Kingdom.
The great tomb stela of “the Horus Wah-tankh, King of Upper
and Lower Egypt, Son of Ré¢ In-[yotef] the Elder, Favored of
Beauty’’!5 tells how Thinis fell and how he ravaged “her northern
boundary as far as the nome of Aphroditopolis. | landed in the
sacred valley, captured the entire Thinite nome, and laid open all
her fortresses. | made it the Gate of the North,” just as Elephantine
was the Gate of the South, or as this same Thinite district was called
by the Heracleopolitans “the Head of Upper Egypt.’’16
Now that he was being gathered to his fathers, he felt anxious to
be known as a patron of religion; and it is doubtless of the shrine of
Montu that he wrote that “I filled his temple with august libation
vases,” and of the other gods that “I built their temples, wrought
their stairways, restored their gates, and established their divine
offerings for all time.” And then about 2081 B.c. he ended his life
in the “Year 50, when this stela was set up” and he went forth to
the next life, probably about seventy years old.
The tomb stela has had a remarkable history.!7 In the reign of
Ramesses X, when the mayor of western Thebes was accused of not
giving the tombs in his care proper protection, the inspectors went
22 1Scott-Moncrieff], op. cit., Pl. 53; Budge, op. cit., Pl. VII.
18 Sethe, ZAS, 1905, p. 133; Gauthier, BIF AO, 1906, p. 39.
14 Be A Season in Egypt, Pl. XII, No. 310; De Morgan, Catalogue des monuments, |,
p. 115, No. 1.
16 | ange and Schafer, op. cit., No. 20512; Breasted, AR, Vol. I, par. 421.
16 See above, p. 14.
1 Breasted, AR, Vol. I, par. 4214.
THE RULERS OF ALL EGYPT IN THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY LF
over from the city and in their findings recorded that “the pyramid
of King Son of Ré¢ In-[yotef].the Elder, L.P.H., which is north of the
house of Amun-hotpe of the Court, L.P.H., and whose pyramid has
been removed from it, but its stela is still fixed in front of it and the
figure of the king stands on this stela with his dog named Behek
between his feet. Examined this day: it was found intact.’’8
Three thousand years later Mariette found the lower part of this
stela in 1860; but he left it where it lay, and the natives broke it up
on the spot. Then in 1882 Maspero ran across it again, and finally
Daressy gathered up what he could find, and the pieces are now in
the Cairo Museum. It is interesting to know today that there were
five hounds shown, each with a Libyan name and an Egyptian in-
terpretation beside three of them. We may render them “the Ga-
zelle,” “‘the Black,” and “the Cook-pot (?).”
Unluckily, we know very little about the actual arrangement of
the royal tomb. We do know that it was the second great saff,
counting Seher-towi’s to its north as the first, and that it stood with
befitting modesty just a little back of the burial place of the first of
the dynasty (Pl. 33). Chip excavated from it has been piled up
around it to make it look deeper than it is; and, while it may be a
little narrower than the tomb of his father, it has a length back into
the desert somewhere between 180 and 200 meters.
However, there appears today to be no trace of a pyramid above
its end as there was at that of Seher-towi, and it is possible that we
should take literally the tradition that Mariette found the stela at
some point in the saff floor. From his all too brief notes we learn that
it came from a brick pyramid about 15 meters square, in the center
of which there was a chamber with the stela let into its back wall
and visible from the door. Where the burial chamber may have been
Mariette did not know; but, to judge from the plan of a contempo-
rary tomb at Abydos, it should have been under the pyramid
proper.!9 Norman de Garis Davies was told in 1917 by a native
that, when the canal was dug some quarter of a century before, the
pyramid was destroyed, from which one would infer that it had been
well toward the front of the saff and that the plan of the monument
differed from that of Seher-towi with its pyramid base over the back
of the saff and even differed from the first plan of the tomb of Neb-
18 Papyrus Abbott, Col. II, 1. 8; Breasted, AR, IV, par. 512. Peet, The Great Tomb Rob-
beries, p. 38. =
19 Peet, Cemeteries of Abydos, II, p. 35.
hepet-Ré¢ some three generations later. Perhaps Mariette’s “‘pyra-

mid” which contained the stela was really a chapel at the front of
the saff somewhat like a valley temple, and the real pyramid was
built at its back like Seher-towi’s.”
The great stela was not the only memorial prepared by Wah-
tankh for his tomb. I believe that there were a lot of small, rectangu-
lar limestone tablets set in the tomb-court; and one which has sur-
vived to our day has a picture of the ruler offering a bowl of milk
and a jar of beer to Rét, from whom he asks protection during the
night, and to Hat-Hor, to whom he sings a hymn of praise.2! He
prays, too, for mortuary offerings and is called “the Horus Wah-
tankh, devoted to Osiris, Son of Ré¢ In-yotef the Elder, Fashioner of
Beauty” (PI. 4).
Those close to the ruler’s person, such as his wives and concubines
and even his male servants, doubtless were buried in the innumerable
little tombs whose entrances are cut into the rock along opposite
sides of the saff, where their poverty-stricken descendants live today
in squalor. That the more independent and wealthier persons in the
prince’s following had their own tombs we know from the few stelae
which so far have been discovered in the neighborhood. Gauthier in
1906 and Petrie in 1909 each dug a few tombs there;?2 and, of course,
the ubiquitous grave-robbers have had their share in pillaging the
spot. In addition, we should note here the simple, uninscribed cones
discovered by Gauthier, which are identical with those from the
Eleventh Dynasty tombs at Deir el Bahri.
3. NAKHTE NEB-TEP-NEFER IN-YOTEF, ABOUT 2081-2079 B.C.

Wah-fankh had attained his allotted span when he went forth
from this life, and his son, a third In-yotef, “‘assumed his place.’’!
As any son of the old king must have been himself of a certain age,
we need not be surprised that he died only a very short time after
his coronation.2 Unluckily, his name suffered an accident in the list
of ancestors from Karnak and was totally lost there.
Still, by good fortune, his short reign has left its traces. Tjetji
says that when Wah-tankh died “‘his son, the Horus Nakhte Neb-
* Winlock, A JSL, 1915, p. 22; Steindorff-Wolff, op. cit., p. 20.

21 MMA, 13.182.3; Winlock, 4JSL, 1915, p. 17.
#2 Gauthier, BIFAO, 1908, p. 121; Petrie, Qurneb, p. 2.
1 Breasted, AR, I, par. 423 G.
3 Winlock, JEA, 1940, p. 116.
THE RULERS OF ALL EGYPT IN THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY ie)
tep-nefer,’—the Mighty, the Lord of Judgment—‘‘King of Upper

and Lower Egypt, Son of Ré¢ In-yotef, Fashioner of Beauty, suc-
ceeded in his place” and that Tjetji “followed him to all his good
seats of pleasure,” for which his rank was duly confirmed.’ Ka-wer
In-yotef4 and Henwen,5 whose stela has an unfortunate break where
the king’s name should come, both place Neb-tep-nefer between old
Wah-tankh and the latter’s grandson, and from the survival of
three of his father’s courtiers to the days of his son we can feel safe
in concluding that his reign was of the briefest.
On the stela of Tjetji appears the figure of a certain Magegi;é
and by chance Magegi—who possibly was also named Amun-em-
hét—has left a stela on which he tells us that “I lived in the time of
the Horus Neb-tep-nefer’ (Pl. 2).7 However, for years even this
scant information was lacking, and all that was known about him
was his name, carved on a fragment of the door jamb of one Nakhty
from the cemetery at Abydos, which thus was still in the control of
Thebes: “‘the Horus Nakhte Neb-tep-nefer, King of Upper and
Lower Egypt, Son of Ré¢ In-yotef the Elder, Living Forever . . . who
preserved my city for me (?).’’8
Neb-tep-nefer died in 2079 B.c.; and, while he should have had a
burial place in the Theban necropolis somewhere between that of
his father and that of his son, we cannot point to any exact spot
today (see Pl. 33). Doubtless it was his intention to dig a saff to the
south of his father’s, or on the latter's right hand and modestly
somewhat behind Wah-tankh’s. However, it is not visible today,
and a water-course sweeps across the plain at the point where we
should expect to find it.
4. SECANKH-IB-TOW! MONTU-HOTPE, 2079-2061 B.C.

His eldest surviving son succeeded Neb-tep-nefer on the throne,
under the style of ‘the Horus Setankh-ib-towi’’—He who causes
the Heart of the Two Lands to Live—‘‘Son of Ré¢*, Montu-hotpe.”’
The annalist who drew up the List of Ancestors for Thut-mose III
in Karnak entered “the Horus, the Ancestor Mon|[tu-hotpe] justi-
3 Blackman, JEA, 1931, p. 57-
4[Scott-Moncrieff], op. cit., Vol. I, Pl. 53; Budge, op. c#t., Pl. VII.
5 Gauthier, BIFAO, 1906, p. 39; Sethe, ZAS, 1905, p. 132.
6 [Scott-Moncrieff], op. cit., Pl. 50.
7MMA 14.2.6.
8 Mariette, Cat. gen. des monuments d’ Abydos, No. 544; Lange and Schafer, op. cit., No.
20502.
fied’ in the first cartouche of the dynasty immediately after the

name of the Nomarch In-yotef, but then he did his whole job in a
rather slipshod manner and we need hardly be surprised at so venial
an error.!
In the Turin Papyrus, “Setankh-ib-towi” was clearly the fourth
name, for at this point a reign length of ‘‘. . . .|8’ appears which can
only be restored as “18” to make the final total come out right.? It
is true that the new prince’s personal name appears to be a distinct
break with the old traditional family name; but, as we haye already
noted, it is quite likely that more than one oldest son died prema-
turely, and with Setankh-ib-towi’s eldest grandson we shall again
meet the name In-yotef.
The new prince was, in all likelihood, in the prime of life in 2079
B.c., when Neb-tep-nefer “‘went to the horizon, the place where the
gods are,”’ and Henwen, from whose stela the phrase comes, “‘served
his son the Horus Setankh[-ib-towi]’’$ in his stead.
The Pharaoh in Heracleopolis still smarted under the defeat
which Wah-tankh had administered to him, and made an attack
upon the Upper Egyptians by 2065 B.c. which was something of a
success. ““The 14th Year, the year when Thinis rebelled,’’4 is the
date on the stela of Ka-wer In-yotef, who doubtless died that year
and whom we see with his three wives—Mery, Iutu and Iru—none
of whom could be called patrons of the arts, so curiously crude is
this gravestone.
Meantime King Wah-ka-Ré¢ Akhtoy of Heracleopolis was grow-
ing old, and he sat down to write a set of instructions for his son,
Mery-ka-Ré°.5 To his mind the great threat to Egypt was an in-
vasion of foreigners from Asia, and one can readily see that Upper
Egypt did not merit as much attention as the North. He therefore
exhorted his son to let Thebes go its own gait, especially as he boasts
that he had given it a sound drubbing and for the moment there was
peace. There is no reason to doubt his statement that “they are not
now attacking our boundaries. | am full of pride about Thinis and
1 Prisse, Monuments, Pl. 1; Sethe, Urkunden, 1V, 608.

? Farina, Il Papiro det re, p. 35, Pl. V; Winlock, JEA, 1940, p. 119.
3 Sethe, ZAS, 1905, p. 132; Gauthier, BIFAO, 1906, p. 39. No “third year” is mentioned
here, as Meyer supposed.
4[Scott-Mon¢érieff], op. cit., Vol. 1, Pl. 53; Budge, op. cit., Pl. VII; Gardiner, JEA, 1014,
iy, 2B
’ Gardiner, JEA, 1914, p. 22; Scharff, Merikare, pp. 7, 18, et passim; Drioton and Vandier,
op. cit., p. 217.
Meki and the southern boundary to Taut,’”’ where he appears to

have been successful in battle. “I took them like a cloudburst. The
like was not done by the blessed King Mery-[ib]-towi,” the founder
of the dynasty.
“Keep peace with the South, which comes to you burdened with
Bilis Foes Since red granite now comes to you unhindered, do not
injure another’s monuments, and quarry your own limestone in
shuren. ae If your borders toward Upper Egypt are in danger, so
are those toward the bedawin who wear the girdle, and you should
build fortresses in Lower Egypt (against them).”’
That was where King Wah-ka-Ré‘, beset with trouble on both
hands, felt convinced his greater danger lay. He could not picture
the princelings of Thebes as eventually mastering all of Egypt, and
meantime he was content to quarry red granite at Aswan by per-
mission of the inhabitants of Upper Egypt.
War probably was far closer to every Theban’s thoughts than
anything else, and we should not be surprised that a man who was
doubtless the first of the sons of Setankh-ib-towi, but who died in
his father’s reign, would appear to have been a soldier. A bit of a
broken coffin, for years past in the British Museum, once upon a
time held the body of “The Prince, Wearer of the Royal Seal, Eldest
Son of the King, General of the Troops, Heru-nefer justified, born
of the Great Royal Wife Sit-Sheret (?).’”6 The queen’s name is
doubtful, but I believe that there can be little or no question that
the father was Setankh-ib-towi. In a time when the enemy had just
retaken Thinis, it is but natural that the sons of the king were in
their father’s forces.
A typical little glazed steatite seal, shaped like a calf lying down,
apparently gives Setankh-ib-towi’s name (Pl. 2) ;7 and—if my guess
is not very wrong—one of his followers, buried at Dendereh, has
left us a chip of bas-relief with the name of this king upon it.8
In 2061 B.c., at the end of a reign which had lasted for eighteen
troubled years, Setankh-ib-towi was gathered to his fathers. He had
begun the largest of the saff tombs to the south (PI. 33), and again
modestly behind those of his forefathers. It was to have been some
300 meters, or probably 600 cubits, long on a scale larger than those
of his predecessors; but he did not live long enough to finish it. It
6 Griffith, PSBA, 18091, p. 41.

7 MMA 10.130.164; Newberry, Scarabs, Fig. 87.
8 Petrie, Dendereb, Pl. XII.
must have been some forty or more years later? that Yoth, the King’s
wife and the mother of his successor, died, after the expedition of
Neb-hepet-Ré¢ to the Shatt er Rigal. Then she must have been
buried here in her husband’s saff, for there seems to be no unassigned
tomb at Deir el Bahri commensurate with her rank.
Clustered about the tomb of Setankh-ib-towi were the tombs of
his followers and even the tombs of some of those who, beginning
their careers in his reign, did not die until that of his successor. Even
half a century later some of the more conservative, like In-yotef the
son of Mayet, and many of the less affluent Thebans were still laying
their dead in the southern part of this cemetery.!
5. Neter Hepjet, Later NeB-HEPET-RE‘, MONTU-HOTPE,

RULER OF THE SOUTH ONLY, 2061-2052 B.C.
In 2061 B.c. Setankh-ib-towi died and was succeeded by his
eldest surviving son, who called himself “the Horus Neter Hed-jet”—
Divine Master of the White Crown—‘‘King of Upper and Lower
Egypt, Son of Ré¢ Montu-hotpe,” after the fashion of his ancestors
of the last four generations.1 He was young enough to reign for the
next 51 years; but it is highly unlikely that his dominions were large
at the start of his reign, for his father had lost Thinis and Abydos
which had been Theban since the days of his great-grandfather, old
Wah-tankh.
In many ways it will be more convenient to break his half century
long reign into two sections, the first of which should comprise the
nine years during which Montu-hotpe ruled Thebes and the Head
of Upper Egypt as the Horus Neter Hedjet. The forty-two years
during which he was Neb-hepet-Ré¢ and sovereign of all the land we
may postpone until the next chapter. It is more than likely that an
Egyptian would have treated the half century during which he ruled
the land in some such way. At least most of the kings’ lists which
have survived give us only the names Neb-hepet-Ré¢ and Setankh-
ka-Ré¢, his son and successor, omitting all mention of the other kings
of the line. The only objection which might be offered is that it is
sometimes not too easy to separate the monuments of the first few
9 Winlock, AJSL, 1940, p. 153.

10 Petrie, Qurneh, p. 2.
*Vandier, Ordre de succession des dernier rois de la XI Dynastie, Studia Aegyptiaca (1938),
P. 39.
years of this reign from those which belong in the far longer period
when Montu-hotpe ruled the whole land.
Hostilities with the North must have broken out very soon after
the young ruler was crowned, and the war could not have been a
prolonged one. Tef-ibi of Asyiit was dead, and his son Akhtoy now
occupied his place. We know nothing of the outbreak of the war;
but within a short time the frontier had moved to Sha-sehetep, now
Shutb near Deir Rifeh, on the very confines of Asyit. Akhtoy ap-
parently felt that brave words would hide the fact that he had to
fight so near home in the days of Mery-ka-Ré’, his king.? Boastfully
he makes his king or a divinity say to him in an inscription in his
tomb: “‘you have spread fear throughout the land; you alone have
subjected Upper Egypt for the King and have let him go southward
while you made the sky cloudless for him. The whole land was with
the King, the counts of Upper Egypt and the nobles of Heracleo-
DOUSSar se Never before had it happened that the first vessel of a
fleet had reached Sha-sehetep while its rear was at’’ some village
several miles downstream.
The army “returned by river and landed in Heracleopolis and
the city rejoiced over its lord, the son of its lord, women and men
together, old men and boys. The son of the lord reached the city and
entered his father’s court. He brought back those who had left home
and he buried those who had no sons—the Lord of the Two Lands,
King Mery-ka-Ré¢.”’ Unluckily, we are not told who was reigning
in Thebes at the moment, but we need not doubt that it was the
Horus Neter Hedjet Montu-hotpe.
Mery-ka-Ré¢ occupied the throne only a very few years more.
We know that he was buried at Memphis close to the pyramid of
King Teti, under another pyramid which he had named “‘the Seats
of Mery-ka-Ré¢ are Flourishing.”3 Its priesthood seems to have
existed for some time, for we know about half a dozen of its members.
Then, on the death of Mery-ka-R€¢, it is generally supposed now-
adays that the king of the Eloquent Peasant tale—Neb-kau-Ré¢
Akhtoy—ascended in his place and briefly reigned until Heracleopo-
lis finally succumbed to Thebes. 4
There need be no surprise at the fact that we know very little about
2 Brunner, op. cit., Tomb IV, 1.10.

3 Quibell, Saqgara, 1905-1906, Pls. XIII, XV; 1906-1907, Pl. VI; Firth and Gunn, Teti
Pyramid Cemeteries, pp. 187, 202, 257.
4 Scharff, Mertkaré, p. 51.
the war which ended the Heracleopolitan power some 185 years after
it began. The only contemporary evidence which we can find of it is
in the style by which the ruler of Thebes came to be known. At first
he had only two names, of which the second was written in a car-
touche,5 and in the cartouche was included the epithet “Son of Ré¢,”
as it had often been in the Sixth Dynasty. To this style the king
added next a prenomen, at first written possibly only “Hepet,” in
his very early graffito at Thebes, where one reads: ““The Horus Neter
Hedjet, King of Upper and Lower Egypt Hepet, Son of Ré¢ Montu-
hotpe.’’6 Later he writes his prenomen more fully, ““Neb-hepet-Rée’”7
and a “Two Goddesses” named identical with the Horus name is
added.
On the island of Konosso at the first cataract, there are two graffiti
which may well have been carved before Neb-hepet-Ré¢ had com-
pleted his conqust of the whole country.’ In each a figure of Min
stands between the goddess Satet and either Montu or Khniim, who
give him life; and in one of them, not content with the orthodox
Nine Bows to represent barbarians, the scribe has drawn fifteen.
Again in the Wady el Hammaméat there is a graffito of “The Son
of Ré¢ Montu-hotpe,” all in a cartouche, ‘‘beloved of Min of Koptos,
like Ré¢ eternally,’® On Sheikh Misa hill at Gebelein, a few miles
south of Erment, a chapel was set up to commemorate the erection
of the great door of some local temple and to celebrate one of the
ruler’s earliest triumphs.° On one block we see Neter Hedjet smiting
“the Prince of Libya Hedj-wawesh,” and on the other he slaughters
four helpless captives while he says he is “mastering the Chiefs of
the Two Lands, the South and the North, foreigners and the two
Nile banks, the Nine Bows and both Egypts.”’ Those upon whom he
vents his hate are a nameless captive—by some supposed to be an
Egyptian—the Setiu of Nubia, the Asiatic Setjetiu, and the Tjeheniu
of Libya.
In the city of Thebes so much was to be changed by later rulers
that we have practically nothing of the Eleventh Dynasty now on
® Bissing-Bruckmann, Denkmédler aegyptische Sculptur, Pl. 33, A.

§ Winlock, AJ SL, 1941, p. 146. See below, p. 77.
7 Louvre stela C252; Meyer, op. cit., par. 277; Winlock, 4 SL, 1915, p. 12.
® Lepsius, Denkméler, 11, Pl. 150b, c; De Morgan, op. cit., I, 71, No. 31, and p. 73, No. 44.
® Lepsius Denkmdler, II, Pl. 150d; Couyat et Montet, Inscriptions hieroglyphiques du Ouadi
Hammamat, No. 112.
% Bissing-Bruckmann, op. cit., Pl. 33, 4; Maspero, op. cit., p. 459; Breasted, 4R, Vol. Il,
par. 423H; Drioton and Vandier, op. cit., p. 235.
the eastern side of the river. Things were different in the city of the
dead on the west. The Cairo Museum possesses a stela from that
part of the cemetery where his ancestors were buried, bearing the
name of “the Horus Neter Hedjet, King of Upper and Lower Egypt
Neb-hepet-Ré¢ Mont[u-hotpe].””11
On this same western side of the river, at a point nearly 6 kilo-
meters southwest of the Montu femple on the east bank, a spot was
chosen at the foot of the great cliff and at the head of a valley south
of the Old Kingdom tombs (Pl. 33). Work was started to turn this
valley into a gigantic monument immediately on the ruler’s acces-
sion. The young prince, or his architects, planned a huge shield-
shaped court—in perfect keeping with the spirit of the days— with
its base toward the Montu temple at Karnak. At least 230 meters of
its eastern wall were built up of flint boulders gathered from the
desert, with an opening 45 meters wide at the valley head (Pl. 34).!2
How high and how long it was planned to make the wall we cannot
say, for the wall itself seems to have served as a quarry in the next
building-period of the reign, before its remains were totally buried.
It would seem, though, that most of it exists today, buried far under
the courtyard.
The change in plan was doubtless forced on the architect by the
enormous heaps of shale dug away from the hill to the south.
Whether or not it was planned at first to run a causeway from the
court directly toward the Montu temple, the idea was soon dropped
in favor of a structure oriented considerably farther to the south.
Early in the construction a level platform was dug in the shale at
the foot of the cliffs, and on top of this platform was laid out a row
of six cubical shrines above the pit tombs of six of the wives of Neb-
hepet-Rét—Mayet, ‘Ashayet, Sadeh, Kawiyet, Kemset and Hen-
henet. Their shrines!% stood in a row, modestly behind the site
intended for the ruler’s own monument, which as yet had not
been erected. .
A gap about 10 meters wide separated them into two sets of three
each, and each shrine was some 3 meters or less on a side. A single-
valved door in the east front of each shrine led to a narrow statue ©
chamber, with a false door at its back. The statues, presumably of

12 Winlock, Deir el Babri, p. 203, Pl. 3, and end papers.
18 Naville, XJ Dyn. Temple, 1, pp. 7, 30, 47, 53, Pls. XI, XII, XVII-XXIII; II, pp. 6-9,
Pls. XI-XX; III, p. 9, Pls. II, 111; Winlock, Deir el Babri, p. 35, Fig. 4.
wood, have scored the soft limestone floors deeply where they were
dragged in and out on festival days. The outside corners of each
shrine were embellished with an engaged lotus column; and the outer
walls were elaborately sculptured with very careful, but provincial,
reliefs.
On the front of each shrine the princess appears seated, watching
her butchers and her dairymen at work, or drinking with the king
while her servitors stand in a respectful row. One of the Queen
tAshayet’s household went by the popular name In-yotef; one of
Sadeh’s was called Hori; we know also of a Major-domo Ipyet; and
a Steward In-yotef is mentioned on the sarcophagus of Kawiyet.
On the other three sides of each shrine great bolts have been carved
to show that we are inside the palace with the royal pair, and the
inscriptions tell us that we are in the presence of “‘the King’s Be-
loved Wife, the King’s Only Favorite and the Priestess of Hat-Hor.”
The king’s crown has two feathers, shown as they were perhaps
originally worn, both rising up behind. At first the sculptures were
not painted; but later, when they were partly masked by the temple
wall, all that was exposed of each shrine was brightly colored.
The walls and columns of the temple halls above cross the pit
mouths or partly block up the chapel doors in a way which proves
that the princesses were all buried before any elaborate buildings
were erected. This is hardly surprising in the case of Mayet, who
was a mere child of five, and it is very little more so with the others,
the oldest of whom was scarcely more than twenty years of age when
she died and was buried.
Mayet—or Ta-mayet on her shrine perhaps—was buried in an
enormous, undecorated sarcophagus out of all proportion to her
minute size. (Ashayet, a woman in her early twenties, was buried
next to Mayet; and Sadeh was enterred beside her. To the south
Kawiyet, Kemset, and Henhenet were buried in that order—tAsha-
yet and Henhenet both being wrapped in sheets woven under the
direction of the Chancellor Akhtoy.
We have no sarcophagus for Sadeh; that of Henhenet is an un-
pretentious affair with a reused lid originally inscribed for Kawiyet;
that of Kawiyet was wonderfully carved outside, but a simple line
of painted inscription is all that it had inside; and that of ¢Ashayet
is beautifully carved outside and painted inside. Originally the finest
sarcophagus of all, however, was that of Kemset, carved and painted
outside and painted inside; and hers was the only tomb chamber to
be painted with a replica of the sarcophagus decorations around the

walls.
Both tAshayet and Henhenet probably had more than a little
Negro blood in their veins. Wax figures appear first in the tombs of
Kawiyet and Kemset—and we found them in the tomb of their con-
temporary, Neferu—as the oldest ancestors of the shawabtis which
were to become so numerous at a later date.
These women were really only a superior grade of concubine.
The actual royal wife of the king at the beginning of the reign was
Queen Neferu, who started to quarry a tomb in the neighborhood of
the king’s monument :at Deir el Bahri while the temple was being
laid out.
A little entrance court was dug into the desert shale on a level
with the vast graded space being planned in front of the king’s
temple, but before any of the surrounding walls had been built
around it.!14 This tomb court was lined with brick and a short corri-
dor led back into the cliff from it to a square chamber elaborately
decorated with curiously archaic reliefs. Behind the wall, in the
south west corner of this chapel, a passage led to a false grave cham-
ber, from the floor of which a lower corridor led to a doorway some
forty meters from the surface. This doorway was blocked with an
enormous sandstone slab. Once through this last door one found
himself in the decorated crypt with the sarcophagus standing in its
center bearing the name of the tomb’s owner. ‘““The Princess, the
King’s Eldest Daughter of his Body, the King’s Wife, Neferu, born
of Yoth,” was not only the daughter of King Setankh-ib-towi and
the full sister of Neb-hepet-Ré¢, but she had married the latter as
well. Other than some dozen wax and mud shawabtis in coffins
covered with linen palls, and a single string of beads dropped by a
thief, the entire place was empty of Eleventh Dynasty objects. Of
late mummies there was a disgusting stack.
At Dendereh, 15 however, possibly we meet Neferu again on the
stela of a Steward Khnum-erdu. There she seems to appear as Nef-
eru-kayet, ‘the King’s Favorite, Heiress of the South, the Daughter
of a King and beloved Wife of a King, who inherited from her «
mother” a vast fortune which made her “‘chief of the people from
14 Newberry, ZAS, 1936, p. 120; Winlock, Deir el Babri, pp. 56, 87, 101, Fig. 8, Pls. 13-14,
and end papers.
15 Griffith in Petrie, Dendereb, p. 52, Pl. XV; Lange and Schafer, op. cit., No. 20543; New-
berry, PSBA, 1913, p. 121, n. 20; ZAS, 1936, p. 119.
Elephantine as far as Aphroditopolis.” Khnum-erdu may well have

died early in the reign of Neb-hepet-Ré¢ when Aphroditopolis was
still the northern boundary of the South; but the queen herself could
easily have survived somewhat longer, finally to be buried in her
tomb just outside the king’s temple during its construction.
One cartouche of this Pharaoh has been found on a stone frag-
ment at Dendereh;16 but the most important monument of Neb-
hepet-Ré¢ discovered here is a little chapel dedicated to Hat-Hor,
Horus, Hor-akhty, and Min.” The sculptor, thinking of the distant
future, has shown the king as “true of voice,’ as though he were
already dead; but, as the work was intended to last for eternity, this
should not bother us.
Actually, he is very much alive, wearing the crown of Upper and
Lower Egypt, striking the entwined plants of the Two Lands with
an uplifted mace, while in front of him is written:!8 “The beloved of
Hat-Hor, Lady of Dendereh, the Son of Ré¢ Montu-hotpe, true of
voice,” and ‘Seizing the eastern lands, throwing down the hill-
countries, wading through the Nubians [to whom] the Negroes pay
tribute... . the Madoi and the land of Wawat; the Libyans and the
[Asiatics], by the Horus, Divine of Crown, the King of Upper and
Lower Egypt Neb-hepet”’ [Pl. 5]. Beneath his feet we see the Two
Lands being bound together by the Nile gods, behind whom stand
figures of the goddess Meret.
On one side wall ‘‘the Horus Neter Hedjet, beloved of Hat-Hor
Lady of Dendereh, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt Neb-hepet-
Ré¢, the Good God, Lord of the Two Lands, the Son of Ré¢ Montu-
hotpe”’ is seen; and on the opposite side, the king, followed by a fan-
bearer and again enthroned while he receives milk and food, is
shown in the company of the gods. The chapel would have just been
big enough for a statue, and the relief is fairly bold and very archaic,
like that at Gebelein and that on the little statue shrines in the
Eleventh Dynasty temple at Deir el Bahri.
The over eighty year long struggle between Thebes and Hera-
cleopolis was drawing to a close. The ninth year of Neb-hepet-Ré¢,
2052 B.c. had arrived in all likelihood. It was a bloody war between
soldiers like those represented in the incomparable models from
16 Petrie, Dendereh, Pl. XII.

™ Daressy, Annales, 1917, p. 226; Petrie, History, 1, p. 139; Evers, op. cit., Pl. 9.
18 A translation which | owe to the ever-co-operative Dr. Bull, who reads b m‘3 for “‘seizing’’;
rbny for “wading through” without preposition; w3.t for ““Wawat.”
the tomb of Mesehi of Asyiit, where the troops are marshaled

in companies of forty each.!9 Most soldiers in those days carried a
simple-long bow—the compound bow was a Hyksos introduction—
and a handful of arrows, for the quiver was curiously uncommon.
Some men were armed with battle-axes whose blades were lashed
into sockets in the wooden handles. A mace, or even a plain wooden
war-club, or very rarely a copper-tipped lance, was carried by others.
For protection soldiers carried a tremendous shield of bull’s hide. All
had mops of hair as thick as nature could provide, in place of a
helmet if they were to take part in the siege of a walled place.
About sixty of the soldiers who fell in battle against the North
were buried in one of the first of the tombs which overlook that of
Neb-hepet-Ré¢ himself, and from their bodies it is obvious that they
were slain assaulting a castle.2! Some must have been killed outright,
but others had only been wounded by the defenders atop the walls
and, when their companions fled, the garrison had descended, picked
up by their bushy hair those who still lived, and clubbed them to
death. They had lain out on the field long enough to be pecked at by
carrion birds. Then a second attack with a few more losses followed,
and Neb-hepet-Ré¢ had gained the victory, gathered up his dead,
and borne them off to lie near the burial place he was preparing for
himself up river in Thebes.
In their tomb at Thebes we unearthed them in 1926. We found
no written record of where these soldiers were slain, but the circum-
stances of their burial suggest that they were Thebans who fell in an
action which was of prime importance to their fellow townsmen.
Personally I would suggest that they were the killed at the taking
of the city of Heracleopolis.22 If so the striking fact is that only so
small a number had fallen in that whole siege. The conclusion
which follows on this assumption is that the population of the whole
of Egypt could have been but little more than 1,000,000 souls under
the Eleventh Dynasty, for here we have only sixty killed in what
their compatriots must have looked on as a very fierce and bloody
fight, whose consequences were the reunion of the land which had
been rent asunder by war for so long a time.
19 Porter and Moss, Bibliography, 1V, p. 265; Meyer, op. cit., par. 274.
2 Newberry, Beni Hasan, Vol. I, Pls. X1V-XVI; Vol. II, Pls. V, XV; Naville op. cit., Vol. I,
Pls. XI1b, X1Vd, f, XVc, d; Winlock, Detr el Babrt, pp. 72, 127, Pl. 20.
21 Winlock, Deir el Babri, p. 123, Pl. 19.
22 Winlock, The Slain Soldiers of Neb-hepet-Ré¢ Mentu-bhotpe, p. 23.
Il
THE RUPERS* OFFAL LSEGY PSI Nala

ELEVENTHED, NASILY
Before the year 2052 B.c. Thebes had been an independent town
for over eighty years under four different rulers. The first prince,
Seher-towi, had doubtless been the nomarch before he revolted and it
would seem that he could never have boasted full kingship. His son
Wah-tankh held the throne for almost half a century and added the
nome of Thinis with the sacred city of Abydos to his principality.
The youth of his son Neb-tep-nefer was gone in the extraordinarily
long reign of the father, and he had hardly ascended the steps of the
throne when he died to be succeeded by his son Setankh-ib-towi,
who was himself more than thirty years old. This first Montu-hotpe
was unlucky, however, for Abydos was lost to the Upper Egyptians
and the king did not long survive the set-back. Once more the throne
fell to a mere stripling, the Horus Neter-hedjet Montu-hotpe, who
was probably only about twenty at his accession but, attacking the
Heracleopolitan rulers in the north, he not only recovered Abydos,
but he took Asyit and finally about 2052 B.c. the capital city,
Heracleopolis, itself. So much we have already seen. Now for the
further story of Egypt.
1. NEB-HEPET-RE® MONTU-HOTPE, AS KING OF ALL EGYPT FROM

ABOUT 2052 TO 2010 B.C.
Details of the last years of the war between Thebes and Hera-
cleopolis are totally lacking; but victory for Thebes could not long
be delayed, and the Upper Egyptian leader, sure of triumph, took the
name of ““The Horus Sam-towi, He of the Two Goddesses Sam-towi,
the Golden Horus Ka-Shuti, King of Upper and Lower Egypt Neb-
hepet-Ré¢, the son of Ré¢ Montu-hotpe,’”! the full fivefold titulary
of a Pharaoh.
1 Lepsius, Denkmdler, Vol. II, Pl. 149, at Aswan, and Daressy, Annales, 1907, p. 244, from
Thebes, omitting the signs in the Golden Horus name; F. B[isson de la] R{[ocque], op. cit., p.
67; Naville, op. cit., |, p. 3; II, p. 21.
Both of the last two names were written within cartouches, while
in Thebes apparently only one had ever been so written before.
After all, “Sam-towi’”—Uniter of the Two Lands—was based on
historic fact even if it was the name used for a form of Horus.2
“Ka-Shuti’”—High of Plumes—was an epithet which also eminently
befitted him. But in many ways Montu-hotpe’s most important
change was in writing his prenomen henceforth always with the oar,’
instead of with its homophone, which was used in the same sacred
dance.‘ True, these changes have been used to prove that there were
two kings Montu-hotpe at this point in the Eleventh Dynasty; but
the tradition followed by the author of the Turin Papyrus calls for
but one, and that is followed here.
His eventual position as sovereign of all Egypt was conceded by
the scribe of the list of Karnak, who not only placed his name in
another part of the little chamber from those of his immediate fore-
fathers, but who gave him the style of “the Good God, Lord of the
Two Lands, King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of Offering, Neb-
hepet-Ré¢, the Justified.’”5 In the list drawn up for his tomb at
Sakkareh, Tenry names him as does King Séthy at Abydos.§ How-
ever, it is at the Ramesseum that his position is stated most strik-
ingly. There Menes, Neb-hepet-Ré¢ Montu-hotpe and Neb-pehti-
Ré¢ Ath-mose appear—the founders of the Old, the Middle, and the
New kingdoms.?
There are not very many cases of irregularly written royal names
after this period. The scribes seem to have learned rapidly how the
king’s names should be written, but at Abydos there was at least
one slip when some sculptor wrote “Long Live the Horus Sam-towi,
King of Upper and Lower Egypt, the Son of Ré¢ Montu-hotpe”’
without any prenomen.’ A grave stela in the Louvre which shows
very obvious traces of archaism in spite of the excellence of its
drafting has as a date the Horus and Two Goddesses names of the
king correctly written, but then it has “the King of Upper and Lower
2 Lanzone, Dizionario di mitologia egizia, p. 660.

3 Naville, op. cit., I, p. 4; II, Pl. VI, C. That this is an oar, and not an ox tongue, as has
been suggested by some, is also proved by its hieratic transcription in the Abbott Papyrus.
4 These two were always related as in the inscriptions of Hep-djefi, Griffith, Siut, p. 10, PI.
10, |. 12. See Gardiner, Grammar, pp. 487, 524; Farina, [1 Papiro det re, No. 16; Winlock, J/EA
1940 p. 116.
5 Prisse, Monuments, Pl. 1; Sethe, Urkunden, |V, p. 609.
6 Porter and Moss, op. cit., II, p. 192; VI, p. 25.
7 Lepsius, op. cit., Vol. III, Pl. 163.
8 Petrie, Abydos, Vol. II, Pl. XXIV.
Egypt, the Son of Ré¢ (in the cartouche) Montu-hotpe,” as one

would have written it in the first years of the reign.9
This comes from the stela of a sculptor, Yerti-sen born of Idet,
and his wife Hepu, who are shown with their sons Se’n-Wosret,
Montu-hotpe, and Si-Montu, their daughter Kem, and the latter’s
son, Tem-nen. Yerti-sen tells us that he knew “how to produce the
forms of going forth and returning . . . the movements of the image
of man and the carriage of a woman . . . . the poising of the arm to
bring the hippopotamus low, and the movements of a runner.....
No one succeeds in all this but only I and the eldest son of my body.”
One may well doubt whether all was as true to life as he thought, but
we can see in some of the sculpture of the reign a vast refinement
over the crude products of earlier Theban artists, and a promise of
better things to come.
Meantime, in spite of all these high-sounding claims, Neb-hepet-
Ré¢ had not yet won a complete victory. Eight graffiti at Abisko, on
the Nile some 27 or 28 kilometers south of Philae, have been left by
a certain Djehmau, which prove that the war dragged on.!° In the
best preserved, Djehmau says:
“T began to go to war as a soldier in the days of Neb-hepet-Ré¢
when he went up stream to Geben. We returned to the king after
traversing the entire land, and thought to kill the barbarians of
Djati who were holding the quarries against our raids. But they fled
and I overthrew them.”
In another graffito he tells not only of war in this same South but
also how in the North “they began the battle, going down stream
through the whole land,” chased by Djehmau, who “went northward
like a lion after the son of the king of Lower Egypt, with this his
host. Then died the enemy in the battle, for I was strong against
that which the North had done.” From which we may conclude that
Egypt did not quiet down immediately after Neb-hepet-Ré¢ took
on his high-sounding title of ““Uniter of the Two Lands.”
On the whole, it is best to mention only such objects as can be
assigned specifically to the reign of a certain king; but I cannot pass
over the stela of Montu-hotpe, son of Hapi, which can be dated by
its style and the high regnal year to this reign. On it we read, “Then
* Louvre C 14; Prisse, op. cit., Pl. VII; Maspero, TSBA, 1877, p. 555; Petrie, History, I,
p. 142.
” Roeder, Debod bis Bab Kalabsche, p. 103; Meyer, op. cit., par. 277; Drioton and Vandier,
op. cit., p. 252.
came a low Nile—Year 25,1! and we realize that even after the
ravages of civil war were long enough over to begin to be re
nature had stepped in to bedevil the Egyptians.
After this several years pass by without anything which can be
definitely dated. We know that Neb-hepet-Ré¢ celebrated a Sed
festival!2 and that it probably came in his 39th year,18 or in 2022 B.c.
That was just thirty years after he had united the Two Lands or had
gained that victory over the North which was considered sufficient
to assure a final triumph. At the time he celebrated this festival, he
had statues of himself carved in the curious, archaic dress which he
wore in the sacred ceremonies, to be placed not only under every
tree in his temple courtyard but even far down his causeway, and
two seated statues to be set up in the court itself.
Although he had at least started by this time to excavate a burial
place within the temple, nevertheless he had also begun to quarry
another gigantic tomb, the Bab el Hosan (PI. 34); and all that he
had to do to make this earlier sepulcher usable was to seal up the
unfinished chamber at the bottom of the pit and fill the latter.14
Then a third seated statue was bandaged up in fine linen and laid in
the chamber at the head of the filled pit beside an empty coffin (PI.
5), on which no one had seen fit to write the names; and two ducks,
two legs of beef, and a number of pots were laid near by. A little way
up the passage, in what may have been the start of a room for
models, a shawabti coffin was placed, inscribed with prayers to
Anubis and Osiris for offerings for ‘“‘the Good God Neb-hepet?....
the Son of Ré¢ Montu-hotpe.”’ The ceremonies being over, the tomb
entrance was filled level with the surface of the court, to remain
unseen for nearly four thousand years.
In the same thirty-ninth year!5 Neb-hepet-Ré¢ went up the Nile
to the foot of the rapids where the river rushed through the Gebel
Silsileh. His ship was moored at the mouth of the Shatt er Rigal be-
low, on the borders of To-seti, where Nubia then began.!6 There he
met his eldest son, ‘“The Divine Father, Beloved of the God, the
11 Vandier, La Famine dans l’ Egypte anctenne, p. 15.

12 Naville, op. cit., 1, p. 40.
18 Winlock, JEA, 1940, p. 118. See below page 40.
14 Carter, Annales, 1901, p. 201, Pls. 1, 2; Naville, op. cit., I, pp. 9, 26, Pl. XIIIg; Budge,
op. cit., Pl. VI; Bonnet, ZAS, 1925, p. 41; Drioton and Vandier, op. czt., p. 244; Evers, op. cit.
Pls. 12, 13, Fig. 54; Winlock, Deir el Babri, p. 130, Pl. 12.
15 See below page 63.
16 Meyer, op. cit., par. 1652.
Son of Rét, In-yotef Living Eternally,” and “‘the Treasurer of the

North, the Chancellor Akhtoy.”’ Neb-hepet-Ré¢ was accompanied
by “The King’s Mother whom he loves, Yoth” and by most of his
court, including Woser-oner, Sobk-hotpu, Heneni, Meket-Re¢,
Mahesa, Itu, Meru, Yay, Mery, Hepy, another Akhtoy, Sobk-
hotpe, and perhaps many another worthy whose name 1s lost.
His mother naturally, and his son more unexpectedly, did not sur-
vive long afterward. Yay was doubtless buried in a tomb prepared
in the days of her husband in the cemetery of the old In-yotef kings.
Prince In-yotef probably was laid away in a large tomb close to the
inner inclosure wall of Neb-hepet-Ré¢’s own temple,!” where some-
one scratched above it “‘In-yotef given life’’ several times (PI. 38A).
Two years after the Shatt er Rigal expedition we find written at
Aswan “Year 41, under Neb-hepet-Ré¢, came the King’s Chancellor
and Chief Treasurer Akhtoy, born of Sit-Ré¢ justified, with ships of
Wawat....,’ and again “Year 41, under the King of Upper and
Lower Egypt Neb-hepet-Ré¢, Living Like Ré¢ Eternally; I was Con-
troller in the Eastern Heliopolitan nome and a royal confidant in
Abydos, the Count Mery-tety.’18 Some years ago Newberry and |
searched unsuccessfully for the first of these graffiti but could not
find it. Without doubt it was swamped in the growing town of
‘Aswan between the visits of Petrie and de Morgan, the latter of
whom does not give it.
Then, some five years later, Chancellor Meru died in the forty-
sixth year of the now aging king, and five years later still the
latter’s own death took place.
Unfortunately, we know no details of the wars around the fringes
of the Delta with the ‘Amu and the Mentiu, perhaps with Libyan
aid.20 Even of matters nearer home we know very little. On a stela in
New York?! a certain Matet remarks that “the King’s Confidant
and Overseer of the Treasury Bebi—to him are my possessions,” by
which he may well intend to bequeath them. This same Bebi may
well be a man whom we know, possibly at a slightly later date, as
the Vizier Bebi who is shown in the temple of Deir el Bahri.22
Naville, Archaeological Report, 1894-95, p- 35.

