Sobek of Shedet.

The Crocodile God in the Fayyum in the Dynastic Period

characteristic of the crocodile-god and, in particular, of Sobek

of the Fayyum. But, utterly unsentimental, Sobek of Shedet, as
we shall see, in the following years will inaugurate a new and
perhaps more tantalizing ilial relationship with another goddess.
Moreover, in the same spell, the king/Sobek is engaged in satisfy-
ing all his physiological needs and desires: he ‘will eat with his
mouth’ (wnm m rA=f) and ‘will urinate and will copulate with his
penis’ (wsS nk m Hnn=f); he is also ‘the lord of semen, who takes
wives from their husbands (nb mtwt iti Hmwt hAy=sn), whenever
he wishes, according to his desire (xft Ssp ib=f)’. Sobek just fol-
lows his own instinct, without regretting having raped women
and divided them from their partners. This refusal to suppress
his sexual appetites, this disturbing attitude towards women and
the fact that Sobek is not able to show any sense of ‘otherness’
in a relation between the sexes will be always constant features
in his associations with the feminine world71. Essentially, in the
Old Kingdom Sobek’s nature remains untamed, in deep sympa-
thy with wild natural objects and repugnant to the gentile forces
of society. Sobek is irst of all associated with the forces of nature
– loods and rebirths of plants – but he is also capable of cruelty
and seems endowed with emotions of a limited range, merely in-
volving food, physiology and sex.
It seems particularly signiicant that in the only spell in which
the god is associated with a town, a ‘civic space’, this town is
Shedet. This might be interpreted as an indication that Shedet,
amongst all others, was considered as his speciic and original
cult-centre. In Spell 582, the king, identiied with a few deities,
declares that he ‘governs as Sobek who is in Shedet (sbk imy
Sdt) and Anubis in Takhib. Pepy will call for a thousand and the
populace will come to him bowing’ (Pyr. §§ 1564b) (doc. 6). In
another spell72, we read: ‘My father has inherited from Horus as
Horus in Seal-ring, Seth in the Ennead, Sobek in [Shedet]. Let
arms beat, let drumming go down!’. In Spell 275 the sovereign is
once again identiied with the crocodile-god of the Fayyum: the
king ‘Unis will open the double doors, Unis will attain the limit
of the horizon, Unis having laid the msdt-garment there on the
ground, and Unis will become the Great One who is in Shedet
(wr imy Sdt)’ (Pyr. § 416)73. Despite the possibility that the top-
onym Sdt has been chosen merely because of a pun with the noun
msdt, it is however evident that the regal function coincides with
that of the crocodile-god of the Fayyum. The die is cast: in the

71
On the connection amongst Sobek, the crocodile and women, see ZECCHI 2004a,
148-153.
72
ALLEN 2005, 151 (P 448).
73
ALLEN 2005, 52 (W 181).

– 18 –
 From the origin until the end of the Old Kingdom

Middle Kingdom, it was Sobek of Shedet who, before any other

Sobek worshipped in Egypt, was to be connected with the royal
function. And indeed, as we shall see, in the Egyptian sources
there is a tendency to make a distinction between two identities
of Sobek: on the one side, the wild Sobek, free from any ties with
any cities, who lives in a natural environment made of water and
plants and who interacts with natural phenomena; on the other
side, the ‘civic’ Sobek, derived directly from the former and who,
by retaining his original powerful vigour (he is ‘the Great One’),
is the uncontested sovereign of a region, the Fayyum, and, as
such, becomes a model of kingship.
Notwithstanding the scanty information, our knowledge on
Sobek of Shedet in the Old Kingdom, as we have seen, is based
on three typologies of evidences: private documents belonging
to Sobek’s priests, oficial documents from temples of the Fifth
Dynasty and spells in the ‘Pyramid Texts’. The very beginning of
Sobek’s cult in the Fayyum is obscure, but, by the Fourth and
Fifth Dynasties, the local Sobek had succeeded in becoming an
important deity who had his own clergy, and who could be de-
picted on the walls of royal temples located outside the boundar-
ies of his region, and who was speciically quoted in the ‘Pyramid
Texts’, next to a more ‘generic’ Sobek.
One of the striking characteristics of the religion of the
Fayyum before the Twelfth Dynasty is the complete lack of docu-
ments, with the exception of Horus’ name, on the presence of
other deities. It is hardly believable that the crocodile-god domi-
nated the Fayyum religious world in a way that did not permit
his coexistence with other forms of veneration. Perhaps, other
gods were already living in the Fayyum, even though we cannot
know the extent of their inluence within the region. Neverthe-
less, it is impossible not to note this absence of data, which most
likely is the result of archaeological accidents. But it is also pos-
sible that some Egyptian gods were at last able to claim a cult
within the region only from the Middle Kingdom onwards, when
they started to be theologically interwoven with Sobek’s person-
ality and functions.
There are a few other peculiarities in this period that should
be underscored. Unquestionably, Sobek’s divine nature was
closely modelled on the nature of his animal manifestation. The
bound between Sobek and the crocodile was so ineluctable and
unavoidable that the god very rarely chose to show himself in
other guises than that of the reptile. In the most ancient sources
– reliefs from royal temples, objects belonging to Sobek’s priests,
but also in the even more ancient expression Hm-sbk – to write
Sobek’s name the Egyptians adopted only the hieroglyph of the

– 19 –
Sobek of Shedet. The Crocodile God in the Fayyum in the Dynastic Period

crocodile as a phonogram. It was only in the ‘Pyramid Texts’ that

Sobek’s name started to be written with uniliteral signs, a graphic
form which became very common from the Middle Kingdom on-
wards, when the hieroglyph of the crocodile was above all used
as determinative, just to remind us of Sobek’s animal identity.
Moreover, in the Old Kingdom the god and the toponym Sdt are
always linked in a relationship of possession through a direct
genitive, while the derived adjective (nisbe) ‘Shedety’, used as a
divine epithet, is absent from the contemporary sources74. The
‘Pyramid Texts’ are interesting from a graphical point of view
for another reason. Unlike the most ancient documents and the
spells in the pyramids of Unas and Pepy I, in which the place-
name Sdt is followed by the determinative of town, in the variant
of Pepy II (Pyr. § 1564b) the toponym ends with the sign of the
pr-nw surmounted by the bucranium, a symbolic element typical
of the temple of Shedet and which, very likely, occurred for the
irst time in the previously analysed protodynastic seal.
The Old Kingdom formed an interesting prologue to the su-
perb performance that was to be Sobek’s reign in the Fayyum in
the Middle Kingdom. But before this could happen, Sobek had to
go through a critical phase.
At the end of the Sixth Dynasty, the god disappears from
Egyptian sources, to appear again at the beginning of the Twelfth
Dynasty. This could be easily explained by appealing again to
archaeological accidents. However, it must be noted that during
the First Intermediate Period the Fayyum seems to have known
episodes of hyper-aridity and that the Lake Qarun partially (or
almost completely) dried up, dropping from about +15 or +20 m
above sea level to –40 or –50 m below sea level. In the fall of the
Old Kingdom, the Lake Qarun might have dried out because of a
series of low Nile loods75. Although it is impossible to assess the
duration of this phenomenon and to grasp its actual impact on
the history of the Fayyum, it must have had a strong inluence
on the regional economy, resulting perhaps in a collapse of the
water system, with an impoverishment of the living conditions
not only of its inhabitants, but of its god too.

74
The name Sobek is usually followed by the biliteral Sd + d or Sd + t or Sd + d + t, with
the determinative of ‘city’, suggesting therefore the reading Sdt, denoting the main
town of the Fayyum, and not Sdty, epithet ‘shedety’. See however JONES 2000, 574, who
prefe rs the reading Sdty.
75
For the climate change and the luctuations of the lake level in this period, see for
example: BELL 1971, 1-26; BELL 1975, 253; MOELLER 2005, 160-162; HASSAN, TASSIE
2006, 39.

– 20 –
 Chapter II

THE MIDDLE KINGDOM

Sobek in the ‘Coffin Texts’

In the ‘Cofin Texts’, Sobek is mentioned more often than in

the ‘Pyramid Texts’. In this later corpus of texts, Sobek appears
as an uncontaminated god, whose igure has not been modiied
by theological speculations and who has an aggressive and indis-
puted control over a landscape dominated by marshlands and
watercourses. In this context, any other divine aspect seems to
be alien to him. And it is signiicant that Sobek is not associated
with any towns, as if his habitat and cult cannot be looked for in
a ‘civic’ space, but must be conined to a natural environment.
In Spell 160 (CT II, 373-3879) Sobek still represents the west,
being once again ‘lord of Bakhu’ (the west mountain), the one
who ‘is in the east of this mountain, his temple of carnelian
(Hrst)’, a costly-stone which perhaps here evokes the colour of
the sun setting in the west. In Spell 636 Sobek seems to represent
the north: ‘Sobek in the water (sbk m mw), Dedwen in Nubia, Ha
in the west and Soped in the east. They bring my kA for my body
and it will be in the water with Sobek’ (CT VI, 259). If Dedwen
represents the south, Sobek stands here for the north, the Delta,
rich in water.
However, in the ‘Cofin Texts’ the basic principle remains that
of the identiication between Sobek and the deceased. In Spell
268 (CT IV, 1-5) and 285 (CT IV, 35-36), the deceased becomes
Sobek ‘lord of the winding waterways’ (nb mr nxA) or ‘lord of the
creeks’ (nb Hp), so that he can cross crocodile infested marshes
and rivers. In particular, in Spell 268, the deceased turns into ‘a
shape who eats (even) when he copulates (wnm nk=f), who cre-
ates for himself the semut-women to the full extent of his desire
(ir.n=f smwt r-drw ib=f)’ and becomes a ‘great crocodile’ (sbk pw
aA), while ‘fair is the lood of the lord of the marshland’ (nfr mHt nb
sxt), which evokes Sobek’s power over the Nile; then, the deceased
is called ‘the great of awe’ (aA Sfyt), an epithet that in Amenemhat
III’s reign becomes characteristic of Sobek of Shedet. After hav-
ing avoided the crocodiles (sbkw) of the marshes, he becomes a
‘crocodile-spirit (ahm ahm), crocodile faced (Hr sbk) dangerous in
the reeds of the marshland, N has traversed (xns) the crossings
of the river-banks (xnsw idbw)… for N is Sobek lord of creeks (nb