18 Petrie, Season, Pl. VIII, Nos. 213, 243, De Morgan, Catalogue, I, p.3'7, No. 151; Maspero,
op. cit., p. 462; Breasted, AR, I, § 426; Winlock, Deir el Babri, p. 117.
'* Lanzone, Catalogo, p. 117; Farina, I] Regio Museo di Torino, p. 13, Pl. 40. °
0 Naville, op. cit., I, p. 5, Pl. XIV; Petrie, ELgStorgy, palate
*t MMA 14.2.7; Winlock, AJSL, 1915, p. 15, No. 2.
2 Davies, Five Theban Tombs, p. 309. :
Of the reign there are several grave stelae which cannot be accu-
rately placed in any particular year. Among the most interesting—
and probably among the earliest after Neb-hepet-Ré¢ adopted the
newer writing of his name—are three bearing the name of “‘the
Prince and Count, the Chancellor of the King of Lower Egypt ....
In-yotef son of Mayet,’ now in London, Berlin, and Copenhagen.
The first?3 enumerates the property “consisting both of what was
my own by right and of what Neb-hepet-Ré¢ gained for me, so
greatly did he love me’’; asks for pure bread in the temple of Montu
and tables of offerings in that of Osiris; and recounts the terms of a
contract made with two priests, Nakhtiu and In-yotef, for the care
of the dead man’s soul. The other stelae mention how he “‘had found
the tomb-chapel of the Count Nekhti-oker’’—his forefather prob-
ably—“‘ruined . . . . and no one thinking of it. Therefore | had it
built up anew ... . so that my name should be beautiful on earth
and my memory good in the grave.”
Two other ‘undated stelae are those of a certain Akhtoy, who
lived under some King Montu-hotpe, doubtless Neb-hepet-Reé¢.24
One tells how Akhtoy “inspected the mineral country” of Sinai. “I
punished the Asiatics in their land. It was the fear of [the king] that
spread respect for me and his influence that spread terror of me, so
that those countries in which I went cried out ‘Hail, Hail! to his
might.” If we believe what he has to tell us of his accomplishments,
Egypt owed much of its control of the mines of Sinai to him.
Of miscellaneous antiquities bearing the name of a King Montu-
hotpe, but doubtless from this reign, one runs across mention of a
limestone fragment which was in Berlin some sixty years ago, a bit
of painted limestone in Miramar near Trieste, and the head of a
statue in the Vatican.25 There was also the stela of one In-yotef-
nakhte, found in the In-yotef Cemetery at Thebes and which prob-
ably belongs to this reign, with a mention of “the house of Akhtoy,”
against which the Thebans had been at war for so long a time.”
Building, even after Neb-hepet-Ré¢ had become ruler of the entire
land, was apparently lavished mainly on that part of Egypt which
lies from the cataract to Abydos. Of course, one must admit that
23 Peet, Liverpool Annals of Archaeology, 1914-1916, p. 82. Earlier bibliography of all three
in Winlock, 4/SL, 1915, pp. 5,18.
24 Gardiner, J/EA, 1917, p. 28.
2 Wiedemann, Agyptische Geschichte, p. 229.
this statement is very largely based on a mere lack of monuments in

the North, but it would hardly be unnatural if the ruler of the South
devoted all his wealth to his own, native land.
The little town of T6d is some 30 kilometers up river from Thebes
and on the same, eastern bank of the Nile.27 A small and ancient
brick chapel with granite pillars, dedicated to the Bull of Montu, had
existed there at least since the Fifth Dynasty. Now it was rebuilt
for the hawk-headed Montu and his wife Tenenet. It was some 17 x
23 meters in plan and of sandstone and limestone, and housed a red
granite statue. The monolithic columns were inscribed “The King
of Upper and Lower Egypt Neb-hepet-Ré¢, beloved of Montu Lord
of Téd,” or, in the same way, “The Son of Ré¢ Montu-hotpe.”’ Its
roof was of sandstone, and so were three door frames with two or
three lines of inscription across the tops and two columns down the
jambs. Chapel walls had scenes showing the king standing before
Montu and the goddesses Satet, Nekhbet, and Néit of Sais, or
Montu and his wife Tenenet crowning Neb-hepet-Ré¢ King of Up-
per Egypt. Most important of all was a relief showing Neb-hepet-
Ré¢ and his three In-yotef ancestors making offerings to the local
deity. All the reliefs are vigorous but rustic, which is probably not
so much due to their coming from a temple in a small town like Tod
as to their belonging to this reign.
Across the Nile, opposite T6d on the western bank of the river at
Erment, part of a door lintel was unearthed some years ago in-
scribed “Long Live the King of Upper and Lower Egypt Neb-hepet-
Ré¢ the Son of Ré¢ Montu-hotpe, given life.’’28
In the town of Thebes were the Montu temple and a temple of
Osiris,22 possibly on the site of the little shrine built southeast of
that of Montu. It is doubtful whether anything of either is now
extant. An extraordinarily crude offering-table was dedicated in
Thebes by Neb-hepet-Ré¢ to the Lord of Abydos;30 and another
altar had inscribed upon it two figures of the Nile gods making
offerings and the name of ‘“‘the Horus, Sam-towi, Neb-hepet-Rér,
the Son of Ré¢ Montu-hotpe.’’8! This paucity of monuments in the
city itself can only be due to the repeated rebuilding of the temples
7 F. Blisson de la] R[oquel, op. ci., pp. i, 10, 14, 25, 62-79.
28 Newberry, PSBA, 1903, p. 362.
9 Winlock, 4JSL, 1915, p. 5, n. 2.
30 Kemal, Tables d’offrandes, No. 23007.
51 Chabas in Congrés oriental, St. Etienne, 1, p.78. Probably another offering table is Wilkin-
son MSS, V, 1828, p. 156.
of Montu and Osiris, the earliest traces now visible being centuries
later. The temple of Amin,of course, could have existed as a well-
built stone structure only after Amun-em-hét I.
At Deir el Ballas, on the west bank of the Nile about opposite
Koptos on the east, there had probably been a village of potters
from the days of the Old Kingdom. In any case, its inhabitants were
very poor people, who could not support sculptors of any ability;
and it must have been from the outside that men were sent to build a
shrine and carve a relief of “The King of Upper and Lower Egypt
Neb-hepet-Ré¢ making offerings” to some god.32
Along the great westward sweep of the river at Dendereh people
died and were buried during this reign, as they had been for centuries
before.88 The styles of their tombs had not changed for ages, and
they built paneled brick mastabas with a sort of bin outside for
offerings, or with chambers inside narrow enough to be roofed with
long brick vaults. Even the names of those buried here belong to the
period—Bebi, In-yotef, In-yotef, the Elder, In-yotef-oker, and
Montu-hotpe, among many others. One bit of relief probably names
Sefankh-ib-towi Montu-hotpe I, and another was doubtless from
an early monument of Neb-hepet-Ré¢ Montu-hotpe II. Also, a seal
of characteristically ancient cylinder form was found here, inscribed
with the names of ““The King of Upper and Lower Egypt Neb-hepet-
Ré¢e’ and of Hat-Hor.34
Still farther along the river, at the much-fought-over border of
earlier days and on the desert edge, was Abydos, of which Neb-
hepet-Ré¢ thought highly. To judge from some occurrences of his
name, he began to build there very soon after his assumption of the
Horus name Sam-towi.%5 The shrine of Osiris, as King Pepi had left
it two and a half centuries earlier, was still more or less intact. Two
rough red-granite altars were now set up on either side of one en-
trance to the temenos; some brick walls of the early structure were
replaced with stone; a shrine for the king’s statue was erected; and
a portico, with columns of varying sizes in the same row, was built.
The new walls themselves were of soft, brown sandstone; and one
chamber was decorated with texts calling for “thousands of all pro-
visions for the statue of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt Neb-
32 | utz, Egyptian Tomb Steles, Pl. 32.

33 Petrie, Dendereh, p. 19.
34 Weigall, Annales, 1911, p. 170.
35 Petrie, Abydos, II, pp. 14, 33, 43, Pls. XXIV, LIV.
hepet-Ré¢’” or announcing that it was “King Montu-hotpe who

made this as his monument.” Those interested will find Wep-wawet,
Khenty-amentiu, Horus, Khnum, Thot, and An-htret shown here.
Down river from Abydos one must go to Hat-ntib for further
traces which can be assigned to this reign with any likelihood, and
even here we have no absolute proof that we are dealing with monu-
ments of the reign of Neb-hepet-Ré¢. As in all northern Egypt, no
one wanted to write the name of a southern king until after the
Twelfth Dynasty had moved to It-towy.
Thus it happens that we actually know that the brother of the
Nomarch Tehuti-nakhte II of el Bersheh, and perhaps the nomarch
himself, was alive in the thirty-first year of Se’n-Wosret I, about
1940 B.c.36 Four generations earlier, Nehri | had succeeded to the
nomarch’s position; and, allowing a quarter of a century to each
generation of nomarchs, we should have this Nehri ascending to his
position well within Neb-hepet-Ré¢’s reign, somewhere around
2040 B.c. Who, if anyone, was working the quarries before this time
we do not know. In the Twelfth Dynasty it was in most cases the
Pharaohs themselves.
At Heracleopolis it is perhaps not surprising to find no trace of
any temple earlier than the Twelfth Dynasty. There can be little
doubt that not only was everything destroyed when the town finally
fell but that, even when the descendants of Amun-em-hét I rebuilt
the gods’ houses, they chose entirely different places for their
shrines.37
Before Neb-hepet-RE¢ united the Two Lands he had started to
build his mortuary temple under the western cliffs at Thebes on a
scale larger than that of any of his ancestors (PI. 34), but up to the
time of his conquest of the North he had got no further than the
erection of a great field-stone wall across the front of its court and
the building of the six small shrines over the six burial pits for his
wives. The entire plan underwent a number of changes after the
conquest of the North, and these changes went on progressively for
the next two score years.
The first task was to lay out a causeway about 70 cubits wide
down to the cultivation, starting from a gap left in the original east,
boulder wall of the temple court. When all the grading was eventu-
3° Anthes, Hatnub, p. 76; Baly, JEA, 1932, p. 173.

37 Petrie, Ehnasya, p. 3, Pl. IV.
ally finished, this avenue was walled in on either side with cut stone
to match the walls around the court above, and it was paved with
unbaked bricks plastered over with mud.88 The Memphite scheme
of a roofed-in causeway had no echo in Thebes. At the temple site
the desert valley was filled as the mountain was cut into; and after
the levels had been established, about a dozen holes were dug in a
line to mark its axis and in each hole were deposited flat triangular
loaves of bread.3® Then, some ten paces north of this line—and
perhaps again an equal distance south—a calf was slaughtered as a
sacrifice for the soul of Neb-hepet-Ré¢. The line thus established as
an axis was not at right angles to the boulder wall, which may have
been already buried; and, once these deposits had sanctified the spot,
they in turn passed out of everyone’s memory.
The east wall of the court being buried deeply, a new wall was
now built more than 4o meters farther west at its southern end (PI. 34)
but having its northern end at practically the same spot as that end
of the original wall.40 A great shield-shaped court, about 450 cubits
wide at its base, was then laid out and surrounded by a rough field-
stone wall against the desert cutting, inside which was dug a trench
for a limestone girdle wall with a sandstone base. To what extent
this wall was built we shall never know, but we did find a few stones
still in place with saw marks on them which show that the wall itself
was at least partly erected. Later in the reign it was almost entirely
removed.
It was doubtless at this stage of the building operations that the
plan for the terrace where the six tombs of the princesses stood#!
was finally developed (PI. 6). Foundation deposits were laid in the
lower court at the four corners, beginning with the northwestern
one.42 When the party laying them was passing the northeastern
corner, someone carelessly stepped on one of the newly moulded and
soft bricks, which contained samples of materials for building the
temple; and at the southwestern corner all the mud left over from
making bricks was dumped into the hole on top of the dirt covering
the food offerings.
Then came the stonecutters to build a revetment around the plat-
38 Winlock, Deir el Bahri, pp. 9, 72, 203, and end papers.

39 [bid., p. 101.
40 [bid., end papers.
42 Winlock, op. cit., p. 51, Pl. 5.
form, and eventually others to lay out the court in front and along-
side the platform with stones marked in ink: “House of the Ka.’’48
Bricklayers now erected outside this stone wall an equally high and
white plastered outer wall and a low outermost wall, both in straight
lengths where it had at first been intended to build the curved stone
wall. Postern gates to the north and south were inscribed with the
king’s five-fold titulary, and doubtless also the main entrance in the
thicker pylon to the east was decorated in the same way.
In the court itself the surface was now graded and leveled to
stones in the ground like bench marks on which surveyors’ rods
could be set temporarily
;44 and finally, undoubtedly on the occasion
of Neb-hepet-Ré¢’s Sed festival, the alley of sycamore-fig trees—
four on each side of the avenue—were planted in great pits filled
with Nile mud. Behind these were groves of little tamarisk trees,
planted either at the same time as the sycamores or possibly at that
later day when the king was buried.45
The temple itself was called ‘“Akh-eswet,” or, more fully, “Glorious
are the Abodes of Neb-hepet-Ré¢.’’46 A close inspection shows that,
as finally finished, it had undergone innumerable changes in its
plan.47 In the end it had an unroofed space some 5 meters wide on
top of the platform along its north side. Next came the temple itself,
and in its forest of piers and eight-sided columns on the platform
there seems to have been built a pyramid in front of the already
erected shrines. Obviously, this pyramid was not contemplated as
eventually built, for great economies could have been made if a
core of native rock had been left where the structure was finally set
up. Possibly a chamber inside the pyramid like that of the king’s
great-grandfather Wah-tankh was at first planned, but it was never
built.
Perhaps the thick girdle wall around the hypostyle hall, above
whose roof the pyramid must have projected, was in the beginning
thought of as forming enough of a chapel, but the plan adopted
finally called for a peristyle court to the west and another hypostyle
hall beyond that. To get to these last a door, which was off center a
whole intercolumniation, was located in the back wall so that one’s
43 Naville, op. czt., I, p. 19, n. 1, and p. 37.

Diels (ob A), Gn WAR By Go
‘© Maspero, op. cit., p. 482; Lange and Schafer, of.cit., No. 20088; Naville, op. cit., I, p. 10.
“Naville, op. cit., 1, pp. 27 ff., II, Pls. I, XXI, XXIII, XXIV; Bonnet, ZAS, 1925, Pp. 40.
THE RULERS OF ALL EGYPT IN THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY Al
path was a bit cater-cornered as he crossed the peristyle. In this

newest part of the temple the pavement was of limestone and the
walls were of sandstone, except for the high, beautifully sculptured
screen around the altar at the back. Probably the little niche at the
rear of the temple was for a statue of the king, and one should not
forget that it was in this neighborhood that Lord Dufferin excavated
and that it is said that in his collection there was a statue of Neb-
hepet-Ré¢.48
An interesting point is that, with the pyramid placed in the middle
of the hypostyle hall and with the cramped aisles between the col-
umns and the narrow doorways, there is absolutely no provision for
the procession of the Barque of the god Amiin.’9 Furthermore, it is
interesting to see how ill-adapted the whole structure is for pro-
cessions and how poorly planned for a resting place of the Barque.
Later, after the Twelfth Dynasty instituted the pilgrimage of the
god when Amun-em-hét I had assumed the crown, Deir el Bahri
became the scene of this new pageantry. Amun-em-hét was pro-
foundly affected by the plan of the temple at Deir el Bahri, however,
and his pyramid at Lisht is placed upon a terrace with its original
chapel a small affair of brick below its eastern side.
At first it was proposed to quarry an enormous tomb close under
the northern stone wall of the court, and bricks were laid out to mark
the outline of its entrance. For some reason this plan was aban-
doned, and the tomb was actually excavated on the axis of the court
then being laid out. The entrance of this tomb, known to-day as
the Bab el Hosdan, was cut a few yards south and east of the site
first chosen, with an underground passage planned to bring its cham-
ber under the pyramid, some 140 meters to the west. As we have
seen, this tomb was used for a statue at the Sed festival in 2022 B.c.,
and the king had already begun to quarry still another tomb whose
entrance was in the peristyle court of his temple (Pl. 34). In this
latter tomb Neb-hepet-Ré¢ was presumably buried.
Here there was a descending passage some 150 meters long and
absolutely straight, with a granite sarcophagus chamber at the
bottom. The shale through which the passage descended grew more ~
and more threatening, and some 50 meters from the entrance to
48 Naville, op. czt., I], p. 21, Pl. X.

49 See below page go.
50Naville, op. cit., II, pp. 4,5, 18, 21, Rise Ville xox yon peo LVERVol antl pps 245 35
Pl. XIX, where it is mistakenly called ‘‘the Ka-sanctuary.”
the chamber it was shored up with great blocks of purplish, Aswan

sandstone laid in a primitive arch. The chamber at the bottom with
its alabaster sarcophagus was empty when Naville found it, except
for broken model boats, wooden heads resembling those from canopic
jars, broken canes, scepters and bows.
A college of mortuary priests to serve the cult of Neb-hepet-Ré¢
was appointed at an early date and functioned throughout the
Twelfth Dynasty at least.51 One was entitled “Chief Lector of the
Pyramid Temple of Excellent are the Abodes of Neb-hepet-Ré¢ and
Prophet of the Horus Sam-towy,” and held office in the Twelfth
Dynasty.®2
Whether the tomb was robbed during the time of the Hyksos
invasion it is hard to say. If it was, some attempt was surely made
to put things in order inside and it must have been sealed up again,
for in the reign of Ramesses XI the committee which investigated
the tombs reported that it was intact. Their findings, recorded in
the Abbott Papyrus, were that “the pyramid of King Neb-hepet-
Ré¢, L.P.H., the Son of Ré¢ Montu-hotpe, L.P.H.,in Djeser. It was
uninjured.’’58 Whether or not that finding was right it must have
seemed so from the outside, but the tomb was completely gutted
ages before it was found by Naville. He discovered it robbed of
everything of value by thieves who had scattered its furnishings
about the chamber and the corridor when they did not remove them
bodily.
There were some twenty-two graves in the temple, of which three
were unfinished
;54 four were for men, and twelve were for women,
as were probably the three remaining ones.
One of the men was named “‘Si-Yoth, son of Ren-oker,” and his
shawabti figure was found near his burial place in the south triangu-
lar court.55 Two pits in the northern triangular court belonged to
men, one of whom was middle-aged with remarkably abcessed
shins.56 A fourth pit was that of the Treasurer Montu-hotpe, nick-
named “‘Bewau,” with its chamber apparently under the Hat-Hor
shrine of Hat-shepsit. He had a bead collar, a gilt headrest, a pair
51 See below page go.

52 | ange and Schafer, Grab- und Denksteine, 20088.
53 Breasted, AR, lV, par. 520. Peet, Tomb Robberies, |, p. 39.
54 Naville, op. c#t., pp. 43, 47, pits 1, 6, 8.
® [bid., p. 51, pit 13, where it is dated wrongly; Winlock, Deir el Bahri, p. 56.
56 Pits 24 and 27. Naville probably saw most, if not all, of the pits in this court but did not
bother to make any record of them (Archaeological Report, 1895-96, pp. 2-3).
of sandals, a so-called “mirror handle,” a model granary, baking
shop and butchery, two boats, and two pairs of offering bearers.5?
In the case of the women buried within the temple precincts, all
the tombs were plundered except one found by Grébaut,®8 doubtless
in the very northernmost corner of the north triangular court. That
one belonged to the “King’s Favorite, Amiinet,” her body tatooed
and her neck loaded with necklaces and bead collars. On her band-
ages were the names, not only of the “King of Upper and Lower
Egypt, the Son of Ré¢ Montu-hotpe,” but of his daughter Ideh and
his ladies Ménet, Tenenet, and Tem, and dates in his twenty-eighth,
thirty-fifth, and forty-second years. Aminet and another concubine,
named As, were depicted in temple reliefs with others of their kind.
Tem was the queen buried in the largest of the tombs, dug in the
extreme south western corner of the temple, where one may still see
her gigantic alabaster sarcophagus. On this sarcophagus there was
once painted her name and the titles “Beloved Wife of the King”
and “Mother of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt,” since washed
off by rain water which got down into the chamber after the tomb
was opened.® Obviously she was a principal wife of Neb-hepet-Rér,
and since she was also a king’s mother necessarily she bore the suc-
cessor of Neb-hepet-Ré¢ on the throne, Setankh-ka-Ré¢.
In two tombs we found women tatooed all over their bodies®!
and they and the other women each appear to have had one or two
model boats and possibly granaries or bakeries.62 One of the most
extraordinary finds was an alabaster pot-stand with vultures and
hawks carved in openwork all around it, part of which was found by
Naville and more by us, and all presented to the British Museum.
Occasionally there were traces of a stucco mask; a few burials had
limestone sarcophagi or they had bits of wooden coffins ;§4 and in
two or three cases we found straws from the magic broom with
which the footsteps of the burial party were erased.®
57 Cairo Museum Livre d’Entrée, Nos. 31342-51, 54; Naville, Archaeological Report, 1895-
96, p. 3; XI Dyn. Temple, I, pp. 14, 44; Lacau, Sarcophages, No. 28027. ;
588 Daressy, Sphinx, XVII, p. 99; Lacau, op. cit., Nos. 28025-26; Winlock, Detr el Babri, p. 85. :
59 Naville, XI Dyn. Temple, Vol. 1, Pl. XVII, B; II, p. 6.
60 Maspero, ZAS, 1883, p. 77; Trois années de fouilles, p. 134; Struggles of the Nations, p.
240, n. 3; Naville, XI Dyn. Temple, 1, p. 51; I, pp. 3, 21, Pl. VIII.
61 Pits 23 and 26 (Winlock, Deir el Babri, pp. 74, 120).
82 Pits 2, 3, 4, 5, 20, 22, 23, 26, 29 (Naville, XJ Dyn. Temple, I, p. 43 ff., 111. p.24, Pl. XX).
63 [bid., |, p. 46, Pl. X.
CAP its=45 155.20), 22, 20, 20.
8 Pits 21, 23, 27, and the tombs of Wah and Hesem (Winlock, Deir el Babri, p. 55, Pl. 14).
A4 THE MIDDLE KINGDOM IN THEBES
In addition to these pit tombs of the wives and a few of the
courtiers of Neb-hepet-Ré‘, we know of three burial places of rela-
tives of the king and have noted them already. The tomb of the
mother of Neb-hepet-Ré¢ was doubtless near that of his father
Setankh-ib-towi; the tomb of his wife Neferu was beside the King’s
own temple: and that of In-yotef, his oldest son, we have already
stated was between Neb-hepet-Ré¢’s own tomb and that of Neferu
who conceivably could have been his mother.
The Deir el Bahri Valley was parceled out among the nobles like
a gigantic saff. On the southern side was the porticoed tomb of ‘‘the
Prince, Count, Royal Chancellor, Treasurer, Superintendent of the
Pyramid City .... Dagi,’”’ who bore a host of other titles, to which
that of Vizier was eventually added.§7 Across the ‘Asasif Valley
were ten tombs without porticoes, but otherwise just as big and
magnificent as Dagi’s. That of the Chancellor and Chief Treasurer
Akhtoy & was to the west, and that of the Treasurer Meru to the
east ; 6 and between them were the others, three bearing the names,
respectively, of the Steward Henenu, the Treasurer Hor-hotpe,”
and the Vizier Ipi.71 Akhtoy held his position almost as long as the
king reigned, for his name is found on bandages of ‘Ashayet and on
those of Amiinet. Bebi, a judge and a vizier,”2 may have been buried
in another of these great tombs.
From the tombs of such grandees, but more especially from the
smaller burial places, we found the names of many a contemporary.
Those of Montu-hotpe and In-yotef we naturally expect at this
time. The name Henenu we find for both men and women; and for
the latter we get Heni, Hetepi, It, It-sonbe, Meryet, Nebet-yu-net,
Nebet-yotef, and Sit-Ishtek. Men’s names include Dedu, Hapy,
Hetep, Hetepi, Hesa, Anhur-hotpe, Ihy, Magegi, Neb-yotef, Neb-
seni, Nefer-hotep the Bowman, Nesu-oker, Pepi, Si-Hapi, Sobk-
hotpe, and Sobk-nakhte.78
86 See above, page 27.

87 Davies, Five Theban Tombs, p. 28, Pls. XXIX-XX XVIII, who mistakenly believed there
were two Dagis; Naville, XJ Dyn. Temple, |, p. 6; B.M. 43123.
8 Winlock, Deir el Babri, Index, Fig. 7, Pls. 15, 16, 36.
6 [bid., pp. 118, 123, Pl. 15; Lepsius, op. cit., Pl. 148.
7 Tomb No. 314. Winlock, Deir el Babri, pp. 55, 57, 123; Lacau, op. cit., No. 28023.
1 Winlock, Deir el Babri, pp. 55, 98, 123, 227, Fig. 6.
™ Naville, XI Dyn. Temple, 1, p. 7; Newberry, quoting a stone in the temple, kindly in-
formed me that Bebi was a vizier.
78 Winlock, Deir el Babri, pp. 55, 72, Pls. 14, 35; Carnarvon and Carter, Five Years’ Explora-
tions, p. 89, Pl. LXXV.
Probably the most interesting lot of names, however, were those

written on the bandages of the soldiers buried together, about 2052
B.c.74 The names Aminy and Se’n-Wosret we find here at least two
generations before the Twelfth Dynasty had made them popular.
Names compounded with that of the god Sobk we find more than
two centuries earlier than any king who bore one—Sobk-nakhte,
Sobk-hotpe, and Sobk-Ré. In-yotef, In-yotef-oker, Montu, Shemay,
and Si-Ip were other names on the bandages of these soldiers. Finally,
on stones of the temple we read the names of the Treasurers Nakhte,
Mesi, Kereri, Ipyet, and of another Akhtoy.”5
The tomb of Dagi76 was cut in the northern end of the Sheikh
‘Abd el Kurneh hill where the rock is so shattered by faulting that
the portico was at least partly roofed with wood and the chapel was
lined with masonry. The burial chamber seems never to have been
finished; and the sarcophagus, carved before Dagi became vizier,
was placed in a room out of all keeping with the pretentious front
part of the tomb.
Across the valley the tomb of Akhtoy, both for its own sake and
for that of its owner, was celebrated at least down to the reign of
Ramesses II.77 One climbed up a high ramp with walls on either
hand to the tomb, which had a couple of rows of terra-cotta cones
across its top to represent the butt ends of roofing logs.78 In the mid-
dle of the brick steps was set a granite offering-table so that the
passerby might pour a drink or leave a loaf of bread even when the
tomb door was sealed. When it was open, one went along an elabo-
rately sculptured corridor to a chapel decorated with paintings.
However, rarely was the entire public part of a tomb decorated,
and, when such an old fashioned person as “the Superintendent of
the Harim, Djar”’ did have his tomb painted, the effect was of
extraordinary crudeness.”? Others simply set big, limestone stelae in
the walls of the passages and, if they were as rich as Henenu, they
had as many as four.
Beyond the tomb chapel there never seemed to be anything; but
the thieves of the tomb of Akhtoy broke down the back wall, passed

7 Naville, XI Dyn. Temple, I, p. 6.
76 Davies, Five Theban Tombs, p. 28.
7 Winlock, Deir el Babri, p. 68, Fig. 7, Pls. 15, 16; Steindorff and Wolff, op. Giien p20)
Brunner, Die Anlagen der Agyptischen Felsgraber, pp. 70, 87.
% Jbid., p. 204, Fig. 11, Pl. 17.
through two false burial chambers, and finally from the second
chamber descended a passage which returned under itself to the
actual crypt. There one was in a chamber lined with masonry elabo-
rately decorated, with its sarcophagus hidden away under the floor.
The men cutting the tomb of Hor-hotpe ran into badly faulted
rock and cut a new corridor below the chapel, at the end of which
they quarried a decorated chamber. Meru was buried behind the
decorated chamber on the level of the corridor,8! but most tombs
were far simpler and more like that of Ipi the Vizier.®2
Some tombs had but one crypt, while others had as many as a
score and seem to have been the graves of several generations of
middle-class persons. Still others, like those of the soldiers or of
other privileged servitors of the court, were catacombs with as many
as ten burial chambers, all of the same period.83
Statues of wood we found everywhere, but they did not always
have a stone base as in the tomb of Akhtoy. In that tomb we found
traces of five others as well, some small enough to be called statu-
ettes.84 In some three cases a special tomb was provided for such
effigies above the entrance to the main burial place, and in that of
Nefer-hotep the Bowman we found two little squatting figures.85
In three cases limestone statues have survived—two of the Steward
Meri (one with its arms crossed over its chest and the other with its
hands on its knees), and a third of a certain Oker, in a position like
the first, from the hillside north of the ‘Asdasif.86 The base of a statue
of Montu-nakhte, dated to this reign by its inscription, and a num-
ber of stelae were found years ago in this neighborhood by the
Italians.87
One curious custom, which was continued at Thebes for centuries,
was the placing of great jars of the materials used in the preparation
of the body for the tomb in a little chamber near by—extra salts
and bandages, the table used in mummification, pottery, and the
magic instruments for ceremonies performed over the dead. Such
material was thought of as too unclean to be left in the actual burial
80 | acau, op. cit., No. 28023.
$1 Lepsius, op. cit., Vol. II, Pl. 148.
82 Winlock, Deir el Bahri, p. 54, Fig. 6.
83 Winlock, Soldiers, p. 3, Pl. II.
Oe Meptehey (Os TROT A A,
SUibid anPeon ea se
8° B.M., Third and Fourth Egyptian Rooms (1904), p. 92; Hall and King, Egypt and Western
Asia, p. 320; Carnarvon and Carter, op. cit., p. 23, Pl. XVIII.
*% Schiaparelli, Museo Archaeologico di Firengi, Nos. 1710, 1767, 1770, 1773, 1774.
place but as impregnated with so much of the essence of the dead

person that it was a good ideato bury it not too far from the body.
Thus at the tomb of the Vizier Ipi we found some sixty-seven large
jars in which all that was left over had been buried near Ipi himself,’
and again much the same things were found near Meket-Rét’s tomb
of the next reign.
Offerings of food placed in the tombs were real heads, legs, and
ribs of beef; or there were models of women bringing baskets of pro-
visions and of butcheries and bakeries where they were prepared. In
order that the soul should not have to stay forever in the grave, ship
models were provided for his voyages. The Thebans belonged to a
generation which had just ended nearly a century of war,8? and the
long bow and arrows were found in most tombs. Sometimes there
were a dozen bows and more than twelve dozen arrows, though six
or twelve of the latter seem to have been usually considered enough.
Only two quivers were found—light wooden cylinders covered with
leather—and bow strings of twisted gut were occasionally found,
coiled up, ready for use. We found one arrow, probably for shooting
small birds, with a linen button. Along with the bow and arrows a
leather shield—or eight in the case of a man like Akhtoy—and some-
times staves, throwsticks, and a rare ax handle were discovered.
Occasionally a doll, flat like a paddle and with blobs of mud on
threads for hair, may have been buried with a child, especially in
those cases where we found only one and that one sadly worn. Buf
when ten dolls, all new and only a bit fly-specked, were discovered,
they were probably concubines. And this held when only one or two
red-baked-clay or blue-glazed toys of this sort were buried with a
grown-up man, as they were with Nefer-hotep the Bowman.®!
Model tools (omitting a real chisel mislaid by a tomb-cutter)%”
and model donkey panniers of cord were sometimes found. Scribes’
inkwells and papers and very rare scarabs or other forms of seals
were probably the property of men. To women we would naturally
assign castanets and castanet-like “wands” carved from hippo-
potamus tusks, with curious mythological beasts to drive away
spirits bent on attacking children.93 Either men, women, or some-.
me brd, pp. 72, 124; Pl.2o:
9 I[bid., p. 207, Pl. 38.
91 [bid., p. 72, Pl. 35.
92 Thid., p. 123, Pl. 21.
93 [bid., pp. 14, 207, Pls. 30, 40.
ra
times a child, needed sandals of rawhide or imitation sandals of

wood. Mirrors, usually without any handles, and model mirror cases;
toilet boxes and unguent or kohl pots, and little baskets to hold
whatever was needed for the person;94 headrests or a bed with a
headrest attached; scribes’ palettes with pictures crudely drawn on
them especially for the funeral ;95 aromatic wood to be ground up as
a perfume; linen towels; and game boards—all were among the hosts
of objects found in graves of both sexes.%
2. SEC(ANKH-KA-RE? MONTU-HOTPE—2010-1908 B.C.

Prince In-yotef had grown to maturity and had died, and one of
his brothers, named Montu-hotpe, ascended the throne upon Neb-
hepet-Ré¢’s death. He had taken part in his father’s campaigns for
he was shown in the temple at Deir el Bahri, apparently directly
behind the king as ‘‘[the king’s] Son Montu-hotpe,” a warrior armed
with ax and bow.! On his father’s death he took the usual style and
titles of a Pharaoh, calling himself “the Horus Setankh-towi-ef’’—
Who Causes his Two Lands to Live—‘‘He of the Two Goddesses
Setankh-towi-ef, the Golden Horus Hotep’—The Peaceful—‘‘the
King of Upper and Lower Egypt Setankh-ka-Ré¢’’—Who Causes
the Soul of Ré¢ to Live—“the Son of Ré¢ Montu-hotpe.’’? His
mother as we have already seen was Queen Tem.
In later centuries his name was well known, and we find him at
Karnak as ‘“‘the Good God, Lord of the Two Lands, Lord of Offering,
Se[¢ankh]-ka-Ré¢, the Justified,” following immediately after Neb-
hepet-Ré¢.3 His name appears in the tomb of Tenry, in the temple
of Sethy I at Abydos,4 and in the Turin Papyrus he is credited with
having reigned 12 years 5—peaceful, as we know. The turbulent first
years of Neb-hepet-Ré¢ were a generation past, and all was quiet
when Sefankh-ka-Ré¢ ascended the throne. Then he was a man
about fifty years old who had deferred to his father, Neb-hepet-Ré¢,
and to his elder brother, In-yotef, for the greater part of his life.
94 Tbid., pp. 129, 206, Pls. 37, 39.

% [bid., p. 129, Pl. 37; Carnarvon and Carter, op. cit., p. 89, Pls. LXXV-LXXVI.
26 Winlock, Deir el Babri, pp. 129, 206, Pls. 36, 37.
1 Naville, XJ Dyn. Temple, I, p. 7, Pl. XII, B.
? Blisson de la] R[oquel], of. cit., p. 6; Petrie, Qurneb, p. 5, Pl. VII.
3 Prisse, Monuments, Pl. 1; Sethe, Urkunden, IV, 609.
4 Porter and Moss, op. cit., III, p. 192; VI, p. 25.
5 Farina, op. cit., p. 35, Pl. V; Winlock, JEA, 1940, p. 119.
The arts of peace drew all of the new king’s attention. He built a
chapel on Elephantine, from which a limestone block has survived,
with a relief in which he stretches out his scepter to make an offering
to some god. The scale is rather small, but little has survived from
the reign of Neb-hepet-Ré¢ in any way comparable.6 Down river,
just below Gebelein, was the town of Erment; and from there we
know of an alabaster building-block with his Horus name and his .
prenomen,’ and a fine piece of limestone relief, with a figure of the
king dancing before the goddess Udo, who declares: “I have given
enec all health: 5. =. I have caused thee to appear on the throne of
Horus.’”’8
Erment is just across the river from T6éd, where the king built
much of the temple and gave it an entirely new aspect.9 As at Ele-
phantine, the figures are small; but they have a charm and grace
and a wealth of detail equal to the best to be found from the Twelfth
Dynasty. From one chamber we have parts of six blocks on which
Montu and his wife Tenenet crown King Setankh-ka-Ré¢. On other
blocks from walls a cubit thick, sculptured on both sides, the King
crowned as Ruler of the North offers to Montu facing one way, and
as King of the South to Tenenet facing the other, or from the rear
wall of the chamber, to Montu and Tenenet standing back to back.
There was also a sacred barque with a ram’s head on the prow being
carried before Montu. The ceiling of a chamber, parts of Setankh-
ka-Ré¢’s titulary, and a bit mentioning a certain Erpatty-prince
In-yotefi were among the other blocks reused in the foundations
when the temple was rebuilt half a century later.
At Karnak, Legrain found part of an alabaster statuette of “the
King of Upper and Lower Egypt Setankh-ka-Ré’, Living Eternally,”
his name written on his belt buckle. The king himself kneels and
presents a pair of pots. The god was doubtless Montu, in whose
temple the statue probably was originally placed, though it was
eventually discovered between that temple and the sanctuary in the
Amin temple.
Again, across the river on the top of a high peak, Setankh-ka-Ré¢
built a curious cenotaph chapel, surrounded by a high brick wall.!! |
6 Clédat, Rec. trav., 1909, p. 64.
7 Brugsch, Thesaurus, p. 1455, No. 85.
8 Williams, New York Historical Society Quarterly Bulletin, April, 1918, p. 17.
9 Blisson de la] R{oque], op. cit., pp. 62, 79, Figs. 32-57, Pls. XXI, 2-XXVIII.
10 Legrain, op. cit., No. 42006.
11 Petrie, Qurneb, p. 4, Pls. 1V-VIII.
Fragments of a dummy sarcophagus were found in it inscribed for

“the Horus Setankh-towi-ef, he of the Two Goddesses [Setankh-
towi-ef], the Golden Horus Hotep, the King of Upper and Lower
Egypt [Setankh-ka-Ré¢, Son of Ré] Montu-hotpe, Living Eternally.
He made this... .”’ as his monument, and on it he carved his ado-
ration of Hat-Hor and Horus.
At Abydos the inhabitants of the town replaced the Old Kingdom
brick temple, which Neb-hepet-Ré¢ had only repaired, with a new
structure of limestone some 15 meters square. It was, however, still a
rather countrified structure, even if a little larger than before; and,
like the temple of Téd, it lasted no more than half a century. For
that length of time, however, it stood as “‘the House of the ka of
Setankh-ka-Ré¢,’’12
Men crossed the desert to the west of the Nile, going up river
along the road from the Shatt er Rigal southward, and scribbled
their names on the roadside rocks. One group scratched a picture of
the king with four members of his court; others left memorials of
desert crossing; and a third left a graffito which says: “The King
of Upper and Lower Egypt Setankh-ka-Ré¢, beloved of Horus and
of Sobk, Lord of Kharu. One who served the Horus since his
youth: the Web Priest In-[yotef]y.’’13
However, the great expedition of the reign was one to Punt.!4
It was sent across the desert, leaving some men in the Wady el
Hamm{émiat to quarry stone while the others pushed on to the sea,
built a vessel, and proceeded to the God’s Land. Thus we read:
“Year 8, First Month of Shomu, Day 3,.... the Steward Henu
says: ‘[My Lord] sent me to dispatch a ship to Punt to bring to him
fresh myrrh from the sheikhs of the desert, because of the fear of
him in the highlands.’ ” A party of three thousand men had been
assembled from Oxyrrhyncus to Gebelein, each equipped with a skin
of water and twenty biscuits every day, and wells were dug for the
quarry parties who were to cut stone in the Hammamat Valley.
“The army cleared the way before, overthrowing those hostile
toward the king; hunters and mountaineers were posted to guard
theme When I reached the sea I built a ship and dispatched it
after making a great sacrifice of cattle, bulls and gazelles. Now after
2 Petrie, Abydos, II, pp. 12, 15, 33, 43, Pls. XXIII, XXV, LV.
13 See below, p. 71.
Couyat and Montet, of. cit., No. 114, Pl. XXXI; Breasted, 4R, Vol. I, pars. 427-33;
Drioton and Vandier, of. cit., p. 238.
my return from the sea... . through the Wady el Hammamat

I brought for him august blocks for statues belonging to the
temple.”
Memphis, which may have been called ‘‘Ded-eswet” after King
Teti’s pyramid,!5 was the administrative center of the country.
Thebans had seized property there; and in the reign of Setankh-
ka-Ré¢ nearly fifty years after the conquest, farms in two villages
in the neighborhood were still part of the endowment of the tomb
of the Vizier Ipi.16 We possess the letters of his old and garrulous
mortuary priest, Heka-nakhte, who had become the proprietor of
them with his office and had spent long periods in the fifth and
eighth years of the reign administering these northern estates. Each
letter is full of homely instructions from the old man to his son, on
the management of the farms and on the conduct of the family
during his absences, with rather petulant remarks on another low
Nile which was visiting Egypt.
The letters supply us with current personal names. Men and boys,
in addition to the ka-servant Heka-nahkte himself, were called
Anipu, Desher, the Steward Ger, Hau the Younger, Hety son of
Nakhte, Ip, Ipi the Younger, Mer-su, Mey, Nakhte, Nehri the son
of Ipi, Nen-nek-su, Ré¢-nofer, Si-Hat-Hor, Si-neb-niit, Si-Sobk,
Sneferu, and Wadj-Sobk. Women and girls went under the names
Hetepet, Ipi, Iut-en-héb, Neferet, Ren-ka-es, Senen, and Sit-neb-
sekhm.
A certain number of smaller objects bearing the name of Setankh-
ka-Ré¢ have survived. At Sakkdreh there was found a statue which
is now in the Louvre, and it is said that a gold ring had his name on
it.17 From some temple comes an excellent foundation deposit plaque
inscribed: ‘The King of Upper and Lower Egypt Setankh-ka-Ré°,
Beloved of Montu, Lord of Thebes.’’!8 Naville found a deep-blue
faience ball bead bearing his prenomen;'9 and there is a scarab in
the Petrie Collection, but perhaps of later date.
If Setankh-ka-Ré¢ was about fifty years old at his accession, it
behooved him to make haste in the preparation of his tomb; but
18 Winlock, Deir el Babri, pp. 58, 61, 65.

160 bd) Ps 57) bl 33-
1 Wiedemann, op. cit., p. 221.
18 Petrie, Historical Scarabs, p. 165.
19 Hall, Egyptian Scarabs in the B.M., No. 61.
” Petrie, Scarabs and Cylinders, Pl. X1,*11.9.
he could only have gone about his task in a leisurely fashion.2! A

roadway was planned to start where the Ramesseum was eventually
built, but it was only on the southern end of Sheikh Abd el Kurneh
and on the foothills of the mountain that quarrymen started to cut
a causeway ascending at a slope of one in twenty-five (Pls. 7, 33).
Probably these two pieces of work were never joined; and, to judge
from the still obvious trenches cut in the hillside, a comparatively
small gang was employed who left some half a dozen lumps of bed-
rock still in place on the lower terrace. It is possible to trace the two
sides of what was to have been the avenue, however, and see that it
was proposed to be practically as wide as that of Neb-hepet-Rér.
At its top an almost level platform was started, some 100 meters
long; and probably it would have been as wide if it had ever been
finished. A trench for a wall was started about 70 cubits in front of
the king’s tomb, but it was never completed. Five foundation de-
posits of meat offerings were set in holes in the rock, and the work-
men also started to cut a tomb for the king. But they had only
quarried out the sloping passage about 35 meters when the king
died, and the end of the tomb passage was hastily widened into a
burial chamber and walled up with limestone blocks instead of with
granite. For a temple all he had was a cheap, serpentine brick wall
around the spot where he was laid away, and outside it the small
brick house of a guardian priest.
A very few pit tombs had been started, each with an elongated
well; and then, except for a few square, early Eighteenth Dynasty
burial places, not another tomb was ever dug in the neighborhood.
Of the rich who could afford to dig their own tombs in the hillsides
looking down on this temple site, there were about thirty. One
curious thing is that, again and again, as one wanders around the
slopes, he notes that most of these tombs were abandoned before
they were finished, and comparatively few could have been used for
burials.
In one we found the name of ‘“The Steward of the Inner Palace,
Si-Anhiret”’ on a bit of a mask,22 but the most interesting and the
most important tomb of the entire reign was that of ‘“‘the Hereditary
Prince, the Count, the Treasurer of the King of Lower Egypt, the
*t Winlock, AJSL, 1915, p. 29, Figs. 1, 6-9; Deir el Babri, pp. 31, 47, Pl. 23. Daressy,
Annales, 1916, p. 63, describes a paved road 15 meters wide near the Ramesseum, but the
width, the position, and the paving suggest that it was part of some other monument.
22 Winlock, Deir el Bahri, p. 32.
Hereditary Prince at the Gateway of Géb, the Great Steward, the

Sole Companion, the Chancellor Meket-Ré¢’’. At the Shatt er Rigal,
where he had gone with King Neb-hepet-Rér, he had signed himself
“the Truly Beloved of his Lord and Governor of the Six Great
Tribunals.’ One part of the tomb—but possibly not a sculptured
part and modestly set to one side—was that of his son, “the Trea-
surer of the King of Lower Egypt, In-yotef.’’23
Meket-Ré¢’s own tomb (Pls. 8, 33) had a built up and sculptured
portico, a corridor leading straight back to the statue chamber, in
the floor of which was a hidden pit. At the bottom of the latter there
was a burial chamber, hung with a linen pall around the gigantic
sarcophagus. In the latter stood a gilded cedar coffin. Heaped up
in the chamber were at least fifteen model shields; about fifty axes
and nearly as many staves; about one thousand arrows and one
hundred and fifty bows; only three pine-wood spear shafts; and a
full set of magic staves and model carpenters’ tools. Alongside the
tomb, but just outside its forecourt, was a little chamber for em-
balming materials.
The great find, however, was a serdab with its funerary models.
One such serdab, which we supposed was that of the son, In-yotef,
was in the portico and had been completely plundered. The other
was in the corridor of Meket-Ré¢. In it we found a complete set of
funerary models which were to serve Meket-Ré¢ in his travels, in
his hunting and fishing, or just on pleasure cruises up and down the
celestial rivers. We found parts of his heavenly farm from which he
was to draw food, drink, and clothing, and we found his quiet, shady
gardens.
In the forecourt of Meket-Ré¢ there was a little tomb in which was
buried his Steward Wah, who had died as a youngish man of thirty
odd years. Along with a statuette, some simple staves, and a number
of bead necklaces and a collar, we found three scarabs, one of which
bore the names of Wah and of Meket-R€¢ side by side, and by his
coffin a modest meal of bread, meat, and beer.?4
3. THE Civic Wars, 1998-1991 B.C.

Setankh-ka-Ré¢ had, apparently, supposed that on his death his
eldest surviving son would succeed him. The name of “the Divine
23 [bid., pp. 17, 57, Fig. 2, Pls. 24-30.

34 Ibid., pp. 29, 55, 222, Pls. 30-32.
Father Se’n-Wosret”’ follows immediately after his in a fragmentary

inscription from Karnak,! reminding us of that other Divine Father,
In-yotef, who was the heir of Neb-hepet-Ré¢ at least as late as the
latter’s thirty-ninth year.2 Of what became of Se’n-Wosret we know
nothing, except that his disappearance before his actual coronation
was immediately followed by seven years of anarchy.’ Possibly he
was assassinated, for he has left hardly a ripple in the ancient annals.
Those who struggled for the throne during the next five years
have left absolutely no trace, and then for an instant we find another
Montu-hotpe claiming it. About 1907 or 1908 our workmen turned
up at Lisht a bit of a stone bowl,‘ inscribed on the outside for “[the
Horus Neb]-towi, [Son of Ré] Montu-hotpe, belov[ed of Hat-Hor the
Lady of] Dendereh and given life forever and ever,” and inside
bearing the Horus name—Wehem-mesiit—of Amun-em-hét I. Since
the bowl is rather fragile and could not have lasted in temple use for
any great length of time, we gain evidence from it that these two
kings must have been close to each other in date.
A couple of years after finding this chip of stone our workmen
turned up a bit of a blue glazed tablet bearing the cartouche
“{Mont]u-hotpe,”’ which must have been inscribed for this same
ruler, as Dr. W. C. Hayes has pointed out to me. From these two
little scraps found at Lisht it looks as though Neb-towi-Ré¢ Montu-
hotpe thought that he had actually started a new line of rulers over
Egypt, which he hoped would rule the land from It-Towy, as the
Twelfth Dynasty did for over two centuries.
Montu-hotpe himself has long been known to us from his in-
scriptions in the Wady el Hammamat.5 There we find him as “‘the
Horus Neb-towi’—Lord of the Two Lands—‘‘He of the Two
Goddesses Neb-towi, the Golden Horus Neter-netery”—the Divine
One’—“‘King of Upper and Lower Egypt Neb-towi-Ré¢, Son of Ré¢
Montu-hotpe, living eternally.” And yet, in spite of his high-sound-
ing titles, he probably had no legitimate claim to the throne he
occupied, for his mother appears to have been a commoner, “the
King’s Mother Im” and his father is not mentioned at all.7
1 Chevrier, Annales, 1938, p. 601.