– 21 –
Sobek of Shedet. The Crocodile God in the Fayyum in the Dynastic Period

Hpw)’. In Spell 285, the deceased says ‘I traverse the lakes (Sw) (or
islands, iw?), I am alert (spd Hr) when I traverse the shores. I am
a shape who eats (even) when he copulates (ink im wnm nk=f)…
I live on the great ones who are in the water (anx=i m wrw imyw-
nw). I am he who emerges (itt), the lord of water (nt)…’. The
same set of ideas is found in Spell 474 (CT VI, 21), 477 (CT VI,
35) and 991 (CT VII, 201-203). In particular, in the latter, entitled
‘becoming Sobek’ (xpr m sbk), the deceased claims: ‘I am the lord
of strength, the mighty, who takes a crocodile shape (ink nb ks
wsr Ssp sbk). I am the lord of wrong, who lives on woe (ink nb
iw anx m ianw). I am that Sobek (ink sbk pw), whose tongue was
cut out because of the mutilation of Osiris (Sa ns=f Hr afAt wsir)’,
an allusion to the punishment for his voracity and having eaten a
piece of Osiris’ body1. Moreover, the deceased, as Sobek, is also
the ‘lord of the Nile’ (nb Hapy), that is he controls the lood, and is
the one who ‘rises in the east and sets in the west’ (wbn m iAbtt xpi
m imntt), an important irst hint to Sobek’s identiication with
the sun god. But he is also ‘Sobek, the rebel who is among you
[gods] (sbi im(y)=tn [ntrw?]) you cannot do anything against me
(n gmt=tn ir(w)=tn r=i), you spirits or you dead (Axw m(w)tw), for
I have taken possession of the sky and have taken possession of
the earth (it.n=i pt it.n=i tA). I am a possessor of worship (ink nb
iAw)… to whom are given his semut-women and their hair (ddw
n=f smwt=f smA=sn)… I am Sobek, lord of strife (ink sbk nb HAt),
I am Sobek, lord of the river banks (ink sbk nb wdbw)… I am he
who impregnates the semut-women (ink stw Hr smwt). I am he
who has recourse to robbery (ink inn(w) m awA)’. Nowhere is the
connection between Sobek’s nature and the aggressiveness and
dangerousness of the crocodile more clearly represented than in
these spells. Also the ‘sexual question’ and his voracity are here
entwined2. The real threat represented by the crocodile for the
Egyptians resurfaces on a funerary level, but in a sort of reverse
order, in which the deceased who becomes Sobek – the crocodile
par excellence – is not hurt by the crocodiles that live in the neth-
erworld3.
Quite surprisingly, in the ‘Cofin Texts’, Shedet is in relation
with Horus, rather than with Sobek. The place-name is men-
tioned in Spell 61 (CT I, 257f), which describes the deceased’s
coronation with the HDt, imitating the coronation of Horus by
Ra4. After being welcomed by the great ones of Heliopolis,
dressed with the garment of Ptah and the robe of Hathor, and

1
POSENER 1968, 106-111.
2
ZECCHI 2004a, 149-153.
3
See also ZECCHI 2006b, 104-107.
4
GOEBS 2008, 134-137.

– 22 –
 The Middle Kingdom

receiving natron by a priest, whose name is that of Ra and whose

form is that of Horus, the deceased is addressed as follows: ‘the
ba of the Great One (wr)5 rejoices at meeting you, when you
adorn (shr/sSr) Horus of Shedet, sitting on a mat of turquoise
(psx/psh n mfkAt) at the prow of the solar barque, your shining
forth is as perfect as that of Ra (twt wbn=k mi wbn ra), when
you are radiant (psd) like Hathor’. Then, the deceased begins his
journey in the sky, extending his legs over the supports (snxwt)
of the sky, where his place is prepared by Orion and Ursa Ma-
jor (msxtiw). As Katja Goebs has pointed out, in this spell the
HDt-crown, linked to the royalty of Horus, makes the deceased a
leader of stellar gods. His location on a mat of turquoise at the
prow of the barque of Ra, the fact that he shines like Hathor and
he is crowned as Horus seem to suggest an identiication with the
morning star6. The presence of Horus of Shedet remains here
unclear. It might be due to an important Horus cult in the main
town of the Fayyum, even though this does not explain why in
this context it is this speciic form of Horus to be evoked. But, as
suggested by Goebs, it might simply be due to Horus’ association
with the crocodile god, who, in his turn, might represent the sun
god while rising7. As we have seen, an identiication between
Horus and Sobek seems to go back to the Second Dynasty. More-
over, if one considers the nature of the crocodile god in the ‘Cof-
in Texts’ and the fact that, in the same period, the connection
between him and kingship was not particularly strong, it follows
that, in a spell where the theme of the sunrise is linked to the
coronation of Horus and of the deceased, the presence of Horus
– who was oficially supposed to embody the ideal kingship – was
perhaps regarded as more appropriate.

The beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty

Even though the ‘Cofin Texts’ are an important source on

Sobek, here the god still remains prevalently a crocodile-deity,
deeply immersed in his own natural habitat. With the end of the
Old Kingdom, Sobek of Shedet seems to vanish, despite the fact
he had reached a quite solid position amongst the Egyptian gods.
After the Sixth Dynasty, the irst document, mentioning the god
and dated with certainty, goes back to the reign of Amenemhat II.
Indeed, it is dificult to glimpse Sobek of Shedet at the beginning
of the Twelfth Dynasty, despite the fact this very dynasty was a

5
Probably the sun-god.
6
GOEBS 2008, 136-137.
7
GOEBS 2008, 136, note 337.

– 23 –
Sobek of Shedet. The Crocodile God in the Fayyum in the Dynastic Period

decisive moment in the history of the Fayyum. It is in this period

that the kings strongly intervened in this vast geographical area
establishing new buildings and through intense economic poli-
cies. The region started being known under new names, evoking
its fertility and richness in waters, such as ‘great green’ (wAd wr)
and, above all, ‘land of the lake’ (tA-S)8. Moreover, the Fayyum of
the Twelfth Dynasty is characterised by an impressive quantity
of high-quality archaeological data directly connected with re-
ligious themes and practices. But, unfortunately, as in the case
of Sobek, we have scanty information on the region at the very
beginning of the dynasty. We know, however, that very soon it
started to draw the attention of the reigning kings and that their
interest for this vast geographical area reached its peak during
Amenemhat III’s reign. Egyptians must have been aware of the
economic potentialities of the Fayyum. But when we try to speak
of the agricultural exploitation of the region in this period, we are
hampered by a discouraging lack of data. We do not know who
was the irst (and only?) king to reclaim new land for agriculture.
Between el-Lahun and Gurob there are the remains of a dam,
which, as has been suggested, could date back to the Twelfth
Dynasty. However, a similar construction might have controlled
the water of the Bahr Yussef entering into the Fayyum, with the
possibility not only creating a reliable irrigation system, but also
regulating the lake level, which in this period could have been ±
18 m above sea level9. It is also uncertain whether the increased
fortune of Sobek of Shedet during the dynasty and the fortune of
the Fayyum were connected, one feeding the other, or whether
the novel importance of Sobek was a mere consequence of the
importance of his region in the policy of the court. What is cer-
tain, at least on the basis of the available data, is that, even if one
can ind earlier precedents for some religious themes attached
to the local crocodile-god in previous periods, Sobek of Shedet
gradully developed a new character until, at the end of the dy-
nasty, he was endowed with such qualities that he became one
of the most important, provocative and interesting deities of the
Egyptian pantheon.
The plan and description by Georg Schweinfurth10 show that
in 1887 the archaeological area known as Kiman Fares was still
vast and extended as far as the north of Medinet el-Fayyum, cov-
ering an area of 2,4 x 1,2 km11. Nowadays, what survives of the

8
ZECCHI 2001, 236-240.
9
For the irrigation system in the Fayyum, see, for example, GARBRECHT 1987, 143-157;
SCHNITTER 1994; GARBRECHT 1996, 47-76; CHANSON 2004, 541-549.
10
SCHWEINFURTH 1887, 54-79.
11
As pointed out by DAVOLI 1998, 159, ig. 71, the extension of the archaeological

– 24 –
 The Middle Kingdom

temple of the ancient Shedet is enclosed in ive archaeological ar-

eas covering a few square metres. Inside the northern enclosure
of Medinet el-Fayyum, known as ‘the temple of Ramesse II’, there
are some archaeological architectonic elements in limestone and
red granite, which were part of the temple of Sobek, partially
excavated by Petrie12. On the basis of the maps published by Sch-
weinfurth and Petrie, this enclosure includes the area just at the
entrance of the temenos and the one just in front of it, while the
temple extended northwards, in an area today covered by ields.
Within the enclosure, there were some blocks with hieroglyph-
ic inscriptions, a statue of a crocodile and some big blocks in
red granite, which perhaps correspond to the eight blocks de-
scribed by Schweinfurth13 and to the remains in granite found
by Luigi Vassalli in 1862. Petrie reports that, in the vicinity of
the pylon of the temple, there were ‘some immense blocks of red
granite, remains of the gateway’14, and outlines a brief history of
the building from the Middle Kingdom, through the Ramesside
Period to the Late Period, up to the Roman Period15. The earli-
est level of recognisable work in the area was in the approach,
or pro-temenos, of the temple, where a bed of broken pottery of
the Twelfth Dynasty and clean sand was led, most likely for the
road to the temple. Buildings were on both sides of the road,
evidently to keep the access to the temple clear. But, probably
in the III or IV century, red-brick houses were built there, and
‘soon after that, the rubbish mounds were piled up, and in the V
and VI century overlowed and illed up the entrance to the then
deserted temple’16.
Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing the conditions and
dimensions of the temple at the beginning of the Twelfth Dy-
nasty. We do not even know whether it stood in the same place
as the temple of the Old Kingdom, or whether the latter was
completely destroyed or simply enlarged and embellished by the
following kings. At any rate, the interest of the new dynasty for
the Fayyum and the house of Sobek began with Amenemhat I17.

remains did not change at least until 1950, as shown by some air photographs taken
by the RAF.
12
PETRIE 1889, 56-59, pls. XXVII.10-13, XXIX. See also Davoli 2001, 197-208, pls. III-
XI.
13
SCHWEINFURTH 1887, 74, pl. 2.
14
PETRIE 1889, 57.
15
PETRIE 1889, 57-59. According to the British archaeologist, the temenos dated back
to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty or to an earlier period, while the visible remains of the
temple belonged to the Ptolemaic Period.
16
PETRIE 1889, 59.
17
According to GRAJETZKI 2006, 30, even the move of Amenemhat I’s capital Itj-tawy to
the area of the modern el-Lisht might also ‘relect a decision to be close’ to the fertile
Fayyum.

– 25 –
Sobek of Shedet. The Crocodile God in the Fayyum in the Dynastic Period

Contrary to what has been claimed, it cannot be demonstrated

that Amenemhat I initiated the construction of a new temple
at Shedet. As a matter of fact, the assertion that this king was
the founder of the temple of the Twelfth Dynasty18 is based on
Golénischeff’s erroneous attribution of an inscription on a gran-
ite column, which, as shown by Habachi19, belonged instead to
Amenemhat III. What is certain is that Amenemhat I adorned
the temple at least with one sculpture representing himself and
a deity. The available information of its original location is un-
clear. The statue was irst seen in 1843 by Karl Richard Lepsius
in a street of Medinet el-Fayyum20 and in 1887 and in 1888 by
Schweinfurth and Petrie respectively, in the area in front of the
temple of Sobek. The inscriptions of the statue were copied by
Lepsius and then the monument was quoted by Hans Gerhard
Evers21 and described by Henri Gauthier, who probably saw the
dyad and correctly identiied the deity as Bastet22. But, more re-
cently, Matthias Seidel23, on the basis of Lepsius’ drawing, at-
tributed the statue to the king and Sobek. Until recently, though
this monument was kept in one of the enclosures of the Kiman
Fares, its exact location was regarded as unknown. Its ‘redis-
covery’ is due to Houring Sourouzian, who saw it in 1990 and
1995 and published a description and photographs of the statue
in 200524. The king and the goddess are seated on a throne, the
busts are missing and they are preserved from the waist to the
lower part of the legs. Amenemhat I and Bastet hold each other
in an embrace with their inner arms, now missing. Both igures
have one hand on their thighs; the king holds a folded cloth and
Bastet has in her ist a papyrus whose umbel is on her thigh,
while its stem descends along her leg and continues on the left
side of the throne. On the right of the king’s leg there is a column
of hieroglyphs: ntr [nfr] nb […] s[Htp-]ib-[ra] di […]. Between the
legs of the king and Bastet is Amenemhat I’s Horus name and on
the left leg of the goddess a column of text: bAstt nb(t) tAwy mry
sA ra imn-m-[HAt…], ‘the son of Ra Amenemhat, beloved of Bastet
lady of the two lands’. This dyad and its inscriptions are interest-