2 See below, p. 63.
3 Winlock, JEA, 1940, p. 118.
ONeeih. (B, WNP.
* Couyat and Montet, op. cit., Nos. 110 A-B, 191, 192; Breasted, AR, Vol. I, pars. 434-53.
6 Taking one of the three neter signs as standing for ‘‘Horus.”
7 Sethe, Untersuchungen, |, p. 2.
THE RULERS OF ALL EGYPTIN THE ELEVENTH DYNASTY 55
However, Neb-towi-Ré¢ did hold the throne, and his Vizier Amun-
em-hét had carved four inscriptions dated on the “First Occurrence
of the Sed Jubilee, Year 2, First Season, Month 2, Day 3,” and on
the fifteenth, twenty-third, and twenty-eighth days of the same
month—or January 14 to February 8 if the year were 1992 B.c. or
close thereto. That the year was 1992 B.c.8 is likely because the in-
scription expressly states it was that of the “First Occurrence of the
Sed Festival.” Since there is reason to believe that this took place, at
this period anyway, every thirty years its last occurrence had been
in the Year 39 of Neb-hepet-Rét, or in 2022 B.c., just thirty years
before.®
These inscriptions in the Wady el Hammaméat are among the
most remarkable to have survived from ancient times. They recount
how those who had gone to fetch stone for Neb-towi-Ré¢ remarked
that “there came a gazelle great with young..... She did not turn
back until she arrived at this block .. . . (intended) for the lid of the
sarcophagus. She dropped her young upon it while this army of the
King watched, and then they cut her throat before it.”
Twelve days later stonecutters were set “to erect a stela to his
father Min, Lord of the Highlands.”” He must exaggerate the size
of his expedition when he says that he had sent “an army of
10,000 men from the southern nomes, Middle Egypt and... . the
Oxyrrhyncus nome, to bring for me an august block of the pure,
costly stone... . for a sarcophagus... . and for monuments in the
temples of Middle Egypt,” for which he may have shown an unusual
solicitude. Early in February “the wonder was repeated. Rain fell,”
and then some five days later “the lid of this sarcophagus descended,
being a block four cubits, by eight cubits, by two cubits. .... Cattle
were slaughtered, goats were slain, and incense was burned.” Then
three thousand men were set to dragging the great stone away—the
same number as Setankh-ka-Ré¢ had used, and doubtless close to
the real strength of this entire party.
Several of those who came with the expedition: have left their
names carved on the rocks. One wrote:!0 “May Neb-towi-Ré¢ live
for ever! The Intimate of the King, the Overseer of Craftsmen and -
8 Or 1989 B.C.
9 Winlock, JEA, 1940, p. 118.
10 Couyat and Montet, op. cit., Nos. 40, 55, 105, 241; Maspero, Bibliotheque égyptologique,
VIII, p. 13; Breasted, AR, Vol. I, par. 454.
Sculptors, Chief Overseer in every kind of Precious Stone-work in

the King’s Palace, the Maker of every kind of Stone Vessel, Ipi son
of Ipi, beloved of his Lord and just one in the heart of his Lord.”
Sometimes one finds only signatures such as those of “The
Superintendent of the Craftsmen of Neb-towi-Ré¢, Nesu-Montu,”’
or “The King’s Councilor ‘Ankhi.” An unfinished inscription of
Setankh says: ““May Neb-towi-Ré¢ live for ever! The Commander
of Troops, the Overseer of Harpooners says: ‘I acted as commander
of the troops of the whole land....,’”’ and then he got no further.
Elsewhere Setankh was more fortunate and was able to finish a long
graffito which starts: “May Neb-towi-Ré¢ live for ever! The General
in Foreign Lands, Steward in Egypt, Overseer of the Harpooners on
the River, Setankh,”’ and recounts details about the expedition for
five long lines more.
The commander of the army was the Vizier Amun-em-hét, “Super-
visor of Everything in this whole Land,” who had caused the first
inscription to be carved. The longest of all the graffiti, moreover,
was his too.!! In it he calls himself “the Hereditary Prince, the
Count, the Governor of the City, the Chief Judge. . . . Chief of the
Six: Courtsiolsjustices sae Keeper-ofithe: Door ofthe south ae
Governor of the whole South . . . . Conducting the Administration
of the Lord of the Two Lands... . the Vizier of the King at his
Audiences, Amun-em-hét.”’
He goes on to tell how his majesty commanded that there go
forth to this august mountain an army, .. . . miners, artificers,
quarrymen, artists, draughtsmen, and stonecutters .... of every
department of the White House. .... I brought for him a sarcopha-
Usa wes My soldiers descended without loss, not a man perished,
not a soldier was missing, not an ass died.” And then Amun-em-hét
stated that “I am his favorite servant who does all that he praises
every day.”
Yet it must have been but a very short time after his return from
the desert that this favorite servant of Neb-towi-Ré¢ was ascending
the steps of the throne to hold it for himself against all comers.
Amun-em-hét must have been born in Thebes, in spite of the con-
nection some distant ancestor may have had with Hermopolis, which
is usually thought of as the original home of Amiin. We have already
met a namesake of his who had died in Thebes some ninety years
4 Couyat and Montet, op. cit., No. 113; Breasted, AR, Vol. I, par. 444.
before and must have been born and named there as early as the
days of Wah-¢tankh.
Of the events which ended the brief reign of Neb-towi-Ré¢ and
set up this Amun-em-hét in his stead, we know absolutely nothing.
All that we can say with assurance is that the latter adopted a throne
name recalling that of Setankh-ka-Ré¢, the last legitimate ruler of
the Eleventh Dynasty, and as Se-hetep-ib-Ré¢ he founded the
Twelfth Dynasty.
IV
THE COURT OF NEB-HEPET-RE¢ AT THE

SHAT Ie RaRIGAL
One incident noted above as happening in the reign of Neb-hepet-

Ré¢ has come to us in a remarkably striking way, and to a very large
extent its record had much to do with my interest in the events of
the days of that king. How we ran across the mementoes of a picnic
of almost four thousand years ago is the subject of the following
pages.! We were not the first of our day to realize that something
had happened in the Shatt er Rigal in the far distant past, but it
surely is more than likely that we were the earliest to see exactly
what it was that had made this unimpressive spot at the foot of the
Gebel Silsileh river-gorge a noteworthy one.
The name Shatt er Rigal seems to mean “the riverbank (or per-
haps just “the river’) of the men,” referring to the relief of Neb-
hepet-Ré¢ and his three followers. The name Sab¢ er Rigal, some-
times given to the relief, apparently means “the lion among men,”
and probably is intended to describe the figure of Neb-hepet-Ré¢
standing among the smaller figures.
The little valley of the Shatt er Rigal is one of several gaps in the
edge of the western sandstone plateau, where it borders the Nile
about 35 kilometers above Edfu and about 4 kilometers below Gebel
Silsileh. It is inconspicuous from the river, although its entrance is
only some fifty paces from the bank. (Pls. 9, 10.) At its mouth it is
perhaps thirty paces wide, and from there it follows a serpentine
course for about a kilometer back into the low, sandstone hills to a
point where it is crossed by dunes which can easily be ascended to
the rolling desert plateau.
Nowadays none of the regular passenger steamers stop in the
neighborhood, and the nearest railway station, el Kagiig, across the
river, is the stopping place of an occasional local train only. It is not
surprising, therefore, that in modern times visitors have been few
and far between, and those who have carried notebooks and pencils
1 Winlock, Deir el Babri, p. 117, Pl. 22, and above page.

THE COURT OF NEB-HEPET-RE¢ AT THE SHATT ER RIGAL 59
have broken its solitude saree more than half-a-dozen times in
the last century.
The earliest record of any of these modern visitors is a neatly
carved A.C. Harris 1850? under the large relief, which he discovered
and of which he made a copy. He communicated his discovery to Sir
James Gardner Wilkinson, who seems to have visited the site when
he was in Egypt in 1855, for there are copies of some of the inscrip-
tions among the Wilkinson manuscripts later deposited in the Bod-
leian Library at Oxford.’ A brief description of the site appears in
Wilkinson’s Handbook for Travellers in Egypt, 1858, page 397, and
later editions published by John Murray carried the same note.
Seeing the 1867 edition, August Eisenlohr visited the site in 1869
and eventually published the Harris copy of the relief, which had
been lost for several years,4 and his own copies of some of the in-
scriptions in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology,
1881, pages 98 ff., Plates I and II (hereafter quoted as “‘Eisenlohr’’).
Petrie and Griffith spent one day in 1887 in the Shatt er Rigal, the
former publishing the results of their visit in 4 Season in Egypt, pages
14-16, Plates XIV-XVII, Nos. 357-496, 535-624 (hereafter quoted
as ‘“‘Petrie’’). The big bas-relief of Neb-hepet-Ré¢ and one small
group of the graffiti were republished five years later in Petrie’s Ten
Years’ Digging in Egypt, Figures 55-56. Petrie and Griffith copied
and photographed over two hundred graffiti and inscriptions in the
little valley, and those who have followed them have been hard put
to it to find a scant dozen which they missed. Moreover, when one
considers how often the ancient wayfarers left blundering and even
illiterate scribbles, and how often these scribbles have been made
even less intelligible by weathering, their copies must be considered
extraordinarily good and will remain the standard work on the in-
scriptions for years to come.
In January, 1895, Legrain, engaged on De Morgan’s catalogue of
the monuments of Upper Egypt, recopied the inscriptions, and of his
copies four of the dynastic graffiti—but none of those of the Eleventh
Dynasty—were published in the Annales du Service des Antiquités,
1903, pages 220 ff. (hereafter quoted as “‘Legrain’’).
In February, 1906, while excavating at el Hammam some 2 kilo-
meters away, Professor A. H. Sayce found, on the plateau above the
2 Not 1853, as stated by Petrie.

8 Porter and Moss, Bibliography, V, p. 207.
«Samuel Birch, TSBA, IV, 1876, p. 189.
valley, a graffito of the reign of Setankh-ka-Ré¢ which had escaped

all other visitors to the locality. He published it in the Proceedings
of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, 1906, page 171, Plate I.
At about this period, while Arthur E. P. Weigall was Chief In-
spector of Antiquities in Upper Egypt, he visited the Shatt er Rigal
and has left a description, but no copies of the graffiti, in his Guzde to
the Antiquities of Upper Egypt (1910), pages 350-51.
Bissing and Kees stopped at the Shatt er Rigal in 1913, copying
some of the graffiti and photographing the bas-reliefs, but unfortu-
nately they did not have their predecessors’ copies to collate on the
spot. A short account of their visit appeared under the title “Vom
Wadi Es Satba Rigale bei Gebel Silsile” in the Sztzungsberichte der
Koniglich bayerischen Akademie de Wissenschaften (Philos.-philol.
und hist. Klasse, 1913), 10 Abhandlung, pages 1 ff. (hereafter quoted
as ‘“Bissing’’).
References to all the above publications have been painstakingly
assembled in Porter and Moss, Topographical Bibliography ofAncient
Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings, V, pages 206-8.
The present writer camped overnight at the Shatt er Rigal on Feb-
ruary 20, 1926, with Percy E. Newberry and again on November 26,
1927, with Harry Burton. On the first occasion Newberry and |
copied a number of the inscriptions—some of the fainter ones at night
with an electric torch—and on the second visit I collated many others
with Petrie’s and Bissing’s publications brought to the spot, while
Burton photographed others. In the following pages these copies and
collations have been used—a fact which will explain any differences
between the inscriptions as given below and the previous publica-
tions. A short, popular account of my visits appeared in Excavations
at Deir el Babri, 1942, page 117, Plate 22.
The Shatt er Rigal has seen little or no change in countless ages.
Between el Hésh just north and the Gebel Silsileh just to the south
there are numerous prehistoric pictographs, and in this little valley
are to be seen some of the earliest.5 An ever shady bay in the rocky
wall of the south side, a few yards from its mouth (PI. 11), seemingly
was a station for prehistoric huntsmen at a time when the plateau
was already semiarid, but not yet entirely desert, and perhaps when
the Nile still flowed east of Gebel Silsileh. As high as one can con-
5 De Morgan, Les Origines de l’Egypte, | (1896), p. 163, Figs. 488, 489, 491; Winkler, Rock-
Drawings of Southern Upper Egypt, | (1938), p. 9, Sites 35-36, Pls. XX-X XI; II (1939), p. 5,
Sites 35-36, 48-52.
veniently reach on the rock face there is a long procession of ani-
mals—most of them shown coming from the west and the desert
toward the east and the river (Pl. 35). The majority are giraffes,
marching in herds with their necks outstretched as is their habit
when they are walking or running. More rarely an ostrich can be
identified, and there is one unmistakable elephant. There are a few
sheep, or antelopes with long curly horns, and cattle, perhaps of a
later period. Other sketches, more lightly weathered than the
dynastic carvings which they cut into, are comparatively recent.
The giraffes, the ostriches, and the elephant, however, are far more
deeply patinated and are ample proof that the early Stone Age
hunters of the western plateau were thoroughly familiar with this
stretch of what is today the Nile Valley.
Little trace has survived of such wayfarers as may have passed
this way between the Prehistoric Period and the Eleventh Dynasty.
There is a graffito halfway up the little valley which commemorates
a king whose name is written ‘““The Horus Wadj”’ (PI. 35),6 and who
has been considered variously as one of the archaic rulers of Egypt—
sometimes even as the well-known ‘Serpent King’’’—or as a ruler
of the period between the Middle and the New kingdoms.’ Perhaps
the second hypothesis is the safer, for in the Thinite Period one would
hardly expect the shrine outline as a border, the crown upon the
hawk, or the rounded top of the frame about the name.? Another
royal name, written in two cartouches (PI. 35), has been variously
read and has been assigned both to the period just preceding and
to that just following the Middle Kingdom. The identification of
this ‘‘King Hotep” remains as much of a puzzle as that of the
“Horus Wadj,” and it would obviously be risky to draw any con-
clusions on the history of the Shatt er Rigal from either. In any
case, there is a noticeable lack of the names of Old Kingdom private
6 Petrie, No. 414; Legrain, p. 221, Fig. 7; Bissing, p. 17, Fig. 14.
7 Petrie, History, I (1923), p. 17; Legrain, p. 221; Gauthier, Livres'des rots, I, pp. 40, 352;
Bissing, p. 17-
8 Petrie, Season, p. 15; Annales, 1904, p. 144; Gauthier, op. cit. Compare Newberry, Scarabs,
Pl. XXIII, Nos. 7-9. “
9 See the Horus names of authentic early dynastic kings in graffitiin the Upper Egyptian
deserts in J. J. Clére, Annales, 1938, p. 87, Fig. 9; Winkler, op. cit., Pl. XI. :
10 Petrie, p. 15, No. 430; Annales, 1904, p. 144; History, I, 1923, p. 262; Legrain, p. 220;
Bissing, pp. 17-18, Beiblatt 1 and 4, No. 15. We must discard two other supposed early royal
names proposed by Legrain. His Fig. 8 (Petrie, No. 397) is not within a cartouche, although a
line has been drawn around it, and his Fig. 9 is the name of Khat-sekhem-Ré¢ Nefer-hotep of
the Thirteenth Dynasty.
persons such as one sees along the el Kab desert road hardly more
than 100 kilometers down river,!! and we must conclude that the
Shatt er Rigal was not frequented during that period.
It is for the monuments of the Eleventh Dynasty that the Shatt er
Rigal is known among archeologists. As one enters the little valley, a
few paces after leaving the narrow alluvial plain, one notices the
smooth-faced bay in the rock where the prehistoric huntsmen had
sought the shade. Above their pictographs, so high that a ladder
would be necessary to reach its upper parts, there is a big, excellently
carved, incised relief, 215 cm. wide and 200 cm. tall, portraying
four personages (PI. 12).!2 The tallest figure—practically life sized—
is ““The Horus Uniter of the Two Lands, King of Upper and Lower
Egypt Neb-hepet-Ré‘, Living Eternally (Pl. 36).”” He wears the
double crown of Upper and Lower Egypt, the archaic royal skirt
with its bull’s tail, and he carries a staff and the war mace. Behind
him, wearing the vulture headdress and carrying a staff and a lotus
flower, is ““The King’s Mother, whom he loves, Yoth.” The first of
the two figures standing before Neb-hepet-Ré¢ is, ‘““The Divine
Father, Beloved of the God, the Son of Ré¢ In-yotef, Living Eter-
nally,” who is dressed as a king with the uraeus upon his brow, the
nemes on his head, and about his waist a royal kilt, complete to
bull’s tail, like the one worn by Neb-hepet-Ré¢. His arms hang at
his sides. In contrast, the personage who stands behind him, “The
Treasurer of the North, the Chancellor Akhtoy,” has his right hand
upon his breast in a respectful position of salute. He wears the long
skirt of a high official, and he has the rolls of fat on his belly which
were the mark of a respectable and leisurely life.
Some sixty paces or so to the westward, and on the same shady
side of the valley as the big relief, there is an isolated block of sand-
stone which had become detached from the valley wall ages before
the Eleventh Dynasty. Here is carved a second stela,!3 showing the
King Neb-hepet-Ré¢ with the Chancellor Akhtoy standing before
him, but omitting the King’s Mother Yoth and the Son of Ré¢ In-
yotef (Pl. 37). It is far smaller than the great stela. Being practically
on the level of the sandy valley floor, it has been partly eroded
away at the bottom by wind, and perhaps also by occasional floods,
1G. W. Fraser, PSBA, 1803, p. 494.

Eisenlohr, pp. 99 ff. and plate; Petrie, p. 15, No. 489; Ten Years’ Digging, p. 74; Bissing,
p. 4, Pls. I-11; Winlock, Deir el Babri, p. 117, Pl. 22.
13 Petrie, No. 443; Bissing, p. 12, Pl. III. —
but it was never more than go cm. high, and its width is only 60 cm.
It is carved, however, by the same skilful sculptors as those who did
the great stela, and it differs in detail from the latter mainly in
showing the king in the archaic dress of the Sed festival.
Of the personages portrayed in these two stelae, Neb-hepet-Ré¢
Montu-hotpe needs no introduction. His reign was not only the
longest of the Eleventh Dynasty, but was that which saw the re-
union of the Two Lands by the Thebans, as we have already seen.
However, the King’s Mother, Yoth who stands behind him, pre-
sented a problem which I believe was solved by the original publi-
cation of this chapter. It has been said that she was the wife of
Neb-hepet-Ré¢ and the mother of the In-yotef who was the third
figure in the group.!4 This is a seductive idea, but all known pre-
cedents would seem to demand that, at least when shown with her
husband, her title “King’s Wife’’ should take precedence above all
others, with the “King’s Mother’ in a lesser place. The absence of
the title ‘‘King’s Wife’’15 may indicate that she was a widow, and is
thus seemingly proof that she was not the wife of Neb-hepet-Ré¢;
and, since judging from the way she is shown in this relief, she was
unquestionably related to him, she must have been his mother.16
Moreover, she probably was the mother of that Neferu who be-
came the principal wife and queen of her brother Neb-hepet-Ré¢
and who was buried near him at Deir el Bahri.!7 The name of the
mother of Neferu, in the latter’s tomb and on her shawabtis, was
invariably written Yoth with plural strokes, while here in the Shatt
er Rigal that of the King’s Mother is simply Yoth without the
strokes. This apparent difference in spelling is without significance,
however. Si-Yoth, the name of a man buried in the southern court
of the Eleventh Dynasty temple at Deir el Bahri, was written with
the plural strokes on his wax shawabti, and without them on the
model coffin in which the shawabti was found.18 So far as ages go, it
would seem that Queen Yoth must have been about seventy-five
years old when she was drawn in the Shatt er Rigal. The relief is
dated to the thirty-ninth year of Neb-hepet-Re¢. If the latter came
to the throne as a youth, of say eighteen years, and his mother was
14 Petrie, p. 17; Maspero, Dawn of Civilization, p. 462; Naville, XI Dyn. Temple, I, p. 7-
1 It certainly never was carved here, as suggested tentatively by Vandier, B/FAO, 1936,
p. 114, n. 6. te:
16 Breasted, AR, I, § 425; Meyer, Geschichte, 1, § 277; Bissing, p. 6.
7 Winlock, Deir el Babri, p. 87.
18 [bid., p. 56; MMA 22.3.12.
about eighteen years old at his birth, she would have been seventy-
five at the time this relief was carved. Thus, while it may be surpris-
ing that so elderly a dowager should be represented as being present
here, there is no reason to doubt that she actually visited this spot.
The Son of Ré¢ In-yotef has also been the subject of divergent
theories. He has been called a Nubian vassal doing homage to King
Neb-hepet-Ré¢,!9 although, so far as I know, there is no precedent
for a vassal Nubian Prince being called “Son of Ré¢,” “Living
Eternally” in the actual presence of a Pharaoh who never doubted
that he himself was the Sun God’s representative on earth. Breasted
called him a deposed predecessor of Neb-hepet-Ré‘, allowed to live
on into the latter’s reign,29 and he has been identified with other
In-yotefs of the earlier half of the Eleventh Dynasty, considered as
subjects and contemporaries of the Montu-hotpes of the later half
of the dynasty,?! or as one of those In-yotefs who were presumably
dead, in the presence of Neb-hepet-Ré¢.22
On the other hand, In-yotef has been called the son and heir of
Nep-hepet-Ré¢,23 and this appears to be the only reasonable expla-
nation of the Shatt er Rigal scene. As such, In-yotef would have
every right to be called “Son of Ré¢,” “Living Eternally,” and he
would surely be permitted to write his name in a cartouche, to wear
the royal nemes with the uraeus on his forehead, and to gird himself
with the bull’s tail. But, as he was not a reigning Pharaoh, he did
not yet have a throne-name as King of Upper and Lower Egypt,
and he still bore the commoner’s title—albeit a very high one—
“Divine Father, Beloved of the God.’’24 We know, however, that it
was a Montu-hotpe who succeeded Neb-hepet-Ré‘, and we can
only suppose that the eldest son, bearing the name In-yotef—that
of so many ancestors of the family—died before his father and was
probably buried at Deir el Bahri in the large tomb between the king’s
and the burial place of Queen Neferu.25 As we have noted, directly
above that tomb, on the inclosure wall of the Eleventh Dynasty
temple, there has been scribbled several times the name “‘In-yotef,
19 Meyer, op. cit., §277.
20 Breasted, op. cit., §§424-25.
21 Petrie, p. 17; Histor», I (1923), p. 141; Steindorff, ZAS, p. 88; Burchard? and Pieper,
Handbuch der adgyptische K énigsnamen, p. 24; Bissing, pp. 6-12.
22 Vandier, op. cit., p. 114.
28 Maspero, op. cit.; Naville, op. cit., p. 7; Gauthier, BIFAO, 1906, p. 30 (but see p. 35);
Winlock, Dezr el Bahri, pp. 87, 117.
24 Worterbuch der aegypt. Sprache, |, p. 142.
6 Naville, EEF Archaeological Report, 1894-1895, pp. 35-36.
Given Life!’ apparently by those who knew for whom the tomb had
been prepared (Pl. 38A).
With the Chancellor Akhtoy we are once more on familiar ground.
We know him as one of the highest personages of the court, but here
it is obvious that he is playing an unusually important role. In the
first relief he is shown at a scale equal to that of the king’s mother
and his heir, and in the second he not only stands alone in the king’s
presence, but is portrayed practically as large as the king himself.
Akhtoy’s mother was named Sit-Ré¢.26 Breasted suggested that
she came from a family of Asyiit and only took service under Neb-
hepet-Ré¢ after the Thebans had conquered the North.2? No known
circumstances contradict this theory, improbable as it seems to our
way of thinking, and it fits one piece of existing evidence very well.
Akhtoy’s name was commonly written on the linen made for the
Theban court, but perhaps only after the Union of the Two Lands.
It was not found on the bed-sheets of the infant Mayet who seems
to have died before the country was reunited and was buried among
the ladies of the court at Deir el Bahri; it was found on those of
‘Ashayet and Henheénet who probably died just after the reunion;
and it was on the linen of Amiinet whose wrappings also included
a sheet dated ‘‘Year 40,” well after the defeat of the Heracleopoli-
tans.28 This is thus a seductive theory, but unluckily one which
cannot be definitely proved. It is fortunate that there are no im-
portant facts which require its support.
As we have already seen, Akhtoy constructed a tomb for himself
overlooking the temple of Deir el Bahri in one of the most prominent
spots in the Eleventh Dynasty necropolis.29 He set up a statue of
himself in a temple at Karnak—probably that of Montu—and per-
haps it was there that he dedicated a granite altar.90 He was shown
in the reliefs in the temple of Deir el Bahri as paying homage to Neb-
hepet-Ré¢ at the Sed festival, just as he does in the smaller of the
Shatt er Rigal scenes. Finally, from the graffito at Aswan, he is
known to have led an expedition to Wawat in Nubia as late as the
26 In the graffito at Aswan (see p. 34).

7 Breasted, op. cit., §414, n. a; Bissing, p. 9.
29 Winlock, [bidem.
80 For the statue: Mariette, Karnak, Pl. 8, j, Text, p. 44, No. 12; Boeser, Rijkmuseum Beate
Leiden, III, p. 5, No. 40, Pl. XXI, Fig. 13. In the latter publication it is shown with a modern
head of painted plaster, and on the brow a royal uraeus. The altar: Kamal, Annales, p. 15.
31 Naville, XJ Dyn. Temple, 1, p. 40, n. 1; otherwise unpublished.
4ist year of the reign.82 On these various monuments he is usually

entitled, as in the Shatt er Rigal, “Chancellor,” and on his Karnak
statue “Chancellor throughout the Land to its Uttermost Bounda-
ries.” He also bore the titles “Hereditary Prince and Count” (in the
tomb); ‘‘Treasurer of the King of Lower Egypt and Sole Companion’’
(in the tomb, the Aswan inscription, and on the statue); “Superin-
tendent of Treasurers” (at Aswan); and “Divine Father’ (on the
statue).
About halfway between the two stelae in the Shatt er Rigal, and
on the same, shady, southern side of the little valley, there is a group
of bold inscriptions occupying a space on a flat section of cliff, about
8 meters in length and higher than a man can reach today without
something upon which to stand.33 (Plate 39.) Originally they may
have been more numerous than they are now, for much of the cliff
to the east seems to have fallen, but even today there are eight rather
carefully chiseled inscriptions and two others pecked in the rock by
less practiced hands. All are on a comparatively large scale, the
hieroglyphs averaging 16 cm. in height. The largest (A, of Woser-
oner) measures 20 cm., and the smallest (D, of Meket-Ré¢), 12 cm.
Most give evidence of having been laid out by more or less skilled
calligraphists.
It would be difficult to picture the distinguished persons whom
they name, themselves spending the time and the labor which
obviously were required to carve these inscriptions. One gathers the
impression that some of them, at any rate, are the work of the
artisans who carved the reliefs, apparently under the direction of the
Sculptor Woser-oner who is named in the best, the most prominently
placed, and the largest of these inscriptions. Beginning with his
name they are as follows:
A. The Wétb-Priest, the Commander in ‘the Hat-Nuab (alabaster
Quarries), the Sculptor in the Palace, the Superintendent of Sculp-
tors, Woser-oner, son of In-yotef.
Letters 20 cm. high. Well cut with a chisel. Eisenlohr, p. 102, Pl.
Livieu Petrie; Now73° Bissingapeco:
The carving of this inscription is sufficiently like the carving of the
reliefs to justify the supposition that Woser-oner was responsible for
the work on the latter. He is not otherwise known.
31 Petrie, Pl. VII, No. 213; Breasted, op. cit., §§425-26.

38 Winlock, Deir el Babri, p. 117, Pl. 22:
B. The Superintendent ... . Follower, Sobk-hotpu.
Letters 16 cm. high. Carved with a chisel in a good bold style.
Petrie, No. 487. This inscription and the next, which is directly
below it, were both partially mutilated in ancient times by pecking.
GeThe Steward 2), He. 22...
Letters 15 cm. high. Petrie, No. 487.
The name of a certain Steward Henenu was found on fragments
of the sarcophagus, the stelae, and the doorjambs of his tomb at
Deir el Bahri. The tomb is in the row of which the westernmost is
that of the Chancellor Akhtoy34 and the easternmost that of the
Treasurer Meru,®5 and is nearly as large and imposing as any of its
neighbors. It is possible that this Henenu was the person here named.
D. The Truly Beloved of his Lord, Meket-Ré¢, Governor of the
Six Great Tribunals.
Letters 12 cm. high. Carved with a chisel but not very skillfully
laid out. Originally the intention seems to have been to start the
inscription with the letters zmy-r about 24 cm. high, but they were
later erased. Eisenlohr, Pl. II, 1. 7; Petrie, No. 455; Bissing, No. 20.
An early appearance of the name of Meket-Ré¢ is in the temple of
Neb-hepet-Ré¢ where in one place he was called “The Sole [Com-
panion], the Chancellor Meket-Ré¢’ and perhaps in another, “The
Count, the Chancellor M..... ”36 The Shatt er Rigal inscription is
of about the same period as these two. Later still was his tomb
among those of the courtiers of King Setankh-ka-Ré¢ overlooking the
latter’s temple site. On its walls he was called “The Hereditary
Prince, the Count, the Treasurer of the King of Lower Egypt’’ and
“The Hereditary Prince at the Gateway of [Geb],’’37 and also “The
Great Steward.’’38 On two of the model boats found in the szrdab of
the tomb he is termed simply “The Hereditary Prince,” and on the
limestone base of a small statue found on the tomb site his only title
was “Chancellor.”%9
34 Our field number was 510. It apparently has received no other number.
35 See G, below.
36 The first is on a block in Naville, XJ Dyn. Temple, II, Pl. 1X, D; BM 1452. The second, ”
written in a vertical column on an unpublished block in the temple, was noted by Newberry.
See p. 69 below.
37 On a block found in the excavations in 1920. It is possible that one of these two titles may
be that of In-yotef, the son of Meket-Ré¢.
38 On a limestone fragment in Cairo, found in the excavations of 1895.
39 Cairo Museum, Livre d’entrée 46716, and the Metropolitan Museum 20.3.4. The fragment
of statue base was found in 1920. Chips of his gilded wooden, coffin bore hisname but no titles.
E. The King’s Herald, a Familiar of the God, whose name 1s heard

by the South and the North, the Truly Beloved of his Lord, Ma-hesa,
son of Dagi, born of Nedjment.
Letters 15 cm. high. Well carved with a chisel. Eisenlohr, PI. II,
1. 8; Petrie, No. 456; Bissing, No. 20. The signs Sm¢ and sw were
purposely injured in ancient times, as was the Sw in the inscription
directly below (F) and in another to the left (K).
We do not know the names of the wife or of the son of the Vizier
Dagi whose tomb, No. 103, was bulilt in the reign of, and near the
temple of, Neb-hepet-Ré¢. Therefore, we cannot surely identify the
Dagi of the above inscription with the vizier.
F. The True Familiar of the King, Governor of the Northland, Itu.
Letters 19 cm. high. Rather unskillfully designed and carved.
Eisenlohr, Pl. II, 1. 9; Petrie, No. 448; Bissing No. 20. The sign sw
was purposely injured in ancient times. See E and K.
G. The Treasurer of the King of Lower Egypt, the Sole Com-
panion, the Governor of the Eastern Deserts, to whom Princes come
salaaming at the Gate of the King’s Palace, the Beloved of his Lord,
the Superintendent of Treasurers, Meru.
Letters 13 cm. high. Fairly well carved with a chisel. Eisenlohr, p.
102, Pl. II, ll. 10-11; Petrie, No. 459; Bissing, p. 20, Beiblatt 4,
INOMT7.
There is also a graffito, not carved by a professional sculptor, on a
low-lying boulder between this group of inscriptions and the small
stela, again naming “The Superintendent of Treasurers, Meru.’’40
Other monuments of Meru are: (1) Tomb No. 240 at Deir el
Bahri,4! in which the inscriptions give his title as ‘Superintendent of
Treasurers,” and (2) a stela,42 probably from Abydos, to judge from
the inscriptions, and now in Turin. It is dated to the Year 46 of Neb-
hepet-Ré‘, which was seven years later than the inscriptions of the
Shatt er Rigal. It names Meru’s father as Iku and his mother as
Ketety. His titles are given as “The Treasurer of the King of Lower
Egypt, the Sole Companion, and the Superintendent of Treasurers”
as in the Shatt er Rigal, and to them are added such complimentary
epithets as “‘He who has the Affection of his Lord” and ‘“‘Beloved
and Praised of his Lord.”
40 Unsatisfactorily given by Petrie, No. 478. It is written in two vertical columns.
‘1 Lepsius (Denkmadler, 11, Pl. 148) gives an incomplete drawing of the sarcophagus, omitting
the inscriptions which contain the title “Superintendent of Treasurers.”
“. Fabretti, Rossi, and Lanzone, Regio museo di Torino. Antichita egizie (1882-1888), |,
p. 117. Bibliography in Gauthier, Livre des rots, I, p. 232.
H. The Treasurer of the King of Lower Egypt, the Sole Com-
panton, the Scribe of the King’s Archives, Yay.
Letters 13 cm. high. Well carved with a chisel. Eisenlohr, Pl. II,
|. 5; Petrie, No. 463.
There is a graffito of this same Yay, probably in his own hand,
about a hundred paces or so up the valley (Pl. 38 C).43 It spells his
name in full and adds after it: “Life, Prosperity, and Health! Truly
Praised of his Lord.”
Newberry noted another record of Yay on an unpublished block
in the temple at Deir el Bahri with the inscription “The Royal
Scribe Yay.”
Among the above well-chiseled inscriptions there are two others
obviously done by very unpracticed hands. Both are framed within
rudely scratched borders:
J. Binder of the Regions of the King in all His Places, the truly
Praised of bis Lord, the Treasurer of the King of Lower Egypt, the
Superintendent of Treasurers, Mery.
Letters 17 cm. high. Very poorly executed, mostly by pecking,
within a roughly drawn frame. Eisenlohr, Pl. II, ll. 3-4; Petrie,
Nos. 472 and 474.
K. Aide of the King, Hepy, truly Pratsed of his Lord.
Letters 16 cm. high. Clearly, but unprofessionally cut, within a
frame 21 cm. high. Eisenlohr, Pl. II, |. 2; Petrie, No. 468. The sign
sw Was purposely injured in ancient times. See E and F.
Newberry noted an unpublished block in the temple at Deir el
Bahri naming this functionary “The King’s Aide Hep[i.”
There are two more inscriptions which are not in the above group
but which seem to be related to it.
L. The Hereditary Prince, Chief Lector, and Scribe of the Divine
Words, Akhtoy (Pl. 38 D).
Letters 5 cm. high. Neatly carved; near the first stela, close to the
ground. Petrie, No. 486.
This Akhtoy is also known from a block found in the Deir el Bahn
temple inscribed “The Lector in Chief Akhtoy.”44
M. The Superintendent of Treasurers, Sobk-hotpe (Pl. 38 E).
Letters 9 cm. high. Neatly carved with a chisel. It is about 10-15
paces east of the first stela, where it is apparently included in the
43 Petrie, No. 438; Bissing, p. 14. See note below.

44 Naville, XJ Dyn. Temple, II, Pl. 1X, D; BM 1413.
date Year 39 (see below). Intentionally mutilated in ancient times.

Petrie, No. 586.
Some fifteen paces east of the first stela, and once again immedi-
ately to the west of the second, someone has scratched rapidly on
the rocky cliff the date “Year 39.” The first time it was written in
numerals about 4 cm. high in a single line from left to right, or toward
the stela as one faces both.45 The second time it was written by the
same hand and with numerals 7 cm. high, grouped together, and in
reverse.46 (Pl. 37.) So placed, the two dates are obviously intended to
bracket the two stelae and the-group of inscriptions which were first
written around them. Furthermore, since such a high date can be
from no other reign than that of Neb-hepet-Ré¢ himself, it would
seem very likely that some traveler, who happened to know about
the visit of the court, scratched it there twice as if to say: “The
names between this place and that are of those of the king and the
courtiers who were here in the thirty-ninth year of the reign.”
The Shatt er Rigal seems to have been much frequented in the
years which followed immediately after the visit of King Neb-
hepet-Ré¢ and his court, and in the course of the next few years
over a hundred passers left scribblings on the rocks from the neigh-
borhood of the inscriptions of the Year 30, all along the same shady
side of the valley.
Some of these graffiti are dated to the last years of the Eleventh
Dynasty. There is another cartouche of Neb-hepet-Ré¢ lightly
scratched on the rocks in the upper part of the little wady.47 Farther
to the west, on a large boulder near the sand dune which cuts across
the valley, there is a sketch of King Setankh-ka-Ré¢ Montu-hotpe
receiving offerings of gazelles brought by two men—one of whom is
named Montu-hotpe—while two of his courtiers kneel behind him.48
The same king was commemorated again by an inscription between
those of the courtiers and the first stela, where, on an enormous slab
since fallen from the cliff, is to be seen his name ‘“The Horus Setankh-
towi,” now upside down.9 Finally, as we have already noted, a third,
deeply incised graffito of this reign is said to be among later, Carian
graffiti on a boulder of sandstone on the south side of the entrance
45 Petrie, No. 542. The last two strokes are certain.
46 Petrie, No. 452; Bissing, p. 14. The latter confuses it with a later graffito dated Amun-
em-hét IV (see below, p. 72).
47 Petrie, No. 394.
8 Petrie, No. 3509.
“ Petrie, No. 466. Neither he nor I saw the f which usually concludes this name.
THE COURT OF NEB-HEPET-RE¢ AT THE SHATTER RIGAL 71
of the valley. It should perhaps be read “The King of Upper and
Lower Egypt, Setankh-ka-Ré¢; beloved of Horus and of Sobk, Lord
of Kharu. One who served (?) the Horusé! (i.e., the King) since his
youth: the We’b Priest In-[yotef]y.”’
Apparently the majority of the private names in the valley are of
about this time. Among them are nine Montu-hotpes,52 seven
Akhtoys,53 four In-yotefs,54 and three Montu-fos55—all character-
istic names of the early Middle Kingdom. There is also one Heri-
shef-hotpu5* whose name suggests that he lived in the South well
after the conquest of Heracleopolis.
Some of the writers could have been of the entourage of Neb-
hepet-Ré¢ but, if so, they were not persons of the same class as the
great courtiers of the inscriptions, to judge not only from their titles
but from the style of their graffiti, which are usually small, in linear
hands, and were merely pecked or scratched in the rock. Most of
them, we may safely conclude, were the hasty scribblings of desert
travelers passing this way within the next few years after the visit
of Neb-hepet-Ré¢.
One of these names has a certain interest. Apparently the Trea-
surer Meket has scratched a record of his visit to the Shatt er Rigal
three times. His name, alone and far up the valley,5’ is a bit confused.
A little farther down he hastily scribbled it again, seemingly in com-
pany with the Treasurer Nakhte and the Lector and Sem Priest
Nefer-tem.58 Finally his name is to be found near the group of
courtiers®? where he was led to scratch it, perhaps by seeing the
inscription of his almost-namesake, Meket-Ré¢. There is a similar
case near by (Pl. 39). A certain Superintendent of the North Land
Hnumu-nakhte® wrote his name in a small, neat hand next to the
larger inscription of Itu, his predecessor in the same office. (F)
50 See p. 50 above.
51 Another example of this title (inaccurately copied) is Petrie, No. 458.
52 Petrie, Nos. 360, 376, 384, 390, 422 (Bissing, p. 15), 423 (Bissing,p. 17), 441, 470, and
another between Nos. 414 and 430 of a ‘“Montu-hotpe son? of Si-Montu” not in Petrie.
53 Petrie, Nos. 388, 391, 399, 408, 437, 450, 451.
54 Petrie, Nos. 358, 389, 390, and another near No. 385 not in Petrie. In Nos. 358 and 390 __
the In-yotefs may be the fathers of the writers.
55 Petrie, Nos. 464, 465, 467 (perhaps all of the same person).
56 Petrie, No. 401. Like the graffito of Yay (H, above), this one ends with the salutation:
“Life, Prosperity and Health!” usually addressed to the Pharaoh.
57 Petrie, No. 400.
88 Petrie, Nos. 432, 433; he omits Meket (Bissing, p. 16, Beiblatt 2, Nos. 3, 4).
59 Petrie, No. 475.
6 Petrie, No. 449; Bissing, p. 20, Beiblatt 5, No. 20.
During the last years of the Middle Kingdom some travelers,

but apparently not many, still passed by this way. At the very
end of the Twelfth Dynasty one recorded beside the second stela
the date Year 3 of Amun-em-het IV,‘ and from the Thirteenth
Dynasty there is a graffito under the large stela which reads “The
Son of Ré¢ Nefer-hotep, born of the King’s Mother Kemi.’ The
interesting thing about this latter scrawl is that it duplicates in
arrangement and in drawing the inscriptions on the scarabs of the
time and it would almost seem that whoever carved it had copied it
directly from a scarab which he was wearing on his finger. Some
years later a passer-by who stopped at the big stela scribbled just
below it, among the prehistoric pictographs, the name of a King
Sobk-em-saf (Pl. 38F).63
Of this period there is the name of a private individual named
Sobk-em-saf64 well up the valley, and a Scribe Sobk-em-saf carefully
carved his name in letters 9 cm. high about ten paces east of the
smaller stela. Directly beneath this name a less skilful but con-
temporary hand has scrawled ‘“‘Dedi’s son Sobku.’’65 Other travelers
of the period between the Thirteenth and the Eighteenth dynasties
stopped near by. Not far from the small stela is the very neatly
written name of “The Embalmer (?) Patam born of Reny-sonbe,
deceased” (PI. 39 II), and not far away the names of a large party of
men and women. They were ““The Officer Sobk-dedu; the Great One
of the Southern Tens Hor-hotpe; the Judge in Nekhen Neter-isi; his
wife the servant of the Prince Senwi; the Great One of the Southern
Tens Ren-nu; the Great One of the Southern Tens Hor-khuf; the
servant of the Prince Khonsu; the House Mistress Resi-sonbe; the
House Mistress Resi-sonbe; the . . . . m Sobk-dedu; the Citizen
Nakhte-Hor” (Pl. 39 III). This graffito and the near-by one of
Patam, while well cut, are on such badly corroded rock that they
are almost invisible, and can only be photographed at sunrise and
can best be copied at night with an artificial light. It is hardly sur-
prising, therefore, not to find them in Petrie.
If visitors to the Shatt er Rigal in the late Middle Kingdom were
61 Petrie, No. 444; Bissing, p. 15.

6 Petrie, No. 479; Annales, V, 1904, p. 144; Legrain, Fig. 9; Gauthier, Livre des rois, 11,
p. 25, cf. p. 26.
83 Petrie, No. 490.
64 Petrie, No. 385.
8° These last two graffiti appear to have escaped the notice of Petrie and Griffith. There are
other, illigible graffiti in this neighborhood.
not numerous, there were even less in the Eighteenth Dynasty, in
spite of the fact that sandstone quarries were then extremely active
only a short way up the river at the Gebel Silsileh and down the
river at el Hdésh. From the quarries at those places came the few
visitors to the valley. There is a graffito of the time of Amun-
hotpe 1.66 A generation later Peniaty, Superintendent of Works in
the Temple of Amin under Amun-hotpe I, deceased, Thut-mose I,
deceased, and the then reigning Thut-mose II, visited the valley
and left his name high up on the rocks to the right of the big stela.67
Peniaty seems to have spent a lifetime in the quarries, for in the
joint reign of Matet-ka-Ré¢ Hat-shepsiit and Men-kheper-Ré T hut-
mose III, he was still there and carved his name at the very head of
the valley.68 However, the few visitors of this period obviously came
to see the big stela, beneath which one of them wrote: ‘‘Visit made
by the Scribe Ib to see the mo[numents. . . .].’’®
Thus the Shatt er Rigal was much frequented at the end of the
Eleventh Dynasty and probably throughout the Twelfth. For the
next century or two after that an occasional wayfarer left his name,
but by the Eighteenth Dynasty the only visitors were from the staffs
of the near-by sandstone quarries, and they were frankly sight-seers
with antiquarian leanings.
The Shatt er Rigal was not then, nor had it ever been, a quarry
site.” It has been asserted that the Eleventh Dynasty graffiti were
of officials and workmen who came there in search of stone. | am
under the impression that the sandstone used in the Eleventh
Dynasty buildings at Thebes, at least, was all of the blue- or purple-
gray sort such as is found at Aswan, and none is of the yellowish,
Silsileh variety. Hence, there are here traces of the quarrying of no
more than three sandstone blocks in the valley, and they were un-
questionably cut under the Empire. Thus, we have to explain a
suddenly created importance for the spot shortly after the reunion ©
of Egypt in the Eleventh Dynasty, and then, after a few generations,
its gradual relapse into the desert silences.
Miles before the traveler ascending the Nile has arrived at the
Shatt er Rigal he realizes that he has entered a country already Nu-
66 Petrie, No. 480.

87 Petrie, No. 476; Eisenlohr, p. tot.
88 Petrie, p. 14, No. 357.
6 Petrie, No. 483; see the same person in No. 488.
70 Sayce, op. cit., p. 171.
bian in character. Even today the houses in el Kab, 60 kilometers

down the river, are reminiscent of those of Nubia, and the Berber
language is current at Deraw, only 25 kilometers above the Gebel
Silsileh. He has passed the northern border of the sandstone plateau
which stretches from Edfu to the Sudan, and the Nile is now
hemmed in by low, brown sandstone hills with rarely more than the
narrowest of alluvial terraces on either bank.
Once past the northern borders of this seemingly foreign land, the
voyager eventually finds himself confronted by the narrow water-gap
of Gebel Silsileh. This was never so serious an impediment to navi-
gation as the cataracts farther south, but there were rapids difficult
to navigate, particularly at seasons of low water, and often the crews
must have been called upon to haul vessels through the narrows.
Even today, after some of the ledges have been blasted out of the
channel, the stretch of river from the Shatt er Rigal through the
Gebel Silsileh is full of reefs and shoals, and just above, at Kom
Ombo, there is a bend hard to negotiate without a favorable wind.
Four thousand years ago the river could not have worn so deep a
channel through the hill as it has today, and Middle Kingdom sailing
vessels must have found the region far from an easy one to pass.
If the stelae and inscriptions in the Shatt er Rigal are, as they
seem to be, memorials of the actual presence of King Neb-hepet-Ré¢
and his court on this spot, we can readily understand why it was
that the king stopped there, presuming he had just ascended the
river from his capital in Thebes. He was already, it almost seemed,
beyond the borders of Egypt, and the next stretch of river promised
to be tedious to navigate. For these reasons, doubtless, a rendezvous
had already been made for the lower end of the Gebel Silsileh rapids,
where Prince In-yotef and Chancellor Akhtoy were to be received
in audience.
Since it is unlikely that they would have had any mission in the
neighborhood of the Gebel Silsileh, we can only suppose that they
had been much farther afield and that we see them returning to re-
port on their expedition. Had they come down the Nile by river
boats, it would almost seem that the audience would have been
granted at the riverside, in which case the memorial reliefs should
have been carved on some crag overlooking, and visible from, the
water. Moreover, the majority of the later graffiti seem to have been
left by travelers over the same road as that which In-yotef and
Akhtoy had followed; and, as most of these later memorials are up
THE COURT OF NEB-HEPET-RE AT THE SHATT ER RIGAL 75
the desert valley, completely out of sight of the river, one can hardly
consider them as recording river expeditions. Hence, the Shatt er
Rigal inscriptions of the court of Neb-hepet-Ré¢ are best explained
as recording the return of a desert caravan, like those of Hor-khuf,
Pepi-nakhte and Sebui in the Old Kingdom.7!
We can rule out the oases as the country from which the prince
and chancellor were returning. Those regions were probably of too
little importance at this period to have justified an expedition under
such distinguished leadership; and if such an expedition had been
sent, it doubtless would have been by the shorter and easier road
from Diospolis Parva.72 Dish in el Khargeh Oasis, at its southern
extremity, is almost due west of Gebel Silsileh, distant 215 kilo-
meters or 54 hours’ actual caravan marching time between water
and water. From Diospolis Parva near Abydos, the distance is only
140 kilometers to the northern wells of el Khargeh which is a stretch
that can be crossed in 35 hours. Kurkur was too far and too unim-
portant at this time to have been the object of such a journey by
these dignitaries, and the Sidan was cut off from all Egyptians.
It is far more likely that the expedition was returning from
northern Nubia not far south of the cataract at Aswan. Earlier in
the reign, “In the year of the smiting of the foreign lands... . in
the time of Neb-hepet-Ré‘,” that king’s army had campaigned
between the cataract and Kalabsha, according to the inscriptions at
Abisko of Djehmau who was in the Egyptian army at the time.78
Lower Nubia, we may be certain, was completely pacified by the
Year 39 when In-yotef and Akhtoy made their journey to inspect
the recently subjugated provinces in 2052 B.C.
Theirs was probably one of the last of the important caravan
expeditions such as had been frequent in the Old Kingdom. Its
terminus at the Shatt er Rigal can be explained by the fact that the
trip from there down the river to Thebes was short and easy, with-
out cataracts or rapids. Later, in the Twelfth Dynasty, when Nubia
and even the Sidan were under the firm control of the Egyptians,
and fortresses and garrisons had been established at all important
river points, the Nile was the usual mode of travel. Furthermore,
when the trip had to be made all the way to the court of It-towy
near Memphis, the difficulties of the Gebel Silsileh or even of the
71 Reisner, Early Trading Caravans, Sudan Notes and Records, 1918, pp. 3-15.
72 Winlock, Ed Dakhleb Oasts, p. 57.
73 See page 32 above.
cataract at Aswan must have seemed mere incidents in the intermi-

nable voyages from the Sidan to the court.
In the Eleventh Dynasty, however, it was probably still far
quicker and easier to go across the desert on foot, from Aswan to
below the rapids at the Gebel Silsileh, than it was to attempt the
voyage by boat. Hence it was for this reason that Prince In-yotef
and the Chancellor Akhtoy came across the desert to be met by
King Neb-hepet-Ré¢ and his courtiers who were waiting on the river
bank at the highest point up stream to which their boats could be
easily sailed.
Vv
GRAFFITI OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE ELEVENTH

DYNASTY TEMPLES AT THEBES
The simple, unpretentious inhabitants of Thebes during the early
Middle Kingdom have left very few records of their lives. It is
seldom that so much as a line written spontaneously by any of them
has survived the accidents of the four thousand years between their
days and ours; and even when, on very rare occasions, some of them
did scratch their names on the temptingly smooth, soft limestone of
their native cliffs, they affected a minute, cramped, practically
hieroglyphic hand which is far less likely to attract attention than
the flowing hieratic of Ramesside scribes. Thus it is that compara-
tively few Middle Kingdom graffiti have been noticed today among
the hundreds of later scribblings on the rocks of Thebes.
The earliest known of these graffiti are near the temple of King
Neb-hepet-Ré¢ Montu-hotpe at Deir el Bahri. If one climbs as high
as he can on the rocky spur which extends along the south side of the
temple forecourt, to the point where the cliff rises sheer above him
and where the temple site lies some eighty meters below, he will
find scratched on the rock: “The Horus Neter Hedjet, King of
Upper and Lower Egypt Hepet, Son of Ré¢ Montu-hotpe; (written)
by his beloved Wenen-ef-Ré¢’s son Nenen-Ré¢” (PI. 38 B).1 Here we
have a man who writes his king’s name in a fashion earlier than that
of the shrines of the princesses in the temple below and who must,
therefore, have lived in the earliest years of the reign of Neb-hepet-
Ré¢.2, Near by Nenen-Ré¢ scratched his name once more—but
not his ruler’s—and not far away is the signature of a certain In-yotef-
nakhty who may have been a contemporary.#
If one climbs up to the base of the cliff directly above the Eleventh
Dynasty temple, he will find a boulder to the right of the little rock-
cut chamber which probably was once the shrine for a statue of the.
1 Spiegelberg’s copy—No. 1054 in his Graffiti, cited below—is here reproduced as | emended
it on the spot. ;
2 For the king’s name on the shrines see Naville, X/th Dyn. Temple at Deir el-Bahari, |, Pls.
XII, XVII; II, Pls. XVIII, XX. Winlock, Deir el Babri, p. 35.
3 Spiegelberg’s Nos. 1055-56.
king. That seems likely when one considers the fact that there are
similar chambers above some of the contemporary private tombs in
this cemetery, and in one such chamber we found a pair of statues
of the deceased.4 On the boulder beside this chamber above the
temple there are a number of early and late graffiti. Among the
former there may still be seen the titles ““Lector and Wé¢b-priest”’
in a characteristic Middle Kingdom hand. Further around the cliff,
in the narrow gully directly above the northwest corner of the
Eighteenth Dynasty temple there are two more obliterated Middle
Kingdom graffiti in which can still be recognized the name of King
Neb-hepet-Ré¢. Another graffito with the same king’s name beside
it was written in four, now badly weathered, vertical lines by a
Weétb-priest Montu-hotpe still further eastward along the cliffs,
directly above the tomb of the Chancellor Akhtoy and at the side
of a modern path to the Valley of the kings.
These few, obliterated scribblings are scattered sparsely along the
rocks, and there are probably few others to be discovered in the
whole necropolis except in one rather confined neighborhood. But in
that neighborhood—on the cliffs behind Sheikh ‘Abd el Kurneh hill
and above the little valley where the royal mummies were discovered
in 1881—about a hundred still legible Middle Kingdom signatures
can be found even today.
These graffiti appear to have been noticed first in the winter of
1895-96 by Wilhelm Spiegelberg. At that time he made squeezes of
over eighty different graffiti, but it was not until 1920 that he pre-
pared them for publication as Nos. 920-85 in his Agyptische und
andere Graffitt aus der thebanischen Nekropolis. Those which appear
in Spiegelberg’s publication are marked “‘S” with the number given
to them by him in the plates in this book. Those not followed by
such indications were not seen by him.
Unfortunately he had never been able to collate his squeezes with
the originals, but nevertheless his atlas of large plates, presenting
full-sized facsimiles, shows excellently the general character of these
often careless and sometimes illiterate scrawls. With these, for the
most part adequate, reproductions available I did not deem it neces-
sary to make facsimiles again, hoping that where my transcriptions
do not agree with Spiegelberg’s the new readings will be accepted as
justified by the originals.
‘ Winlock, Deir el Babri, p. 71.