18
GOLÉNISCHEFF 1889, 98. Also in PM IV, 98 and followed by HAYES 1953, 181; VON
BECKERATH 1964, 38; GESTERMANN 1987, 119; CEPKO 2005, 126.
19
HABACHI 1937, 90-92.
20
LD II, 118e; LD Text II, 30.
21
EVERS 1929, 95.
22
GAUTHIER 1934, 53.
23
SEIDEL 1996, 76-77. See also PM IV, 99; ZECCHI 2001, 26, and HIRSCH 2004, 18 and 184
(doc. no. 42).
24
SOUROUZIAN 2005, 105-106, 116, pls. Va-f. The statue has then been published by
DAVOLI, NAHLA MOHAMMED AHMED 2006, 81-82. In November 2006 I saw the monument
still in the same enclosure of the Kiman Fares, from where it was removed to the
archaeological area of Karanis, where I saw it in November 2007.

– 26 –
 The Middle Kingdom

ing for several reasons. Firstly, they bear witness to the interest
of the founder of the Twelfth Dynasty for the main city of the
Fayyum. We cannot rule out the possibility that Amenemhat I
dedicated other statues or monuments in Shedet to the local
crocodile-god. But if this dyad is actually the only monument
left by the king in the Fayyum, it should be stressed that the king
did not choose to be linked with Sobek. Instead, he preferred
to be represented with Bastet and to be called ‘beloved’ of the
goddess, who bears the epithet ‘lady of the two lands’, which has
no connection with the ‘provincial’ Fayyum, but refers to the
whole united Egyptian country. From a religious point of view,
the dyad is also signiicant because it represents the oldest evi-
dence, if not of a real cult, but at least of the presence of Bastet
in the Fayyum25.
With the reign of Amenemhat I’s successor, the integration
of the Fayyum into the Egyptian territory and the control over
the region by the ruling dynasty are symbolically expressed on
a monumental scale. In the vicinity of Abgig, a village located
about 3 km south-west of Medinet el-Fayyum, Senusret I erected
a red granite free-standing monolithic stone, 12.9 m high, whose
faces were decorated with offering scenes and inscriptions26. Its
north face27 has ive superposed registers. Each contains two
scenes, in which the king stands, back to back in the centre of
the panel, carrying out a ritual in front of a pair of deities. In
the upper register the king stands with his arms down before
two gods; on the left, these can be identiied, thanks to their ico-
nography, as Montu and Amon of Thebes; on the right, they are
Ptah ‘south of his wall, lord of Ankhtawy’ of Memphis and Ra-
Harakhty of Heliopolis. In the other four registers, Senusret I
wears the white crown on the left and the red crown on the right
and acts in honour of other gods, among whom Isis, Nephtys,

25
The presence of Bastet in the region is otherwise testiied from the Twenty-seventh
Dynasty, when she can be depicted as Hryt-ib wiA=f in a row of Fayyum deities in the
temple of el-Kharga (DAVIES 1953, III; CRUZ-URIBE 1988, 19). For the Thirtieth Dynasty,
there are at least two ‘hem-priests of Bastet who protects her father, who resides in
the land of the lake’ (Hm-ntr bAstt xw it=s Hry-ib tA-S) (ZECCHI 1999, no. 222-223, 298).
Equally interesting is the ‘Book of the Fayyum’, where Shedet is the place where
‘Bastet protects her father, who resides in the land of the lake’ (BEINLICH 1991, 160-
161). Moreover, in the Late Period and Greco-Roman Period in the Fayyum a few men
with names composed with that of Bastet are known, for example: BOTHMER 1960, 99;
ZECCHI 1999, no. 195, 217, 219-223, 255.
26
On the monument of Abgig, see: LD II, 119b; LD Text II, 31; HALL 1915, 146-147,
pl. XVIII; CHABÂN 1926, 105-108; PM IV, 99; ZAYED 1964, 201-203, ig. 2; MARTIN 1977,
71-74; WILDUNG 1984, 169-170, ig. 147; SOUROUZIAN 1989, 59, 218, pl. 11b; HIRSCH 2004,
54-56, 288-289 no. 157, and more recently ZECCHI 2008, 373-386.
27
The four sides of the monument are here named according to its present position
in a roundabout of Medinet el-Fayyum, where it was moved from Abgig in the early
1970s: LECLANT 1973, 405.

– 27 –
Sobek of Shedet. The Crocodile God in the Fayyum in the Dynastic Period

Sobek, Thoth, Min, Horus of Letopolis and Seshat are recogni-

sable. Below these scenes, there was a text in fourteen columns
of hieroglyphs, which was partially copied by Lepsius, but which
today is completely missing. On the east and west faces, there
are two vertical inscriptions, in which the king is called beloved
‘of Ptah south of his wall’ (ptH rsy nib=f miry) and ‘of Montu lord
of Thebes’ (mntw nb wAst miry) respectively. At the top, the south
face has a register with two scenes, one of which is missing. Be-
low, there is a fragmentary vertical inscription, containing, as in
the west and east sides, the names of the king and, most likely,
the epithet ‘beloved of’ a deity, whose name is no longer read-
able, but could possibly be Atum, because the surviving scene
at the top shows Senusret I offering two nw-vases to Atum ‘lord
of Heliopolis’ (nb iwnw), followed by a god, above whom ‘Great
Ennead’ (psdt aAt) is engraved. The enigmatic monument of Abgig
might have been solar-related, as its shape28 and the presence of
Atum on the only register of the south face suggest. Here Ptah,
Montu and Atum occupy the highest symbolic position. These
three gods are here because they represent the most inluential
political and religious centres in the whole of Egypt, strongly as-
sociated with royal ideology and, as I have already pointed out
elsewhere29, the monument of Abgig is above all a tangible sign
of the presence of the ruling dynasty in a provincial region and
of its symbolic annexation to the Egyptian territory. Nonetheless,
from a religious point of view, this stone does not seem to give
voice to local beliefs. We are not even sure if the crocodile-head-
ed god depicted on the north side with solar-disk and uraeus is
Sobek of Shedet or another Sobek worshipped in another Egyp-
tian town. Anyhow, this deity has not a relevant position, being
represented only in the third register.
The idea that Senusret I could bestow a certain degree of at-
tention to the Fayyum, but, apparently, not to its main god seems
to be reinforced by a headless statue of the king in basalt, said
to come from Medinet el-Fayyum and now kept in the New York
Metropolitan Museum30. In its inscriptions, the king is called ‘be-
loved of Horus lord of Kom Ombo’ (Hr nb nbwyt mry), who is the
same as Hor-wer of the same locality. The presence of this form
of Horus in the Fayyum can be explained by the connections

28
In 1925, CHABÂN (1926, 106, 108) carried out an inspection around the monument,
which, in that period, was still split in two pieces in a ield of Abgig. Despite he
found some granite fragments, he did not discover any remain of any architectural
construction in the vicinity of the stone.
29
ZECCHI 2008.
30
Inv. 25.6. See: EVERS 1929, pls. 42-43; HAYES 1953, 180, ig. 10; HIRSCH 2004, 57, 289-
290, no. 158.

– 28 –
 The Middle Kingdom

between Sobek and Hor-wer, both worshipped at Kom Ombo31.

Anyhow, as in the reign of Amenemhat I, it seems that also dur-
ing the reign of Senusret I Sobek of Shedet was easily neglected
on royal monuments within his own region. If so, his position in
the Egyptian pantheon was perhaps still unstable and the ruling
kings still regarded him as deity of secondary importance and
were not yet prepared to acknowledge the potential strength of
this provincial god.
But the lines of the future religious policy were emerging.
Hitherto, the link between Sobek of Shedet and Horus was
evoked rather than clearly expressed. In the above-mentioned
seal of the Second Dynasty, their identiication could be made via
the iconography: the falcon god maintained his own name, but
borrowed epithet and image from the crocodile-god. The passage
of the ‘Cofin Texts’ mentioning Horus of Shedet and Senusret I’s
statue from Medinet el-Fayyum with the name of Horus of Kom
Ombo can also be interpreted as a prelude to the unprecedented
event of the union of the two deities in a single one, Sobek-Horus
of Shedet.
Despite a tradition connecting Amenemhat II as a sporting
king to the marshes of the Fayyum32, there is no evidence that
he took part in architectural activities in Shedet or in any other
locality of the Fayyum. Nonetheless, there is an interesting cir-
cular object in steatite of unknown provenance, bearing the in-
scription anx ntr nfr nb tAwy nb-kAw-ra sbk Hr Sdty mry anx dt, ‘Live
the beautiful god, lord of the two lands, Neb-kau-ra, beloved of
Sobek-Horus Shedety’ (doc. 7)33. At least from the reign of Amen-
emhat II, cylinders with the names of Sobek, mainly Sobek ‘lord
of Sumenu’34, started to appear, testifying a renewed theological
interest in the cults of this deity, particularly in the Theban area,
where he was worshipped from at least the Herakleopolitan pe-
riod35. It is thus not surprising that Amenemhat II did not forget
the main god of the Fayyum. In any case, the circular object is of
extreme signiicance not only because it is the most ancient dated
document in which the names of Sobek of Shedet and of Horus
are united in a syncretistic form, ‘Sobek-Horus Shedety’, but also
because it shows Amenemhat II as the irst king to declare him-

31
Sobek was already present in Kom Ombo in the Middle Kingdom: YOYOTTE 1957, 88,
no. 3. Moreover, YOYOTTE 1962a, 90, has suggested that already in this period the ‘lord
of Kom Ombo’ could be identiied with Sobek of Shedet.
32
CAMINOS 1956, 22-39.
33
JAMES 1974, 42, no. 96, suggested that this small object (circunference 2,3 cm and
hollow in the centre) might come from one of the foundation deposits of a temple
erected by Amenemhat II, perhaps in the Fayyum.
34
YOYOTTE 1957, 87; JAMES 1974, 43-44, no. 100-102.
35
YoYotte 1957, 94-95; BROVARSKI 1977, 31-34.