GRAFFITI OF THE PRIESTHOOD. 79
Ambrose Lansing rediscovered these graffiti while excavating in

the neighborhood in 1918-19, and he showed them to me on my ar-
rival in Luxor early in 1920. I made copies of most of them in 1921-
22, in some cases with the help of Battiscombe Gunn.5 In 1924-25
Walter Cline, who was on the Metropolitan Museum Expedition that
winter, searched the whole neighborhood to make sure that we had
noted all the graffiti, and as a result of the combined efforts of all of
us we added about two dozen to those which Spiegelberg had seen.
Between the temple of King Neb-hepet-Ré¢ Montu-hotpe at Deir
el Bahri and the site of the proposed temple of King Setankh-ka-Ret
Montu-hotpe behind the southern shoulder of the hill of Sheikh tAbd
el Kurneh, is the little desert valley shown in the photograph (PI. 13).
One can ascend the easy slopes at the end of the rocky spur which
makes the valley’s southern or left-hand side, past the forecourt of
an Eleventh Dynasty tomb on its tip, where we found part of a
Middle Kingdom mummy mask bearing the name of a certain Si-
An-huret, and thence along the almost level top of the spur to the
next, and more difficult, ascent. At about the 194-meter contour
on a manuscript map by Walter Hauser in the Metropolitan Museum
the path turns to the north of a tongue of rock. On the sheer wall of
this last there are scratched at least thirteen graffiti within the next
fifty paces, or until one has ascended to the 200-meter contour.é
Of these graffiti, five name a certain Montu-hotpe’s son Se’n-Wosret,
who was a priest of Setankh-ka-Ré¢; three more were written by
others of the same priesthood; and two were by priests of Neb-
hepet-Ré¢.
The path then ascends to the rocky shelf at the 230-meter contour,
where it passes out of sight in the photograph to the left of the promi-
nent crag at the end of the cliff. Here there are sixteen more graffiti
along the steep face of the rock;7 four by priests of the one king and a
like number by priests of the other; all within easy reach of the pres-
ent path except three, which are some three or four meters above it
and on the eastern face of the rock. Beyond this point the graffiti
stop, and probably the path did too, for it must be remembered that
in the Middle Kingdom, when the Valley of the Kings was still.
‘Lansing, MMA Bulletin, December, 1920, Part II, pp. 4-12; Winlock, Deir el Babri, pp.
32, 47.
§ Below, Pls. 40-45, Nos. 13, 20, 34 (one), 35 (four), 37, 44, 50, 55, 72, 74-
7 Nos. 1 (name only), 14, 16, 21, 25, 34 (one), 41 (one), 45, 48, 52, 64, 75, 77, 82, 85.
wilderness, few could have had any object in making the dizzy
scramble the rest of the way to the top.
If, after one has passed the first group of graffiti, he turns to the
right over the slopes between the sheer cliff above and the drop into
the valley below, he will come eventually to the projecting bastions of
the mountain in the center. Here, at about the 190-meter contour,
the cliff is thickly scribbled over with some seventy graffiti, all within
a score of paces along the path, except one small group about four
meters up the rock.8 All the rest are within easy reach from the path
and one is actually within 12 cm. of its present level.
It is obvious that this part of the mountain has changed but little
in the last four thousand years and, since today one cannot approach
this group of graffiti from the north, perhaps it has always been
inaccessible from that direction.
However, it is only for a very short space that the way from the
north is impassable at present, and it is conceivable that the narrow
gully which cuts the approach in that direction has been eroded by
the occasional torrents which have fallen over the cliff since the
Middle Kingdom. Were that narrow space passable, one could leave
the forecourt of the temple of Neb-hepet-Ré¢ at Deir el Bahri by the
postern gates in its south walls, ascend the rocky tongue of mountain
in the right of the photograph, and thence proceed directly across
the valley head to the graffiti. Such easy accessibility would explain
why the majority of the names of those connected with Deir el Bahri
are at this point.
Although the lay of the land makes these graffiti appear to be in
three groups, they obviously should be considered as really but one.
They are all within easy hailing distance of one another; they are
clearly all of one period; and at least three of their writers appear in
more than one group. Nofer-ebod wrote his longest graffito in the
third group and left his name in the second;! the name of a certain
Reny-sonbe is found in the same places;!! and Montu-hotpe’s son
Se’n-Wosret wrote his name in all three groups, but most often on
the path to the highest point where the graffiti are found.!2
Of the writers whose signatures are still decipherable, all but a
8 Nos. 6, 7, 28, 54.
9 One of No. 78 not seen by Spiegelberg.
10No. 1.
11 No. 41.
12 One of No. 34 and four of No. 35 in the first group; one of No. 34 in the second; and No.
33 in the third.
GRAFFITI OF THE PRIESTHOOD | 81
very few were obviously members of temple priesthoods (Pls. 40-45).

The greatest number belonged to the priesthood of Neb-hepet-Ré¢;
about half as many to the clergy of Setankh-ka-Ré¢; seven to that
of the god Amin; and over a score have titles of temple priests and
doubtless belonged to one or the other of these three hierarchies but
have neglected to mention with which they were connected. A few,
however, name the actual temples to which they were attached.
Three were priests in ‘‘Glorious are the Seats of Amin,” the mortu-
ary temple of Neb-hepet-Ré¢ at Deir el Bahri.!8 Another priest of
the same king calls that temple ‘““The House of Montu of Khaty-
kau-[Ré¢],” in obvious reference to the benefactions conferred upon
it by Se’n-Wosret III.14 The tomb of Setankh-ka-Ré¢ must have
been given the name “Shining is the Pyramid,” and we have one of
its priests recording that name, although neither pyramid nor temple
had ever been erected. Another priest less definitely indicates the
same foundation by the common ideogram for a shrine.!5
Two-thirds of these priests bore the title Wé¢b!16—“‘the pure’’—so
called because their first duty was to cleanse themselves before pro-
ceeding with their sacred functions, each time they entered the
temple. They were the junior grade of the hierarchy, but some of
those whom we meet here had also acquired the additional titles
Heru-hebet or Imy-set-Ca, one that of Scribe,!7 and another that of
Embalmer.!8 More than one writer in four was a Lector or a Chief
Lector—Heru-bebet or Heru-bebet heri-tep—whose duty it was to
read the liturgies in the temple services. And then there were the
few who bore the well-known title in the temple hierarchy—but of
unknown meaning—Imy-set-ta. Half of these last were also Wé¢b-
priests, and at least one was a Lector.
Of the handful of graffiti remaining after those of the temple priests
are counted, four appear to have been written by simple, unofficial
citizens,!9 and three give the names of functionaries connected with
the necropolis in general. Two of these last followed the calling of
13 Nos. 2-4. The word s.¢ appears here, as elsewhere in temple names, both in the singular and
in the plural. Cf. Naville, XJ Dyn. Temple, |, pp. 10, 29, 60; Sethe, Amun und dte acht Ur ecies
ron Hermopolis (1929), § 20.
14 Naville, op. cit., p. 59, Pl. XXIV.
15 Nos. 33, 37. ;
16 Blackman, “Priest, Priesthood (Egyptian),” in Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion and
Etbics.
17 No. 69.
8 No. 79.
19 Nos. 83-86.
Embalmer (Wet), one of whom—as has been noted—being in addi-

tion a Wé¢b in the phyle of priests in some temple.” The third was a
certain Se’n-Wosret, ““The Chief Ka-servant of the Divine Father.”
He was perhaps a mortuary priest attached to the tomb of the Di-
vine Father, Prince In-yotef, the heir of Neb-hepet-Ré¢ who died
before succeeding to the throne, and who seems to have been buried
near his father’s temple at Deir el Bahri.?! Finally, there was the
Lector Sobk-fo, who is described by his son as having been in charge
of the necropolis linen stores.?2
It is noteworthy that in the score or so of cases where the writers
name their forebears, only a third of the latter are designated as
having been priests themselves. This may have been because the
religious foundations of Thebes were new in the Middle Kingdom
and their priesthoods were of necessity largely recruited from the
laity. It is typical, for example, to find that the Wétb-priest ‘Am
was the son of an Overseer of Magazines, and that another Wé¢b,
Shed-Ptah, was the son of a Steward. In passing, it is worth noting
that these two priests appear to have been half-brothers—sons of
the same mother, Yu-nes-soneb, though of different fathers.23 The
only other graffito naming the writer’s mother is No. 3, of a certain
Montu-hotpe born of Met-tankhet.
There is one case of a priest whose father was a priest before him,
which is set forth in two graffiti unlike any of the others.24 In the
first a certain “Chief Lector of Setankh-ka-Ré¢, deceased, Sobk-fo
son of Sobk-‘o, says: ‘I did that which my Lord praises, giving satis-
faction to [his spirit].’ ’’ The second takes the form of a crudely
scratched memorial stela in honor of the obviously dead father,
“which his son Sobk-fo made for him.’’25 In the middle stands a
figure, presumably of the father, from whom seem to issue the words:
“The Chief Lector—he is the one over the linen of the necropolis26—
Sobk-¢o, the Lector. He says: ‘I did that which my Lord praises, and
I satisfied his spirit.’ [A boon which the king gives . . . ,] thousands of
bread and beer, thousands of beef and fowl, thousands of bread,
thousands of beer, and all things good and pure (for) the Lector,
* Nos. 79-80. Blackman (see footnote 23) mentions such an arrangement ina temple of this
period at el Lahin.
*1 No. 81. For Prince In-yotef see above page 44.
22 No. 40.
*3 Nos. 8-9. These are XII Dyn. graffiti and not XIX Dyn. as Spiegelberg believed.
24 Nos. 39-40.
38 Reading line 5 and afterward lines 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, and 8, in that order.
#° Reading £57 for 37, as suggested to me by Bull.
GRAFFITI OF THE PRIESTHOOD 83
deceased. Everything in this tomb is for the spirit of Sobk-to, the
Lector, deceased.” In the middle of this already confused inscription
the son has unexpectedly introduced the name of that ‘“Montu-
hotpe’s son Se’n-Wosret’”’ who was a Wé¢b-priest of Setankh-ka-Ré¢
and whose name we have already noticed some half-a-dozen times on
these rocks.27
The great majority of the graffiti are limited to bare signatures,
with a title and sometimes with the father’s name for identification—
rarely with the name of a grandfather.28 As we have already noted,
these were priests of subordinate grades, and they do not give us a
very glowing picture of the literacy of the general run of their order
in Thebes during their generation. A glance at Spiegelberg’s fac-
similes inspires us with no very high idea of their calligraphy, and
sometimes we may even doubt whether their often meager abilities
could carry them beyond signing their own names—and very crudely
at that. As was the style of the day, they usually wrote from right to
left and preferably in vertical columns. About one in four drew lines
to separate the columns or scratched a frame around their writing,
and a certain Wétb-priest Montu-hotpe had the effrontery to draw a
royal cartouche around his name and title.22 About a dozen others
drew very crude pictures of themselves, sometimes, like Nofer-ebod,9
within a shrine.
The most interesting peculiarity of the orthography perhaps origi-
nates in a contemporary idiom of the spoken language. It would seem
that the name of the sun-god REé¢ as an element of names was often
left unpronounced in the current speech, for King Neb-hepet-R€¢ is
here sometimes simply called Neb-hepet,3! and those named after
him were often called likewise;32 and Sefankh-ka-Ré¢, both as a
king’s name and as a personal name, was often similarly clipped in
the local dialect.33
From the parts of the cliff where these graffiti are to be found there
is a wide panorama of the distant eastern bank of the Nile, easily
taking in all of Middle Kingdom Thebes where it was clustered about
27 Nos. 33-35-
33 Nos. 3, 6, 12, 19, 24, 27, 33-
2 No. 57; Spiegelberg, Pl. 103, pp. 924 f.
30 No. 1; Spiegelberg, Pl. 107, p. 968.
31 Nos. 10, 16, 17, 33°, 47- ‘
32 Nos. 6, 19, 21, 23, 26-29. Sethe, Achtung feindlicher Fiirsten, Volker und Dinge auf
altagyptischen Tongefiss-scherben (1926), p. 67.
33 The king: Nos. 36, 38, 47; an individual: No. 45.
the temple of Amiin at Karnak and northward beyond the probably

more ancient and then larger temple of Montu. On the west bank
the whole plain is visible, from the early Eleventh Dynasty cemetery
along the desert near the ferry landing—which must have crossed
direct from Karnak in those days—southward to the Deir el Bahri
avenue. In the Eighteenth Dynasty the landing stage opposite
Karnak was called Khbeftet-hir-neb-es—“Opposite to her Lord.”
It was obviously for such a view that the writers of the graffiti made
the breath-taking scramble up the cliff, for one of them luckily
recorded not only his name but the occasion and the reason for his
making the climb.34 He wrote: “The Wétb-priest Nofer-ebod;
giving praise to Amin and kissing the ground before the Lord of
Gods on his festival,35 the First Day of Shomu, when he crosses over
on the day of voyaging to the Valley of Neb-hepet-Ré¢; by the Wétb-
priest of Amin, Nofer-ebod.”
The “Valley (zn.t) of Neb-hepet-Ré¢’ was clearly the popular
name of Deir el Bahri in the Twelfth Dynasty.36 During that period
the ‘‘Feast of the Valley,” which here finds its earliest mention, be-
came one of the chief religious holidays of Thebes, familiar to us
from the Eighteenth Dynasty to Greco-Roman times.87
It was the day when Amin’s statue was brought out of the sanctu-
ary in Karnak in its sacred bark, ferried across the river in a larger
ship, and borne on the shoulders of priests from the landing stage
on the western bank up to the temple of Neb-hepet-Ré°, there to
pass the night. Even when in later dynasties new temples had been
built in western Thebes and the pilgrimage was made to them, it
was still under the name of the “Feast of the Valley,”’ though the
later temples were in the plain.
While the ritual clearly grew far more elaborate as time went on,
some hint of the earlier festival may be gained from the sequence of
events on that day in the reign of Hat-shepsit, as it was shown at
Deir el Bahri. After the Bark of Amin had been ferried across the
river it rested first of all in the Valley Temple of Deir el Bahri for
Sf Now i:
35 Actually written in the plural.
BSe he stela of Se’n-Wosret III found in the temple (Naville, XJ Dyn. Temple, |, p. 59,
Pl. XXIV).
37 Naville, Annales du Musée Guimet, 1902, p. 18, Pl. XIV; the festival, Winlock, Deir el
Babri, p. 219, fig. 14; Foucart, BIFAO, 1924, reviewed by Kees, OLZ, 1927, 242. See also
Sethe, Amun und die acht Urgotter, § 8, n. 1, and Steindorff and Wolf, Thebanische Graberwelt,
p27
a space. Then it was carried up to a chapel half way along the cause-
way to her great temple. Lastly it came to rest in the sanctuary of
the great temple itself. In each of the three chambers where it was
set down there were four statues of the queen, garbed as Osiris,
standing in the four corners of the shrine to watch over and protect
the god while he was there.
Since at Deir el Bahri the ferry from Karnak was probably hidden
by the Dirat Abu’n Nega hill, it would be only natural to send some-
one up on the near-by cliffs, where the crossing from the city could
be seen and where ample warning of the start of the procession could
be shouted down to the priests waiting below. There are several
places near Deir el Bahri which would have served as excellent look-
outs, but the choice was given to a spot halfway between the temple
of Neb-hepet-Ré¢ and the site chosen for that of Sefankh-ka-Ré¢. It
is surprising that the priests of the latter’s unbuilt temple were so
interested in the god’s pilgrimage, but to judge from their numerous
graffiti they obviously were, in spite of the fact that they had no
shrine in which the bark of Amiin could actually have spent a night,
and not even a passable way by which it could have been carried to
their temple site over the desert rocks and across the dry water
courses.
In any case, priests of both kings shared in the vigil, and some-
times they must have had a long wait of it before the procession set
out from Karnak. Then it was, while idling away his time up on the
height, that some watcher picked up a bit of flint and scratched his
name beside him on the rocks. In ancient or in modern times it has
always been the same. One name scribbled on a wall has always been
an irresistible lure to the next comer, and as long as there were priests
coming year after year to the lookout, new names were constantly
being scratched beside those already there. Sometimes the same
priests came back a second or a third year’8 and, as we have already
noticed, not always to exactly the same spot. Occasionally, however,
they seem to have had their favorite places, as did Ren-ef-rés, whose
name is written six times—perhaps on six different visits—but all
within a fairly small area. On the other hand, we must realize that in
many cases where the same name is found again and again, we are
probably dealing with several different individuals. This is especially
the case with those named Montu-hotpe, many of whom had recog-
%® Nos. 1, 3, 11, 33-35, 39-41, 74, 78.

nizable peculiarities of writing. The remarkable thing is, however,

that not one writer took the trouble to do a presentable inscription,
although often enough they must have had plenty of time while they
were waiting for the procession to start out on the other side of the
river.
As for the exact dates of these graffiti our evidence seems at first
somewhat vague, but there is actually reason enough to give us a
very strong assurance that all belong within the Twelfth Dynasty.
It was, I should judge from the handwriting, perhaps the Wé¢b-
priest Shu-Amiin, watching from the highest lookout point, who
scratched the rather amateurish version of the cartouche of a King
Amun-em-hét near his own name.®? We have already noted that an-
other priest calls the temple at Deir el Bahri ‘““The House of Montu of
Khaty-kau-[Ré¢],” and his graffito could not have been written be-
fore the reign of Se’n-Wosret III, from 1878 to 1840 B.c., during the
second half of the Twelfth Dynasty.4° Another writer who should be
dated to the Twelfth Dynasty is the Chief Lector Montu-hotpe
whose grandfather was named after Neb-hepet-Ré¢, doubtless be-
cause he was born in that king’s reign.4! If so, many a year must have
passed between the naming of the grandfather and the grandson’s
signing himself ‘Chief Lector’ up on the cliff, and the case is only
slightly less convincing where a writer’s grandfather was a Wé¢b-
priest of the same king.42 It is likely that in the cases where
the writers were named after Neb-hepet-Ré¢, many lived into the
following dynasty, and it is certain that where their fathers or
the writers themselves were named after Setankh-ka-Ré¢ they did
not attain adult years until the Twelfth Dynasty was started. Fi-
nally, choice of the lookout points, midway between the two royal
burial places, would only have been made after the priesthood had
been organized to serve the tomb of Setankh-ka-Ré¢, and this last
consideration together with all the others seems to make it safe to
date the whole group of graffiti to the Twelfth Dynasty.
On the other hand, we have the case of one writer whose career
clearly started in the Eleventh Dynasty. His graffito reads: ‘““The
Chief Lector, the Favored of Neb-hepet-Ré¢, Montu-hotpe,’’43 and
39 Nos. 14, 82.

49 No. 5.
SuINOm27s
42 No. 12.
48 No. 15.
here there can be no doubt that we have one who actually received
favors during that king’s lifetime. But even in this case it is perfectly
possible that his graffiti was written in the Twelfth Dynasty. Even
if this Montu-hotpe was a grown man at the death of Neb-hepet-
Ré‘—and that is the reasonable assumption in view of his claim that
that king honored him—he could easily have survived the nineteen
years remaining to the Eleventh Dynasty, but hardly the whole of
the thirty-year reign of Amun-em-hét I which followed.
The earliest of these graffiti date, then, from the reign of Amun-
em-hét 1; we have another which is at least as late as the reign of
Se’n-Wosret II]; and perhaps others should be placed later still in
the Middle Kingdom.44 Among them we meet seven priests of Amin
and a dozen other persons whose names were compounded with that
of Amtin,45 a god who was the patron of Thebes in the Twelfth Dy-
nasty but was of minor consequence in the Eleventh.
In fact, we find unequivocal mention of Amiin only a very few
times in the whole of the Eleventh Dynasty.46 The Horus Wah-tankh
In-yotef the Elder refers on the main stela from his tomb to the
furnishing of Amiin’s temple and the equipping of his bark,47 but
the names of all gods were apparently destroyed under Akh-en-Aten
and the name of Amin was restored later in all cases. More certain
cases of the god’s name in inscriptions are known however. Amun-
em-hét—‘‘Amiin is in the forefront (of the Gods)’’48—who later be-
came a courtier of the Horus Nakhte Neb-tep-nefer In-yotef, must
have been born in the time of this same Wah-tankh.# Perhaps from
a later generation there is another reference to the temple of Amin
on a fragmentary stela in the cemetery where Wah-tankh was
buried.509 The Lady Aminet—namesake of that goddess who was
the feminine counterpart of Amin—must have been born and named
in the early years of Neb-hepet-Ré¢. Dr. Douglas E. Derry wrote
me in 1922 that she appeared to be a woman in middle life, and yet
44.Nos. 8, 9. :
Those whose names are compounded with Amin were Nos. 3, 14, 19, 33, 39, 37, 55, 95, 72,
76, 83, 85?, possibly Nos. 51 and 54 and, less likely, No. 43. Pls. 40-45.
46 Sethe, Achtung feindlicher Fiirsten, p. 63, puts in the XI Dyn. Aminy, a contemporary of
a certain Sehetep-ib (ibid., p. 67), named after Amun-em-hét I; Edgerton, /AOS, 1940, p. 492,
n. 44, says these ostraca cannot be before Se’n-Wosret 111.
47 Lange and Schafer, Grabsteine, 20512, ll. 1 and 6; Sethe, Amun und die acht Urgétter,
eae Amun und die acht Urgétter, § 168; Ranke, Chronique d’ Egypte, 1936, p. 306.
50 Petrie, Quarneb, p. 17, Pl. X; Sethe, Amun und die acht Urgotter, § 11.
some of the linen marks on the bandages which were wrapped about
her were dated in the 35th, the 38th and the 42d years of the reign,®!
and she probably died in about the 50th year. Later in the same
reign was born that Amun-em-hét who survived the Eleventh Dy-
nasty to occupy the throne himself for thirty years. Beyond this
little we know nothing of the god before the Twelfth Dynasty.
Sethe would have it that Amiin—even granting that he was men-
tioned in the Pyramid Texts52—was only introduced to the Thebans
by their prince, the Horus Wah-tankh In-yotef, as a result of his
victory over the Heracleopolitans. Sethe seems to assume, since there
is no contemporary evidence of the fact, that the Theban conquest
somehow extended as far north as Hermopolis, where Amin had been
among the local eight deities—a god of the elements, anthropo-
morphic and not animal formed like the primitive nome gods. How-
ever, aside from any speculations on the circumstances of its intro-
duction—as an incident of the war with the north or not—we have
seen that the Amiin cult was already in Thebes at the outset of the
Eleventh Dynasty. But, on the other hand, it never seems to have
been the official religion of the Eleventh Dynasty kings, and it was
only with Amun-em-hét I—and probably because of some personal
or family reason of the new king’s—that Amin came into his own.
Then, however, his reputation grew apace, and very shortly after-
ward he was even identified with the Old Kingdom sun-god as
Amun-Ré¢.53
It would have been natural for the new ruler to do everything he
could to strengthen his own position by increasing the prestige of his
patron god. There may have been something even in the earliest The-
ban ritual of Amin involving journeying by boat.54 Perhaps the
earliest annual voyage of the god was to southern Opet, on the east
bank of the Nile where the town of Luxor now is located. A fragment
of relief was found in Deir el Bahri which some have taken for the
prow of the bark of Amiin in the days of Neb-hepet-Ré¢.55 If this
voyage actually took place at such an early date it would have been
very easy for Amiin’s namesake, Amun-em-hét, to establish a new
51 Daressy, Sphinx, 1913, p. 100.

52 Sethe, Amun und die acht Urgétter, § 61 (reviewed caustically by Wainwright, JEA, 1931,
p. 151); Pyramid Texts, §§ 446, 1095, 1540.
53 Sethe, Amun, § 236. Lange and Schafer, Grabsteine, 20754, of the XII Dyn. and not of
the XI Dyn., as Sethe thought.
54 Sethe, Amun, § 54. ; i
55 Foucart, BIFAO, 1924. Pl. 1X; Naville, XI Dyn. Temple, I, Pl. XIII.
festival of the “Voyaging to the Valley of Neb-hepet-Rét,” the
Theban king who had united the Two Lands.
It is obvious that Neb-hepet-Ré¢ himself never could have antici-
pated such a pilgrimage, or his architects never would have designed
a temple so ill adapted to processions. We must always remember
that the monument at Deir el Bahri started as a gigantic saff. Its
narrow doors and the forest of columns around its pyramid seem
purposely contrived to make difficult the passage back into the
sanctuary of such an object as the bark of Amin. In fact, the
bark and its bearers could have measured no more than about 350
cm. in length and go cm. in width, if they were to negotiate the nar-
row doors and sharp turns in the ambulatory around the pyramid.
This would have meant that one row of bearers would have had to
leave the litter as it entered the first doorway of Neb-hepet-Ré¢’s
temple if, as seems probable, the earliest bark had three carrying
poles for three bearers abreast.56 The chapel of Se’n-Wosret I at
Karnak and the straight processional way of Hat-shepsit in her
temple at Deir el Bahri both provide room for a bark with three
rows of bearers, who would have needed a passage no more than
three cubits, or about 156 cm., wide.
Clearly in the Eleventh Dynasty the journey of the bark of Amin
to Deir el Bahri was unheard of; in the Twelfth Dynasty it was being
watched for annually, on a day clearly stated in one of these graffiti.
Nofer-ebod fixes the Voyaging to the Valley as taking place on the
first day of Shému, and in the days of Amun-em-hét I that should
have been in the first week of August. The calculation is about as
follows.57 In 2773 B.c. the First Day of Akhet, New Year’s Day,
came on June 23; the First Day of Shomu (241 days later) was then
on February 18. After four years the First Day of Shomu was on
February 17, and so on. Hence, at the beginning of the Twelfth
Dynasty, in 1991 B.c., it was on August 8, working back toward
early June at the end of the Middle Kingdom.
This was not a season of any significance in the ordinary agricultu-
ral life of the Nile Valley, because farming is then at a complete
standstill, while the river has a long way yet to go to be in full flood. |
The first of Sh6mu was, however, preceded in the Eighteenth Dy-
86 Legrain, BIFAO, 1917, p. 12; Chevrier, Annales, 1934, p. 172, Figs. 6-8; Winlock, Deir el
Babri, p. 219.
87 Winlock, “The Origin of the Ancient Egyptian Calendar,” Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society, 1940, p. 447 ff.
go THE MIDDLE KINGDOM IN THEBES
nasty calendar by the Feast of Khonsu,®* another god of the Theban

pantheon whose name appears in the Roman calendar as that of the
month Pacons. In subsequent calendars the Feast of the Valley—
the later month Payni—follows just one month after Pachons, at
the beginning of Shomu. Khonsu himself is known as early as the
Middle Kingdom, and if his feast had long been kept where we
first find it in the calendar, it would appear that these two festivals
of Khonsu and Amin were both part of a holiday season in Twelfth
Dynasty Thebes. The first was of uncertain age perhaps, but the
second was organized probably by the founder of the Twelfth Dy-
nasty. It followed the next month on the day which up to that time
had been dedicated to the Heracleopolitan god, Khent-ekhtay.
Thus, in these graffiti we have been dealing with priests of two
Eleventh Dynasty Kings who were sent up on to the cliffs each year
on an appointed day in midsummer during the Twelfth Dynasty, as
lookouts to give warning of the approach of the bark of Amin for
the Feast of the Valley. Admittedly they were priests of lesser grades,
and at first thought it may seem that the perpetuation of their names
here is more a matter of sentiment than anything else. However, they
actually give us an opportunity of emphasizing certain historical =
facts about the Egyptian Middle Kingdom.

First: Only the hierarchies of two Theban rulers of the Eleventh
Dynasty—those of Neb-hepet-Ré¢ and of Setankh-ka-Ré*—played
an important part in the affairs of western Thebes under the Twelfth
Dynasty.
Second: The cult of Amiin—at least in so far as concerned his voy-
age to the West—was not officially recognized by those two kings
during their own lifetimes, nor was it planned for by the Eleventh
Dynasty architects of Deir el Bahri.
Third: The voyage of the god to the temple of the Theban hero
who had united the Two Lands was instituted in the reign of Amun-
em-hét I, obviously to enhance the importance of his patron deity,
and thus indirectly as propaganda in his own favor.
Sethe, Urkunden der 18. Dyn., No. 13; Winlock, Deir el Babri, Pl. 66.
9 Sethe, Amun, § 49; Lange and Schafer, Grabsteine, 20240.
VI
THE TWELFTH TO THE FIFTEENTH DYNASTIES
Above, in telling the story of those seven years of anarchy which

came just as the Eleventh Dynasty was flickering out of existence,
we gave the tale as it seems to have been current in most histories,
including that early one preserved in the Turin Papyrus. But there
was another version of the story current in ancient Egypt which
Manetho followed. That recorded Amun-em-hét | in a sort of limbo,
hanging between the Eleventh and the Twelfth Dynasties and
apparently not belonging to either. According to that tradition
Se’n-Wosret I, the son and successor of Amun-em-hét I, was the
actual head of the new line. The matter need not occupy us here,
though. Whichever king be considered the founder of the new line—
and the father is usually given that honor nowadays—the family
- occupied the throne of Egypt according to the ancient chronicle for
213 years, 1 month, and 19 days.! In all likelihood that period was
from 1991 to 1778 B.c.
If it had not been already done by Neb-towi-Ré‘, among the first
acts of Sehetep-ib-Ré¢ Amun-em-hét was that of moving his resi-
dence from Thebes to a new capital south of the ancient city of
Memphis and just north of the road into the Fayiim, the develop-
ment of which grew to be one of the main interests of the new line of
rulers. The residence city was given the name It-towy—“‘Binder of
the Two Lands’—and on the desert edge just west of it was built a
burial pyramid where the king was to rest one day, combining the
plans of the pyramid of Neb-hepet-Ré¢ on its platform, and those of
the Old Kingdom rulers with the entrances to their subterranean
passages on the north.
However, the history of Amun-em-hét I and of his successors of
the Twelfth and of the Thirteenth Dynasties during the next three
centuries is not really part of the tale of Thebes. That town was no -
longer the capital of Egypt, and what went on in the rest of the land
is only indirectly part of our tale. The administration of the country
was doubtless centered, as it usually was, in Memphis just above
1 Farina, Papiro dei re, p. 39.

Q2 THE MIDDLE KINGDOM IN THEBES
where the Nile branched off into the different channels which
watered the Delta. Throughout the Middle Kingdom the armies of
Pharaoh were facing up the river into Nubia and the Siidan, where
gold and ivory and ebony could be gathered up with a minimum of
labor and of bloodshed. :In the Sidan Hep-djefi and his successors
ruled the country until the unrest which followed the break-up of a
strong administration in Egypt tempted the Stidanese to revolt
against the domination of the Egyptians. There then followed more
than a century of freedom until the Egyptian armies once more con-
quered the country in the Eighteenth Dynasty.
In the Middle Kingdom Asia does not seem to have been particu-
larly coveted by the Egyptians, though they had sailed the waters
which lay between the mouths of the Nile and the highlands where
timber grew, for the past thousand years or more. From nowhere else
could have come the logs used to roof the First Dynasty tombs at
Abydos,? and Byblos on the Syrian shore was obviously visited by
the Egyptians from the very earliest times. On the whole relations
were probably peaceful between the natives of these lands and the
Egyptians during the Old and Middle Kingdoms.
Still it is clear that an occasional raid must have been made for
slaves among the peoples of Palestine, for it is hard to believe that
all the Asiatic prisoners who are shown on the monuments of those
days were captured trying to break into the rich lands of Lower
Egypt. The temple at Abusir built by King Sahu-R€r, and the reliefs
in a tomb at Deshasheh of the Fifth Dynasty; the biography of
Weni in the Sixth; and that of Sobk-khu in the Twelfth Dynasty,
all contain pictures or stories of incursions among the Bedawin of
Asia.4 Yet obviously these were no more than forays against the
local tribes. Usually the Egyptian of those days was content simply
to write the names of foreigners on potsherds or on little tablets of
mud which could be consigned to perdition in order that such foreign
peoples might be destroyed.‘ In fact, relations between Egypt and
Palestine were on the whole rather quiet in the Twelfth Dynasty, but
the chances are that had the Nile Valley remained internally peace-
2 Petrie, Royal Tombs, |, p. 9.

* For connections with Syria I am indebted to Dr. Ludlow Bull and his as yet unpublished
Presidential Address to the American Oriental Society, 1940. Albright, Stone Age to Chris-
tianity, p. 114.
* Borchardt, Sakbu-Ré, II, Pls. V, XII, XIII; Petrie, Deshasheb, Pl. IV. Breasted, AR, I
$§ 311-315, 680-682; Peet, Stela of Sebek-kbu.
5 Sethe, Achtung feindlicher Fiirsten; Lansing, MMA Bulletin, Nov. 1933, Il, p. 23, Fig. 32.
THE TWELFTH TO THE FIFTEENTH DYNASTIES 93
ful, the tribes of near-by Asia would have fallen a prey to the
Egyptians within a very few years.
As it was, however, trading expeditions seem to have been far
more typical of the times than were the few raids among the Beda-
win. Such trade originated both in Egypt and in Asia. Every Twelfth
Dynasty king of Egypt after Se’n-Wosret I has left some article in
Syria which must have got there by being carried to the east by
merchants or by colonists in Egyptian commercial settlements. Such
exports have been found as far away as Byblos and even Adana to
the far north in Asia Minor,6 and of course Byblos remained an out-
standing center of Egyptian influence throughout the period. As for
Asiatic people entering the Nile Valley, everyone is familiar with the
extraordinary fresco in the Twelfth Dynasty tomb of Hnum-hotpe
at Beni Hasan with its lifelike pictures of a whole party of Asiatic
barbarians who came into Egypt on a peaceful visit in those days,
exchanging eye paint for products of the Nile country.7
There are more names of rulers of ancient Egypt for the period
from the Thirteenth to the Sixteenth Dynasties than there are for
all the history of the Nile Valley before that time. This is in spite of
the fact that the four dynasties could have lasted very little more
than two centuries, while Egypt obviously had written records
dated before the close of the Twelfth Dynasty which cover some six
or eight times as long. No great reduction can be made in these in-
numerable names, and the most drastic cutting to eliminate possible
duplications still will leave the vast majority of these kings in the
period. The only possible explanation of this state of affairs must be
that Egypt was split up into innumerable petty kingdoms, aptly
described by the Jew Artapanus of the First Century B.c., who wrote
that King Chenephres—who has been identified with Kha¢-nefer-
Ré¢ Sobk-hotpe—was “‘ruler of the regions above Memphis, for
there were at that time many kings in Egypt.’ The time wnich
Artapanus seems to have had in mind lasted from 1778 to 1675 B.c.,
as we shall see.
In the days of Thut-mose III, as we have already noted, an
annalist carved on the walls of a little chamber in the Temple of -
Karnak many of the names of the kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty
6 Winlock, MMA Bulletin, 1921, p. 209; Montet, Byblos et l’Egypte.

7 Newberry, Beni Hasan, I, Pls. XXX—XXXI, XXXVIII.
8 Waddell, Manetho, p. 73, note 3.
who reigned over Thebes and Upper Egypt,® neglecting many of the
rulers of the north during this period. However, he apparently did
not think it necessary to keep the names in order, or each dynasty
separated from the others, and furthermore it is impossible to tell
now if any of the dozen lost cartouches originally in the chamber
should be restored to fill the ranks of Theban rulers of the period.
We gain little here, therefore.
The Turin Papyrus of Kings, apparently written in Lower Egypt
during the reign of Ramesses II, originally contained a remarkable
series of the throne names of the rulers of this period and the lengths
of their reigns. However, in the Thirteenth Dynasty, as in the Tenth
and Eleventh Dynasties, more than one family of kings occupied
different ones of the innumerable thrones of the day at the same time,
but they are listed as though they followed one after the other. In
any case, not only do the innumerable royal names in the Turin
Papyrus appear to cover far too long a period, but many of them had
nothing whatever to do with the Thebaid.
Manetho gives no details of the history of this obscure period. He
states quite simply in all three versions which exist of his work
today, that “the Thirteenth Dynasty consisted of 60 kings of Dios-
polis who reigned for 453 years.” Taking the number of rulers
here—for the total number of years is obviously grossly exaggerated
—we learn simply that Egypt had fallen on days of civil war or
practically of anarchy. During them its kings not only must have
ruled the Nile Valley for the briefest of periods, but to recall the
words of Artapanus once more, “there were at that time many kings
in Egypt.” Thus we are left pretty much without any intelligible
guide when we come to reconstructing the period.
The name of the last of these rulers of the Thirteenth Dynasty was
deeply seered into the minds of the Egyptians of later generations.
Apparently he was a king known in the native tongue as Dudu-
mose, and we have objects of two different rulers who bore that name
from whom to choose. Of these two kings it was probably the first
who had the doubtful honor of being ruler of Egypt, or of an im-
portant part of the land, at the time of the invasion.-Perhaps the
second ruler was a king in the neighborhood of Edfu a few years
9 Prisse d’Avennes, Monuments, Pl. 1; Sethe, Urkunden, p. 608.

10 Farina, Papiro dei re, p. 13; Albright, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research,
October, 1945, p. 13; also From Stone Age to Christianity, p. 150.
Cory, Ancient Fragments, p. 112. Waddell, Manetho, p. 73.
later, after the Hyksos had forced their way as far south as Gebelein.
Of the first, Djed-nefer-Ré¢ Dudu-mose, monuments have been un-
earthed in the Eleventh Dynasty temple at Deir el Bahri,!2 and at
Gebelein itself.13 Djed-hotep-Ré¢ Dudu-mose, the second of the name,
has left his cartouches on a stela from Edfu above Gebelein in a
part of the land which never fell to the invaders.14 To either one of
these two may be assigned a graffito scribbled on the rocks at el Kab,
up the Nile from Gebelein.!5 Way up the river, in Dongola province
of the Sudan, traces of the last Egyptian ruler are tantalizingly
incomplete. The base of an alabaster statue which bore the name of
Dudu-mose was found in the corridor of one of the gigantic tomb
mounds at Kermeh,!6 and except for that all that remains of this last
Egyptian Pharaoh to rule way up the Nile was a bit of an alabaster
bowl inscribed “ . . .-mose’”’ which Reisner thought named him.!7
There had been a continuous occupation of Dongola from early in
the Twelfth Dynasty down to this point when the Kermeh citadel
was sacked, and Nubia and the Siidan evidently revolted.
Of the Fourteenth Dynasty few if any facts are known today. It
seems to have consisted of a line of rulers who declared their inde-
pendence from their fellows at about the time when the Twelfth
Dynasty broke up. They maintained an independent rule at Xois in
the western Delta among the swamps which covered much of the
land, almost as long as the Thirteenth Dynasty and the invaders
who followed the Thirteenth Dynasty, held the rest of the country.
Manetho, in the Africanus version and in one of the versions we have
of Eusebius, says: ‘“The Fourteenth Dynasty consisted of 76 kings
of Xois, who reigned for 184 years.”!8 By an error in copying, this
figure was raised to 484 years in one version of Eusebius and also in
the Armenian translation of it. As for the number of kings in the
dynasty, the Turin Papyrus presents nothing easily understood, for
it names over forty rulers between the two kings who may have
been called Dudu-mose; nearly fifty after the second of that name;
and again more than forty after the Hyksos.!9 There is no help here,
12 Naville, XI Dyn. Temple, II, p. 12, Pl. X.

13]_ange and Schafer, Grabstetne, 20533.
14 Barsanti, Annales, 1908, p. I.
18 Gauthier, Rozs, II, p. 50.
16 Reisner, ZAS, 1915, p. 46, and in a letter to me written May 27, 1916.
17 Reisner, Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, April, 1914, December, 1915.
18 Cory, ibid., p. 112; Waddell, zbid., p. 44.
9 Farina, ibid., pp. 44 and ff.
but taking the line of kings as ruling for 184 years, the Fourteenth
Dynasty must have set itself up in Xois just about the time that the
Thirteenth was beginning to take over the rest of the country. It
follows, too, that it kept its free state until within little more than.a
score of years of the defeat of the barbarians. Taking Manetho
literally here, we may date the Fourteenth Dynasty from about
1778 B.c. to 1594 B.c., but since there probably is hardly a single
monument which has been recognized today as being of this line of
kings, we may pass over what was clearly a revolt in the Delta
swamps, as lacking any lasting consequences.
How Egypt was divided among the local big-wigs of the day is
impossible to say now. A terrific Asiatic flood had already broken
into Lower Egypt and was working up river. The Egyptian always
looked back on his defeat by these people as one of the great tragedies
of his past, and he dwelt on the events of the century during which
they held his land in bondage with extreme distaste. But the Egyp-
tians did preserve the story of those black days until Manetho’s
time, and Josephus copied the words of the native historian into his
polemic against Apion.” There we read that:
“We had formerly a king whose name was Tutimaios,” who was
unquestionably Dudu-mose. “In his time it came to pass, I know not
how, that God was displeased with us, and there came up unexpec-
tedly from the East men of ignoble race, who had the audacity to
invade our land. They were powerful enough to subdue it easily
without striking a blow, and when they had our rulers in their hands
they burnt our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of
the gods, and inflicted every kind of barbarity upon the inhabitants,
slaying some and leading into bondage the wives and children of
others. At length they made one of themselves king. His name was
Salatis,2! and he dwelt in Memphis, exacting tribute from Upper
and Lower Egypt and leaving garrisons behind in the most ad-
vantageous places. Above all he secured the districts of the east,
foreseeing that the Assyrians might one day undertake an invasion
of the kingdom.”
Manetho naturally associated the Hyksos with the Assyrians who
in his day still typified all that was barbarous. He was anxious to
draw a picture of Egypt plundered and its people massacred by
™ Cory, ibid., p. 169; Waddell, ibid., p. 79; Engberg, The Hyksos Reconsidered, p. 4.
31 Probably really a title, “the Sultan.”
THE TWELFTH TO THE FIFTEENTH DYNASTIES Q7
savage hordes of invaders, and the name of the Assyrians still meant
all of that to everyone in the Near East. He then goes on to tell some-
thing of the occupation of the utterly defeated land by Salatis:
“He founded a city, well situated to the east of the Bubastite
branch of the Nile, in the Sethroite nome,22 which he called Avaris
after an ancient religious tradition. This place he rebuilt and fortified
with massive walls, placing there a garrison of as many as 240,000
heavily armed men to guard his frontier. Here Salatis would come
in the summer-time to serve out rations, to pay his troops, and to
train them carefully in manoeuvres and so strike terror into
foreigners.”
We must still look upon the invasion of the Hyksos as one of the
great events in the history of the Nile Valley. Manetho, very much
intrigued by their name, drew up a rather far-fetched derivation for
it which made it mean “Shepherd Kings.” A modern etymology
would seem to be closer to the real origin of the name in making it
mean “Rulers of the Uplands,” or ‘‘of Countries.”23 Whatever it
means, though, it is probable that these hordes from Asia were of a
race largely Semitic in origin and, according to the natives of Egypt,
barbarous and uncivilized in their manners and customs and in their
strange sounding names.
We have no direct information on them from Egyptian sources
before the reign of Ramesses II, and then it is the meagerest. Some-
where in that 67 year long reign came a four hundredth anniversary
of the rule of “‘Séth the Powerful, Onboti,’24 which almost certainly
refers to the overwhelming of the land by the barbarian Hyksos
and their god Sitekh. Whether that anniversary was of the founding
of Avaris, the Hyksos capital, by Salatis about 1675 B.c., or the
Sack of Thebes over thirty years later by Khian, we do not know
for sure, though since we are dealing with a Lower Egyptian monu-
ment the former is almost certainly true. If only the sculptor had
dated the stela to a year of Ramesses II, under whom it was carved,
we would be able to answer that question.
The Turin Papyrus, which also was nen in the reign of
Ramesses II, has lost the names of all of the 6 Hyksos rulers,
but it definitely gives their number, and it states that they held
22 The MMS have “‘Saite” nome, which Waddell, Manetho, p. 80, note 5, emends thus.
23 Griffith, PSBA, 1897, p. 297; Breasted, History, p. 217; Meyer, Geschichte, |, p. 314;
Engberg, Hyksos, p. 9.
24 Montet, Kemi, 1933, p- 191.
Egypt for 108 years, which would put their conquest of the country
in 1675 B.c., assuming that they were expelled in 1567 B.c.25 The
best manuscripts of Manetho agree so far as the number of kings
goes, but various errors have crept into the text when it comes to
the length of time the Hyksos ruled the land.26 Thus in the copies
given us by Josephus and Africanus both have 6 kings, but the
length of the period during which they held Egypt is obviously
exaggerated. Eusebius and his Armenian translator only have 4
kings, reigning 103 years, and if we suppose that some copyist has
dropped 5 years here, we would have the correct figure for the length
of the period. The Book of Sothis states that there were 6 kings in
the dynasty, and yet it has 7 names. There seems to be no doubt,
however, that the tradition preserved in the Turin Papyrus was the
correct one, and that 6 Hyksos kings ruled the country for 108
years. This period, to repeat the figures, was from about 1675 to
1567 B.c., during which time most of Egypt except Xois was subject
to the barbarians.
The Turin Papyrus was copied from still earlier lists only a little
more than three centuries after the end of the period covered by it,
when tradition still would have been good. It shows us how the 108
years are to be divided among the first 4 of the 6 rulers, though the
number of years is lost for the last two. As we have it today, the
papyrus has reigns of [1]3, 8, 10, and 40 years and the two other
reigns whose lengths are now gone. The last of these reigns was
plainly that of Apopi, who we know from the Ebers Papyrus reigned
at least 33 years, if not a year or two more, and that leaves us only
4 years at the most to assign to Assis. This is not surprising. Assis
has left us practically no monuments, and we may assume that his
reign was of the briefest.
Since the fragments of the Turin Papyrus retain nothing of the
names of these Shepherds, we have no lists of them earlier than those
given us by Josephus and Africanus at the outset of the Christian
epoch. By the time these two ancient authors copied Manetho, the
Greek scribes had already more or less confused the foreign and un-
familiar Hyksos names, but enough similarity among the ancient
authors remains to give us an idea of what they sounded like. The
conqueror, as we have seen that Josephus calls him, was known to
% Farina, 1bid., p. 56.
6 Cory, ibid., pp. 112-115, 136, 140, 170;. Waddell, ibid., pp. 95, 97, 99, 239; Farina, ibid.,
P- 54.
the Egyptians as Salatis, and according to the Turin Papyrus figures

he must have reigned from 1675 to 1662 B.c. All our ancient authori-
ties would seem to agree that he was succeeded by a chieftain called
Bnon, or possibly Beon, who must have held the power from 1662—
when we assume that Salatis died—to 1654 B.c. Apachnan followed
and held it until 1644 B.c. Both Eusebius and the Armenian scribe
omit the next two names, but Josephus and Africanus copied the
first of them as Iannas or Staan, probably for the well-known Khian.
He held the throne according to this reckoning from 1644 to 1604
B.c., with the brief reign of Assis or Archlés following. Then Apopi
held the throne from 1600 to the eventual come-back of the Thebans
and the start of the New Kingdom in 1567 B.c. Apopi was an
Egyptianized barbarian before an end had come to his reign, but
he was not consistent in the prenomen under which he ruled the
land. That he seems to have changed three times at least, and per-
haps more for ought we know.
However, of all six rulers of the Hyksos line only the names
Khian and Apopi have been found on objects from Upper Egypt,
and in those two rulers only have we an interest here.
There is no trace of the first three Hyksos rulers of Egypt in the
Theban area, and we may take it that the original wave of conquest
by the Asiatics did not go far up river. In any case Thebes, like Xois,
was spared the invasion while the Asiatics expended their force on
the eastern Delta and on Memphis and the country round about.
Thebes had a respite of some 30 years, and perhaps almost half a
century, before the invaders turned from sacking the lower country
and moved up river. Khian was the conqueror of Upper Egypt ap-
parently; then Assis occupied the throne briefly; and finally Apopi
held the land for a whole generation after he ascended the throne.
Of these reigns more later.
Before we pass on to considering in detail the Sixteenth Dynasty
kings and such traces of the rulers of the Fifteenth Dynasty as have
been unearthed in the Thebaid, it may be as well to take up one or
two conditions which had very deep effects on the last years of the
Middle Kingdom and profoundly influenced the development of the
New Kingdom. No one can say without question when these con-
ditions got well started. Some undoubtedly took root earlier in the
Middle Kingdom, but at least the last of them to become established
were characteristic of the Sixteenth Dynasty.
Upper Egypt had become closely hemmed in by the time the
Sixteenth Dynasty kings were enthroned. Nubia, up river above

Aswan, had fallen away from Egyptian rule and was entirely inde-
pendent. In fact, there are the names of three rulers scribbled on
the rocks above the cataract, which have long been a puzzle and
which it would seem fair enough to put here among the independent
princelings of the land south of Aswan. I have tried them elsewhere
in the Middle Kingdom myself without any satisfaction, and others
have done the same. One of them was called Ka-ka-Ré¢ In;?? another
was The Horus Gereg-tawi-ef who had an unreadable throne name;?8
and there was The Golden Horus Khenem-Ré¢ Wadj-ka-Ré¢ Seker-
senti.29
Down river the invaders held the land, and in Thebes itself, if
the kings of the Sixteenth Dynasty had actually been well estab-
lished on the throne, we should expect that they would show some
such regular alternation of their personal names as the kings do
in the Twelfth Dynasty, with sons replacing fathers in regular order.
This, however, was not to be. Five or six kings in thirty or forty
years can not represent as many generations of one family, and we
are to see a brother succeeding another brother in one clearly stated
case.
Whether one thinks of the Thebans as possessing independent
spirits, or as being merely a hot tempered, quarrelsome race like the
Satidis today they, like their ancestors of the Eleventh Dynasty,
again rebelled against those who ruled in the North.
No one claims that the Sixteenth Dynasty was a glorious period,
and its rulers have left no monuments to mark their brief and pre-
carious freedom. The Twelfth Dynasty had set up many temples
which were both brilliant and beautiful, but many other shrines
were still very old and even such additions and renovations as had
been made to them must have still left them squalid, dirty little
places. To the rulers of the Sixteenth Dynasty, however, they
served most needs, and what little was set up anew at this time was
of unbaked brick with only the door frames in stone. Fine Tureh
limestone was out of the reach of the Thebans, for it came from the
Hyksos land, and no one could afford an expedition to quarry in the
desert at el Hammamiat or up river at Aswan where granite could be
had.
27 Winlock, 4/SL, 1940, p. 161, footnote 96.