– 29 –
Sobek of Shedet. The Crocodile God in the Fayyum in the Dynastic Period

self ‘beloved of’ this deity. Even though the union between Horus
and Sobek was not necessarily a novelty of Amenemhat II’s reign,
it is in this period that this theological syncretistic identiication
seems to be oficially recognised by the ruling dynasty. In line
with the older tradition, going back at least as early as the Sec-
ond Dynasty and then expressed in the ‘Pyramid Texts’, also in
the Middle Kingdom it is Sobek of Shedet – and not any other
crocodile-god, not even that of Sumenu – who is associated and
indeed identiied with Horus, the embodiment par excellence of
royal ideology. And, in the following years, under Amenemhat
III’s reign, when the Fayyum became the main centre of interest
of the dynasty, it was through this syncretistic identiication that
Sobek of Shedet contrived to heighten his importance.

The reign of Senusret II: el-Lahun

The reign of Senusret II represents a decisive moment in the

history of the Fayyum. This king chose, for his pyramid complex,
a site at the entrance of the region, east of the Bahr Yussef, in the
territory of el-Lahun, ancient rA-Hnt36. The pyramid of Senusret
II shows some differences from the early pyramids of the Twelfth
Dynasty. The entrance was no longer located in the north, but in
the south. Moreover, the whole complex, with the layout of the
subterranean chamber of the pyramid and trees around the com-
plex, seems to have copied the tomb of Osiris37, relecting per-
haps new ideas about the destiny of the king in the netherworld.
Next to the valley temple, some hundred metres east of the pyra-
mid, a new town, known today under the name of Kahun, was
founded, with a rectangular enclosure wall and an orthogonal
street plan. This new settlement remained occupied at least until
the early Thirteenth Dynasty. It is probable that, initially, it was
a town for the pyramid builders; but subsequently it became an
important local centre, housing the priests and lay personnel re-
sponsible for the cult of the deceased king.
In 1889, during his excavation at el-Lahun, Petrie found, in
various parts of the settlement, some papyri, mainly dated to the

36
The meaning of this place-name has been a long debated question: SCHARFF 1924a,
51; GARDINER 1943, 37-46; GARDINER 1947, 116*; YOYOTTE 1958, 428-429; GOEDICKE 1963,
88-90; DREW-BEAR 1979, 120; BONNEAU 1993, 9, 42; MONTET 1961, 207; GOMAÀ 1986, 399;
CRUZ-URIBE 1992, 63-66. Most likely, it may be translated as the ‘Mouth of marshes’ and
it denotes the marshy territory east of the Bahr Yussef, at the entrance of the region:
KEMP, MERRILLEES 1980, 15; BEINLICH 1991, 289-291; LUFT 1998, 2. It should be noted
that in the sources it is connected neither with the pyramid complex of Senusret II nor
with its close town.
37
QUIRKE 1997, 45; GRAJETZKI 2006, 50.

– 30 –
 The Middle Kingdom

end of the reign of Amenemhat III and his immediate successors

and now kept in the Petrie Museum in London. Years later, in
1899, a large number of Middle Kingdom papyri appeared on
the market. These were soon connected by Borchardt with the
lot retrieved by Petrie38. They are now in the Egyptian Museum
in Berlin and constitute a homogeneous group, including the
business papers of Horemsaf, a temple scribe active mainly in
the early reign of Amenemhat III. Both the Petrie papyri and the
Berlin papyri, all of them in hieratic, are important sources of-
fering an insight into the administration, cults and priesthood of
the pyramid complex of Senusret II.
In the hieroglyphic and hieratic sources of el-Lahun, two
place-names are often mentioned, sxm s-n-wsrt mAa-xrw and Htp
s-n-wsrt mAa-xrw. Some scholars have argued that the irst one
designated the funerary temple of Senusret II and the second one
the town near his pyramid39. On the basis of the papyri, Ulrich
Luft has suggested that Hetep Senusret indicates the residence of
the local governor (HAty-a), while Sekhem Senusret was originally
the name of the funerary temple of the king, and then became a
name for the whole territory of el-Lahun and its pyramid40. On
the contrary, Stephen Quirke has claimed that Sekhem Senusret
should be identiied as the pyramid complex and Hetep Senusret
as its orthogonally planned town41.
According to these papyri, in the pyramid complex the most
important forms of veneration were those attributed to the dead
king and to Anubis ‘on his mountain’ (tpy dw=f)42. Indeed, be-
sides Senusret II, the only gods to receive offering were Anubis
– alone or together with the king – and in one case, together with
Anubis and the king, Sobek ‘lord of Ra-sehuy’ (sbk nb rA-sHwy), a
place located very likely not far away from el-Lahun43.
One of the most controversial issues on el-Lahun is the uncer-
tain number of its temples. Quirke has pointed out that there is

38
BORCHARDT 1899, 89.
39
HELCK 1958, 248-250; MONTET 1961, 209; GOMAÀ 1986, 403-405, 407, 410; ALTENMÜLLER
1992, 34. See also GUNN 1945, 1106-107; STADELMANN 1985, 234-235; DAVID 1989, 101;
DAVID 1996, 53-60.
40
LUFT 1998, 1-41, especially 18, 31, 38.
41
QUIRKE 1997, 33.
42
QUIRKE 1997.
43
QUIRKE 1997, 24-48. For Ra-sehuy, see ZECCHI 2001, 92-96. The name of this form of
Sobek occurs not rarely in the papyri from el-Lahun: pUC 32210 (GRIFFITH 1898, pl.
XXXV), pUC 32204 (GRIFFITH 1898, pl. XXXII), UC 32205 (GRIFFITH 1898, pl. XXXIII),
pBerlin 10069 (QUIRKE 1997, 29) and possibly pUC 32306. Petrie found a statue (UC
14628: PETRIE 1890, pl. XI.12) with an offering formula to Sobek ‘lord of Ra-sehuy’.
Moreover, there are a few cylinders inscribed with the names of Middle Kingdom
kings bearing the epithet ‘beloved of Sobek lord of Ra-sehuy’: YOYOTTE 1957, 88-89;
DUNHAM, JANSSEN 1960, 55, no. 28-1-480, ig. 7. See also LEITZ 2002, III, 881.