*8 Breasted, Lower Nubia, p. 57; Weigall, Lower Nubia, Pls. 32, 49, 50, 65.
29 Meyer, Geschichte, |, p. 277.
THE TWELFTH TO THE FIFTEENTH DYNASTIES 10]
In practically everything the Sixteenth Dynasty still belonged

very closely to the Middle Kingdom, for at this time innovations
seem to have gone no further than some of the furniture supplied to
the dead. Thus for example Thebes, being hemmed in up and down
river by enemies, was forced to start the development of a type of
coffin which appears to have been derived from the type of carton-
nage mask which was especially common about the Thirteenth
Dynasty (PI. 14).80 The modern Arab workmen of the last century
called the fully developed coffins of this kind rishi—or “‘feathered”’
(Pl. 15)—to describe the way they are painted all over with the hawk
and vulture wings which grow out of the collars painted on their
breasts. Furthermore, since the hands of the actual mummy were
swathed beneath the bandages, those of the coffins were never
represented in the Middle Kingdom either.
The old fashioned plaster and linen mask put on the body in the
Old Kingdom and later to make it appear more life-like,3! was ex-
tended even in those early days to cover the whole body, but as such
coverings had to be prepared before the funeral, they were usually
made with lids.32 These coverings were still of stucco as the masks
had been; they were still shaped to the mummies’ backs; and at first
their white bodies represented the white linen coverings within.
Sometimes the tapes with which the mummies themselves were tied
were painted on them, and these tapes eventually became columns of
inscriptions, setting forth prayers for the benefit of the dead. In the
Twelfth Dynasty actual mummiform cases were made with inscrip-
tions written down the front.33 Bodies had always been put into
rectangular coffins, and no change was made when this new mummi-
form type of covering was first developed in the Twelfth and in the
Thirteenth Dynasties.
However, Thebes is in an almost treeless land, and large planks
with which to make big, rectangular, outer coffins could not be pro-
cured as long as the hated Hyksos held Lower Egypt and the sea
lanes to Syria and the Lebanon. You can not make a satisfactory
box out of scraps of wood, but you can fashion a mummy case with
small bits, or you can dig one bodily out of native sycamore-wood
% Garstang, Burial Customs, pp. 88, 171-173, 177; Lansing, MMA Bulletin, May, 1917,
Figs. 16, 28.
31 Winlock, Excavations at Deir el Babri, p. 45, Pls. 11, 31.
32 Tbid., p. 44.
38 Petrie, Gizeh and Rifeb, Pls. X A, X B, XI.
logs. Thus it happened that the Theban had to give up his big
rectangular sarcophagus and make the rishi anthropoid mummy
case do without any further rectangular coffin.%4
There are some curious results from this development. The simple
people of Thebes were hesitant about giving up the eye panel on the
left side of the coffin, even when the latter was in human shape and
had eyes of its own. Therefore, they often put an eye panel on the
left shoulder of a rishi anthropoid coffin. The bands of inscription
on rectangular sarcophagi were taken over by the makers of an-
thropoid coffins and inscribed on painted stripes which were sup-
posed to bind up the cartonnage, as we have seen. However, there
was not really enough room on such strips for the extended extracts
from the writings known today as the Pyramid and the Coffin Texts,
which, therefore, were sometimes written on sheets of linen to be
wrapped about the mummy.
When Thebes was cut off from the rest of Egypt its inhabitants—
desperately impoverished—could rarely afford to quarry new tombs.
Usually they had to be buried in a sepulchre dug out of the rock
by some earlier generation, or they were simply laid in a shallow
grave scooped out of the loose gravel along the desert edge. Only
the kings, in a pitiful imitation of their richer forebears, built
pyramids, and such a structure set up late in the Seventeenth
Dynasty was discovered by the Metropolitan Museum’s Expedi-
tion.85 We may take this one as typical, for these pyramids must
have been steep-sided little affairs of mud brick, which have been
entirely removed or buried by later generations.
In this poverty stricken age even what had been the highest court
titles became vulgarized. That of ‘‘King’s Son’”’ seems to have been
borne by persons who were not of royal birth,’ or a coffin of very
ordinary style might have an inscription ending with the words “for
the ka of the King’s Ornament—’’with a blank space in which it was
expected that the family would write their relative’s name.®? ‘King’s
Son” and “King’s Ornament” appear to have been titles granted by
a sort of adoption to all kinds of commoners. Probably the woman’s
title came to mean no more than “‘the Lady.”’ The man’s counterpart
5 Petrie, Qurneb, Pls. XXIII-X XIX; Carnarvon and Carter, Five Years, Pls. LIM, LVI-
LXIII; Lansing, MMA Bulletin, May, 1917, Fig. 10.
* Winlock, Detr el Babri, p. 7, fig. 1, under the words “XVII-XVIII Dynasty Cemetery.”
3% A rishi coffin, MMA 12.181.300, from the excavations of Carnarvon and Carter.
* British Museum, 6653, from Thebes; Steindorff, ZAS, 1895, p. 93; Budge, Guide, 1895,
Pp. 105.
_ THE TWELFTH TO THE FIFTEENTH DYNASTIES 103
must have signified some sort of grade, for the “King’s Son of Kush”
still had a rank attached to it under the New Kingdom.
Over Thebes, the capital of Neb-hepet-Ré¢ the founder of the
.Middle Kingdom, ruled the five or six kinglets whose names and
what little we know about them follow on the succeeding pages.
How they were called and the order in which one mounted the throne
after another are quite satisfactorily fixed. Unfortunately, the Turin
Papyrus disregards them, for it is a Memphite composition. In con-
sequence we have nothing to fix the lengths of their reigns as we
had for the Eleventh Dynasty. However, it appears that the whole
Sixteenth Dynasty held power for less than half a century—and
provisionally we may put it down as extending from about 1675 B.c.
to somewhere near 1640 or 1635 B.c., as we have already seen.
VII
THESSIXTEEIN
T HeDvIN Astley.
Modern unravelling of the tangled threads of Egyptian history of

the time of the Hyksos invasion has been slow, in spite of the fact
that the evidence for what came to pass on the Nile during that
period has been available to all for years passed. There is a homo-
geneous little group of half a dozen names which are found up the
river from Abydos toward the First Cataract and which unquestion-
ably belongs here in this period. Manetho, in the version of Africanus
is of no value as to this group of rulers, but in that of Eusebius and
the latter’s Armenian translator we read that “the Sixteenth Dy-
nasty were kings of Thebes, 5 in number, who reigned for 190
years.”! The number of years cannot be reconciled with any known
material, as is so often the case with Manetho’s chronology, but
the number of kings fits in excellently with the knowledge which
has been brought together in the past century and more. We actu-
ally have the monuments, or the Abbott Papyrus mention of the
monuments, of the five kings and the coffin of a sixth—Sekhem-Ré¢
Heru-hir-matet In-yotef—who probably held the throne only for a
matter of months, and perhaps did not reign for a whole year. His
omission from Manetho’s abbreviated list is readily explained by
this circumstance, therefore.
Obviously the number of years during which the dynasty ruled is
padded even in the best manuscripts of Manetho. The only con-
temporary dates which we have for any kings of the line are one
from the 3rd year of Nub-kheper-Ré¢, and one of the 1st year of
Rét-hotpe.2, Manetho’s 190 years for 5 kings is obviously far too
high, and even if we lop off a whole century and give each king
eighteen years we make them a much more important line of rulers
than there is any evidence they were. Roughly, thirty-five or forty
years would seem an ample allowance of time for them to have
reigned, and in default of any information on the point we may set
the date of the dynasty from the days of Tutimaios in about 1675
1 Cory, Ancient Fragments, p. 115; Banc Manetho, p. 93.

2 See below, pages 110 and 122.
THE SIXTEENTH DYNASTY , 105
B.C. to somewhere around 1635 or 1640 B.c. as we have noted in the

preceding chapter.
The names of three out of the five kings of the dynasty are sup-
plied to us, curiously enough, by the report of a legal investigation
of the Twentieth Dynasty. The minutes of this investigation, re-
corded in the Abbott Papyrus, mention the ten royal tombs in-
spected by the officials charged with looking into the complaint of
thefts in the necropolis. These tombs they examined in the following
order:3
1. Tomb of King Amun-hotpe I.
. Pyramid of King Wah-tankh In-yotef.
. Pyramid of King Nub-kheper-Ré¢ In-yotef.
. Pyramid of King Sekhem-Ré¢ Wep-matet In-yotef the Elder.
. Pyramid of King Sekhem-Ré¢ Shed-towi Sobk-em-saf.
. Pyramid of King Senakht-en-Ré¢ Tato.
. Pyramid of King Seken-en-Ré¢ Tato.
N
BW
Aw
On . Pyramid of King Wadj-kheper-Ré¢ Ka-mose.
9. Pyramid of King Athmose Si-pe-ir.
10. Pyramid of King Neb-hepet-Ré¢ Montu-hotpe.
The positions of certain of the tombs in this list show that all of
them were put down in the order in which they were inspected. The
first is described as being “the High Ascent, north of the Temple of
Amun-hotpe of the Garden” and Carter found it on the top of the
Dirat Abu’n-Naga Hill, north of the mortuary temple of Amun-
hotpe I. It was the burial place of the most prominent king and it
was also the most inaccessible of the tombs about which information
had been laid. The inspection was made in September, and we may
quite safely assume that the eleven officials in the party, many of
whom may well have been old and corpulent, would prefer to puff
their way up the desolate little valley to the High Ascent before the
sun shone down upon it in the fierceness of full mid-day heat. The
first tomb examined and the findings dictated to the scribes, the
commissioners and their accompanying police scrambled down the
hill to the second tomb, nearly a mile away. This was the tomb of
Wah-tankh In-yotef; it was specified as being “north of the Temple
of Amun-hotpe of the Forecourt;’ and as we have seen, it is at the
northern end of the necropolis.
With these two outlying tombs disposed of, Nos. 3 to 9 lay on the
2 Winlock, JEA, 1924, p. 222.

direct path to Deir el Bahri, fully two miles distant. Therefore the
party crossed its own tracks and followed along the foot of the Dira¢
Abu’n Naga, visiting the little pyramids in their list until they
reached the great avenues leading to the temples of Djeseret, where
lay the last remaining tomb which they had to examine—that of
Neb-hepet-Ré¢.
While this list is, strictly speaking, an itinerary, nevertheless so
far as Nos. 3 to 9 are concerned it has an unexpected chronological
value, and the order of the tombs from north to south is equally
their order from earlier to later. The one curious, and somewhat
misleading circumstance is that the Seventeenth Dynasty did not
look for a new location for their tombs, and built in the same row as
the Sixteenth. Was there, perhaps, a relationship between the two
lines which long before the days of Manetho had been forgotten?
In making the present study the great value of the Abbott Papyrus
has been in the fact that it clearly follows this itinerary of the in-
spectors, step by step.4 The record which it preserves states that
the tomb of Nub-kheper-Ré¢ In-yotef was the first of this general
period which was examined. Next in the papyrus come the tombs of
Sekhem-Re¢ Wep-matet In-yotef the Elder, followed by that of
Sekhem-Ré¢ Shed-Towy Sobk-em-saf. These tombs must, when all
is considered, have been along the Dirat Abu’n Naga, and it is also
necessary to think of them as being ranged in order from north to
south, each succeeding king being buried modestly, just a little
behind his predecessor, on the latter’s right.5 (Pl. 16)
The kings whose tombs were listed in the Abbott Papyrus reigned
at various times in Egyptian history. The first two kings were of the
Eighteenth and the Eleventh Dynasties respectively. Then _ _come
the three rulers named above, and after them we know that the
next three tombs belonged to the rulers of the Seventeenth Dynasty
and the fourth to a prince of the Eighteenth, here termed a king by
mistake. But that gives us only three out of the five sovereigns called
for in the Sixteenth Dynasty by Manetho, and it totally neglects
the sixth whose rishi coffin is today in the Louvre.
One of the kings mentioned in the Abbott Papyrus. was named
In-yotef the Elder, which would hardly be the case if he succeeded
immediately after a still earlier ruler of the same name. He naturally
*Winlock, JEA, 1924, p. 223, Pl. XM.

’ Winlock, JNES, 1943, p. 228.
THE SIXTEENTH DYNASTY : 107
could Be so called, however, if a king came between him and Nub-

kheper-Ré¢ In-yotef, and Rét-hotpe, as we shall see, probably
should be put in that place. After him could follow King In-yotef the
Elder, who was so called because there was still another In-yotef in
this period who was younger than he was. After In-yotef the Elder
would follow King Sobk-em-saf of the Abbott Papyrus, and King
Thiti to complete the five rulers in the dynasty.
That these tombs were little brick pyramids seems obvious.
Ever since Birch, Chabas, and Maspero first translated and com-
mented on the Abbott Papyrus it has invariably been noticed that
the royal tombs—except that of Amun-hotpe I—were called mr and
that the rest of the tombs inspected were differentiated under other
names. Mr means, essentially, a “pyramid,” but Mariette’s dis-
covery of the tomb of Nub-kheper-Ré¢ In-yotef and his description
of it as a chamber cut in the rock has often resulted in the word mr
being taken in this papyrus in a merely figurative sense for “‘king’s
tomb,” an idea which has gained force from the appearance of the
determinative for a pyramid after other words for tomb, in various
places.
However, too much confidence is not to be placed in the thorough-
ness of Mariette’s study of the In-yotef tomb which he found. On
the contrary there is excellent ground for taking the word literally as
meaning “‘pyramid.” A consistent terminology is evident in the
whole body of tomb robbery documents. The word br is used to
describe primarily the royal tombs of the Valleys of the Kings and
of the Queens, which were purely subterranean passages.6 Thus in
the Ambras Papyrus the tomb of the Great Captain of the Army is
br in contrast with the mr of King Sobk-em-saf. M¢b¢.t is some
definite type of private tomb which makes the’name peculiarly
applicable to those cenotaphs which were erected in Abydos. 7
Finally, even the word is, the ancient generic word for tombs in
general,’ has a specialized meaning of “burial chamber” in the
Amherst Papyrus. This consistency of usage is“observable in the
fact that the entirely subterranean tomb of Amun-hotpe I is not
described as a mr—except by inference in one general total—but mr
6 Pap. Abbott, IV, 16; v, 3-4, 7-8; Peet, Mayer Papyri, B, 8-10; Daressy, Cercuetls des
cachettes royales, 61019.
7Sethe, Urkunden des 18ten Dyn., p. 45, translations, p. 24; Schafer, Mysterten des Ostris,
Pp. 7-
8 Mariette, Mastabas, pp. 201, 204; De Morgan, Catalogue, I, pp. 172, 173, etc.
is applied to the three tombs of Wah-tankh In-yotef, of Neb-hepet-

Ret and of Sekhem-Rét Wep-matet, all of which appear from their
existing remains to have been actual pyramids. The same I judge
to have been the case with the early Eighteenth Dynasty mr of Teti-
sheri at Abydos. But more convincing, two of the remaining tombs
in the Abbott Papyrus, which are mr.w themselves, have particular
features which can only be translated ‘‘pyramid.’”’ Mention is made
of “the stela of the pyramid” of Sekhem-Ré¢ Wep-matet, and “the
lower chamber of the pyramid” of Sekhem-Ré¢ Shed-towi. In the
face of this, we can only conclude that Mariette missed the pyra-
midal feature above the tomb of Nub-kheper-Ré¢ and translate the
word mr literally as ‘‘pyramid.”
1. NuB-KHEPER-RE¢ IN-YOTEF. SUCCEEDED ABOUT 1675 B.C.

What claims In-yotef may have had to the crown of Upper Egypt
have been entirely lost to us today. He may have married an heiress
of one of the many lines into which the Thirteenth Dynasty was
split, or he may have actually had some of the blood of one of the
royal families in his own veins. In any case about 1675 B.c. he
ascended the steps of the throne as “The Horus Nefer-khepru’’—
Beautiful of Beings—‘‘He of the Two Goddesses Heru-hir-neset-ef”’
—Rejoicing upon his Throne—‘‘The Golden Horus Ka-shuti’—
High of Plumes—“The King of Upper and Lower Egypt Nub-
kheper-Ré’—Golden is the Being of the Sun—‘“‘The Son of REé¢ out
of his body, In-yotef.’’! Ka-shuti was the Golden Horus name of
Neb-hepet-Ré¢, who was obviously looked on as an ancestor of this
new line of kings.?
As Nub-kheper-Ré¢, his name appears among those of the an-
cestors in the little chapel built in Karnak by King Thut-mose III,
though it is sadly misplaced there.3 No trace of it, however, nor as
we have seen of the name of any other Sixteenth Dynasty ruler is
in any of the other ancient lists of kings. This need not greatly sur-
prise us in so far as the Sakkareh kings’ list or the Turin Papyrus
go, for those two lists are frankly Memphite, but it is a bit strange
that it should not appear in the lists drawn up for the temples of
1 Mariette, Monuments divers, pl. 50; Pieper and Burchardt, Kénigsnamen, p. 50; Petrie,
Abydos I, Pls. LV-LVI; Weill, JA, XI, 11, p. 259.
2 Winlock, JNES, 1943, p. 266.
* Prisse, Monuments, Pl. 1; Sethe, Urkunden, p. 600.
THE SIXTEENTH DYNASTY 109
Sethy I and of Ramesses II at Abydos. Perhaps the Nineteenth

Dynasty scribes employed at this last town came from the north,
bringing their books with them, and knew nothing of the names of
these local Theban rulers.
In the Sixteenth Dynasty it is unlikely that the South controlled
the Nile Valley any distance down the river from Abydos, but in that
town the names of Nub-kheper-Ré¢ and of some of his followers have
been found. In the Osiris Temple there were architraves with his
cartouches disposed symmetrically on either side of the center, and
there were octagonal columns of white limestone which gave his
protocol.
In addition to such fragments of the temple proper, there were
stelae of the king’s followers. On one of them Osiris stands with
“The Good God, Lord of the Two Lands Nub-kheper-Ré¢, .... the
son of Ré¢ from his body, In-yotef” adoring him, while behind the
king stands “the Chancellor of the North, the Superintendant of
the Sealers, the King’s Follower Ath-nufer repeating life.”’5 A stela
of the same type, and unquestionably of this same reign, actually
names the temple which the king built in honour of Osiris.6 In its
second line there is reference to ““.... the beautiful seat of In-yotef
in Abydos, in the following of the King’s Son of the Prince In-
yotef ....’’ Above, a now destroyed god is adored by the ruler
and by “The King’s Son Nakhte.” Apparently this last individual
was not an actual offspring of King In-yotef, for the inscription
would seem to begin “He says: ‘I was (begotten by) Her-ib the
justified,’ ’’ a personal name which we find elsewhere.? Other cour-
tiers of the ruler found their last resting places in the neighborhood
of the king’s temple, for scarabs bearing his name have been found
nearby.8
About 100 kilometers up river from Abydos, at the ancient town
of Koptos, Nub-kheper-Ré¢ made additions to the age old temple
of the god Min. Limestone blocks found on the site of the dismantled
building had once made a thin veneer of stone which overlay, inside
4 Petrie, Abydos, I, p. 28, Pls. LV, LVI; II, p. 35, Pl. XXXII; Budge, Hieroglyphic Texts,
IV, Pl. XXVIII. All the reliefs in Cairo and in London do not seem to have been published.
5 Petrie, Abydos, II, p.35, Pl. XXXII.
6 Petrie, Abydos, I, pp. 28, 41, Pls. LV, LVII.
7 Ranke, Personennamen, p. 230, no. 5.
Wiedemann, Geschichte, p. 229, note 5.
and out, the brick walls of the chapel. When this chapel was torn
down to make way for a later building, these slabs came in handy in
laying the pavement. On them appear the ancient god Min before
whom the king is pictured making offerings in the presence of a
goddess; he strikes down captives while the god looks on; and he is
anointed by two deities.
The chief monument of the reign which survived at Koptos, how-
ever, was a decree carved on the then two-century-old doorway of
part of the temple built by Se’n-Wosret I of the Twelfth Dynasty.
At this period a temple doorway, where every passer-by who could
read must see what was written there, was looked on as an excellent
bill-board for all that the inhabitants of the town had to know. This
decree is dated: ‘““Year 3, Month 3 of Proyet, Day 25, under the
Majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt Nub-khepru-R€f,
the Son of Ré¢ In-yotef.”” Here we have proof that In-yotef’s pre-
nomen was pronounced Nub-khepru-Ré¢, rather than the more
abbreviated kheper which was usually written in the hieroglyphic
character. The decree is addressed to the Chancellor and Prince of
Koptos, to the King’s Son and Administrator of that town, as well
as to other dignitaries, and it nominated two officials who are to
inquire into a conspiracy headed by a certain Teti, the son of Min-
hotpe.
It condemns Teti and his descendants to be expelled from the
temple as well as from all offices in it, and to get no provision
from its income henceforth. “And every king and every puissant
ruler who shall forgive him, may he not receive the White Crown or
wear the Red Crown... . And every administrator or prince who
shall approach the Lord to request that he forgive him, let his people,
his possessions and his lands be given to the endowment of my
father Min.” The decree then goes on to provide “that this office
shall be given to the Chancellor Min-em-hét,”’ in whose favor the
decree was drawn up. According to our modern way of thinking the
fate of Teti was a hard one, but strong doubts arise as to whether,
beyond losing his good post in the Temple of Min, Teti was really
deprived of much besides. Incidentally this decree gives us an ex-
* Petrie, Koptos, pp. 5, 9, Pls. VI, VII; History I, p. 270. A fragment was built into the bridge
at Kuft before the mid-19th Cent. a.p; Wilkinson, MMS, (1855), VII, p. 93; Birch-Chabas,
Rev. arch. 1859, p. 269; Harris in Murray, Egypt, p. 447.
” Petrie, Koptos, p. 10, Pl. 8; History, p.271; Breasted, AR I, p. 773; History, p. 213; Drioton
and Vandier, L’ Egypte, p. 286.
THE SIXTEENTH DYNASTY 11!
cellent example of how the title “King’s Son” was borne by officials
who probably had no blood connection with the sovereign at all.
The monuments set up by Nub-kheper-Ré¢ in the capital city of
Thebes have histories which are not always of the clearest. For
example there existed at one time a stela which the king erected in
the temple of Amin at Karnak, claiming victories over both the
Asiatics and the Negroes, but the present whereabouts of this slab
escapes me.!! Another stela which I believe belongs to this same
reign was unearthed by Legrain in the Ptah Temple in Karnak.!2
The inscription on it begins: “The Horus Kheper-kheper”—and
not Nefer-kheper as do the fragments from Abydos—‘‘He of the
Two Goddesses Heru-hir-neset-(ef), King of Upper and Lower
Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands, Nub-kheper-Ré‘, the Son of Ré¢
from his body, In-yotef, given all Life, Stability, Well-being and
Health.” It was dedicated to Amin, to Mit, and to Ptah in whose
chapel it was found.
Matters are different, however, with a third antiquity which has
been thought to have been made under this king. There is in Cairo
an alabaster statuette found by Legrain in the Hypostyle Hall in
Karnak.13 It represents a fat man squatting on the ground, called
the Prince, Count, and Scribe Montu-[hotpe]. On its shoulder there
is engraved a partly destroyed cartouche which reads “Nub....
Ré¢.”” This was restored by Legrain Nub-kheper-Ré‘, but more
than likely it is to be read Nub-kau-Ré¢ Amen-em-hét II. If this
last guess be true, it was the statuette of a Twelfth, and not the
only one of a Sixteenth Dynasty official existing today.
We are only a little more fortunate in dating the contents of a
tomb which Mariette discovered in January 1860 in the Theban
necropolis. It was the burial place of The Scribe of the Harim Nefer-
hotep, and since it was found simultaneously with the tomb of Nub-
kheper-Ré¢ himself it probably was near the latter, and it seems
likely that it was of the same date. From this tomb came a mirror
handle, two toilet vases, a magic wand,!4 and the Papyrus Bulak 16,
an already old document put here perhaps to give Nefer-hotep the
look of having been a learned man.15 It was probably in the neigh-
11 Birch-Chabas, Rev. arch., 1859, p. 268; Maspero, Histoire anctenne, p. 110, note 5.
12 Legrain, Annales, 1902, p. 113, 119; Gauthier, BI FAO, 1906, p. 36.
13 Legrain, Annales, 1904, p. 27.
14 Bénédite, Mirroirs, 44102; Bissing, Steingefasse, 18079, 18154; Daressy, Textes magiques,
9437-
borhood where these finds were made that Drovetti procured, in the
days of Athanasi and Piccinini, a soft blue paste pendant in the form
of a lion’s head, inscribed with the king’s prenomen between uraei.!6
Scarabs with a similar design are not uncommon and some of them
may well have come from this cemetery, but so far as | know there
is no information concerning them.!7
Still further up the Nile at Hieraconpolis—el Kab of today—
Nub-kheper-Ré¢ seems to have added to the archaic shrine, the
restoration of which was looked on as a duty by other rulers of the
period. Quibell found, used as paving slabs, one stone which bore
the name of a King Sobk-hotpe of the Thirteenth Dynasty, and
another on which he read the name of a King In-yotef, who was
obviously later than the Eleventh Dynasty kings of the same name,
and who was more than likely Nub-kheper-Ré¢.18
On the west bank of the river, and a little above Hieraconpolis,
there was an ancient town at Edfu where further traces of the king
were discovered. Newberry published two small gold armlet bars,
said to have been found there, which in the course of time were given
to the British Museum.!9 They bear the names of ““The Good God,
Lord of the Two Lands, Nub-kheper-Ré¢ In-yotef, given life
eternally, and the Great King’s Wife who is joined to the Beautiful
White Crown, Sobk-em-saf, the living” (Pl. 47). A Queen Sobk-
em-saf of Edfu was the great granddaughter of a king and the sister
of a local princess.22 With these armlet bars there was bought from
the same Edfu natives, a scarab inscribed with the cartouche of
King In-yotef, and in 1895 Newberry had noted a small gold pendant
in the trade there, bearing the names of the same king and queen.?!
Sobk-em-saf as a woman’s name among the members of the royal
family is thus amply attested for the reign of Nub-kheper-Ré°,
and we are to find her still living under his successor King Rét-
hotpe.22
15 Mariette, Pap. de Boulag, II.

6 Nesbitt, Glass—South Kensington Art Handbooks, 1888, p. 10; Birch, Egypt. Antiquities,
Alnwick Castle, p. 179; Petrie, History, 1, p. 273.
Petrie, op. cit., p. 270, fig. 166; Scarabs, p. 157; Hall, Cat. of the Scarabs in the BM., nos.
212-214; MMA 14.40.757.
18 Quibell, Hzerakonpolis, II, p. 11.
*° Newberry, Burlington Club, Catalogue of Ancient Egyptian Art, 1922, p. (8, no. 2, Pl. L;
Winlock, JEA 1924, p. 233 note 5; Treasure of El Labin, p. 52.
® Englebach, Annales, 1922, p. 116; Winlock, JEA, 1924, p. 233, note 5.
21 Newberry, PSBA, 1902, p. 285.
32 See below, p. 123.
There do not seem to be many recognizable traces of this king

left today, of which the finding places are unknown. “The great ka
servant of the Temple of King In-yotef, Amun-fo” is one such. His
son [uy has left a monument which is in Helsingfors.23 Furthermore,
from somewhere along the valley between Edfu and Abydos came
a little throne which was once in the Lee Collection.24 Finally, part
of the floor of a wooden structure has come to light bearing the
names of ‘“The Good God, Lord of the Two Lands, King of Upper
and Lower Egypt Nub-kheper-Ré¢, the Son of Ré¢ In-yotef, be-
loved of Amin, Lord of the Two Lands and given life.’’25
The principality over which Nub-kheper-Ré¢ ruled extended,
therefore, at least from Abydos, or perhaps a little down river from
there, to some point south of Edfu. There is some doubt as to just
where the up river frontier actually was located. Aswan would be
the natural place to look for it, but there is not a single monument
of the Sixteenth Dynasty in the cataract neighborhood, and it would
not be surprising, perhaps, to find that the southern frontier was
somewhere below the cataract region, toward Edfu. Even today the
Nubian language is frequently heard spoken north of Aswan, and
it may well be that when Nubia rebelled in the Hyksos period the
whole valley became independent south of the Gebel Silsileh. Edfu
would then have been the southernmost town of any size in the
domain of Thebes.
Today the actual location of the burial place of Nub-kheper-Ré¢
is not certain, but we do know that it was somewhere in front of the
Dira¢ Abu’n Naga, and in all probability south of the little valley in
the northern part of that hill. The arm of the mountain which is the
southern side of the Valley of the Kings presents too narrow a face
toward the east and toward the cultivation to have been the back-
ground for a pyramid, however small, and we must look just to the
south for a site for it (Pl. 46).
That the tomb was actually in the Dira¢ Abu’n Naga, in the side
of a hillock to the west of the plain, was shown by its discovery in
1860 by Mariette.26 Few excavations have been more brilliantly
planned out beforehand—and less adequately published afterwards.
28 | ieblein, Aegypt. Denk. in St. Petersburg, Helsing fors, Upsala, und Copenhagen. Christiana,
1873. rus
2 Birch-Chabas, Bib. Egypt, 1X, p. 228; Leemans, Lettre aM. Fr. Salvolini, p. 142, Pl.
XXVIII, no. 288; Maspero, Histoire, I, p. 459; Weill, Sphinx, 1904, p. 199.
28 Kamal, Annales, 1938, p. 19, Pl. IV. ;
26 See Winlock, /EA, 1924, p. 226 for further footnotes throughout the following pages.
Mariette wrote from Luxor on Feb. 1, 1860, to Chabas: “I am

following the study of the Eleventh and Seventeenth Dynasties at
Kurneh .... Your excellent translation of Birch’s article on the
Abbott Papyrus has not served me badly at all. What I am sure of
is that the location of the royal tombs is the Dirat Abu’n Naga.
Amun-hotpe I was buried there as well as all the In-yotefs whose
coffins are in Europe. At this very moment I am on the track of the
tomb of Nub-kheper-Ré¢ In-yotef, which has been plundered but
where I may find a stela.”’
A closer location he fails to give, but years afterwards, in 1879,
Villiers Stuart ran across Mariette’s old excavation and the obelisks
he had left behind, half buried in a place close to that in which Stuart
was told the mummy of Ath-hotpe had been found. If his informa-
tion was good, and he was not merely writing in the most general
terms, he saw the obelisks somewhere near the north wady of the
Dira¢ Abu’n Naga. So far the indications are in agreement.
Lacking more definite data on Mariette’s excavations, it occurred
to me some years ago that the papyrus itself might give a valuable
indication in a mention which, as we shall see, it contains of the
adjacent tomb of Yuroi. Under the name of Yuroi the tomb has so
far defied discovery, but exactly where we should expect the royal
tomb to be there is the tomb of Shuroi, Chief of the Offering Bearers
of Amin, who lived in the Nineteenth or Twentieth Dynasty and
whose tomb was therefore in existence when the inspection was
made.” Except for the two signs for z and shw there is no difference
in either names or titles. Now there were evident slips made by the
scribe when he recorded Prince Ath-mose Si-pe-ir as a king, and
transcribed the prenomen of a King Tato.28 Hence I assumed that
he was either hasty in reading the name of Shuroi on the walls of the
tomb, or that he omitted the stroke that makes the difference be-
tween | and ¥. In short, I believed the attempt at robbery was
actually made from the tomb of Shuroi and that the tomb of Nub-
kheper-R€¢ must be within a few cubits of it.
With this arm-chair theory in mind I waited impatiently until I
could get out to Kurneh again. Once there—it was in the winter of
1919-20—I immediately looked up the tomb of Shuroi, verified the
reading of the name, and found that there actually were plunderers’
™ Tomb No. 13 in Gardiner and Weigall, Topographical Catalogue.

7% Winlock, JEA, 1924, pp. 222, 243.
tunnels starting from its outer chamber, but so torn up was the sur-
face round about that I could identify no trace of the tomb of King
In-yotef. I then questioned some of the older natives of the neigh-
bourhood. Did any of them remember seeing a pair of “columns”
lying around that part of the hill years ago? None of them did—but
two old men recalled a pair of “‘little obelisks” which lay right by
Tomb 13 until they were taken away by Maspero a long time back!
So spontaneous and unprompted was this answer that all my doubts
vanished, and I placed ‘“‘Nub-kheper-Ré¢ In-yotef” where it is on
the Map (Pl. 46).
So far as the description of the tomb in the Abbott Papyrus is con-
cerned we gain nothing. Mariette’s references to the tomb while
vague are a little more enlightening. Ashe describes it, the tomb was
a hemi-speos cut in the abrupt flank of the hill, consisting of a cham-
ber in the rock and a pit terminating in the burial vault. The pyramid
of crude brick was doubtless above on the rock and Mariette either
did not recognize it or it had completely disappeared. In front,
broken into several pieces, lay the two small sandstone obelisks,
3.50m. and 3.70m. high respectively, which had ornamented the
facade. Very well preserved inscriptions were arranged in vertical
columns down the four sides giving the names of ‘“The Horus Nefer-
khepru, Lord of the Two Diadems Heru-hir-neset-ef, Beautiful God,
Lord of the Two Lands, Lord of Offerings, Nub-kheper-Ré¢, Bodily
Son of Ré¢, In-yotef who is beloved of the gods Osiris, Sopd Lord
of the (Eastern) Mountains, and Anubis Lord of the Land of Djes-
eret.”” On one side there were a few signs from the beginning of a
restoration made by a later king.
The obelisks were left on the spot where they were found in 1860,
and were partially cleared a second time by Villiers Stuart in 1870,
as we have seen. Two years later they were shipped to the Bulak
Museum and were lost in the Nile opposite Gamileh on the way
down river. They have received frequent mention of varying value.
Villiers Stuart gave a bad wood-cut from a worse drawing, which
would be interesting if we could be certain that it was of the obelisk
not figured by Mariette, and after that they have been frequently
mentioned.
Mariette’s discovery of 1860 would appear to have been antici-
pated by the Arabs of Kurneh in 1827, when they seem to have
found the tomb intact as it was left by the inspectors in the reign of
Ramesses IX. Arab plundering on the slopes of the Dira¢ Abu’n-
Naga led them to a little tomb which they said had but one cham-
ber—a contradiction of the Mariette description which, perhaps,
should be taken more seriously than I have done. In the centre of
this chamber, the living rock had been left to form a sarcophagus,
free-standing from the walls but not detached from the floor, within
which lay the wooden coffin. Prisse, who claimed that information
had been furnished him at Thebes by an associate of Yanni, tried
to find the site but without success. In spite of the fact that he may
have made enquiries in Kurneh, nevertheless his published account
is nothing more nor less than a complete plagiarization of Leemans
and of a letter from the latter published by Tomlinson. The story
has been quoted “from one or another of these sources by all those
who have described the articles found.
The coffin was bought by Athanasi for a song, and was sold to the
British Museum in the summer of 1835. There the cover was cleaned
of its tarnish and the name of its owner was discovered. In the midst
of the feathers of the rishi decoration which covers the lid was a
vertical line of inscription including the cartouche of the King of
Upper and Lower Egypt In-yotef (Pl. 17).
That this was the coffin of Nub-kheper-Ré¢ In-yotef there is no
direct and incontrovertible proof since it does not give the prenomen
of the king, any more than does nearly every other object from the
' burial chambers of the kings of this period. We shall find that two
other Kings In-yotef were buried in the cemetery of the Sixteenth
Dynasty, and that the prenomen of only one was inscribed on his
coffin. When the coffin of Nub-kheper-Ré¢ came to be cleaned in
London some eight bits of bandages were found sticking in the
bitumen with which the inside was lined. They were covered with
texts in a strong hand and one ends with the name of the King In-
[yotef], but they also supply us with no further information. The
mummy itself having been destroyed, or probably having been so
badly prepared that it fell to pieces as most mummies of this date
do, a later one was substituted by the Arabs who sold the coffin. We
are thus left in some uncertainty as to which In-yotef this was, but
for me Nub-kheper-R€¢ is the most satisfactory.
The Arabs who opened the coffin claimed to have found the
mummy of the king resting within, wearing a diadem upon his head
outside the bandages; beside him lay two bows and six flint-tipped
arrows, and they said that among his wrappings they found a heart
scarab mounted in gold, ‘“‘and also many other objects of interest,”
THE SIXTEENTH DYNASTY | Db?
according to Athanasi. No mention is to be found of these objects

except in Yanni’s oftimes quoted story. The bow and arrows, unless
they too went to the British Museum, are now lost.
The diadem eventually found its way into the collection of the
Chevalier d’Anastasy, which was sold to Leyden.” Incidentally it
is amusing to read its story. Athanasi knew nothing of its fate, but
had heard it described. Leemans, on the strength of this description,
and possibly on hearsay which he does not recount, recognized this
diadem as one in the collection sold by d’Anastasy in 1828 to the
Dutch Government. He so informed Tomlinson in a letter, which
the latter published, and in his own writings invariably accepted
this identity. It has always been adopted by subsequent students,
and has every appearance of being correct. While d’Anastasy’s
agent Piccinini does not appear to have been living in Kurneh before
Passalacqua’s departure early in 1825, he certainly was in residence
north of the Mandara on the Dira¢ Abu’n Naga before March 1829.0
Miss Rosalind Moss once told me that he lived on the hillside, south-
west of the “Pink House” and above Tomb 161 according to Hay.
Piccinini may well have been purchasing at the time of the find of
the In-yotef coffin and thus both the coffin and the diadem would
have arrived in Leghorn in 1827—the first in Salt’s collection, the
second in d’Anastasy’s.
The diadem is of a form which had long been popular with the
Egyptians as a “boatman’s circlet’’—a ribbon tied around the brow
and knotted with a pair of blossoms at the back of the head in a bow
knot, the ends of which hang down behind. On the forehead of this
example is the royal uraeus in gold; the ribbon is of silver decorated
at intervals with stripes of three or four lines incised; and the two
flowers at the back were inlaid with plaques of dark blue and light
green-blue glass. Boeser showed that it had been added to in modern
times, doubtless by those through whose hands it passed before
d’Anastasy bought it. Along the edges there had been fixed rows of
little faience beads of different colours attached with thread to holes
punched here and there in the original silver band. At irregular
intervals between the rows of beads were thirty-one silver pendants
with rings at top and bottom, inlaid with light blue, dark blue, and
green glass. Boeser’s idea was that the pendants were from a “broad”
29 Steindorff, ZAS, 1895, p. 86.

3 Champollion, Letters, 1833, p. 178; Newberry, Annales, 1906, p. 83.
collar of the Middle Kingdom and the beads were of later date.
Glass is a rare material in Egypt before the Empire, but I should not
hesitate to say that in this case the similarity of colours, material
and workmanship between the pendants and the circlet itself, are
sufficient grounds for assigning the pendants, at least, to a broad
collar which the mummy of the king would undoubtedly have worn.
The threads having rotted and the whole thing having fallen to
pieces, the Arabs simply embellished the circlet with the pendants,
and the beads are now lost.
After the inspectors who drew up the Abbott Papyrus for
Ramesses IX in 1126 B.c. had examined the tombs of Amun-hotpe I
of the Eighteenth Dynasty and of Wah-fankh In-yotef of the
Eleventh, located on the hill and in the plain in the northern part
of the cemetery, they turned their footsteps to the southwest. They
went around the Dira¢ Abu’n Naga before turning toward the cliff
and the temple of Neb-hepet-Ré* Montu-hotpe at Deir el Bahri,
and while skirting the hill they had to stop to examine, among others,
the tomb of Nub-kheper-Ré‘. Of this they wrote,3! as we have
already noted: “The pyramid of King Nub-kheper-Ré¢, L.P.H.,
Son of Ré¢ In-yotef, L.P.H. It was found in course of being tunneled
into by thieves. They had made a tunnel 2% cubits long in its
northern side from the outer chamber of the tomb of the Chief of
the Offering Bearers of the Temple of Amiin, Yuroi, who is deceased.
The king’s pyramid was uninjured since the thieves had not been
able to enter it.”
The tomb of Nub-kheper-Ré¢ escaped serious damage at the hands
of the grave robbers until, after nearly three thousand years, the
Arabs of the Dira¢ Abu’n Naga found the burial chamber ap-
parently unplundered in 1825. Then such of the contents of the
pyramid as were still intact, fell prey to the modern thieves.
We may assume that in the early years of the Nineteenth Century
the little brick pyramid of Nub-kheper-Ré¢ was visible. Under the
date of December 9, 1826, Robert Hay wrote in his journal: 32 “‘This
morning I called on Yanni and saw some of his antiquities and... .
afterwards went to Piccinini’s..... After leaving his house I rode
along the foot of the mountain some distance beyond the com-
mencement of the road to Farshout .. . . to look at some small
31 Pap. Abbott, Pl. II, p. 12 ff; Breasted, AR, IV, par. 515; Peet, Tomb Robberies, p. 38.
32 B.M. Add. MSS. 29186, folios 177-9; Newberry and Davies called these MSS to my
attention and arranged that I should see them.
tombs,’ which were obviously in the early Eleventh Dynasty

cemetery located in the flat gravel plain, as we have already seen.
“I then rode up toward the mountain again and ascended . . . . just
above the second tomb’’—that of Shuroi—‘‘where are the ruins of a
mud structure, apparently of a small pyramid, about forty feet
square, which seems to have had three chambers, all arched. .... All
about the spot is so honeycombed with tombs that the ground has
fallen in upon them..... I walked along the hills, passing over a
continued region of excavations’—probably including those of
Yanni Athanasi—“‘and then arrived at Deir el Bachita.” A rough
sketch accompanies this story and shows the section of the pyramid
with three parallel, vaulted chambers within it.
About six years later, in 1832, Hay’s journal mentioned the brick
pyramid again as:33 “Many fragments of arches are to be seen
amongst these tombs: the remains of an arched pyramid opened by
Yanni in 1825 and which I| saw at the time when the painting was
more perfect than at present.”’
In 1825 or 1826, Burton was recording in his diary:34 “‘Dra abu
Nagr—mountain to East and ravine of catacombs where Yanni now
excavating—upon which the village.’’ A sketch at this point in the
journal shows a small pyramid with dimensions which make it only
fifteen feet square, with only one chamber within it, above which
was a low, hollow space. The diary then goes on: “In spot behind
Temple of Isis’—the Kurneh temple of Sethy I—‘‘crude brick
pyramidal tomb, and arched within and painted. Copy figs. naked
dancing and singing females. Behind it is a tomb where Salt exca-
vated numerous mummies and valuable papyri.”
The journals of Hay and of Burton must describe different pyra-
mids if we are to trust the accompanying sketches and the dimen-
sions, but they each had paintings of dancing girls in them. Just in
this neighborhood Gautier discovered, and both he and Petrie pub-
lished more than seventy-five years later, a chamber decorated with
what were obviously contemporary tomb paintings.of girls dancing.*5
In fact, the earlier discoveries were described as being so like the
later one that we should be temped to say that all the frescoes were
one and the same, if the dimensions could be made to agree and if
the frescoes found in the early Nineteenth Century had not been
33 BLM. Add. MSS. 29848, folio 65.
34 BLM. Add. MSS. 25633, folio 116. act
36 Gautier, BI FAO, 1908, p. 162, Pls. VII-X; Petrie, Qurneb, p. 11, frontispiece.
painted on the walls of pyramid chambers, while the one discovered

in the early Twentieth Century was apparently on those of a rock
cut tomb. All must have been in the same cemetery and have been
of the same date, however.
There is one last point in regard to the tomb of In-yotef which
should be considered. From the tomb of Nub-kheper-R€°¢, or possibly
from the burial place of Sekhem-Ré¢ Wep-matet, which was nearby,
as we shall see, comes one of the most haunting of ancient Egyptian
poems. We know it as ‘““The Song which is in the tomb of King In-
yotef the justified, in front of the singer,’ a title which modern
authors have usually abbreviated to ‘““The Song of the Harper.’’é
It has frequently been rendered into English and probably the fol-
lowing few extracts will serve to recall its burden: “. . . The Gods
who were aforetime rest in their pyramids. Nobles and the glorified
departed also are buried in their pyramids .... 1 have heard the
sayings of I-em-hotep and of Djed-ef-Hor with whose words men
speak so often. Where are they now? Their walls have crumbled.
Their places are no more, just as if they had never been..... May
thy heart be cheerful. ... . Follow thy desire while thou livest....
for none is allowed to take his goods with him, and none that has
gone has ever come back.”’
Both of the known copies of the song date from about the reign of
Akh-en-Aten, and the papyrus which states that it was copied from
the tomb of King In-yotef, would seem to make a Theban compo-
sition of it. Apparently every author who has written about the
song has taken the King In-yotef for one of the three rulers of the
early Eleventh Dynasty who bore that name, and has drawn con-
clusions about the spirit of that period from its wording. Perhaps
the extreme view was that of W. Max Miller, who thought of it
as being written in the Old Kingdom, having an enormous popu-
larity in the earliest years of the Middle Kingdom, and then suffering
a complete eclipse until the days of Akh-en-Aten.
As a matter of fact, it cannot be a Theban composition and at the
same time be of so early a date. The people of Thebes in the Old
Kingdom and the outset of the Eleventh Dynasty were far removed
from all the kings ‘‘who rest in their pyramids.’ Nowhere would
one look for such phrases as those about I-em-hotep and Djed-ef-
% A full bibliography and a translation of this, and other similar compositions is given by
Miriam Lichtheim in JNES, 1945, p. 178 and especially p. 192.
Flor except in Memphis, where those worthies had lived and were
buried, and where they were remembered for countless generations.
This is really a Memphite composition in spite of the fact that one
of our known copies is attributed to a Theban tomb. The other copy
was written in a tomb in Sakkareh and the whole spirit of the compo-
sition is of the northern capital, and of a time when Egypt was no
longer a united land. Before that period of disunity such songs as
we have today were short snatches, far more naive and cheerful.37
This dirge seems more in keeping with the cynical pessimism which
probably did follow the break up of Egyptian unity. Memphis would
appear to have been the author’s home, with the enormous pyramids
of the departed rulers a familiar sight along its western sky line and
traditions of the departed still lingering along its ways. To the
Eleventh Dynasty In-yotefs this plaint would have struck an un-
familiar chord. The Sixteenth Dynasty kings of the same name,
whose ancestors had once upon a time ruled over the pyramid field,
would have been stirred by its plaintive words.
My opinion is that the Song of the Harper was composed in
Memphis just after the glories of the Twelfth Dynasty had ended;
it was copied onto the walls of the chapel of one of the In-yotef kings
of the Sixteenth Dynasty in Thebes a century or so later; and it was
still familiar a couple of hundred years after that. Then it disappears.
Whatever rights Nub-kheper-Ré¢ In-yotef may have had to suc-
ceed to the throne of Egypt he could not have held it for more than
a very few years. His third year, when he gave over the Temple of
Min at Koptos to his adherent Min-em-hét, is the only date in his
reign but there could not have been many more years before he, too,
was gathered unto his forefathers. His line of kings was now launched
on its perilous way, which lay between the fierce Hyksos down river
and the Nubians in the cataract region above.
2. SEKHEM-RE¢ WaAH-KHA‘U REf-HOTPE. ABOUT 1065 B.C.

When King Nub-kheper-Ré* In-yotef had accomplished his
allotted span and gone forth to join his fathers at some time not far
from 1665 B.c., he was succeeded on the throne probably by his
son. Unfortunately this king’s name is open to some question.
As we have already seen, Nub-kheper-Ré¢ was probably the first
#1 [bid., p. 187.
king of his line and the builder of the first pyramid of the Sixteenth
Dynasty recorded in the Abbott Papyrus inspection. The second
pyramid examined, as we shall see, was that of another King In-yotef
called “the Elder.’’ It would seem that some ruler should come be-
tween these two In-yotefs in order that the second of them might be
called ‘‘the Elder’ without being confused with Nub-kheper-Ré°.
We are going to find that this second In-yotef was buried by his
brother, a third king of the same name, whose existence explains the
use of the term “‘the Elder’ to describe the older brother. However,
to make this line of reasoning valid, we must discover still another
king to succeed Nub-kheper-Ré¢ and separate him from the first
In-yotef of the dynasty, and for this we know the names of two
other rulers—Re?-hotpe and Thiti. Since of these two rulers there
is a suggestion that Thiti ended the dynasty, we are thus left with
Sekhem-Ré¢ Wah-khatu Ré¢-hotpe as the name of the second king
of the Dynasty. This guess is supported, as we shall see, by the
evidence that his pyramid was in the northern part of the Dira¢
Abu’n Naga (PI. 46), as well as by the name of his mother.!
Fortunately we know almost all of his five fold titulary: ‘“The
Horus Wah-tankh’’—Established in Life—‘‘He of the Two God-
desses Woser-ronpet’”—Rich in Years—‘“The Golden Horus Wadj
.’—Flourishingin . —‘The King of Upper and Lower Egypt
cher Re¢ Wah- hari geerhe Image of Ré¢ whose Crowns are
Established—“‘the Son of RE‘, Ret-hotpe’—Ré€¢ is at Peace.2 The
compiler of the list of kings which Thut-mose II] had recorded in
the little chamber in Karnak included his name, inscribing it in the
third row from the top on one’s right as one enters the chapel.
That Ref-hotpe was an effective ruler over Upper Egypt is clear
from three stelae bearing his name. Unluckily only one now has a
date and that is unfortunately of his first year.4 On this stela, which
comes probably from Abydos, the upper scene shows the king making
offerings on behalf of two individuals, to the god Osiris.
A second stela has an inscription on it stating that it was set up
“at the time of the building of the wall anew, in the Temple of
Osiris,’ and comes undoubtedly again from Abydos.5As it now
exists it is incomplete and we only know what was on the bottom
1 See below, page 123.
2 On the stelae noted below.
5 Prisse, Monuments, Pl. 1; Sethe, Urkunden, IV, p. 609.
4 Budge, Guide, Sculpture, p. 82.
® Petrie, Koptos, p. 12; History I, p. 233; Budge, Hieroglyphic Texts, 1V, p.9, Pl. XXIV.
two thirds from a squeeze found among Deveria’s papers, for

knowledge of which I have to thank Alan Gardiner. A now lost date
was followed by the prenomen of Ref-hotpe “beloved of Osiris
Khenty-amentiu.”’ Below came a figure of Osiris adored by the king
and by a man and his wife. Under them followed a hymn sung by
one Setankh-Ptah occupying four lines of text. The last two lines of
this psalm and three registers of men and women who join in the
praises are now gone.
A sadly decayed stela was unearthed by Petrie in Koptos.® It had
thirteen fairly long lines of text but the stone of which it is carved
is a local limestone of not too good a quality; the sculpture is far too
provincial for it ever to have been looked on as an object of beauty,
and it has suffered a great deal from decay. Yet one can still pick out
parts of the exaggerated hymn of praise carved on it, telling how
Ref-hotpe found the Temple of Koptos in a damaged state and
restored it. It goes on to recount his benefactions to the god Min,
and it praises the king’s own power and majesty. The monument is
an extraordinarily countrified looking object, with the most puffed
up eulogies of the ruler carved on it by an absolutely uninspired
country stone cutter.
On the Koptos stela of King Sekhem-Ré¢ Wah-khatu he is shown
with a queen standing directly behind him, named [Sobk]-em-saf
and, as we have noted, this monument was erected in the King’s
first year. The probability is that the wife of his predecessor, King
Nub-kheper-Ré¢, was still alive at that time, and is shown here,
which makes it more than likely that the wife of In-yotef was the
mother of Ref-hotpe. Of course, this point is open to some question,
but the chances are strongly in its favor, especially since | had an
opportunity in 1919 to verify the reading of the queen’s name on the
Ret-hotpe monument, as being in all likelihood Sobk-em-saf.
There was a Queen Sobk-em-saf who was a grand-daughter of a
native of Edfu.7 Also, there is the well known stela of a certain luf
of that town, which dates from the early Eighteenth Dynasty, and
unfolds a purely local tale of the Edfu district.8 In a scene at the top
of the stela, “the King’s Wife and King’s Sister Sobk-em-saf,
Beatified” is one of the persons who sit enthroned. Below there is a
6 Petrie, Koptos, p. 12, Pl. XII.

7 Engelbach, Annales, 1922, p. 116; Winlock, JEA, 1924, p. 233.
® Lacau, Stéles du Nouvel Empire, 34009; Sethe, Urkunden, 18th Dyn., p. 29, translations, p.
16.
long inscription which states, among other things, that “He says:
‘I have restored this tomb of the King’s Daughter Sobk-em-saf after
it was found to be in danger of falling into ruins’.”
There is thus a connection, in all likelihood, between the Sixteenth
Dynasty royal families of Thebes and a family of Edfu. According
to this line of reasoning as we have already noted, Nub-kheper-Ré¢
In-yotef, ruling at Thebes, was married to Sobk-em-saf of Edfu, by
whom he had a son, Ret-hotpe, who succeeded him as King Sekhem-
Ree Wah-khatu. The Queen Sobk-em-saf died—probably in her
own home town of Edfu—and was buried there, and her tomb was
still being looked after in the Eighteenth Dynasty.
Ret-hotpe, on his death somewhere about 1655 B.c., was buried,
according to an ancient tradition, in the Theban necropolis. There
was a romance current in Thebes during the Twentieth Dynasty
which told of the supernatural adventures of the High Priest of
Amin Khonsu-em-hab during his search for a tomb site.2 Khonsu-
em-hab is otherwise unknown to us and his tomb has never been dis-
covered, but his office precludes the fossibility of his having been
buried elsewhere than in Thebes, and if he lived under the Nine-
teenth or Twentieth Dynasties it is quite to be expected that he
would have been interred in the neighborhocd of the burial-places of
his predecessors, who dug their tombs opposite Karnark on the
northern part of the Dira¢ Abu’n Naga hillside.!0 This supposition,
indeed, fits in very well with the fragments of the story which have
come down to us.
Khonsu-em-hab is sending agents to examine a spot which has
been suggested to him in the already crowded Necropolis: “He sent
one of his subordinates, and with him three of the men under the
orders of the High Priest of Amiin-R€¢, to the place of the tomb of
the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Ré¢-hotpe, L.P.H. He em-
barked with them; he steered; he led them to the place indicated,
near the tomb of the King Ré¢-hotpe, L.P.H..... Then they re-
turned to the river-bank and they sailed to Khonsu-em-hab, the
High Priest of Amiin-Ré¢, King of the Gods, and they found him
who sang the praises of the god in the Temple of the City of Amin.
*On four ostraca in the Louvre, Vienna and Florence of which a translation, bibliography
and commentary are given by Maspero, Popular Stories of Ancient Egypt, 1915, p. 275. See
Winlock, JEA, 1924, p. 265.
1° Nos. 35 and 157 of Gardiner and Weigall, Topographical Catalogue, and Nos. 283 and 293
of Engelbach, Supplement; Lefebvre, Grands prétres d’ Amon, p. 225 and following.
He said to them: ‘Let us rejoice, for I have come and I have found
.the place favorable for establishing my dwelling in perpetuity.’
Whereupon the three men replied to him with one voice: ‘It is
found, the place favorable for establishing thy dwelling in per-
petuity.’.... Then he said to them: ‘Be ready tomorrow morning
when the sun issues from the two horizons,’ and he commanded the
Lieutenant of the Temple of Amin to find lodgment for these
people.”
The searchers thus set out from Karnak, examined the site of
the tomb of Ré¢-hotpe, and then re-crossed the river to the Amin
Temple where they were given lodging for the night against their
return in the morning. Everything points to the Theban Necropolis.
Later Khonsu-em-hab himself is caught underground in a tomb
near which he intends to build his own, and there, lost in the dark-
ness, he meets the ghost of the inmate and listens to his story.
“The spirit said to him: ‘As for me, when I was still living on the
earth, | was the treasurer of King Ré¢-hotpe, L.P.H., and also his
infantry lieutenant. Then I passed before men and behind gods,
and I died in the year 14, during the months of Shomu, in the reign
of King Men-hotpu-Ré¢. He gave me my four canopic jars and my
sarcophagus of alabaster. He had done for me all that is done for a
man of quality; he gave me offerings... .’”
A later ruler is involved here under the name of “‘Men-hotpu-Ret.”’
In that form the name is unfamiliar to us, but the ancient story
teller may have intended to write ‘“Men-kheper-Ré’ who, as
Thut-mose III, is, of course, well known. The interval between
Rét-hotpe and Thut-mose III is a long one, but possibly the story
teller only wanted to indicate roughly the 110 years a wise man was
supposed to live,!! trusting that none of his listeners would check
his figures. If anyone had checked them, he would have found that
the story teller was a good many years out, but the chances are that
the latter was only building up his tale by putting its action in the
days of two rulers who were perfectly well known to the people of
Thebes. If this supposition has any truth in it, the name of Rét-
hotpe was remembered for eight or more centuries, as the builder
of a pyramid in Thebes and as one of the last independent native
rulers before the hated Hyksos broke into Upper Egypt.
The story is purest romance, and yet a semblance of reality is
11 Pap. Anastasi IV, Pl. 4 line 4; Maspero, Rec. Trav. II, p. 112; Stories p. 30, note 3.
sought by making the scene and the characters actual ones. The
Thebans of the Twentieth Dynasty must have known the tomb of
King Rét-hotpe, and though it has up to the present defied dis-
covery, this story is sufficient evidence that it existed in the Necropo-
lis. Furthermore, as in the case of other royal tombs of the period,
this one seems to have been surrounded by those of the king’s
courtiers. It was into one of them, at “the place indicated, near the
tomb of King Réf-hotpe’’ that Khonsu-em-hab encountered the
ghost.
3. SEKHEM-RE¢ Wep-MACET IN-YOTEF THE ELDER. ABOUT 1655 B.C.
The length of no reign in the Sixteenth Dynasty is known to us

today, but King Ref-hotpe must have departed this life not so
many years from 1655 B.c., and his place was taken on the throne by
his son In-yotef, who had been born of a Great Royal Wife whose
name is now destroyed.! The fact that the succession continued from
father to son at least as far as this shows us that, down to this point
anyway, the same family occupied the throne of Egypt.
We have only three names out of five from the new ruler’s titu-
lary: “The Horus Wep-matet”—The Opener of Truth—“the King
of Upper and Lower Egypt Sekhem-Ré¢ Wep-matet’”—The Image
of Ré¢ Opening Truth—“the Son of Ré¢ In-yotef the Elder.’’ His
other two names are not known, but these three were written on the
capstone of his pyramid.? Here it seems that his name echoes the
phrase Sekhem-Ré¢ in the prenomen of Sekhem-Ré¢ Sewadj-towi
Sobk-hotpe who had done so much for Thebes in the Thirteenth
Dynasty, and the Two Goddesses name of Khat-sekhem-Ré¢ Nefer-
hotep—Wep-ma‘et—of the same period. To those of nearly any
other time in history these two Thirteenth Dynasty kings’ names
would mean nothing, but to a Sixteenth Dynasty ruler they loomed
large out of the fog into which the last kings of the united land had
sunk.
Nothing is to be learned from the little Karnak chamber of Thut- .
mose III, for in it has survived no prenomen for this ruler, though,
of course, we may take it that the scribe had in mind this third king
1See below page 127.

* B.M. 478; Burchardt and Pieper; Kdnigsnamen, p. 50; Winlock, JEA, 1924, p. 234.
THE SIXTEENTH DYNASTY ' 127
of the Sixteenth Dynasty when he wrote the name In-yotef just

after a group of rulers of the Twelfth Dynasty.’
Not a single event in the reign of Sekhem-Ré¢ Wep-matet can be
pointed to today and we must naturally conclude that it was very
brief indeed. Add to the almost total lack of documents of his life-
time the fact that he was buried by his own brother and we have
practical proof of the fact that he was on the throne for a very short
time. His pyramid survived for several centuries in antiquity as a
small, mud brick affair somewhere in front of the Dira¢ Abu’n
Naga, to the southwest of that of Nub-kheper-Ré¢ In-yotef and
presumably of Sekhem-Ré¢ Wah-khatu Ref-hotpe as well (Pl. 46).
The inspection party whose trip through the necropolis is recorded
in the Abbott Papyrus had viewed the tomb of the first of these
kings and had passed on to the southwest when they came to this
one.4
Of the pyramid itself there is no trace today except of its capstone
in the British Museum. That is a little mutilated pyramidion—
lacking apex and base—made of limestone, with sides inclined at 60
degrees from the horizontal. It suggests the caps of the familiar
pyramid-topped tombs in the vignettes of the Book of the Dead
and, like them, it bears on each of its four faces a single vertical
column of inscription setting forth the name and pedigree of “The
Horus Wep-matet, King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Sekhem-Ré¢
Wep-mafet, Son of Ré¢ In-yotef the Elder, begotten by .... and
born of the Royal Mother and Great Royal Wife who has assumed
the Beautiful White Crown ... .” For the historian it is a note-
worthy fact that this In-yotef the Elder was a legitimate heir to
the kingdom, born of royal parents—a king and his “Great Royal
Wife.” Newberry told me that this pyramidion, apparently, was
offered to Hay when he was in Karnak in 1823-33, and that Hay
has left a sketch of it. However, it was purchased by Sams, probably
from Athanasi, and from Sams acquired by the British Museum.
The date of its acquisition is unknown to me beyond the fact that
Sharpe published it as in the British Museum in 1837.
In 1849 Wilkinson saw the coffin of King In-yotef and that of the
brother, Sekhem-Ré¢ Heru-hir-matet In-yotef, which will be de-
8 Prisse, Monuments, Pl. 1; Sethe, Urkunden, IV, p. 609. ;

«Abbott Pap., Pl. II, 16-18; Breasted, AR, IV, par. 516; Peet, Tomb Robberies, p. 38; Win-
lock, JEA, 1924, p. 234, for fuller references to which should be added Wilkinson, MSS, V,
p. 213 for the pyramidion.
scribed in a moment or two. They were at the house of the Greek

antiquity dealer Triantophilos whom he dubs “‘Hawagie Werda.”’5
The two coffins, he tells us, were found together, and clearly their
discovery had taken place only a few years before. When Wilkinson
saw the coffins, that of In-yotef the Elder he thought had not been
opened, although, as we shall soon see, the Prisse Papyrus had
probably already been removed from it about 1845. He wrote again
in 1855 that the two coffins “were found at Drah-aboo-Néggat
about 14 way up the hill,” and then gives some magnetic bearings
which unluckily do not work out, together with the plan of a pit
tomb in which the king and his brother had apparently been re-
buried. The square well of this last was lined with “brick to a depth
of 4 men with mummies covered with cloth and dirt thrown over
them,” in a chamber at the end of a passage. Against this coffin he
notes: ‘face and all front and at feet covered with thick gold upon
plaster upon cloth.”
It will have been noticed that in the clerk’s transcription of the
king’s name into the Abbott Papyrus from the stela or some other
inscription at the tomb; in the cartouche on the pyramid apex; and
again on the canopic box, this sovereign is always known as In-yotef
the Elder. This last is an epithet totally lacking from all the monu-
ments which can be definitely assigned to the other known In-yotefs
of this period. However, it does appear twice on the gilded coffin in
the Louvre which is closely similar to the one in the British Museum
assigned above to Nub-kheper-Ré¢, and which, like this latter coffin
nowhere gives a prenomen. The Louvre coffin, therefore, unless we
are to accept the existence of a king named In-yotef the Elder, who
is otherwise unknown, may be logically assigned to Sekhem-Ré¢
Wep-matet.
The coffin (Pl. 18) was probably discovered with the canopic box
between 1845 and 1849. In any case it is known to have come, with
the coffin of Sekhem-Ré¢ Heru-hir-matet In-yotef, from an ordinary
pit in the plain near the northern end of the Dira¢ Abu’n Naga
before 1854. In that year Brugsch saw both coffins in the lumber-
room of the Greek consul, and Mariette, then on a mission for the
French Government following his discovery of the Serapeum at
Sakkareh, immediately bought and sent them to the Louvre in
December, 1854. This was all clearly stated by Chabas in 1850,
5 Wilkinson, MSS, IX, pp. 61-2, and other, later MSS which were seen and described to me
by Miss Rosalind Moss, June 24, 1926.
probably from Mariette’s information. Hood, who excavated in

Kurneh in 1857, labelled a necklace in his collection as found in
that year in the Dira¢ Abu’n Naga near the finding place of the
In-yotef kings. The original label was still in Nettleham Hall, near
Lincoln, England, in 1925. Since it was only on Feb. 1, 1860, that
Mariette first wrote to Chabas of his projected excavations which
eventually yielded the Eleventh Dynasty Wah-tankh’s stela and
the obelisks of Nub-kheper-Rér, there is little doubt that Chabas’s
and Hood’s information was on the Louvre coffins—less likely that
they were referring to the dig of 1827.
Historically the most interesting thing about this Louvre coffin
is the fact that it was made “as a gift to him from his brother King
In-yotef, beloved of Osiris eternally.”” But here again there is no
identifying prenomen to place the brother and successor. The
presence of two In-yotef coffins together in the Louvre has naturally
led many to assume that the brother who gave In-yotef the Elder
his funeral furniture was that In-yotef whose coffin now rests with
his. In this, modern students are doubtless right, although some
years ago I myself suggested another explanation of the relationships
of the period.
It is to be presumed that the pyramidion was found on the surface
near the ruined tomb before 1833, but the contents of the burial-
chamber only came to light between 1845 and 1849 through the
indefatigable efforts of the Arab plunderers, when they unearthed
the king’s canopic box (Pl. 20). This passed from them to the Clot
Bey collection and thence to the Louvre. It is one of those rare and
refreshing objects that need give us no worries, for its invocations
of the gods are in favor of King Sekhem-Ré¢ Wep-matet In-yotef,
both names written within one cartouche and the epithet “the
Elder’ usually given.
In all likelihood it was in the coffin of Sekhem-Ré¢ Wep-matet
In-yotef the Elder that the Arabs found the famous Prisse Papyrus
which has been one of the principal treasures of the Egyptian
collection in the Louvre for the past century.6 Prisse bought the
papyrus about 1845 from a Kurnawi who said that he did not know
where it had come from because he was only selling it for a friend.
Whether that were true or not, the date when Prisse acquired the
6 Prisse, Revue archéologique, 1846, p. 263; Fac-similé d’un papyrus égyptien trouvé a Thebes.
1847; Gunn, Instruction of Ptab-botpe, 1918, p. 22.
document was undoubtedly only a very little later than the dis-
covery of the coffin of In-yotef the Elder, in which the scroll had
unquestionably been buried. Whether Prisse was aware of that
find or not, he did know that his papyrus was found in the tomb of
some In-yotef and stated that fact clearly. Scarcely more than half a
century after the death of In-yotef and very soon after the wars of
King Wadj-kheper-Ré¢ Ka-mose of the Seventeenth Dynasty, a
partial copy of one of the two compositions on the Prisse Papyrus—
the Maxims of Ptah-hotpe—was written on Carnarvon Tablet I
and buried alongside of another Theban in a tomb only a little way
to the south.7 Whenever and wherever the Maxims of Ptah-hotpe
and those of Ka-gemni were originally composed, therefore, there
can be no doubt but that they were both copied on the Prisse Papyrus
only a very few years before the reign of In-yotef the Elder.
Apparently only one mention of the pyramid of this king has sur-
vived from a later date and that is among the minutes of the party
which went into the charges of tomb-robberies, preserved in the
Abbott Papyrus. There one reads: “The pyramid of King Sekhem-
Ree Wep-ma tet, L.P.H., Son of Ré¢ In-yotef the Elder, L.P.H. It was
found in the course of being tunneled into by the thieves at the place
where the stela of its pyramid was set up. Inspected on this day. It
was found uninjured since the thieves had been unable to enter it.”
The interesting item here is the mention of the stela erected at a
place which the thieves considered a likely point for a tunnel to the
burial chamber.
A scarab inscribed ““The Good God In-yotef the Elder’ is in the
Carnarvon Collection belonging to the Metropolitan Museum of
Art, in New York.8 It doubtless came from the burial of a member
of the court somewhere close by the pyramid.
The next burial of a Sixteenth Dynasty king is that of the brother
In-yotef who took charge of the burial of In-yotef the Elder. He must
have died almost immediately thereafter, to judge from the facts,
first: that no place appears to have been alloted to him by Manetho;
and second: that the coffin which bears his name is extraordinarily
cheap and rapidly put together (PI. 19).
In my previous article on the royal tombs of the period I doubted
that this third King In-yotef of the line was the successor of Sekhem-
‘Gardiner, JEA, 1916, p. 95.

= MMA 26.7.268.
Ré¢ Wep-matet, because of the spelling of the name In-yotef on the

Louvre coffin.» Those who buried the ruler we are now discussing
made a careless alteration in the cartouche on the coffin, changing it
to read the Elder again, but putting the heiroglyphic signs entirely
out of order in the script. If this clumsy last minute change is dis-
regarded as being senseless, the Louvre possesses the coffin of “The
King of Upper and Lower Egypt Sekhem-Ré¢ Heru-hir-matet”—
the Image of Ret Delighting in Truth—‘‘The King of Upper Egypt
In-yotef.” Two things are noteworthy here. In the first place in the
main inscription along the center of the coffin lid, his title is King of
Upper Egypt only, as is usual to coffins even of later generations,
when we should expect King of Upper and Lower Egypt. Then his
prenomen was penned in afterwards with this last, all-inclusive
title preceding it.
The first act of his brief reign was to bury his older brother. A fine
coffin was either already made for the dead king, or there was time
to construct it while his body was being embalmed, and on it was
written the inscription telling us how this coffin was presented “‘as a
gift of his brother King In-yotef, beloved by Osiris eternally.’’ Soon
thereafter this brother himself died, leaving his own very cheap
coffin as the only other fleeting trace of his existence. Today we re-
main uncertain whether he passed away from natural causes or was
the victim of a conspiracy which grew out of the turbulent conditions
of the time.
As for a tomb of Sekhem-Ré¢ Heru-hir-mafet, it is to be very
strongly doubted that one ever existed. The king’s coffin is hideous
and cheap beyond words and, if my present guess is correct, it was
laid in the tomb chamber of the Elder In-yotef. When the inspectors
came to get the body of this last King In-yotef there was this coffin
beside it and the two were simply gathered up and taken away
together by the necropolis priests, to remain safely hidden until the
mid-Nineteenth Century. By then antiquities had become more
valuable to Europeans than they were worth intrinsically, and a
tireless search for loot uncovered these two mummies in their
hiding place. Once it was unearthed by them it was “opened by the
fellahine”’ and robbed of what ever was on it.10
The stela of a certain Ini who was priest in the temple of a deceased
9 Winlock, JEA, 1924, p. 267.

10 Wilkinson, MSS, IX, p. 62.
King In-yotef exists in Reval. This Ini may have been a mortuary
priest of one of the three Kings In-yotef of this period, for the stela
is surely contemporary with them. The probability is, of course, that
he was a priest of Nub-kheper-Ré¢ whose tomb was the most 1m-
portant of all three without any doubt. Our next choice would
probably be Sekhem-Ré¢ Wep-matet. The least likely of all is this
third In-yotef, Sekhem-Ré¢ Heru-hir-mafet.1!
4. SEKHEM-RE¢ SHED-TOW! SOBK-EM-SAF. ABOUT 1650 B.C.

The two brothers In-yotef had both passed away and another king
had mounted the throne in their place. Being of the same dynasty
the chances are that he was of the same family, though we have no
evidence at all on this point. However, at least his name is more
familiar to us today than that of any other ruler of his line, for his
tomb figures prominently in the Ambras and Abbott Papyri, and
the trial of the thieves who robbed it we have in full in the combined
Leopold and Amherst Papyri.
Unluckily the three least usual names of this king are totally
lacking, but his two most important names are known to us: “The
King of Upper and Lower Egypt,” or ‘“‘the Good God, Lord of the
Two Lands Sekhem-Ré¢ Shed-towi’—the Image of Ré¢ who has
saved the Two Lands—“‘The Son of Ré¢ Sobk-em-saf”—The God
Sobk is his Protection. In the little chamber from the Temple of
Karnak it would seem that the scribes of Thut-mose III recorded his
prenomen in the last cartouche on the right hand wall as one came in
through the door, out of all relation to the rest of his line.! The
cartouche is in extremely bad condition today, it is true, but it does
not take too much imagination to read it.
Contemporary records of King Sobk-em-saf or of his subjects are
very hard to tell from those bearing the name of that other, and
more important, King Sobk-em-saf who possibly ruled all Egypt in
the Thirteenth Dynasty, and when no prenomen is given to dif-
ferentiate them from each other it would seem safest to assign an
object on which such a cartouche appears to the earlier and more
powerful king. Much as | hate to do so, therefore, it is probably
safest to give to the earlier king a thing like the graffito in the Shatt
Ul Wiedemann, Geschichte, p. 225.

1 Prisse, Monuments, Pl. 1; Sethe, Urkunden, p. 610.
er Rigal, scrawled on the rocks by some passer by.2 We must remem-
ber that the road to the Cataract at (Aswan was closed to all intents
and purposes to Thebans in the Sixteenth Dynasty. Perhaps to that
earlier ruler should go, also, what would appear to be an abbrevia-
tion of his name as it was probably used in Abydos.’ There we read
“The Good God, Lord of the Two Lands, Lord of Ritual, the Son of
Ré¢ Sobky” which seems to be a clipped form of the longer royal name.
Building in the Osiris Temple of Abydos seems to have gone on
in some fashion under the Sixteenth Dynasty king of this name, for
a small bit of limestone found there has the bottoms of both car-
touches of the ruler.4
In Thebes the cemetery of the contemporary nobles was pre-
sumably in the vicinity of the royal tomb. There traces of the reign
were found in the last years of the Nineteenth Century. At that
time the Arabs of Kurneh brought to light a small limestone obelisk
or stela which probably had stood in front of the door of the tomb
of a certain Sobk-hotpe.5 The object is small and wedge shaped,
with reliefs on all four sides, like the stumpy little obelisks from the
forecourts of some Memphite mastabehs. It was presented by The
Good God Sekhem-Ré¢ Shed-towi Sobk-em-saf to Sobk-hotpe, a
scribe in the temples of Sobk, Anubis and Khonsu. Sobk-hotpe was
the son of the temple scribe Sobk-nakhte and the King’s Ornament
Sobk-hotpe; his wife was the King’s Ornament Yuhet-ib; and his
son was the Temple-Scribe Anupu-nakhte.
A stelaé of this reign, purchased in Luxor in March 1882 for the
collection of the Baron Weisz of Kalacz in Hungary, bears the very
garbled inscriptions of a chancellor Montu-hotpe. His father would
seem to have been “Manager of the Estates of Queen Nub-khates,”’
who was probably the wife of Sekhem-Ré¢ Shed-towi, when the titles,
the names and the provenance of this stela are considered. Montu-
hotpe’s father was the “Royal Son,’ Chancellor, Steward of the
Royal Possessions of Nub-khates, Khenmes called Nebui, and his
mother the Princess Sobk-em-saf.
Two other objects from the Theban necropolis are the half of a

3 Maclver and Mace, El Amrab and Abydos, Pl. XLIII; Daressy, Textes Magiques, p. 43,
Pl. XI.
4 Petrie, Abydos, II, pp. 32, 35, Pl. XXXII, 5; Budge, Hieroglyphic Texts in the British
Museum, \V, p. 8, Pl. XII.
5 B.M. 1163; Crum, PSBA, 1896, p. 272; Winlock, JEA, 1924, p. 242.
§ Wiedemann, PSBA, 1887, p. 191.
stela found in Thebes and recently in Graz? which shows “The Son
of Ré¢ from his body Sobk-em-saf, given life eternally,” presenting
offerings to Ptah-Sokar, and it will be recalled that Petrie found a
small scrap of a similar stela under the Neb-wenenef Chapel in
Thebes on which there had been represented a King Sekhem-R€¢...
adoring Amun-Ré¢.8
Just after the First World War the natives ne live on the Dira‘
Abu’n Naga produced two crude little limestone fragments which
N. de G. Davies bought and gave to the Metropolitan Museum.
One is a piece of a private grave stela with bits of a biographical
inscription, dating from the reign of the Son of Ré¢ Sobk-em-saf,
and the other is the fragment of a small limestone shrine on which is
shown ‘“The Good God, Lord of the Two Lands Sekhem-Reé¢ Shed-
towi Sobk-em-saf beloved of Amun-R€¢,”’ making offerings to Amtn-
Ré¢, Ptah Lord of ‘Ankh-towi, and Hor-takhty? (Pl. 48). If only
we knew exactly where the Arab plunderers had unearthed them we
would probably know the approximate position of the king’s
pyramid along the hillside.
Finally there are traces of a royal prince who was active in the
reign of Sekhem-Ré¢ Shed-towi, and who is known to us from three
separate monuments. First there is the limestone coffin made for a
shawabti figure, bought about 1923 by Newberry from A. R. Cal-
lender, who said that it came from Gebelein. On this last point there
may be some question, for Thebes is the more likely finding place,
it would seem. The coffin bears the name of a King’s Son In-yotef-
mose who was a contemporary of King Sobk-em-saf and who dug a
canal in honour of the King and of Amin of Karnak. If he lived in
the reign of King Sobk-em-saf and was actually the son of a King
In-yotef, as his name and title would seem to suggest, there can be
no question but that the canal was dug in the reign of Sekhem-Ré¢
Shed-towi. Secondly, the inscription on a shawabti figure of the
King’s Son In-yotef-mose (PI. 47), tells how he accomplished certain
acts at a festival of the God Sokar, and was praised by King Sobk-
em-saf and by Amiin-Ré¢ Lord of Karnak in consequence." Finally,
Petrie found a part of a statuette of ‘‘the King’s Son In-yotef-mose
TVon Bissing, Ancient Egypt, 1914, p. 14.

8 Petrie, Qurneb, p. 12, Pl. XXX.
* MMA 25.3, 329-30; Winlock, JEA, 1924, p. 242.
10 | have to thank Newberry for permission given me years ago to mention these two objects
and for a tracing of the inscription on the shawabti. Both objects are in the British Museum.
called the Red Child,” in Kurneh in 1900,!! and in default of evi-

dence to the contrary it would seem that we should accept these
three monuments as having belonged to one person, a prince who
not only lived at this time, but was buried in the Dira¢ Abu’n Naga
where Petrie found the fragment of his statuette. If this be the case,
it would seem likely that the King’s Son In-yotef-mose was born
perhaps in the reign of Nub-kheper-Ré¢, about 1675 B.c.—or per-
haps a few years earlier before the king was crowned—and that he
died in 1645 B.c., or a few years later.
In addition to these objects, there are in existence today two
extremely fine scarabs bearing the name of a King Sobk-em-saf.
One, now in New York, may or may not have been this king’s, for
there is always King Sekhem-Ré¢ Wadj-khatu Sobk-em-saf, who
was of the Thirteenth Dynasty, for whom such an object might
have been made.!2 It is of very fine, dark green stone with a gold
plaque beneath, on which is inscribed “The Good God Sobk-em-saf
given life,” the name written in a cartouche, and the whole inscrip-
tion surrounded by a linear scroll ornament. That it came from the
tomb of either of the two Kings Sobk-em-saf seems improbable. It
could hardly have survived the ancient plundering of the tomb of
Sekhem-Ré¢ Shed-towi in the Twentieth Dynasty, and it is im-
probable that it was found in the tomb of Sekhem-Ré¢ Wadj-khatu
which appears to have escaped discovery so far. Doubtless it comes
from the burial place of a courtier of one or the other ruler.
The second scarab presents no uncertainty as to what it was made
for, in any case.13 It is of green jasper set on a plinth covered with
gold. The beetle itself has a human face, and in the inscription the
bird signs are legless. The gold covering of the base has a beaded line
around the edge and into it on bottom and sides are impressed sen-
tences from the Book of the Dead, to be recited for ““The Osiris King
Sobk-em-saf, triumphant.”
The scarab was sold with the coffin here described as that of Nub-
kheper-Ré¢, and with it passed into the Salt and British Museum
collections. All the information which Yanni Athanasi could obtain,
was that it “‘was placed on the breast of the mummy without having,
as is usual, any ornament attached to it.” Naturally one hesitates to
accept the story of a scarab of a King Sobk-em-saf on the mummy of
11 Petrie, Qurneb, Pl. XXX, 3.

12 MMA 26.7.86; Winlock, JEA, 1924, p. 243.
13 [bid., p. 231.
a King In-yotef who had been dead at least ten years or the historical
conclusions which might be drawn from it. In fact the point involved
makes another excursion into the Kurneh of over a century ago
worthwhile, to see what we can make out of the probabilities of the
case.
Yanni Athanasi, long established in Kurneh as Salt’s agent, bought
the coffin found by the natives early in 1827, its faked-up mummy
and the heart-scarab; Piccinini, lately arrived as d’Anastasy’s agent,
seems to have bought the faked-up diadem, and both purchases
arrived in Leghorn in the latter part of the same year. The Salt col-
lection was largely of Theban origin, but d’Anastasy’s had been
formed for the most part in Sakkareh, and it is probable that what
little he had from Thebes was brought together by Piccinini in the
short interval between his arrival in Kurneh, about 1826, and the
shipment which was made in 1827. Now among this Theban ma-
terial there was, in addition to the diadem of In-yotef, the canopic
box of King Sobk-em-saf and the rishz coffin of a certain Montu-
nakhte.!4 This last was fixed up for sale exactly as the In-yotef coffin
had been. As a substitute for the badly preserved mummy of Montu-
nakhte, there was provided a later and more durable one with
wreaths and a wooden panel, and beside it were placed an incongru-
ous terra-cotta figure and a hawk. The shawabti figure of a woman
named Ka-mose, put into the coffin, and a remarkably well-pre-
served lyre! may, of course, be from Montu-nakhte’s tomb. Arguing
from Piccinini’s short residence in Thebes, the scarab of King Sobk-
em-saf and the coffin of Montu-nakhte must have been found just
about the time of the discovery of the In-yotef tomb. Judging from
the mummy-substituting it would almost seem that the same gang
must have made all three finds which they purposely divided between
Piccinini and Athanasi. “The custom which prevails among the
Arabs of their selling separately, and to different persons, objects of
antiquity found together,” complains Yanni, “‘is really to be la-
mented. It arises from their wish to conceal from the chief of their
village the riches they possess.”
Obviously the scarab was made for a King Sobk-em-saf and was
buried in Thebes. This would seem to rule King Sekhem-Ré¢ Wadj-
14 Boeser, Egypt. Vergameling te Leiden, III, p. 3, Pl. VIII; Borchardt, ZAS, 1894, 115, n. 1.
15 Boeser, op. cit., p. 7, Pl. XXII, believed that the lyre had been restored. Lansing’s con-
temporary lyre (Bull. Met. Mus. of Art, Suppl., May 1917, p. 22) shows, however, that the
Leiden lyre is absolutely authentic.
kha‘tu out of consideration for he, like the other rulers of the Thir-
teenth Dynasty, was buried in the north, in spite of my earlier guess
to the contrary.!6 We know now of no other king buried in Thebes
who was called by that name except Sekhem-Ré¢ Shed-towi Sobk-
em-saf but his tomb, as we shall see, was completely plundered in the
Twentieth Dynasty. Thus we are left in uncertainty as to whether
the Arabs of the early Nineteenth Century found this scarab in
some hiding place of the ancient thieves who had plundered Shed-
towi’s tomb, or found it on some other mummy. Since the first ex-
planation would seem rather unlikely, the second is perhaps the
true one. In any case, the Arab story that the scarab was found on
the body of King In-yotef who had died probably at least a score of
years before the death of Sobk-em-saf, is impossible.
The tomb of Sekhem-Ré¢ Shed-towi Sobk-em-saf remained intact,
as far as we know today, until the great robberies in the reign of
Ramesses XI, when it was completely gutted. Some few years later
a number of documents bearing on the events of those days was
collected together and stored in one of two pottery vessels.!7 We
have a list today in the Ambras Papyrus of the contents of these
two jars of documents, one of which held ‘“The examination of the
pyramid of King Sekhem-Ré¢ Shed-towi,”’ which was filed in the
archives of the Necropolis together with “The inspection of the
pyramids” (probably the Abbott Papyrus) among ‘The writings
with regard to the thieves, which were in the other jar.”
In the Abbott Papyrus we have an account of the investigation of
the whole necropolis. In the Year 16, Third Month of Akhet, Day
18, a commission went forth to look into the charges made by
Pe-wer-to.18 They reported as follows: ““The pyramid of King
Sekhem-Ré¢ Shed-towi, L.P.H., Son of Ré¢, Sobk-em-saf, L.P.H.
It was found that the thieves had broken into it by mining into the
lower chamber of its pyramid, from the outer hall of the tomb of
Neb-Amin, The Overseer of the Granary of King Men-kheper-R€°,
L.P.H. The burial-place of the King was found void of its lord as
well as the burial-place of the Great Royal Wife, Nub-khates,
L.P.H., his royal wife, the thieves having laid their hands upon
them. The Vizier, the nobles and the inspectors made an examina-
16 Winlock, JEA, 1924, p. 268.

7 [bid., p. 238; Peet, Tomb Robberies, p. 181.
18 Breasted, AR, IV, par. 517; Winlock, JEA, 1924, p. 237; Peet, Tomb Robberies, p. 38.
tion of it, and the manner in which the thieves had laid their hands
upon the king and his royal wife was ascertained.”
On the 2oth day of the same month, as the Abbott Papyrus goes
on to say, Pe-sitir, Mayor of the City, harangued his accuser, Pe-
wer-‘o, and some of the interested parties, and in doing so gave us,
perhaps, a bit of additional information.!9 He said: “You exhult
over me at the very door of my house. What do you mean by it? |
am the mayor who reports to the Ruler, L.P.H. You are rejoicing
over me... . The tomb of King Sekhem-Ré¢ Shed-towi, L.P.H.,
Son of Ré¢ Sobk-em-saf L.P.H. has been broken into, as well as
that of Nub-khates L.P.H., his Royal Wife. He was a great ruler
who executed ten important pieces of work for Amin-Ré¢, King of
the Gods, that great god, and his monuments stand to this very
day.” And a cry came back out of the crowd: “All the kings with
their royal wives .... are uninjured. They are protected and made
safe forever,’ but this was hardly the case.
Since the publication of my article on the tombs of these rulers
over twenty years ago, an event of prime importance to all such
studies has come to pass. Among the most romantic tales of modern
Egyptology was the discovery in 1936 by Jean Capart of the missing
half of the investigation of the tomb robberies recorded on the
Amherst Papyrus, in the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York.
This Capart found inside a wooden figure and named the Papyrus
Leopold II, and it is now preserved in the Musées du Cinquantenaire
in Brussels.22 Combined, these two papyri carry the minutes of the
investigation of the robbery of this particular tomb to the Year 16,
Month 3 of Akhet, Day 22, or two days later than does the Abbott
Papyrus.
The document was labelled: “The examination of the men found
to have violated the tombs in the West of Thebes, accusation
against whom had been brought by Pe-wer-fo, the Mayor of the
West of Thebes and Chief of Police attached to the great and noble
tomb of millions of years of Pharaoh, . . . . made in the treasury of
the Temple of Montu, Lord of Waset.” The men on trial were the
stone mason Amun-pe-nufer together with seven others who had
been robbing tombs in the necropolis for the preceding four years,
and made up a gang of thieves who had forced their way into the
1 Breasted, AR, IV, par. 528; Peet, Tomb Robberies, p. 41.

* Capart, Gardiner and van de Walle, JEA, 1936, p. 160.
pyramid of Sekhem-Ré¢ Shed-towi Sobk-em-saf. From an under-

ground chamber where the light of a torch was needed, they had
broken through the blocking of the burial chambers of the King
and of Queen Nub-khates, had ripped open their sarcophagi, and
had broken into their coffins.
Within they “found the noble mummy of this king equipped with
a sword; a great number of amulets and jewels of gold were upon his
neck; and his diadem of gold was on his head. The noble mummy of
this king was completely bedecked with gold, and his coffins were
adorned with gold and silver inside and out .. . . We collected the
gold we found on the noble mummy of this god, together with his
amulets and jewels which were on his neck and the coffins in which
he was resting, and we found the queen in exactly the same state.
We collected all that we found on her likewise, and we set fire to
their coffins,” probably to get the last bits of precious metal. In all
they claimed to have got ‘‘160 deben of gold, the pieces of furniture
not being included.”
Some time after the robbery Amun-pe-nufer was perested but
he still had his share of the booty intact and easily bribed his way
out of the hands of the police. The other thieves compensated him,
and then all together they went on with their tomb robberies, aided
by a host of other characters of Western Thebes. Finally, however,
four thieves were arrested again and their ‘‘examination was effected
by beating with sticks and their feet and hands were twisted.” After
this ordeal they were taken to the West and re-examined at the
tomb, after which they were handed over to the High Priest of
Amin who was charged to apprehend the other members of the
gang to be held with them “until Pharaoh our Lord should have
decided upon their punishment.”
The papyrus ends with an unfinished phrase and we do not know
what became of the tomb robbers. It is, however, an extraordinarily
fascinating bit of the story of the fate of the royal burials as Egypt
started on its slide down hill.
Naturally from a tomb so completely plundered nothing probably
survived of any intrinsic value, but this would naturally not have
been the case with a wooden canopic box which had no precious
metal on it21 (Pl. 20). Such a chest was discovered by the Arabs in
1 The box is by mistake assigned to Sekhem-Ré¢ Wadj-khatu Sobk-em-saf, who we now

know was not buried in Thebes, in Winlock, JEA, 1924, p. 268, where a full bibliography is
given.
1827, and was sold to Piccinini and J. d’Anastasy, and passed from
the latter to Leiden. It is characteristic of the objects from the
burials of the kings of this period that it should bear no prenomen,
and that its original owner should be termed simply “The King of
Upper Egypt Sobk-em-saf.”’ It is remarkably like the canopic box
in the Louvre which, as we have seen, probably came from the tomb
of King Sekhem-Ré¢ Wep-matet In-yotef and, except for its lighter
color, it is very much like the one made for King Thiti, to be noted
on a later page.
Nothing else could have survived the robbery of the tomb, but
from the account of this last in the papyri it is possible to get some
idea of the tomb and its furnishings. The thieves were taken to
identify “the pyramid of this god in which they located the burial-
chambers” and the burial-chamber is elsewhere called the “lower
chamber of the pyramid,” into which the thieves tunneled from a
nearby tomb. In the confession there are stated to have been two
separate burial-chambers, one for the king and one for the queen,
and this latter was broken into at the “outer wall,’ known already
in the case of the pyramid of Nub-kheper-Ré¢, through what would
appear to have been a masonry lining. Evidently these burial-
chambers were not in the superstructures of the tombs but were
below them in the rock.
The king and the queen were each found resting in an outer
sarcophagus and an inner anthropoid coffin, the former probably
something like that described in the case of Nub-kheper-Ré¢; the
latter of wood—for the thieves burnt them—covered with gold leaf
like others of the period, and described as inlaid with semi-precious
stones. So far as this last statement is concerned, it is true that in
the Twelfth Dynasty and again in the Eighteenth Dynasty gilded
coffins were inlaid, but no coffins of the Sixteenth Dynasty so
wrought, have survived. Is it possible, therefore, that those of Sobk-
em-saf and Nub-khafes were more gorgeous than any others of their
time, or are we not justified in a suspicion that the clerk who tran-
scribed the confession of the thieves was none too interested in
rendering it verbatim, and threw in a stock literary phrase to be in
keeping with his ideas of what a Pharaoh should have had? Few such
gripping tales have survived to our day.
For the location of the tomb we have a suggestion in the Abbott
Papyrus. The inspectors coming south along the plain visited it after
Nub-kheper-Ré¢ and Sekhem-Ré¢ Wep-matet and before the tombs
THE SIXTEENTH DYNASTY 14!
of the Seventeenth Dynasty kings?? (Pl. 46). This would put it about
the middle of the east face of the Dira¢ Abu’n Naga, and there is a
very tantalizing statement of Mariette’s to the effect that he had
found the tombs of the Kings Nub-kheper-Ré¢ In-yotef and Sobk-
em-saf cut in the flanks of a hillock, to the west of the plain. He
never amplified this statement, and we are left in a complete quan-
dary when we try to fathom exactly what was in his mind.28
Things are perhaps somewhat better with the possible re-dis-
covery of the tomb in 1898-9.24 On this occasion the Northampton
Expedition, working on the lower slopes of the eastern spurs of the
Dira¢ Abu’n Naga, found an early Eighteenth Dynasty tomb (No.
146 in the present numbering) in which there were cones, a slab
with shawabtis, and a fragment of the stela of a certain Neb-Amin
and his wife Suit-nub. Also cones were found of a Neb-Amin,
Scribe of the Corn Accounts and Overseer of the Granary of Amin.
From one corner of the rear chamber of the tomb a plunderer’s
tunnel led under the ruins of a small brick pyramid on the hill above.
So many of the circumstances agree with the Abbott Papyrus that
Newberry and Spiegelberg did not hesitate to announce the dis-
covery of the Pyramid of Sekhem-Ré¢ Shed-towi Sobk-em-saf.
The coincidences here are certainly striking, but there is a hesita-
tion in my mind in accepting this theory, plausible as it seems at
first. While agreeing that the location is very much what would be
expected, I should like to see a stronger chain of evidence for the
identification of this particular pyramid. There were about half a
dozen different individuals called Neb-Amiin buried in this neigh-
borhood, who bore titles which would seem to make their tombs the
starting place of the grave robbers’ tunnel and, until the whole area
is more completely cleared, it would seem safest to hold up all
attempts to make a hard and fast identification.
5. SEKHEM-RE¢ SEMEN-TOW! THOTI. ABOUT 1645 B.C.

Of the five individuals who actually attained the style of full king-
ship in the Sixteenth Dynasty, there only remains one to be named, |
Sekhem-Ré¢ Semen-towi Thiti, who probably occupied the throne
for a very brief time about 1645 B.c. He has left but few traces of
his reign, but he was perfectly well known to the scribes who pre-
#2 Winlock, JEA, 1924, p. 243. 23 [bid., p. 240. 24 [bid., p. 241.

pared the list of kings for the little chapel built by Thut-mose IT] in
Karnak.! The roster is sadly confused, of course, but the name of
Sekhem-Ré¢ Semen-towi is still clear for all to see, recorded promi-
nently on the back wall of the chamber.
No matter how briefly he may have done so, Thiti reigned effec-
tively in the Theban principality,2 under a personal name suggestive
of the great rulers of the Eighteenth Dynasty, in its connection with
the Moon god. There, however, the similarity comes to an end. Out-
side of the Theban necropolis, the only trace he has left comes from
ed Deir near Ballas’—a block of limestone which was once part of
a door jamb in a temple, perhaps that of Séth at Onbot (Ombos)
some five miles away. In its day there was a shrine of that god there
dating from the Old Kingdom, and frequently restored down to the
Eighteenth Dynasty. This stone was found by the sebakhin of the
district, still bearing traces of green paint in the hieroglyphs.
It is perhaps doubtful whether or not Sekhem-Ré¢ Semen-towi
occupied the throne long enough to build himself a pyramid. He is
the only king of the Dynasty of whom we have no burial furniture
and no mention among ancient documents of a tomb, and it is quite
possible that no pyramid in the Theban necropolis was ever so far
completed as to deserve being written about in later documents.
Probably a pyramid was planned for him, however, for his wife,
Queen Montu-hotpe, was actually buried in the necropolis. There
her grave seems to have been found about 1825 by Arabs plundering
in the Dirat Abu’n Naga, as we know from the writings of Passa-
lacqua and the drawings of Wilkinson.
In a Theban tomb, beside a mummy in a coffin, Passalacqua
claimed to have found what he took for a medicine chest, but what
might more correctly have been called a toilet set, which is now in
Berlint (Pl. 20). The outside chest was none other than a canopic
box made for King Thiti, but a line of writing added in a blank
space on the lid in another hand and with a different ink from that
in which the other inscriptions are drawn, informs us that it ‘“‘was
presented as a gift by the King to the Great Royal Wife who has
assumed the Beautiful White Crown, Montu-hotpe, triumphant,”
1 Prisse, Monuments, Pl. 1; Sethe, Urkunden, lV, p. 610.
? Meyer, Geschichte, 1, § 301, puts his name in the XIII Dyn. Weill, J4, XI-III, p. 549,
calls him a subject of the Theban rulers.
3 Petrie and Quibell, Nagada and Ballas, pp. 8, 42, Pl. XLIII.
* Berlin, 1175-1182. Passalacqua, Catalogue raisonné, pp. 25 and 154. See Winlock, JEA,
1924, p. 269, for the footnotes to the following.
doubtless on her predeceasing him. Nested within this chest there
was a red and white papyrus wickerwork cover on four legs, which
fitted over a woven palm leaf hamper, which in turn sat upon a
stand made of reed. The curved lid of the hamper was fastened with
two knobs of ebony inlaid with ivory, and seems to have been sealed
with mud seals. Within the hamper there were six compartments,
each containing a toilet vase of alabaster or serpentine filled with
salves and stoppered with papyrus, two wooden spoons, a little bowl
of green faience, and twenty-five odorous tubers.
It has long been supposed that this tomb was refound by Wilkin-
son about 1832, when he copied the religious texts on a coffin in
Thebes.’ The coffin itself has disappeared, but since 1834 his copy
has remained in the British Museum. It was. made known by Good-
win in 1866 as having been inscribed for a Queen Montu-hotpe, and
Lepsius immediately identified this queen with that of the canopic
box in Berlin. Since that day, Wilkinson’s coffin and Passalacqua’s
box have been accepted as having been found together in the same
tomb, without a dissenting note, so far as | am aware, except for
one of my own which I| now think was mistaken. On the coffin the
Queen appears as “The Great Royal Wife, who has assumed the
Beautiful White Crown, Montu-hotpe, begotten by the Mayor,
Vizier and Superintendent of the Six Great Houses, Seneb-henatef,
and born of the Princess Sobk-hotpe.”’
Passalacqua, however, in writing of the finding of the canopic box,
says: “elle était placée par terre dans un tombeau de Thébes, prés
d’une momie, dont aucun caractére ne la distinguait de celles qu’on
découvre le plus souvent, tel que le 1538, quoique ayant été déposée
dans un cercueil moins riche en peinture que le 1537.” According to
his catalogue the coffin 1537 was richly decorated with paintings
representing a great number of divinities and with texts. Now since
rectangular sarcophagi were not decorated with representations of
divinities, and since the only coffins known by Passalacqua which
lacked such representations were his set of Middle Kingdom rec-
tangular coffins now in Berlin, he evidently intends to say that the
coffin of Queen Montu-hotpe was anthropoid in type. This we may
well doubt. It would seem probable that Passalacqua did not find
the canopic box himself, but that he purchased it from the Arabs
who described the coffin falsely to him for their own purposes.
5 Budge, Facsimilies of Hieratic Papyri in the B.M., Pls. XXX1X-XLVII; Wilkinson, MSS,
III, p. 10.
The sketch by Wilkinson on his last plate shows that what he

copied was a rectangular Middle Kingdom sarcophagus and, more-
over, one close in type with that in Berlin, which Passalacqua
found and which was his especial pride. It has the same panelled
exterior, cavetto cornice and shrine roof which would have attracted
Passalacqua’s attention instantly, and which undoubtedly would
have received mention in his catalogue, and probably would have
been added to his collection with the canopic box. When first I came
to write about this period it appeared to me impossible to identify
the Queen Montu-hotpe of the canopic box with the Queen of the
same name who had been buried in the coffin, as everyone else had
believed to be the case ever since Lepsius had first identified the
two. In this I was probably too skeptical, however. The coffin and
the canopic box must have been found together by one gang of
Arabs who sold the chest to Passalacqua and abandoned the coffin
where it stood, and where its inscriptions were copied by Wilkinson
some ten years later. Where this tomb may have been is not without
its interest.
Giuseppe Passalacqua was in Thebes between 1822 and 1825. He
has left us an extremely good account of his life in Kurneh, where he
procured for himself a native house on the southern end of the
Dira¢ Abu’n Naga, and practically all his activities seem to have
been near by. His fine Middle Kingdom tomb was a couple of
hundred yards west; on the southern spur of the hill he made his
most important find, the community burial-place in one of the
Eleventh Dynasty corridor tombs; and in the flat, not far away,
was one of his biggest digs, in which four of his men were buried by
a cave-in.
In his spirited description of the accident, he tells how he rushed
to the rescue from his house, which was evidently near by, but since
his efforts to save the men had come to nothing by nightfall, he took
the discreet course and disappeared in the darkness. Across the
rugged pitfalls of the Asasif he fled to the house of his friend Yanni
Athanasi and, from the windows of an upper room, watched the
torches flickering around the site of the accident. Now Yanni’s
house still stands on Sheikh ¢Abd el-Kurneh, and from its upper
windows I have verified the fact that one can see the southern end
of the Dira¢ Abu’n Naga and the adjoining flat where Carnarvon
and Carter and Lansing dug almost a century after Passalacqua’s
day. In fact, except for once when he was looking for an under-
THE SIXTEENTH DYNASTY ' 145
ground passage from Deir el Bahri to the Valley of the Kings, all
Passalacqua’s digs were right in this neighborhood. The brick
pyramids, among which he dug, are well known along this part of
the hill but are not common elsewhere in the Necropolis. I think,
therefore, that we are justified in assuming that the tomb of Queen
Montu-hotpe was found there. This would make the central part
of the Dirat Abu’n Naga just north of the Tato tombs, the logical
place to look for the site of any tomb planned at least for King Thiti.
6. THE Hyxsos IN UPPER EcypT. FROM ABOUT 1640 B.C. TO 1567 B.C.
King Sekhem-Ré¢ Semen-towi Thiti was the last native ruler of
Thebes, and since we have no record of any tomb of his in the ne-
cropolis, it is quite possible that the barbarians overran Upper
Egypt before he had a chance to build one, killed him, and threw
his body out just as the Egyptians of the time of Thut-mose II] did
with the corpse of their own countryman Sen-Mit, about a century
and a half later.1 Of course, in telling such a tale we have to draw on
our imaginations rather deeply, but in doing so we would conform
to all that we have reason to believe about the savagery of the
invaders.
A chronological table of the events of those days as it has been
reconstructed at the outset of this volume has Khian ascending the
throne in Memphis in 1644 B.c., and with all the vigor of youth
he started the invasion of Upper Egypt almost immediately. We
have put the accession of Thiti at about 1645 B.c., or within a year or
so of that date, or extremely close to this time. It does not take much
imagination to picture these two newly crowned rulers immediately
leading their forces against each other. Khian, at least, was probably
little more than twenty years old, the leader of a large horde of
Hyksos eager for the plundering of Upper Egypt, as their fathers of
a generation before had sacked Memphis. From what little we know,
the fall of Thebes must have followed in no time at.all, and the bar-
barians were in Gebelein—the Two Mountains—by about 1640 B.c.
Sewoser-en-Ré¢ Khian and *O-woser-Ré¢ Apopi, to take only the
name by which the latter was known in Thebes, have each left a
fragment of inscribed stone in the fortress of Gebelein.? Apopiis a
somewhat puzzling figure who has left two other prenomens—Neb-
1 Winlock, Deir el Babrt, p. 152. :
* Daressy, Rec. Trav., XIV, p. 26; XVI, p. 42; Maspero, Guide, p. 516.
khepesh-Ré¢ and ‘O-ken-en-Ré¢—but it would seem to be best to
disregard these Lower Egyptian names and follow Manetho, limiting
the number of Hyksos rulers to six. At Gebelein their castle was on
an isolated hill alongside the Nile, less than 100 kilometres above
Thebes, by far the easiest place from which the valley could be
defended below the Cataract of Aswan.
On the whole the country is only a poor, narrow land above the
defile through which the river passes at Gebelein, and once that
point had been won, the barbarians probably stopped to dig them-
selves in.’ It is more than likely that they never forced their way
south of Gebelein where began the domain of more or less indepen-
dent princes who lived up river at el Kab. Aswan and the meager
lands above there in Nubia were independent now of all Egyptian
interference. Down river from Gebelein the Hyksos probably did
not try to hold Upper Egypt as anything but a conquered country
to be taxed. In the Thebaid they built almost nothing, in all likeli-
hood and, except for scarab seals, their fort at the Two Mountains,
of which there is scarcely one stone standing above another, and one
small scrap of alabaster inscription, there is little which can be as-
signed to them there.
In Upper Egypt the seals of the tax collectors are the main traces
of the Hyksos which have been found. These tax collectors’ scarabs
are fairly numerous, however, in most of our Egyptian collections
today. In the Metropolitan Museum in New York, which may be
taken as having a typically representative number, there are none
to represent the first three chieftains, nor do I know of any such
elsewhere. There are five scarabs, though, of Khian; one possible
scarab of Assis bearing the otherwise unknown prenomen ¢O-hotep-
Ré¢; and a score which belonged to the reign of Apopi (Pl. 21).
When we remember that Assis reigned so briefly, the seals give an
indication of the progressively expanding literacy of the invaders,
who obviously were sealing more and more documents or jars of
food and wine as time went on and they themselves became more
and more Egyptianized.
Of Khian the Metropolitan Museum collection contains one
scarab with the name of “the Ruler of Foreign Lands Khian;’’4
one bequeathed to the Museum by Theodore M. Davis has a gold
* Meyer, Geschichte, 1, §§ 303-8, collects the monuments of the period.

4 MMA 10.130.36 (Murch Collection).
mounting;> and the other three bear his name without titles.
More scarabs of Khian are published by Newberry? and by others.
As has just been noted, there is one scarab of tO-hotep-Ré¢ in New
York and it and two others are published by Newberry.8 Apopi has
his prenomen on three scarabs in the Metropolitan Museum collec-
tion,? but usually it is only his personal name which is written on
them," and on those in other collections.!! In the past many of the
scarabs of Apopi have been wrongly read “Sheshy” by Newberry
and probably by everyone else, including myself.!2 There was a
curious affectation among the scarab cutters of the day which often
led them to widen the letter » until it looked exactly like the sign
for sh. The realization of this point makes it possible to eliminate
an otherwise unknown king to whom there have probably been
assigned as many seals as to any other prince of the line.
A somewhat puzzling relic of the period is the fragment of an
alabaster jar found by Carter in the tomb of Amun-hotpe | near the
Valley of the Kings at Thebes.!3 All the other inscribed jar frag-
ments from the tomb bear Egyptian royal names, except this one
which is inscribed with the cartouches of ““The King of Upper and
Lower Egypt ‘O-woser-Ré‘, the Son of Ré¢, Apopi,’”’ and the name
of one of his Semitic princesses called “The King’s Daughter
Heri[thr].” Perhaps this Herith may have been married to one of
the princes who claimed to be kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty in
Thebes for no cartouche on the jar shows the slightest trace of an
erasure. Yet this jar was found buried with a legitimate Pharaoh
about two score years after the Hyksos were expelled. Otherwise
we must believe that it was put in the tomb by someone who could
not read the names carved on it. It would be a strange thing if it
should have been buried with a king of Egypt, inscribed as it is with
the names of those whom the Egyptians claimed to abominate,
unless they had some such reason for so doing.
Anything else the Hyksos conquerors might have left in Thebes
5 MMA 30.8.457. :
6 MMA 05.3.345 (Ward Collection); 26.7.104,117 (Carnarvon Collection).
7 Newberry, Scarabs, p. 151, Pl. XXII, nos. 20-26.
8 MMA 30.8.465; Newberry, zbid., nos. 1-3.
® MMA 15.171 (Davis Collection); 21.2.78; 26.7.267 (Carnarvon Collection).
10 MMA 05.3.341-2 (Ward Collection); 10.130.32-4 (Murch Collection); 23.3.182 (Excava-
tions at Deir el Bahri); 26.7.98-103, 11, 114, 267 (Carnarvon Collection) ;30.8.463-4 (Davis
Collection).
11 Newberry, Scarabs, pp. 150, 153, Pls. XXI, nos. 9-18, XXIII, nos. 30-35, XXIV, no. 34.
12 Winlock, JEA, 1924, p. 218, note 7.
13 MMA 21.7.7; Carter, JEA, 1916, p. 147.
would surely have been destroyed by the indignant Upper Egyptians
once they had thrown out the Asiatics. If one takes literally the
words of Queen Hat-shepsut, some temples still needed restoration
even in her day, and she is to be credited with having rebuilt the
temples of Upper Egypt still ruined after the Hyksos had sacked
them.!4 The inscription in which she boasts of this, carved in the
Speos Artemidos of Beni Hasan, was written nearly a century after
the expulsion of the Asiatics, and one would have thought that the
damage they had done would long since have been made good, were
it not for what she tells us.
To the ancient Thebans it is more than likely that mention of the
Hyksos meant Khian and Apopi almost wholly. Khian’s long reign
of forty years has left its traces from Crete to Baghdad.!5 Although
he undoubtedly never entered the former island and probably did
not get to the city of Baghdad, he did control an empire from the
shores of the Aegean Sea almost to the Euphrates, a matter of a
thousand miles, and the find made at Gebelein, above Thebes on
the Nile, sets his southern boundary perhaps another thousand
miles south of Mesopotamia. From this it would seem that in him
we have one of the first great conquerors of the Near East. There is
no reason to believe that the realm of Apopi was any narrower than
it had been in Khian’s day and, in default of evidence to the contrary,
we may take it that the last Hyksos ruler ascended the throne of an
undiminished empire.!6 In fact, he probably started as a conqueror
himself. Manetho stated that Xois was the capital of its little king-
dom for only 184 years,!7 and if this be the case—which we have no
reason to doubt—Xois and the western Delta fell to Apopi’s arms
in 1594 B.c., twenty-seven years before Egypt was liberated by
Ath-mose.
Curiously enough, the Middle Kingdom ended in Thebes before
it came to a close in Memphis, with a rebellion which put another
line of local princes on the throne there before the rest of Egypt was
liberated. Their story is not part of this book, to be sure, but it is
interesting to see how accurate the full history of Manetho must
have been before it was so badly copied by the epitomists whose
versions of it are all that we have today.
14 Breasted, AR, II, p. 290; History, p. 280.
ea oa Annual of the British School in Athens, VII, p. 64; Budge, Hieroglyphic Texts, I,
16 Mayer, Geschichte, |, §§ 307-8.

THE SIXTEENTH” DYNASTY 149
Our copies of Manetho are very confused at this point. Eusebius

and his Armenian copyist exaggerate the number of years the
Theban dynasty held Upper Egypt and they give it a wrong place
in their chronicle. Following them “‘the Fifteenth (sic) Dynasty con-
sisted of kings of Diospolis who reigned for 280 years.’’!8 Africanus
has it that “the Seventeenth Dynasty were Shepherd Kings again,
43 in number, and kings of Thebes or Diospolis, 43 in number. Total
of the reigns of the Shepherd kings and the Theban kings, 151
years.’’19 Here we have to drop the numeral ‘‘4” from “43” to be
absolutely correct as to the number of the rulers in both Thebes and
Memphis, but it is hard to see how Africanus arrived at the number
of years. The three kings of each line, of course, we actually know by
name. Of the Shepherds they were again Khian, Assis, and Apopi.
In Thebes we have Senakhte-en-Ré¢ Tato the Elder, Seken-en-Ré¢
Tato the Brave, and Wadj-kheper-Ré¢ Ka-mose. At least the second
of these kings was killed, possibly in battle, and there is reason to
think that the third died after only the briefest of reigns.”
Ka-mose was followed by Neb-pehti-Ré¢ Ath-mose, who expelled
the Hyksos and was called the first Pharaoh of the Eighteenth
Dynasty. So great was the rejoicing of the Egyptians at the libera-
tion of the Nile Valley that ever afterward, so long as Egypt was
still free, the people classed together Menes, Neb-hepet-Ré¢ Montu-
hotpe and Neb-pehti-Ré¢ Ath-mose, the founders of the Old, the
Middle and the New Kingdoms.
18 Cory, Ancient Fragments, p. 113; Waddell, Manetho, p. 93.

19 Cory, ibid., p. 114; Waddell, zb7d., p. 95.
* Winlock, JEA, 1924, p. 243; Meyer, Geschichte, 11, pp. 48, 608.
VIII
HYKSOS IMPORTATIONS INTO EGYPT
With all his great gifts the ancient Egyptian lacked the trait
which could have made him into an inventor along practical lines.
Without any outside help he developed primitive pictures into a
remarkably efficient method of writing quite as soon, in all likeli-
hood, as that was done anywhere else in the world. His art was
wholly native from a very early period, and his religion was a com-
plicated set of beliefs which remained unaffected by outside in-
fluences before the Eighteenth Dynasty when intimate relations
with his neighbors followed his invasion of foreign countries.
However, he was not practical. Even the Middle Kingdom Egyp-
tian was a far simpler person than his militarily inclined grandson
of the Eighteenth Dynasty when the completely defeated Hyksos
were sent flying out of the Nile Valley to disappear in Asia whence
they had come. The Egyptian had not made a single important de-
velopment over his ancestors in any practical thing which would go
to make life less arduous. He was always content to live as his fore-
bears had until some outsider forced him to adopt a new way of life.!
He had lived almost entirely isolated from his neighbors, except for
raids among the blacks up the Nile, and rather fearful trading ex-
peditions interspersed with a rare slave-catching foray among the
more warlike tribes across the narrow deserts into Palestine and
Syria. By such means he had increased his supply of gold and ivory,
and of pine wood and lapis lazuli, but he remained for century after
century in exactly the same state of civilization as his ancestors. In
the Twelfth Dynasty he may have been richer than he had been in
the Old Kingdom, but he did everything exactly as his predecessors
had, without making a single step forward. Then came the tragic
days of disunion in the Thirteenth Dynasty, followed by the in-
vasion.
The Hyksos invasion itself is one of the great events of the history
of the Nile Valley, but as we know it only from the side of the
Egyptians, who did not want to dwell upon it any more than they
1 Winlock and Crum, The Monastery of Epiphanius at Thebes, p. 96.

HYKSOS IMPORTATIONS INTO EGYPT 151
could help, our records of that century leave a great deal to be

desired, as we have already seen. Were it not for later references tom
the events of that time, we should scarcely be able to point to a
single event of the period. Civil wars in Egypt and superior arms in
the hands of the foreigners seem to have made the invasion of the
Hyksos all but bloodless until the land was wholly theirs, but it
changed the life of the Nile people more than any event which
happened to them before the days of Alexander and Caesar.
The Egyptian was far from being numerous in the Middle King-
dom. The loss of probably only 60 men by Neb-hepet-Ré¢ Montu-
hotpe in the battle which overthrew Heracleopolis shows what a
small nation his was in those days. Without doubt the population
of the land fluctuated a great deal as food was plentiful or scarce,
but in the most prosperous years of the Twelfth Dynasty we can be
certain it never was as large as the numbers who lived on the land
early in the Nineteenth Century a.p., and that we know was scarcely
more than two million persons.? One must forget the enormous popu-
lation of today and take it that in the Middle Kingdom it was hardly
more than a million at the very outside. Now the swamps are all
drained off, and the Delta, instead of being extremely marshy, teems
with people.? Today crops of grain can be harvested every three or
four months, instead of only once a year as they were in those days,
and then only if the Nile rose high enough for its waters to reach the
fields. The Middle Kingdom Egyptian did not have the shadaf—
much less the sakiyeh turned by animals—to raise water for his
corps, and nowadays when a harvest fails, foodstuffs are easily
brought from distant lands. Then famine and uncontrolled pestilence
levied their toll until, we may take it, the population was even
smaller than before the Albanian Mohammed ¢Ali and later the
Englishman Lord Cromer, began the reforms which have turned
Egypt into the almost over populated garden it is today.
With a population, thus, of little more than a million it is aston-
ishing how rapidly the inventions of the Asiatics spread throughout
the Nile Valley. The Hyksos were in Egypt according to our best
records for 108 years, yet between the beginning and the end of that
century the entire civilization of Egypt had been profoundly
changed.
2 Description de V Egypte, I, p. lv.

3 Winlock, Slain Soldiers, p. 1.
It took the invasion of the Shepherd Kings to bring the people

of the Nile up against the arms of Asia, as it was to take the Greek
and Roman conquests to bring into Egypt such a item of the
apparatus of peace as the sakiyeh, and the days of the French and
English to introduce the railroad and the gas engine. The people of
the Nile were apt pupils, though, and a century of Hyksos domina-
tion was enough to show the Egyptian how to outstrip his masters.
Fortunately for the colonists, the North American Indian did not
have brains enough to beat the white man when the latter invaded
this continent, although there were once—and that not so very long
ago—enough tales of the enormous skill the red man had with the
flint lock gun to make every white boy’s eyes glitter with excite-
ment. The Indian was not of a high enough mentality, however, to
take over from the white man more than the arms he could use in
fighting and hunting, and he neglected the arts of peace entirely. In
the Hyksos invasion of Egypt, as in the English invasion of North
America, trade was foremost in the weapons of war undoubtedly,
although there must have been an exchange of the weapons of
peace as well, during the rare interludes of quiet.
Of course even a prolonged invasion must have had occasional
truces, and the native Egyptian naturally would have looked on the
arms brought into the land by the invaders not only with a certain
amount of awe, but with unlimited envy. The Indian could not have
coveted the white man’s flint lock gun any more than the Upper
Egyptian must have wanted the powerful compound bow, brought
into the Nile country by the Hyksos from the interior of Asia, and
the very briskest sort of barter must have sprung up during every
truce. Arms were coveted by the one side, and gold from up the Nile
was wanted by the other. When the Indian wanted the settler’s
musket he offered food or furs in exchange, while much the same
must have been the case whenever the ancient Egyptian met his
better-armed foe during lulls in the struggle. The invader may not
naturally have been always the inventor of every weapon he carried,
but he had it, and the Egyptian’s palm itched for it, and in that must
have lain the foundation of a brisk trade, man being what he is.
The innovation of the Hyksos which probably had the profoundest
effect on Egypt was the introduction into the land of the horse and
chariot.
Two great developments in war making were introduced into
Egypt between the prehistoric days and the end of the Middle Ages
after Christ. The first probably came before the dawn of history into
the Nile Valley and was the invention of the simple, long bow. The
second was the introduction of the horse into what was then the
western world by the Hyksos invaders. The first of these two inno-
vations made warfare something beside the hand to hand struggle
between foes in actual, bodily contact with each other, while the
horse helped man make rapid, irresistable movements whenever he
came in contact with his enemy. And most important, its introduc-
tion is definitely dated to the wars with these invaders. There can be
no doubt that the use of chariots was among the very first innova-
tions adopted by the Thebans from the enemy.
The horse# was probably a native of the highlands of central Asia
which lie east of the Caspian Sea. When we first read about it in
Babylonia during the days of Hammurabi it is as the eastern or
mountain ass. Within another century the invading Kassites had
made of it a common sight in Mesopotamia, and since wheeled carts
drawn by donkeys were already in use in those parts, the little, light-
boned horse became an instrument of prime importance in the waging
of war, once it had replaced the plodding ass. The Hyksos invasion
of Egypt may be looked on as having been only a continuation of the
movement of peoples which brought on the Kassite overrunning of
Babylonia, and introduced the horse to the banks of the Nile within
a century, driven by the invaders of this last in 1675 B.c. The road
which was travelled by the horse and the chariot across Syria and
Palestine is clearly shown by the adoption in Egypt of words used
to describe them both in the languages of the latter country..Long
after the horse and chariot had been introduced on the banks of the
Nile foreign words were still used to describe them.
When we first meet it in Egypt, very soon after its introduction,
the horse was a small and very lightly built animal which was rarely
mounted except by stable boys who rode it bareback to water or
who exercised it around the paddock. Even now the Arab horse is a
very light, riding steed which is ill adapted to heavy draught work.
The early horse was not built for carrying a rider any distance, being
little more than a pony. The wooden figure of a mare which is in
New York is somewhat sway-backed, with a rather large head ending”
in a big muzzle, and probably with a very short mane, which in that
4 Myres, Hall, and Campbell Thompson in Cambridge Ancient History, 1, index under
“horse.”
example has been clipped off (Pl. 22-23).5 This earliest Egyptian
representation which we have today seems to be of a black animal
which has been marked all over with streaks of chalk as a decoration,
for such stripings can hardly be natural. A pair of these little steeds
could draw no more than two men at the most, and in mountainous
Syria even a single man often had to get out and walk, carrying the
chariot on his shoulder. But while the horse may have been no more
than a pony for size, it was treated with far less brutality by its
master than the latter showed the human workmen who hauled
stone to build temples.? In spite of all his drawbacks though, his
popularity was immediate, and at ‘Amdarneh extensive stables have
been found,’ and of about this time, or slightly later, we know of
more than one “‘Master of the Horses.’’
The actual skeleton of a little horse—or perhaps a mare—buried
in an enormous coffin about 1500 B.c. with all the honor usually
shown a member of one’s family, was dug up in front of the tomb of
Sen-Mit at Deir el Bahri by Lansing and Hayes in 1936.0 The
animal had been acclimated in Upper Egypt for less than a century
and could not have changed a bit from that driven by the Hyksos,
and it still had rather light bones and was no more than about 12.5
hands or 127 cm. high. Naturally, it was entirely unshod, and today
the Egyptian riding horse is often shod on its two front hooves only.
In color this animal was probably yellowish brown; its short mane
was tied up in tufts; and it was entirely eviscerated as the human
dead of the day were, to arrest their decay. On its back there was a
big, protective blanket with a leather top. Another horse found in
Egypt was a male of later date, and was a larger animal, standing
14 hands 11% inches tall.1! It had a longer head than the modern
Arab animal; it was perhaps more like the Barb of North Africa;
but it, too, had never been shod.
5 MMA 15.2.3. Winlock, Bulletin, 1916, p. 85. Other horses in the Metropolitan Museum
are 17.194.2297; 23.3.33; 20.7.1011, .1290, .1293; and on numerous scarabs of Thut-mose II]
and later. Winlock, Deir el Babri, p. 82, Pl. 32; Lythgoe, Bulletin, 1927, p. 36; Phillips, Anczent
Egyptian Animals, p. 4, figs. 4-9; Ranke, Geschichte Aegyptens, Pl. 271; Fleitmann, The Horse
in Art, p. 8; Scott, Egyptian Statuettes, p. 13.
6 Erman-Blackman, Literature of the Ancient Egyptians, pp. 228, 231.
7 Winlock, Deir el Babri, pp. 34, 77, Pls. 44, 80.
8 Pendlebury, J/EA, 1931, Pl. LX XVI; 1934, p. 136.
§ Shawabti, MMA 45.4.7; Erman-Blackman, ibid., p. 214.
* Lansing, MMA Bulletin, January, 1937, Section II, p. 8, figs. 14, 15, 17; Chard, Journal of
Heredity, 1937, p- 317, fig. 7.
11 Quibell and Olver, Annales, 1926, p. 172.
The animal itself and the vehicle which it drew played highly
important parts in the unparalleled success of the invasion of Egypt
by the Hyksos. The latter were probably of nomadic origin, of what-
ever race and language stock they may have been. Their animals
were probably small and, being weak-backed, were always driven
from a chariot, for it is only the Syrian goddess ‘Anat who is shown
mounted as a rule.!2 When a horse was being exercised by the groom,
as is the Metropolitan Museum model, it may be shown with only a
leather bridle rein slipped into its mouth, without any bridle straps
on its head. But this is possibly only the model maker’s abbrevia-
tion, because the horse being ridden by a groom in the relief in
Bologna is shown as being fully bridled (Pl. 24). However, when it
was driven to a chariot its harness was an elaborate affair, consisting
of a bridle and reins; a collar and girths; and a saddle blanket, when
it went to war. Sometimes there were blinkers and goads, or even
fly-whisks made of horse hair, and most ancient representations
show plumes on the head stalls, or metal disks on the shoulders,
which were obviously added for decoration only and varied according
to the owner’s whim.
Of actual ancient Egyptian harness very little exists today, and
that little is from the reigns of Amun-hotpe III and Tit-tankh-
Amin, toward the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty.!3 Contemporary
pictures of ancient harness, however, are so very common that they
hardly need any references here (Pl. 25). The bridle had either two
or three straps descending from the top of the head along the cheeks
to a cross-strap beside the nose and the mouth, so placed that when
the reins were drawn the horse’s head would be hauled down and
back. There was no bit. From the rearmost cheek-strap of the bridle
fly-whisks were suspended, or possibly they were check weights
which would tend to keep the horse’s head back against its chest to
prevent headlong flight.14 Each horse had a separate pair of reins
which were hauled through rings on its shoulder harness so that its
head could be pulled down as a check.
Most pictures of the king in his chariot show the reins tied in a
loop behind his hips so that the animals might be controlled by the
king’s movements, leaving both his hands free to manage the bow
12 Lanzone, Mitologia Egizia, |, p. 139; Schafer-Andrae, Kunst des alten Ortents, Pl. 381.
13 MMA 24.8. Carter, Tut.ankb.Amen, II, p. 54, Pls. XVII-XXI, XXXVII-XLIV.
14 Nelson, Medinet Habu, I, Pl. 18, 23, etc.
and arrows. This, however, is hardly likely to have been the usual
custom in actual battles, for there was always room in the chariot
for a driver to stand beside the fighting man and to wield not only
the reins but also a shield for the warrior’s protection.
Since the Egyptian had never invented a buckle, the horse’s
harness was tied and hitched together with thongs. The whole
harness and all its straps were of morocco leather, usually sewed
together in more than one thickness, which was dyed red, blue, or
green and decorated with minute bits of leather glued to its surface,
and sometimes ornamented with gold.
The horse pulled the chariot by means of a wide breast strap and
a wooden collar put on his shoulders and tied to the yoke which in
turn was attached to the chariot pole (Pl. 26). The collars of the
horses of Tit-tankh-Amiin were plain on the ends between the
animals, but were decorated on their outer ends with heads of the
god Bés who gripped the harness straps in his mouth. The circle
of yoke and breast strap was snugly fitted to the animal’s shoulders,
while a loosely fitted girth strap was often represented as being
somewhat narrower than the breasting and as hanging below the
animal’s ribs. The pull was through the collar and breasting, but if
the chariot tipped backwards with the pole flying upwards—which
was not very likely to happen because the axle was under the back
of the chariot body—this strap would bring up against the horses’
ribs and prevent the chariot from up-ending.
Whenever the chariot was used in warfare, but practically never
if it was engaged in peaceful tasks, a heavy blanket covered the
entire back of the animal. The blanket found on the horse buried
at the tomb of Sen-Mut was of double thickness to protect the
animal’s back the better, its under side being of linen, and above it
was of quilted leather. Such a covering was doubtless pretty hot
when worn by an actively moving animal, but it gave a very efficient
and practical protection to its body from flying arrows and from all
but the severest blows. Its only drawback was that the horse could
not be spurred to greater efforts by its driver, but this shortcoming
of the war harness was made up for by the attachment of rowell-like
goads to the harness which might be drawn against’ the animal’s
sides to spur him on. In fact, the harness was extremely efficient
except that, having no traces or shafts, there was nothing to stop a
fractious animal from swinging around under the yoke, unless the
goads were fixed somehow to prevent him from doing so.
The chariot!5 itself was a two-wheeled vehicle with a pole which

was bent to provide a flat support under the floor of the body, rising
at an angle so that its front end should be at the level of the yoke on
the horse’s shoulders, where it was apparently permanently bolted
(Pl. 27). The wheels of common vehicles had only four spokes, but a
king like Tiit-tankh-Amiin rode with wheels which had eight spokes
each to prevent as much as possible all trace of flattening of the rims.
A long axle minimized the danger of the vehicle tipping over on its
side, and leather tires on the wheels took much of the wear to which
bare wood would have been subjected. The wheels were held in
place with bits of leather which passed through the axles. The body
of the carriage was all in front of the axle to put the passenger’s
weight on the carriage pole, and so to reduce the danger of the
vehicle tipping back.
Should the lashing of the front of the body to the pole break loose,
there was an extra leather strap which hung loosely from the top of
the dash board to a point a little way along the pole to prevent any
such accident. Springs were not needed because the floor was made
of interlaced thongs covered over with leather and was doubtless
quite springy of its self. The body of the vehicle was about a meter
wide, which would give room enough for the warrior and the driver
standing side by side. Most of the existing chariots are entirely open
behind, but the chariot from the tomb of Yuya and Tuyu was closed
behind on the driver’s side, presumably so that he could lean back
when he wanted to rein in the horses. The dash boards in the royal
war chariots were of leather embossed with battle scenes; in the
chariot of Yuya and Tuyu it was embellished with floral patterns;
and in the chariot in Florence there is only a rail of bent wood for
the riders to grab hold of. From such rails were slung the quivers
for the bow, the arrows and the javelins of the warrior who manned
the vehicle.
There were other innovations in the Hyksos armory to make the
conquest of the Nile Valley the easier, but probably none was so
effective, and certainly the horse was by all means the most im-
portant of all their new ideas. The horse and chariot revolutionized _
warfare. The Egyptian foot soldier suddenly found himself con-
fronted by a new and redoubtable foe, very different from the negro
18 Carter and Newberry, Tomb of Thoutmésis IV, p. 24, Pl. IX; Davis, etc., Ioutya and
Touiyou, p. 35, Pl. XXXII; Quibell, Yuaa and Thuiu, 51188. Carter, Tut.ankh.Amen, II, ibid.
of the Upper Nile. But once he had mastered the horse, and when he
had learned the use of all the other weapons of the Asiatic barbarians,
he turned on his tormentors and drove them pell-mell out of the
Valley, pursuing them into oblivion, to rule the East himself during
the following centuries. To explain the success of the inhabitants of
the Nile Valley in this war, the horse is probably enough, but it was
not alone among the new things which the Hyksos brought with
them.
In the Old and the Middle Kingdoms, Egyptian arms were of the
simplest sort. The soldier carried a long bow and a handful of reed
arrows. The quiver was rare.!6 Arrows were either tipped with chips
of quartz—perhaps for hunting small game only—or with long ebony
heads, either blunt or sharpened, for actual warfare.!7 He might have
a battle axe with a long copper blade which he used to make slicing,
sabre-like cuts, or more rarely he had an axe like a wood chopper’s,
with a short copper blade set into a slot cut in the wooden handle
and held there by lashings. Some men carried a variety of clubs,
either stone tipped or entirely of wood.'8 Finally, the Egyptian had
a copper-bladed dagger with a circular, flat pommel to fit into the
palm of his hand, and it was often worn stuck through his belt. For
defence he had a tremendous bull’s-hide shield, large enough to
cover up almost the whole of him.!9 Such shields were carried by the
soldiers from Asyiit to be used when they were besieging a castle,
and every ship had them hanging in a row on the sides of the cabin
for river fights, but they could not have been of much use in the
hurly-burly of a fight in the field.
Possibly the most enduring of Hyksos innovations among the
weapons of warfare was the compound bow,” which was used in
Egypt until the Turks gave it up only in comparatively recent times.
in place of the long bow of the Middle Kingdom, an infinitely more
powerful weapon was built up something like a modern carriage
spring, of several layers of very tough, springy wood, or of wood and
horn alternating, glued together and bound in an outer covering of
birch bark. This last, of course, must have come from the Palestinian
or the Lebanon mountains, at the nearest. The cord had a loop in

™ Winlock, zbid., pp. 123, 125, Pls. 19, 20; Slain Soldiers, p. 11, Pls. V, VII, VIII D.
18 Winlock, Dezr el Babri, p. 125, Pl. 19; Soldiers, p. 16, Pls. VIII-X.
1° Porter and Moss, Bibliography, IV, p. 265; Winlock, Deir el Babri, Pl. 29.
20 MMA 25.3.303-4, 28.9.9.
each end, because the bow was too strong for a bow-string to be
simply wrapped around each end of the wood, and the bow itself
was curved in the reverse direction from that in which it was to be
shot, to give it greater power. Such a built-up bow could be much
shorter and yet far stronger than the old fashioned, one-piece, simple
affair. Whether such complicated bows had put in their appearance
in nearby Palestine during the Twelfth Dynasty would seem highly
improbable. At least I have always thought that Si-nihet fought
with a bow which must have been as strong as that of his Asiatic
opponent,?! and he could never have boasted of that if the compound
bow was already known among the natives of the land. Probably
the compound bow had not yet come out of the north and east in
the year 2000 B.c., but it must have arrived by the time that the
Kassites and the Hyksos started their migrations.
Probably introduced into Egypt at the time that the compound
bow arrived were metal arrow heads.?2 The earliest which we have
in our museums today date from about the same period as armor
with metal scales, and are of the Early Eighteenth Dynasty. In the
tomb of Tit-tankh-Amin, metal arrowheads were fairly common,
or the shafts from which they had been wrenched were found in
numbers large enough to suggest that arrows tipped with bronze had
been in use for some time.
After the Hyksos invasion there was a profound change in the
design of the dagger and the sword. The Egyptian of the Old and
the Middle Kingdom stuck a dagger into his enemy with a straight,
sharp punch. For this purpose the weapon was a spike sticking out
between the fingers from a grip which was usually lenticular in shape
and was held in the palm of the warrior’s hand, or it was a section
of an oval, and its blade continued his forearm in a straight line.
Daggers which ended in circular grips of this sort were common
throughout Egyptian history until well after the Hyksos wars, and
no finer examples have come to light than those of the Princess Ita
of Dahshir and of Ath-hotpe and Ka-mose who _belong to the
generations of the great struggle.?8
However, if you wanted to slash or to stab downward, you held
the weapon in such a fashion that the blade was at right angles to ©
21 Erman-Blackman, Egyptian Literature, p. 21.

22] ansing, MMA Bulletin, May 1917, Supplement, p. 24; Carter, Tut.ankb.Amen, III, p
139, Pl. XLVI.
23 Vernier, Bijoux et Orfvreries, 52660, 52982; Daressy, Annales, 1908, p. 61; 1912, p. 64.
your forearm. The strain at the point where the handle joined the
blade was now a bending one, and to give the weapon rigidity to
withstand it both blade and the handle were cast in one piece with-
out any weak point between them. One wrote, “his dagger in the
fashion of the people of the East, cast in one single piece from the
grip to the sharpened point,” to describe a weapon of this sort?4 (PI.
28). Daggers or short swords of such a type are common in all
museums of Egyptian antiquities, from those bearing the names
(O-ken-en-Ré¢ and Neb-khepesh-Ré¢ Apopi?> onwards. They have
plates of wood or of ivory on either side of the metal handle to
thicken it and to make it easier to hold,?6 and their grips were em-
bellished with gold wire work; with Mycenaean spirals with repeating
floral designs of northern origin; or with foreign looking scale pat-
terns.27 Finally, we have already noted two decorated with the car-
touches of Apopi, and there are others with the names of Egyptian
Pharaohs carved on them.?8 Daggers such as these were clearly a
local adaptation of northern forms such as we see in Crete and the
Greek Islands,” but it is a curious fact that while during the Hyksos
period the custom of wearing the dagger strapped on the upper left
arm was introduced from Asia, today such a way of wearing it only
survives up the Nile in Nubia and the Sudan. Swords are only
elongated daggers of this Asiatic type and follow the design of the
latter.30
Two weapons with elongated grips are known, which are double-
handed swords in all likelihood, or they could be wielded with both
hands if occasion arose.3!_ The owner of one of them was an anony-
mous warrior buried in Thebes just after the Hyksos period (Pl. 28).
The other belonged to no less a person than King Wadj-kheper-Ré¢
Ka-mose of the Seventeenth Dynasty, who was a redoubtable leader
of the Thebans against the Hyksos. Each sword is sharpened on both
edges, showing that it was made to be wielded both ways, and having
a more or less rounded point, it is obvious that it was made for
slashing and not for stabbing. A warrior might wield such a weapon
24 Maspero, Stories, p. 236.

26 Daressy, Annales, 1906, p. 115; Dawson, JEA, 1925, p. 216.
76 BM 5425; Budge, Archaeologia, 1892, p. 93.
27 Turin Museum, Galleria regio.
8 Winlock, MMA Bulletin, 1922, December, II, p. 20.
* Dagger from Knossos, Late Minoan, III, tomb no. 1103.
30 Lansing, zbid., p. 24, fig. 25.
31 Lansing, tbid., p. 24, fig. 26; Winlock, JEA, 1924, p. 263.
with one hand—for it was not heavy—or with two, if occasion arose.
Then he grabbed the rounded base of the blade casting where the
socket was, in his second hand, and was able to deliver slashing,
downward blows.
A weapon whose use was more enduring than this sort of two-
handed sword was a type of sabre or scimitar with a slightly curved
blade for slashing blows,’2 known as the khepesh or “foreleg” from
its peculiar shape. There is no question that it was a type of arm
introduced into Egypt from the East to replace the wooden sabre-
like club of the Middle Kingdom Egyptians, a good example of
which was unearthed in the Eleventh or Twelfth Dynasty tomb of
Nefer-hotep the Bowman near the temple at Deir el Bahri. Such
sabres of metal are well known in Egypt during the Eighteenth
Dynasty, and we can trace their progress from Mesopotamia in the
third millennium, to Egypt itself where it arrived during the Hyksos
invasion. There is one from Assyria, of a somewhat later date still,
in the Metropolitan Museum today.33 In its finally developed form
it is an excellently balanced weapon with an end to the handle
which has never been bettered as a stop to prevent the sabre from
flying out of the wielder’s hand. Weapons of this type which have
survived are capable of giving murderous chopping and slicing
blows.
Merely in passing we may note that the battle axe underwent a
profound development at this time too. The old type of axe with its
copper head lashed into place in a slot cut in the wooden hafting
now had a socket in the bronze head into which the wooden handle
was seated with far more rigidity.34
The superiority of Hyksos arms is not alone in their design, but
is in their material just as much as it is in their form. Iron may have
been known for an occasional and very rare weapon, but the dif-
ficulty of handling that metal made it so costly that the dagger of
Tit-tankh-Amin has no parallel among known weapons of so early
a date, and it and the few other iron objects in that tomb are almost
unique.®5 With copper things were different.26 When tin is added to
82 Hall, Cambridge Ancient History, |, pp. 319, 572; Carter, Tat.ankh.Amen, III, p. 137, Pl.
XLV; Engberg, Hyksos, p. 30; BM 27490 found by the E.E.F. in 1887.
33 Dean, MMA Bulletin, 1912, pp. 3, 62.
34 MMA 25.3.129-130; Winlock, Deir el Babri, Pl. 42. See also MMA 41.6.9.
35 Carter, Tut.ankb.Amen, II, pp. 135, 175, Pl. LXXXVII; III, p. 89, PI. XXVII.
8 Engberg, Hyksos, p. 20; Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, p. 174.
copper the result is bronze, and bronze was the great Hyksos in-
novation in Egyptian metallurgy. An occasional specimen of bronze
dating from before the Shepherds entered the land may have been
noted, but it can hardly be taken as proving that such alloys were
compounded intentionally in Egypt before the invasion.
As compared to native copper, bronze has great advantages. It
has a lower melting point than pure copper. It can be cast in a
closed mold, and it gives a cleaner casting when so molded. Finally,
all of these advantages are as nothing in comparison to the harder
temper and greater cutting power which comes with bronze as com-
pared with pure copper. Bronze was an alloy which must have con-
tributed immeasurably to the success of the Hyksos invasion of
Egypt, and bronze was one of the greatest Hyksos gifts to the natives
of the Nile Valley.
Then again as a protection for his own person the Hyksos was
clearly better off than the native of Egypt against whom he was
struggling. The Egyptian had only a big mop of hair to protect his
head, and he lurked behind his enormous shield at the foot of the
castle wall when he was conducting a siege. The bodies of the soldiers
of Neb-hepet-Ré¢ killed in the siege of Heracleopolis and pictures at
Beni Hasan show us the Middle Kingdom warrior investing walled
towns. After the Hyksos had been in the land things were somewhat
different, and there is no reason to doubt that most of what the
Egyptians learned about the making of war was from the invaders.
As we have already seen, the Middle Kingdom shield was an
instrument used in sieges, perhaps wholly. After the Hyksos it was
not at all unusual to see the driver of the chariot with a small
shield in his hand to cover-up and protect the bowman who was
doing the fighting from the vehicle, and this shield was usually made
of leather-covered wood.%? Naturally this does not take account of
the innumerable pictures we have of barbarians, often in the Egyp-
tian army, carrying little round targets throughout the days of the
New Kingdom.
Of body armor there is perhaps no unquestioned representation
for some time, but bronze scales from armored shirts have frequently
been found in Egypt from the Eighteenth Dynasty-and onwards.
Those from the palace built in the reign of Amun-hotpe III are per-
haps the earliest we have today. They are quite large and obviously
7 Davies, Amarna, |, Pl. XV, etc.; Carter, Tut.ankh.Amen, III, p. 142, Pl. XLVII.
primitive in form, while later ones are smaller, and when sewn to-
gether on a leather or a linen shirt, made a far more flexible pro-
tection%8 (Pl. 29). Such scales, whether of copper, or at a much later
date of iron, usually had a slight ridge beaten up and down their
centers to give them extra strength. Armor of this sort was not, of
course, a complete protection to the warrior, but it did resist the
blows from swords and knives and from arrows to a very great
extent.
Helmets to protect the head instead of, or in addition to one’s
natural hair, are another innovation of the time. The king’s helmet
first appears in the reign of Ka-mose and almost immediately be-
came another crown. Always being painted blue, it took on the name
of “‘the diadem of lapis lazuli,’’39 and was worn by the ruler down to
Greco-Roman times, long before which period it had probably
degenerated into a purely decorative adornment. A helmet very
much like the Roman helmet was worn in Crete when the famous
boxer vase was made, about the time that the Hyksos invaded
Egypt, and we may well take it that such protection for the head
was common in Asia and in the Islands at that time. At least during
the reign of Thut-mose III large importations were being made
from the north of head gear bedecked with plumes and covered with
metal rings,4! although I know of no pictures of them being worn by
dwellers on the Nile.
Who were and whence came the Hyksos invaders of Egypt is still
a problem, but we obviously have at least one hint of their original
homeland if what we take as ruins of their fortresses actually were
built by them. These camps seem to have had no effect on later
Egyptian habits, but we must, nevertheless, consider them at this
point because of the information they give of the Hyksos race. In
Syria, in Palestine and in the Delta, ruins have been found of
rectangular walled places, obviously built by one and the same people
and dated to this period. They were clearly constructed by tribes
who belonged in wide open plains where there was plenty of room,
and the prairie lands east of the Caspian Sea have been suggested as
3%MMA 11.215.452, from the palace of Amun-hotpe III. From other sites: 09.183.2;
11.151.183-5, 192; 22.3.46; 34.1.72—-73. (
39 Maspero, Stories, p. 18; Steindorff, ZAS, 1917, p. 59 (except his conclusion that the
bpré was native Egyptian); Gaster, Ancient Egypt, 1932, Pp. 105; 1934, Pp. 21. ;
40 Halbherr, Rendiconti della Accad. dei Lincei, 1905, p. 368; Evans, Palace of Minos at
Knossos, |, p. 688, figs. 507-511.
41 Wreszinski, Atlas, 1, Pls. 85, 275; Virey, MMFAO, V, pp. 262-270.
their place of origin.42 That the Hyksos home land was as far away
from the Nile as the lands where the Kassites seem to have origi-.
nated really need not surprise us, nor need we be surprised by the
apparent fact that the Kassite and the Hyksos movements were part
of the same unrest in the Middle East. After all, the two invasions
are separated by a bare century, one from another.
While they were still invaders of Egypt, the Hyksos did not build
anything more than the earthworks about their towns, of which two
have been recognized, one at Tell el Yahudiyeh and the other at
Heliopolis. In both cases there was an earthen revetment surrounded
by a deep moat and laid out in a strictly rectangular form. There is
nothing here of the irregular shape forced on a town in crowded or
hilly spaces, but rather camps laid out as the result of long centuries
of village building in wide, open prairies. These gigantic earthworks
had curved corners and were probably topped by a brick wall. From
the very rare ruins which they have left us, therefore, we gather a
picture of these warlike plainsmen who held and pillaged Egypt for
a century as the Huns, the Tatars, and the Turks held parts of
Europe ages later.
The Egyptian benefited enormously in the arts of war from the
invasion of the Asiatic barbarians, and he gained only a little less
in his peaceful occupations from the same Hyksos peoples. Un-
luckily, though, the arts of peace were affected more or less in iso-
lated patches, for after all the Shepherds did invade the land by
force of arms, and their effect on the peaceful arts was only inci-
dental. In fact, the effects of the invasion on the people of Egypt
were rather scattered over all phases of their lives. Many influences
obviously due to foreigners may have come into the Nile Valley just
after, rather than during, the invasions, but in the present state of
our knowledge we can not always separate them one from another.
Ever since the Hyksos invasion of Egypt the inhabitants of the
land have raised water from the river and from the canals up to
their crops in the fields with the help of the shadaf. The water wheel,
and particularly the Archimedes screw, were not introduced until
the Greeks and the Romans held Egypt.43 We have no pictures of the
shaduf as early as the Shepherds, it is true, and we have to depend
on the Nineteenth Dynasty representations of it and its unshaven
*? Petrie, Hyksos and Israelite Cities, p. 3, Pls. I-IV; Engberg, Hyksos, pp. 20, 45.
43 Winlock and Crum, Epiphanius, 1, pp. 64, 66, 96.
operators in the tomb of Ipuki for our earliest pictures of it.44 The
shaduf and its operators had been looked down upon, just as our
grandfathers did upon the treadmill and its benighted workers, and
it is not surprising that it was not taken as a subject for art during
the first three centuries or so after its introduction into the Nile
valley.
Whenever the primitive machinery for raising water from the
Nile is in question, | can not help but think of el Khargeh Oasis
where the wells are always drilled on high ground so that the water
from them will run down hill to the fields which are to be irrigated.
Years ago when I lived in the Oasis an old man told me that the
Prophet Mohammed—“‘on Whom be the Peace’’—had visited the
Oasis once upon a time ages ago. When | happened to say something
about never having heard about any such journey of His to a spot
as far away as el Khargeh, the old fellow came back at me like a
flash. ‘‘No,” he said. “It may not be a recorded trip, but it is plain
that Mohammed must have been here. Where else in all the world
are there springs on the hill-tops with the water running down to
the crops?”
To the ancestors of my old Oasis friend the newly introduced
shaduf, at which man had to labor so hard, was clearly no subject
for a tomb painting until the half humorous artist hired by Ipuki
began to decorate his tomb at Deir el Medineh (Pl. 30). Dipping
water up in a pail had never been shown in drawings, and yet the
peasant must have bucketed it up laboriously to water land above
the river level throughout the whole of the Old and the Middle King-
doms, whenever he was threatened with a drought. It is even men-
tioned in Roman times, and in spite of my religious old friend from
el Khargeh, they still have to raise water in a hand bucket in the
Oasis today if, perchance, they want to wet down a spot above the
well level. Until the end of the Middle Kingdom the result was that
crops, except in the smallest of vegetable gardens, were strictly
limited to one a year throughout the Nile Valley, so that the popu-
lation of the land was kept down to what one harvest a year could
feed, and that meant that events of tremendous importance histori-
cally were accomplished by ridiculously small numbers.45 The
shadif was the first machine which the Egyptian had to help him in
44 Davies, Two Ramesside Tombs, Pls. XXVIII-XXIX.

48 Winlock, Slain Soldiers, pp. 7, 24.
his fight with famine, and he got no other assistance until after
Alexander had conquered the land and the water-wheel and the
Archimedes screw were introduced.
About the time that the shaduf seems to have been brought into
the Nile Valley several other pieces of primitive machinery or ways
of doing things first make their appearance in Egypt. The invaders
clearly came from a distance and brought new methods which were
soon picked up by the natives to such good purpose that in no time
at all these innovations seemed to become native to the land. Nor
were these things always the sort that one would ordinarily expect a
conquering soldier to know, but were the kind of things which a
whole race would carry with them in a great migration such as this
Kassite-Hyksos movement probably was.
For example, a single spindle rolled along the thread-maker’s
bared thigh, and a horizontal loom on the weaving shop floor were
the operations used in all textile shops until the end of the Middle
Kingdom. It is interesting to note that both contrivances survive
even today among some of the more backward bedawi natives.
Mid-Eighteenth Dynasty Theban tomb paintings show new methods
among the textile workers in ancient Thebes and it is hardly likely
that such novel ways of doing domestic things could have been
learned and introduced so far up the Nile Valley by Egyptian
soldiers returning from the conquest of Palestine and Syria so early
in the Eighteenth Dynasty. Surely these were arts brought in by
the conquering Hyksos. After their time the Egyptian made thread
with two or more spindles twirling from hooks in the ceiling. Threads
thus made were then woven on looms set up vertically with the
tension of the warp threads maintained by weights. If they were
not too wide, such vertical looms could be operated by a single
weaver, rather than the two or three needed for horizontal looms,
and the use of several spindles all twirling together increased by so
much more the output of the textile shops.46
Other than the founding of the new alloy, bronze, the metal
worker had learned how to fashion a blacksmith’s bellows which
made possible to him all sorts of new short cuts in his work.47 We
have pictures of men standing on pairs of leather bags, one under
each foot, with a cord from each bag held in his two hands (PI. 31).
He raised one foot and pulled the cord on that side, letting the bag
46 See my forthcoming book on the funerary models of Meket-Ré¢.

fill up with air. At the same time he put his weight on his other foot,
expelling the air in the bag under that side. From each bag a pipe
led to the fire in the forge, and this treading motion must have kept
a stream of fresh air pouring into the charcoal flame ascending from
the hearth. Such a piece of apparatus must have had tremendous
effects on the metal workers’ trade.
On the other hand the herdsman had learned much from the
invaders. It may be taken for granted that the migrations of the
Hyksos from lands somewhere near the Caspian Sea had brought
them into contact with more than one species of plant, the seeds or
fruits of which they might be expected to bring along with them on
their migration to the west. However it must be admitted, of course,
that it is just possible that their transit was too rapid for the gather-
ing of crops and that they lived on food which they plundered on the
way. My own notes do not give any information on the subject.
However, with herds of cattle and with flocks the matter is different.
Ever since their arrival in Egypt—but as far as I know not before
then—a type of humped cattle related to the Indian zebu or the
Brahman bull has been common to Africa.48 Long before modern
times these descendants of the zebu have spread throughout Africa
as far south as the Equator and beyond. This African breed of cattle
is obviously a variety of some of those species common to India,49
just as is the water-buffalo, introduced into Egypt from the east in
comparatively modern times. If we suppose that the humped ox
comes from the neighborhood of India we have a further connection
of our nomads with that part of Asia.
Incidentally, being nomads, and yet presumably having some
individual property rights, the Hyksos had to have an easy way of
picking their animals out of the common herd without too much
argument. For this there is nothing better than a brand, and cattle
branding is still pictured in two Eighteenth Dynasty tombs.» The
existing representations of this operation are from the middle of the
Eighteenth Dynasty, to be sure, and yet it is hard to believe that
such an act as branding cattle was introduced into Egypt by soldiers
47 Williams, Jewelry, p. 200; Davies, Two Sculptors, Pl. XI (four men operate bellows at one
forge).
48 | am deeply indebted to Dr. James P. Chapin of the American Museum of Natural History
at this point. See also Bénédite, J/EA, 1918, p. 6.
49 Contrary to Gaillard and Daressy, Faune Momifiée, 29516, “Boeuf africain.”
8 Davies, Two Officials, Pls. XXXI-II; Huy, Pl. XL.
returning from foreign lands who saw it first during the wars, rather
than by settlers in Egypt who brought the art with them.
Closer to the daily life of the Egyptian is the new type of razor
which appears first in the earliest years of the New Kingdom, sup-
planting differently shaped instruments of the Twelfth Dynasty.®!
Women, and even men, added ear-rings to the ornaments with which
they decked themselves out, and it would seem that boy children,
as well as girls, often wore them when they were little.52 Gold niello
work was introduced and made from now on,5’ and it too may be
taken as of Asiatic origin.
It was not only practical, workaday things which the Egyptian ©
got from his Asiatic conquerors, but a lot of the musical instruments
played upon from about this period onward were of foreign design.
Possibly some did not come in with the invaders, but since most did
I do not see how the one lot is to be separated from the other and
shall note them all, therefore.
The lyre first appears being played by an (Amu bedawi, who was
one of a large party bringing eye paint into Egypt in the mid-
Twelfth Dynasty, a little over two centuries before the Hyksos
invasion.54 Its player holds it against his chest while he picks the
strings with a plectrum held in his right hand, and muffles the
strings which he desires to deadén with the outstretched fingers of
the other. Two or three centuries later the same instrument, slightly
improved (Pl. 32), is played by girls at Eighteenth Dynasty social
functions.55 The two arms of the lyre are now of noticeably different
lengths, but otherwise the instrument is exactly the same. Before
many years had passed an upright lyre was being made with the
strings sometimes tied to an extra sounding box, and foreigners
sometimes played vertical harp-like instruments of gigantic pro-
portions.56
The long necked lute with very few strings was another innovation
of the period. An actual musical instrument of this type which be-
51 Winlock, Treasure of el Labun, p. 62, fig. 5, Pl. XIV; Hilton Price, Catalogue of Egyptian
Antiquities, 2891, 2892, 2895.
52 Williams, Jewelry, p. 112; Carter, Tut.ankh.Amen, I11, p: 74, Pl. XVIII.-
53 Williams, zbid., p. 33.
54 Newberry, Bent Hasan, I, p. 69, Pl. XXXI; Nina de Garis Davies, Ancient Egyptian
Paintings, 1, Pl. XI.
5° Tombs 22, 38, 79, 80, 85, 234; Davies, Two Officials, Pl. V. Boeser, Beschreibung der
aegyptischen Sammlung in Leiden, II, Pl. XX11; Lansing, MMA Bulletin, May, 1917, Supple-
ment, p. 26, fig. 27.
56 Sachs, Musical Instruments, p. 100; Davies, Amarna, III, Pl. V.
longed at the outset of the Fifteenth Century s.c. to the Singer Har-
mose was found in his Theban grave (Pl. 28), and contemporary
representations of it in the hands of young girl musicians are common
throughout the Eighteenth Dynasty.%” The strings were picked with
a plectrum, and the varying notes were produced by running the
fingers of the left hand up and down the strings and the elongated
neck of the instrument. The oboe'’ and the tambourine® were like-
wise innovations of the Hyksos time. In the former the two reeds
were carried in a larger reed case, and the latter was a rectangular,
thin instrument carried by dancing girls.
Where these instruments came from it would be difficult to say,
perhaps, but their presence indicates a change in Egyptian music
which was possibly of considerable importance.
In art new motives are extremely common throughout the Eight-
eenth Dynasty, but they can not readily be credited to the Hyksos
occupation of the land. More than one artistic innovation of the
Empire was due to the wars which followed the chasing of the enemy
into Syria; to the more peaceful visits made by Egyptian merchants
to Palestine and Syria; or even to voyages made by natives of Egypt
to Crete and the Greek Islands, and other trips made by the for-
eigners of those parts to the Nile Valley. We do not have to go as
far as Edouard Meyer did and believe that Crete was actually
occupied by the Egyptians through force of arms to explain the
finding there of objects made in Egypt.®! On the other hand we are
unlucky in having so few objects of the Hyksos period from Lower
Egypt to show whether there was any influence of the invaders on
the artistic products of the land. Probably the Shepherd invasion
had very little actual effect on Egyptian art, for the Hyksos were
plunderers, rather than builders, when they first arrived in the Delta,
and in the last years of their rule they were Egyptianized barbarians
who probably remembered little of their previous existence.
Artistic material from the years of the actual domination of the
Hyksos is thus very rare indeed. Once the invaders had conquered
7 Lansing and Hayes, MMA Bulletin, January, 1937, Section II, p. 8, figs. 10, 11; Scotts
ibid., 1944, p. 159; Davies, Two Officials, Pl. V; Ken-Amun, Pls. 1X-X; Rekh-mi-Ré-, II, PI.
LXIV (tuning a lute).
58 Sachs, Mustkinstrumente des alten Aegyptens, Pl. XI.
59 Lansing and Hayes, ibid., p. 13, fig. 24,
6 Evans, Palace of Minos, pp. 550, 712, 715, 718; Daressy, Annales, 1906, p. 115: Furt-
wangler, Antiken Gemmen, III, p. 19.
61 Meyer, Geschichte, 11, p. 55.
Upper Egypt the latter region produced nothing except a few ex-
tremely poor things from the poverty stricken lands which lay be-
tween Gebelein and Aswan. Practically all that the inhabitants of
that narrow stretch of valley could have wanted were arms with
which to wage war, and once they had those the invaders were beaten
off. What new things in the way of art the invaders could have left
behind them—and surely they were very few indeed—could have
had little effect on Nile culture. In the course of time we are to see
the spread of an almost new civilization, but this was largely the
result of the conquests in Asia of Thut-mose III and his successors.
Before his period it is pretty hard to tell sometimes whether an
object is of the Twelfth or of the Eighteenth Dynasty, so much alike
are they, except that often objects were finished with more loving
care in the earlier period than they were in the days of Hat-shepsit,
for instance.
It would take a good deal of hardihood to say that the items jotted
down above constitute the entire legacy of the Hyksos to the Egyp-
tians, for I have recorded only such things as I have happened to
run across in rather limited reading. Yet we have here tremendously
important effects on the practical sides of Egyptian culture resulting
from this century of barbarian domination.
It is very hard to imagine life in Egypt without the horse and the
wheeled vehicle, or even without humped cattle. None of the arms
imported during the hundred years of foreign domination are in use
today, and of course bronze is no longer important in modern life,
but for centuries these innovations were the last word in civilization.
However, the men who taught the use of the shadaf, of the spindle
suspended from rings overhead, and the vertical loom, of the black-
smith’s bellows, the branding iron, and even new types of musical
instruments left legacies to the fellab which he uses today as much
as he did some thirty-six centuries ago when he first was introduced
to them. All are such simple pieces of machinery as nomads might
bring with them, and all had the profoundest effect on the Egyptian.
The movement from the east toward the west of the peoples called
the Kassites in Mesopotamia and the Hyksos in Egypt was one of
the greatest events of antiquity, and its influence on life in the
Valley of the Nile is still among the profoundest of all time.
INDEX OF EGYPTIAN PERSONAL NAMES
Ath-hotpe, 114, 159 Hapi, Hapy, 32, 44

Ath-mose, 31, 105, 114, 148, 149 Har-mose, 169
Ath-nufer, 109 Hat-shepsit, 73, 84, 89, 148, 170
Akh-en-Aten, 87, 120 Hau, 51
LAKNEOV aeAyEL2 iS 1451 203123,020, 3400355 Hedj-wawesh, 24
44-47, 62, 65, 67, 69, 71, 74-76, 78 Heka-nakhte, 51
‘Am, 82 Henenu, 34, 44, 45, 67
Amun-em-hét, 8, 9, 19, 37, 38, 41, 55-57, Henhenet, 25, 26, 27, 65
72, 87-91, III Heni, 44
Aminet, 43, 44, 65, 87 Henu, 50 :
Amun-hotpe, 17, 73, 105, 107, 118, 147, Henwen, 16, 19, 20
155, 162 Hep-djefi, 31 n. 4, 92
Amun-fo, 113 Hepet, 24
Amun-pe-nufer, 138, 139 Hepu, 32
Aminy, 45 Hepy, 34, 69
Anhur-hotpe, 44 Her-ib, 109
tAnkhi, 56 Heri-shef-hotpu, 71
Anupu, 51 Herith, 147
Anupu-nakhte, 133 Heru-hir-matet, vili, 104, 127, 128, 131,
Apachnan, 99 132
Apopi, 98, 99, 145-149, 160 Heru-hir-neset-ef, 108, 111, 115
Archlés, 99 Heru-nefer, 21
tAshayet, 25, 26, 27, 44, 65 Hesa, 44
Assis, 98, 99, 146, 149 Hesem, 43 n. 65
Hesi, 12
Hetep, 44
Hetepet, 51
Bebi, 34, 37, 44
Behek, 17 Hetepi, 44
Beon, 99 Hety, 51
Hnim-hotpe, 93
Bewau, 42
Hnumu-nakhte, 71
Bnon, 99
Hor-hotpe, 44, 46, 72
Hori, 26
Hor-khuf, 72, 75
Dagi, 44, 45, 68 Hotep, 48, 50, 61
Dedi, 72
Dedu, 44
Desher, 51
Djar, 45 Iannas, 99
Dari)
Ib, 73
Djed-ef-Hor, 120 Ideh, 43
Djed-hotep-REé°‘, 95 Idet, 32
Djed-nefer-Ré¢, 95
Idy, 3
Djehmau, 32, 75 I-em-hotep, 120
Dudu-mose, 94, 95, 90
Ihy, 3, 44
Iku, 68
Ikui, 5, 6
Géb, 53 Im, 54
Ger, 51 Imy, 3
Gereg-tawi-ef, 100 Ini, 131, 132
172 INDEX OF EGYPTIAN PERSONAL NAMES
In-yotef, v, viii, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15-20, 22, |Men-kheper-Ré&°, 73, 125, 137
26, 34, 35, 37, 44, 45, 48, 53, 62-64, 66, Meri, 46
67 n. 37, 71, 74-76, 82, 87, 88, 104-118, Mer-su, 51
120-122, 124, 126-132, 134, 136, 137, Meru, 34, 46, 68
140, 141 Mery, 34, 69
In-yotefi, In-yotefy, 6, 49, 50 Meryet, 44
In-yotef-mose, 134, 135 Mery-[ib]-towi, 21
In-yotef-nakhte, 35 Mery-ka-R€¢, 20, 23
In-yotef-nakhty, 77 Mery-Tety, 34
In-yotef-oker, 37, 45 Mesehi, 29
Ip, 51 Mesi, 45
Ipi, 44, 46, 47, 51, 56 Met-tankhet, 82
Ipyet, 26, 45 Mey, 51
Iru, 6, 20 Min-em-hét, 110, 121
It, 44 Min-hotpe, 110
Ita, 159 Montu, 45
It-sonbe, 44 Montu-hotpe, v, vi, 9, 12, 19, 22-25, 28,
Itu, 71 30-33, 35-38, 42-44, 48, 50, 54, 64, 70,
Itu, 34, 68 71, 77-80, 82, 83, 85-87, 105, 111, 118,
lut-en-héb, 51 133, 142-145, 149, 151
Montu-nakhte, 46, 136
Montu-fo, 71
Ka-gemni, 130
Ka-ka-R€é¢, 100
Ka-mose, 105, 130, 136, 149, 159, 160 Nakhte, 18, 19, 45, 51, 71, 87, 109
Ka-Shuti, 30, 31, 108 Nakhte-Hor, 72
Ka-wer, 16, 20 Nakhtiu, 35
Kawiyet, 25, 26, 27 Nakhty, 19
Kem, 32 Neb-Amin, 137, 141
Kemi, 72 Nebet-yotef, 44
Kemset, 25, 26, 27 Nebet-yu-net, 44
Kereri, 45 Neb-hepet, 28, 33, 83
Ketety, 68 Neb-hepet-Ré‘, vi, 5, 9, 17, 22, 24, 25,
Khat-nefer-RE¢, 93
: 27-44, 48-50, 52-55, 58, 59, 62-65, 67,
Khat-sekhem-Re¢, 126 68, 70, 71, 74-91, 103, 105, 106, 108,
Khaty-kau-[Ré¢], 81, 86 118, 149, 151, 162
Khenem-R€¢, 100 Neb-kau-Ré¢, 23
Khenmes, 133 Neb-khepesh-Ré, 145-146, 160
Kheper-ka-Ré¢, 5 Neb-pehti-Ré¢, 31, 149
Kheper-kheper, 111 Neb-seni, 44
Khety, 4 Neb-tep-nefer, 18-20, 30, 87
Khian, 99, 145-149 Neb-towi, 54
Khnum-erdu, 27, 28 Neb-towi-Ré¢, 54-57, 91
Khonsu, 72 Nebui, 133
Khonsu-em-hab, 124-126 Neb-wenenef, 134
Neb-yotef, 44
Nedjment, 68
Maret, 5, 34 Neferet, 51
Matet-ka-Ré¢, 73 Nefer-hotep, 44, 46, 47, 72, 111, 126, 161
Magegi, 11, 19, 44 Nefer-khepru, 108, 115
Mahesa, 34, 68 Nefer-tem, 71
Mayet, 22, 25, 26, 35, 65 Neferu, 27, 44, 63, 64
Meket, 71 Nehri, 14, 38, 51
Meket-Ré¢, 34, 47, 53, 66, 67, 71 Nekhti-oker, 35
Menes, 31, 149 Nenen-Rér, 77
Ménet, 43 Nen-nek-su, 51
Men-hotpu-R€¢, 125 Nesu-Montu, 56
INDEX OF EGYPTIAN PERSONAL NAMES 73
Nesu-oker, 44 Senakht-en-Réf, 105, 149
Neter Hedjet, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 30, 77 Seneb-hena’ef, 143
Neter-isi, 72 Senen, 51
Neter-netery, 54 Senet-Montu, 13
Netery-bau, 3 Seni-oker, 3
Nofer-ebod, 80, 83, 84, 89 Sen-Mit, 145, 154, 156
Nub-kau-Ré¢, 111 Senwi, 72
Nub-khates, 133, 137-140 Se’n-Wosret, 5, 8, 12 n. 2, 32, 38, 45, 54,
Nub-kheper-Ré¢, Nub-khepru-Rér, 79-83, 86, 87, 89, 91, 93, 110
104-116, 118, 120-124, 127-129, 132, Sethy, 31, 48, 109, 119
135, 140, 141 Sewadj-towi, 126
Sewoser-en-R€, 145
Shed-Ptah, 82
‘O-hotep-REé¢, 146, 147
Shed-towi, viii, 105, 106, 108, 132-135,
‘O-ken-en-Ré¢, 146, 160
Oker, 46 137-139, 141
Shemay, 3, 45
¢O-woser-Ré, 145, 147
“Sheshy”’, 147
Shu-Amin, 86
Patam, 72 Shuroi, 114, 119
Peniaty, 73 Si-Anhiret, 52
Si-Hapi, 44
Pepi, 37, 44
Pepi-nakhte, 75 Si-Hat-Hor, 51
Pe-silir, 138 Si-ip, 45
Pe-wer-fo, 137, 138 Si-Montu, 32
Ptah-hotpe, 130 Si-neb-nit, 51
Si-niihet, 159
Si-pe-ir, 105, 114
Remesses, 9, 16, 42, 45, 94, 97, 100, 115, Si-Sobk, 51
118, 137 Sit-Ishtek, 44
Rét-hotpe, 104, 107, 112, 121-127 Sit-neb-sekhm, 51
Ren-ef-rés, 85 Sit-RE¢, 34, 65
Ren-ka-es, 51 Sit-sheret, 21
Ren-nu, 72 Si-Yoth, 42, 63
Ré¢-nofer, 51 Sneferu, 51
Ren-oker, 42 Sobk-dedu, 72
Reny-sonbe, 72, 80 Sobk-em-saf, viii, 72, 105-107, 112, 123,
Resi-sonbe, 72 124, 132-141
Sobk-hotpe, 34, 44, 45, 69, 93, 112, 126,
Sadeh, 25, 26
133, 143
Sobk-hotpu, 34, 67
Sahu-R€°, 92 Sobk-khu, 92
Salatis, 96, 97, 99 Sobk-nakhte, 44, 45, 133
Sam-towy, 30, 31, 36, 37, 42 Sobk-fo, 82, 83
Setankh, 56 Sobk-R€¢, 45
Setankh-ib-towi, 19-22, 27, 30, 37, 44 Sobku, 72
Setankh-ka-REf, 9, 22, 43, 48-51, 53, 55, Sobky, 133
57, 60, 67, 70, 71, 79, 81-83, 85, 86, 90 Staan, 99
Setankh-Ptah, 123 Suit-nub, 141
Setankh-towi, 70
Setankh-towi-ef, 48, 50
Sebui, 75 Ta-mayet, 26
Seher-towi, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 30 Tato, 105, 114, 145, 149
Se-hetep-ib-Ré¢, 57, 9! Tef-ibi, 14, 23
Seken-en-R€é¢, 105, 149 Tehuti-nakhte, 38
Seker-senti, 100 Tem, 43, 48
Sekhem-Ré¢, viii, 104-106, 108, 120-124, Tem-nen, 32
126-142, 145 Tenenet, 43
Semen-towi, 141, 142, 145 Tenry, 31, 48
174 INDEX OF EGYPTIAN PERSONAL NAMES
Teti, 23, 51, 110 Wah-ka-R€¢, 20, 21

Thiti, 107, 122, 140-142, 145 Wah-khatu, 121-124, 127
Thut-mose, 5, 9, 12, 19, 73, 93, 108, 122, Wehem-mesit, 54
125, 126, 132, 142, 145, 154 n. 5, 163, Wenen-ef-RE¢, 77
170 Weni, 92
Tjetji, 15, 18, 19 Wenis-tankh, 3
Tut-tankh-Amin, 155-157, 159, 161 Wep-matet, 105, 106, 108, 120, 126-132,
Tuyu, 157 140
Woser-oner, 34, 66
Woser-ronpet, 122
Wad], 61
Wadj..., 122
Wadj-ka-REé¢, 100
Wadj-khatu, viii, 135, 136 Yay, 34, 69
Wadj-kheper-Ré‘, 105, 130, 149, 160 Yerti-sen, 32
Wadj-Sobk, 51 Yoth, 22, 27, 34, 62, 63
Wah, 43 n. 65, 53 Yuhet-ib, 133
Wah-tankh, v, 10 n. 2, 12, 15, 16, 18-20, Yu-nes-soneb, 82
22, 30, 40, 57, 87, 88, 105, 108, 118, Yuroi, 114, 118
122120) Yuya, 157
4
% N. rom
& 4
: <
: he | r re wh
\
ty
\
\ ) YN \
\ x
I. FRAGMENT OF LIMESTONE RELIEF FROM THE TOMB OF WENI-fANKH.
METROPCLITAN MUSEUM. SEE PAGE 3
“7% VIALS
AO AHL UdddaN-ALVO
LA)VW ONINOILNAW
AALOA-NI
AHL YACTANOS JO ‘INMI ADVd
{S$ VIALS
AO IOADVW GATIVO
‘LaH-Wa-NOAWV
ADVd {61 GNVV IVdSJO AHL SQUOH AMOL-dI-HHNV)4S
LOH-NLNOW
‘Ad AODVd 1% NVLIITOUOULAW
WNASNW
“€ ONIMOOT
LSAM OLNI AHL AWOL
AO AMOI-YA
NI FHAS
AHL NYGAHL “SITOdO
AAS UOAN
daO9Vd
Il
4. A STELA OF WAH-CANKH FROM HIS TOMB IN THEBES.
METROPOLITAN MUSEUM. SEE PAGE 18
°S AdITAU-SVa AUYNIdIWOUd
NOS NY ATUVA TddVHD
NI HAYAGN
GNV
ad
V GALNIVd ANOLSANVS
ANIVIS
Wows JHL €V@ 14 NYSOH
¢ HOG4O *)au-LaOUIVO
dat-G4N ‘WNASN
AMSW SAOVd
QZ ANV€€
"
sas
erat
6. A VIEW FROM THE TOP OF THE CLIFFS LOOKING DOWN ON THE TEMPLE OF NEB-HEPET-RE¢
AT DEIR EL BAHRI IN THEBES. SEE PAGE 39 AND FOLLOWING
“ZL SNIMOOT
dA AHL GasOdOUd AVMASNV
AO D )FuY-VY-HYNY)AS
GUYVYMOL
SIH AWOL HLVANAG
AHL SHSITD
NI “SA€4HL
Aas AOVdZS
2 V LNVISIG
MAIA
AO AHL AWOL
AO JqY-LAMAW
NI “SAdAHL
AAS AOVd€$
°6 ONIMOOT
LSAM OLNI AHL HLNOW
dO AHL LivHS
ua TVOIU WOUd AHL ATIN “MNV@44S dOVdQ$
-O1 ONIM0O0T
LSVa WOwd 3HL LiVHS
Ua IVOIN GUVMOL
AHL ‘UAAIM GAMAVW
AM IHL SATUL ONOTYAHL UNV@
AHS AOVdgS
‘II AVA NI AHL HLNOS AGISAO HHL AATIVATIVM HLIM OLYOLSIHAUd SHdVYDOLOI
GNV HHL
d
1X “NAC “AAITAU
4S HOVdOO
ZI AHL LVANO AAITAU
AO )9U-LadAH-G4N
NI AHL LLVHS
YA “TVOINAAS dOVdTO
ET aH. ATLLIT AATIVA MOTHAHL SHHIID
NI AHL NV@SHL NIVLNNOW
AAOGVY HOIHM ANAM AHL LNOMOOT
SLNIOd
AO AHL IIX “NAC SLSHIYd
dO “NOWYV
4as a9vdOL
14. THE MASK FROM A MUMMY WITH RISHI DECORATION FOUND IN
THE THEBAN NECROPOLIS. CAIRO MUSEUM. SEE PAGE IOI
Se
D
i:pis
i
WV
15. TWO COFFINS FOUND BY CARNARVON AND CARTER IN THE XVI DYN.
CEMETERY AT THEBES. METROPOLITAN MUSEUM. SEE PAGE IOI
16. THE DIRAf ABU’N NAGA AND THE PLAIN IN FRONT OF IT WHERE THE CEMETERIES
OF THE XVI AND XVII DYNS. WERE LOCATED, LOOKING EAST.
SEE PAGE 106
17. THE COFFIN OF NUB-KHEPER-RE¢ IN-
YOTEF. BRITISH MUSEUM. SEE PAGE I16
18. THE COFFIN OF SEKHEM-RE¢ WEP-MACET IN-YOTEF
THE ELDER. THE LOUVRE. SEE PAGE 128
190. THE COFFIN OF SEKHEM-RE¢ HERU-HIR-MA‘ET
IN-YOTEF. THE LOUVRE. SEE PAGE 130
20. CANOPIC BOXES OF SEKHEM-REf WEP-MA‘ET, SEKHEM-REf SHED-TOWY AND
SEKHEM-RE¢ SEMEN-TOWY. THE LOUVRE, LEIDEN, AND BERLIN.
SEE PAGES 120, 139 AND 142
21. SCARABS OF KHIAN, ASSIS AND APOPI. METROPOLITAN MUSEUM. SEE PAGE 146
22. A GROOM EXERCISING A BLACK MARE STRIPED WITH WHITE CHALK.
23. FOUR REPRESENTATIONS OF HORSES OF THE NEW KINGDOM.
‘¥Z NV INIAX “NAC ASUOH ONIAd GHSIONAXa
Ad V GAGUVAd ‘WOOUD VNDOT0G ‘WAASAW
AaS qoVd C1
°*Sz AHL LOINVHO
NO V GAZVID“ATIL NVLITOdOU‘wnasnw
LAW dds dvd SSI
“OcV WVdL
AO SASUOH GASSANUVH
OL V “LOIMVHO
WOUA
1d “HANYVWY)
NVLITOCOUL
"WNASNW
AW AdS dHOWd oS1
‘Zz NV IIAX ‘NAC NVILdAD
UVMA “LOIMVHO AONAYNOTA “WOASNW
JAS d9Vd LO1
28. TWO SWORDS AND A LUTE FROM THEBES. METROPOLITAN AND CAIRO MUSEUMS.
SEE PAGES 160 AND 169
2Q. XVIII DYN. ARMOR SCALES, ONE HALF ACTUAL SIZE; AND OTHERS OF LATER DATE,
FULL SIZE. METROPOLITAN MUSEUM. SEE PAGE 163
30. A PEASANT OF THE NEW KINGDOM AT WORK WITH A “SHADUF’” IN THE TOMB OF
IPUKI AT THEBES. SEE PAGE 165
“1E ONIMYO
AHLM SMOT1I1
JO 9dAHL HZNOUG AYGNNOdNMOHS
NI AHL #WOL
dO
Jqdu-I
LV W-HMaa *“SAMAH
42SL YOVd OOI
‘TE OML ‘SAYATANO ATIVILUVd GAYNOLSAU
GNV HLIMXIS MAN SONINLS
ONY AHL YAHLO
SV “GNNO4
NYLITOdOULAW
ANY OUIVD “SWNHASNW
AHS AOVd SOI
econ
ONIMOTOd GNV
poyeoipul
“WOOO!
SS
due
poliey
OQ AOVd
008
Jo yj
009
IsaBsE] O2eALY SQUiO]
AHS
“NAC
a]RoS
00r
SS
IX AHL
00g
SS
ON
AUCay}
NI SITOdOYOAN
[e)
Of
IN0JUQD
SAULT
sqybtayy
ai0gn
vap
janaT
1918,
yOAIaUT
moYys
7D
aN
ae
NVEAHL
es
ay-yedat
FHL
“€€
—
ol
.c ve
ge
>
naajan
jo-quoy tt,
IHL AIdWAL uy
R,
Tk,
Ee)
jd U-TAddH-GAN
XH
mA
STEM
MINT
s][eM
2401S
gD
m0Yys sqybtafyaa0gnDa¢ 72087
Myc
saury
.197apyf
1n0jUoD
IFHs1P"]
Se
syoa.taguy
“PE AHL1X ‘NAG ATAWAL
LV UAIG1H ‘IUHVA
AAS JOVdSZ ANY ONIMOTION
:
35. PREHISTORIC GRAFFITI ON THE SIDES OF THE SHATT ER RIGAL, AND
LATER HIEROGLYPHIC INSCRIPTIONS. SEE PAGE 61
30. THE NAMES WRITTEN BESIDE THE FIGURES IN THE GREAT RELIEF IN
THE SHATT ER RIGAL. SEE PAGE 62
Qy
Res i
ml
NAV
NIL
37- THE SMALLER RELIEF IN THE SHATT ER RIGAL, SHOWING AKHTOY BEFORE THE
HORUS SAM-TOWY KING OF UPPER AND LOWER EGYPT NEB-HEPET-RE‘, AND
THE DATE—-YEAR 39——-WHEN THE AUDIENCE TOOK PLACE. SEE PAGE 62
a a.eee :
Sie in
We
o |«SME ALi
sees
ele
gas
Tira
ee
LOWS MLS
tu
) \ ee aEm Va
f > eae ay: Ste Al lt ud ihe2F582
1 yjsy We»USOT S srnez RZ
icSRI
mises
Rea
III
6 eseeey (lS Pee)

tt Vw
|
I ey ral
wsliesNL Sej
py As SH
47K) Ee
2 ape veal
oe:
*6€ ILldavuo
NI AHL LLVHS
Ua “IVOIN3S SADVd
99 GNVcL
Priests OF NEB-HEPET-RE‘S
) pila
So RLU RASS 11S
Has, be neiegee ce)
IAdEYyat
Pb Sl LA SART Te be
= | (6948)
3 (ahi
bs boat Sells
SI AZ
= SW NET IRS AIA bef Sf
t i (S 952, 966, 985)
feb bateelo
* NI
5 {mJEBPSG—2 AR [ole YPOEBW coe
6 ASM SPT Sto Lt so)
7 SMe PBo>T ML] cose

40. GRAFFITI OF THE PRIESTS WHO WATCHED FOR THE BARQUE OF AMUN IN THE
XII DYN. SEE PAGES 79 AND FOLLOWING
8 JA-eCSMASTALTVEIT EAS
SNP Tg (son
9 AS - GER 2IYSR4KENT—Ho
MASP T ¥oo
10 JSPRUITZ~ ooo
" ea
2 SPR SrTSuigslaiee-a
SIPP
Tm?Ybon
13 (1S poe YY Sh(oon
4 PeI=ylEGVZ
15 af Joof{TeSDSYsg om
16 {QJPOT SPF 020
17 [nfo@
Tea |Joos
18 jajemoslZSSIZ
19 jal iZo=) "ae lalrs ial ZZ al \
20 SY aM >sa LL WZ ow
1 1KeSNTSIZS—8 22 TS] bo)
23 {TUT PSs] Bh soe
24 Y7\sFelom aT
PS |
ana| 26 {MI PQ T (s930a)
27 jalenes
Papa eva ST os)
28 HIV T com 29 BST omten
30 31 “PS asre) 32 © (oso)
PRIESTS OF SSANKH-KA-RE‘
33 SIE S— 8] ol Full
RE eAZI=—-T
340 CUESct Sorel
XII DYN. SEE PAGES '790 AND FOLLOWING
95 (USE 023 IS dK TBD Bim rms
6 GEMS UII ox
7 IFUS S/S
IS BEDI
O
38 TMU NT BA Ma YS om
9 [a] CU) She Shailit—ia—
a =| lol=y
|Ss|=
ole ReUlle = 3
BSE BISIY
S/S ila
peaks Nig
ea
4] O—eltuy= "7 6 054, 975) 42 (IT = gb CNEL (6965)
tu gh
43 JfoJol 44 Jol?
~ I
AS £JF- Us(s 972) 46 of Fuga (Sox6g)— 47 j it (S 965)
48 Wilf 49 of Ptl[]]
629) 50 OAL P— (oor
PRIESTS OF AMUN (See also Nos.1,12, & 28)
1 JIA
S AIT YS
52 MPLNT
eG oom
eX) 0 alles ale (S 960) 54 iS (S 924a)
UNSPECIFIED PRIESTHOODS
55 JSVERSBEIDE 56 FTL
xB 000
57 JFtSeyq (S924 f) 58 fe yac« (S 935)
59 {J SS Poa MP o568) 60 JESSZW io)
6] Ves ae (S 969 a) 62 ow (S946d)
63 sy (S 937 a) 64 Q=llT pe (S 983)
65 TITERS]608 66 IT FADS oon)

67 = jal-Y ONG ZG ‘s04)
68 OY [FH = PB (025) 69 = ert (S 9824)
44. GRAFFITI OF THE PRIESTS WHO WATCHED FOR THE BARQUE OF AMUN IN’ THE
TO YR MBH ujGiooww 71 Imi Res
72 OY J¥l=-JAee won 73 DE [4 Uy cows

74 DENT cowie 75 (TIMIA com
762 NP EZ ITIOGY coro
77 $i EBY 2gB oom
78 ft} = (6 043. o46e, 047, 955, 956, and one other)
79 LTE Vga (so 80 MII TY oY T Cows

a1 ty Jaq boy ar)
2 {En
83 J sic (S 946 a) 84 ah es Yj (S 956)
85 ES Yi 2 (S976) 86 T+ ¥ (S 933)
XII DYN. SEE PAGES 79 AND FOLLOWING fi
FHL NVEAHL STIOdOYOSEN
NI qHL
HiNSSLYIS
CNV HINSEINAATS
SHIISVNAC
ajeog
sodoyy-qn
x94 jeqo4-uy
le
a
VE
YEM,
Ney
,ay-woyyoo 30,Pul-damJeyoA-uy
adjou2y
QuQL®
oF oe
,ey-WeYyyas
,aY-WoYyyesIMe}-pays FeS-W-Yqog
NS P
0,8]OU} Japly 7
O5R],OY} BARI
AmoJUoD
SAUNT
ID QF La,94 sjoaJlajuy
moys sqybrayaacgnvay 72097
Meyspury
We}
4 0) AHL NVdaHL SITOdOUDAN

NI AHL IAX GNV AX “SNAGAIS ADVd E11 GNV ONIMOTION
Asi eerar J
ont
£ = tA fe
Cae
47. INSCRIPTIONS ON GOLD BRACELET SEPARATORS, AND ON A SHAWABTI,

BRITISH MUSEUM. SEE PAGES III AND 134
48. INSCRIPTIONS ON FRAGMENTS OF A STELA AND A SHRINE OF SOBK-EM-SAF.
a 7 7 ee Yee) ee ee a ee ee a
1 oe ee e ie ee = ae
\ . ~ ca=A
ABl ; ‘ -e | '
. ’ 7 = o =¢
' cd : ,
ao oe he
Date Due
AT
ATL
EEO
PELLETIER LIBRARY, ALLEGHENY COLLEGE
_ 3 3768 00587 2331

ait
a eh
a

The Rise and Fall of The Middle Kingdom in Thebes - H. E. Winlock - 1947 - New York The Macmillan Company - Anna's Archive

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

The Rise and Fall of The Middle Kingdom in Thebes - H. E. Winlock - 1947 - New York The Macmillan Company - Anna's Archive

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

tt

Bought from the

John Raymond Cramford

MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

THE RISE AND FALL\\":

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Then in 1936 came an article by Vandier! to show that there was a

Il. The Rulers of all Egypt in the Eleventh Dynasty 30

VIII. Hyksos Importations into Egypt 150

1. Fragment of limestone relief from the tomb of Weni-tankh. Metropoli-

2. Stela of the Gate-keeper Matet mentioning In-yotef the Elder Son of

3. Looking west into the tomb of Seher-towy in the Theban Necropolis.

4. A stela of Wah-tankh from his tomb in Thebes. Metropolitan Mu-

5. Bas-relief sculpture from an early chapel in Dendereh and a painted

7. Looking up the proposed causeway of Setankh-ka-Ré¢ toward his

8. A distant view of the Tomb of Meket-Ré¢ in Thebes. See p. 53.

19. The coffin of Sekhem-Ré¢ Heru-hir-matet In-yotef. The Louvre.

20. Canopic boxes of Sekhem-Ré¢ Wep-matet, Sekhem-Ré¢ Shed-towy

21. Scarabs of Khian, Assis and Apopi. Metropolitan Museum. See

23. Four representations of horses of the New Kingdom. Metropolitan

24. An XVIII Dyn. horse being exercised by a bearded groom. Bologna

25. The chariot on a glazed tile. Metropolitan Museum. See p. 155.

26. A team of horses harnessed to a chariot, from El ‘(Amarneh. Metro-

27. An XVIII Dyn. Egyptian war chariot. Florence Museum. See

Eleventh Dynasty in Thebes

THE NOMARCHS OF THEBES BEFORE 2134 B.c.

In the Old Kingdom the settlements which were to become the

10 1f the XII Dyn. began in 1991 B.c. See p. 8 below.

Great Lord of the Theban Nome, satisfying the King as Keeper of

lared portico. In the course of the next century or so this cemetery

THESRULE RStOPSUPRERPEG YP Si Nene

Before beginning the stories of the different princes who made up

1 Egerton, JNES, 1942, p. 307.

1. SEHER-T ow! IN-YOTEF, 2134 TO ABOUT 2130 B.C.

in 2057 B.c. However, all of these conflicting considerations need

haps a century, but we know of no event which took place during

2. WAH-fANKH IN-YOTEF, ABOUT 2130-2081 B.C.

1 Prisse, Monuments, Pl. 1; Sethe, Urkunden, 1V, 608.

4 Brunner, Graber der Herakleopolitenzeit, Tomb V, line 1.

ALLEGHENY COLLEGE LIBRARY

until he journeyed to his horizon.’”’ There is nothing here of war,

hepet-Ré¢ some three generations later. Perhaps Mariette’s “‘pyra-

3. NAKHTE NEB-TEP-NEFER IN-YOTEF, ABOUT 2081-2079 B.C.

* Winlock, A JSL, 1915, p. 22; Steindorff-Wolff, op. cit., p. 20.

tep-nefer,’—the Mighty, the Lord of Judgment—‘‘King of Upper

4. SECANKH-IB-TOW! MONTU-HOTPE, 2079-2061 B.C.

fied’ in the first cartouche of the dynasty immediately after the

1 Prisse, Monuments, Pl. 1; Sethe, Urkunden, 1V, 608.

Meki and the southern boundary to Taut,’”’ where he appears to

6 Griffith, PSBA, 18091, p. 41.

5. Neter Hepjet, Later NeB-HEPET-RE‘, MONTU-HOTPE,

9 Winlock, AJSL, 1940, p. 153.

2 Brunner, op. cit., Tomb IV, 1.10.

® Bissing-Bruckmann, Denkmédler aegyptische Sculptur, Pl. 33, A.

1 Daressy, Annales, 1907, p. 242.

be painted with a replica of the sarcophagus decorations around the

Elephantine as far as Aphroditopolis.” Khnum-erdu may well have

16 Petrie, Dendereh, Pl. XII.

the tomb of Mesehi of Asyiit, where the troops are marshaled

THE RUPERS* OFFAL LSEGY PSI Nala

1. NEB-HEPET-RE® MONTU-HOTPE, AS KING OF ALL EGYPT FROM

2 Lanzone, Dizionario di mitologia egizia, p. 660.