– 31 –
Sobek of Shedet. The Crocodile God in the Fayyum in the Dynastic Period

no archaeological trace of a separate temple of Anubis in el-La-

hun and that the available data suggest that a single institution
maintained the cults of both Senusret II and Anubis. Therefore,
the cult of the latter was housed within the same building or
complex of the cult of the deceased king44. The fact that in the
papyri the word ‘temple’, Hwt-ntr, is not followed by any quali-
ier could imply that there was actually a single temple, mak-
ing any other speciication unnecessary. On the contrary, Luft
has argued that the papyri show enough evidence for the exis-
tence of at least four different temples in el-Lahun: one for the
deceased king, one for Anubis ‘on his mountain’, one for Hathor
and one for Sobek45. To support his hypothesis, he has stressed
that in pBerlin 1001246, containing the irst dated heliac rise of
star Sirius, the ‘mayor’ and ‘superintendent of the temple’ (HAty-a
imy-r Hwt-ntr) nb-kAw-ra addresses the ‘chief lector priest’ (hry-Hb
Hry-tpy) ppy-Htp and asks that he calls the attention of the wnwt
of the ‘temple of Sekhem Senusret true of voice, of Anubis who is
on his mountain, of Sobek […]’ (Hwt-ntr nt sxm s-n-wsrt mAa-xrw
nt impw tpy dw=f sbk…) on this astronomical event. According
to Luft, this text suggests that the three mentioned temples were
separate institutions47.
The surviving letters from the Petrie excavations at el-Lahun
contain some references to gods: Atum ‘lord of Heliopolis’ (nb
iwnw)48, Ra-Harakhty49, Soped nb iAbtt50, Heryshef ‘lord of Ne-
nnesu’ (nb nn-nswt)51, Hathor52, Hathor ‘lady of Dendera’ (nbt
iwnt)53 Hathor ‘lady of Atih’ (nbt tp-iHw)54, Sobek ‘lord of Ra-se-
huy’, Khenty-khety ‘lord of Kemwer’ (nb km-wy)55, Montu ‘lord of
Thebes’ (nb wAst)56 and Amon ‘lord of the thrones of the two lands’
(nb nswt tAwy)57. ‘Sobek Shedety – Horus who resides in Shedet’
(sbk Sdty Hr Hry-ib Sdt) is one of the most recurrent deities in these
letters. His name occurs in the letters UC 32114 (together with
Heryshef, ‘lord of Nennesu’) (doc. 74), UC 32120 (doc. 75), UC
32131 (together with ntrw nbw, ‘all the gods’) (doc. 76), UC 32202

44
QUIRKE 1997, 33.
45
LUFT 1998, 1-41, especially 18, 31, 38.
46
BORCHARDT 1899, 99; SETHE 1924, 97; MÜLLER 1996, 20-21.
47
See also ZECCHI 2001, 101-102.
48
UC 32198
49
UC 32198.
50
UC 32118F; UC 32126; UC 32198; UC 32199.
51
UC 32114; UC 32206; UC 32284.
52
UC 32196.
53
UC 32149.
54
pKahun V.1 (GRIFFITH 1898, pl. XXX); UC 32200; UC 32201. See also: pBerlin 10055.
55
UC 32213A; UC 32156B; UC 32204; UC 32213.
56
UC 32122; UC 32123; UC 32212.
57
UC 32122; UC 32123; UC 32212.

– 32 –
 The Middle Kingdom

(together with Khenty-khety ‘lord of Kemwer and Amenemhat

III, nswt-bit n-m-Aat-ra anx dt r nHH) (doc.77), UC 32210 (together
with Sobek ‘lord of Ra-sehuy’ and Senusret II, nswt-bit xa-xpr-ra
mAa-xrw) (doc. 78) and UC 32214 (together with Senusret II, nswt-
bit xa-xpr-ra mAa-xrw, and ‘all the gods’) (doc. 79)58. As suggested by
Quirke, the references to these gods cannot be regarded alone,
without further evidence, as proofs of existing cults59. The issue
of the presence of a cult of Sobek of Shedet at el-Lahun remains
also unresolved. An examination of some private objects (stelae,
statues and offering-tables) indicates that, at least on a funerary
level, the preferred deities by the local inhabitants were, once
again, Anubis ‘on his mountain’, Geb, Osiris ‘foremost of the east,
lord of Abydos’, Ptah-Sokar, Ptah-Sokar-Osiris, Sokar-Osiris60.
On some objects, the deceased are called imAx xr Ptah-Sokar61,
Anubis ‘on his mountain’62 and Sobek ‘lord of Busiris’ (nb ddw)
and Sobek ‘lord of Gereg-ba-ef’ (nb grg-bA=f)63. Inside a house in
the town of el-Lahun, Petrie brought to light a statue64, which
belonged to the rx-nswt sA-sbk, showing two offering-formulas,
one for Ptah-Sokar and one for Sobek ‘lord of Sumenu’ (sbk nb
swmnw). This form of Sobek is never mentioned in the papyri,
however the existence of a cult in his honour seems corrobo-
rated by a few other documents. These include some cylinders
with names of Middle Kingdom kings with the epithet ‘beloved
of Sobek lord of Sumenu’ from el-Lahun65 and a wooden frag-
ment of the Middle Kingdom belonging to the ‘irst hem-priest of
Sobek lord of Sumenu’ Hor[…] (Hm-ntr tpy sbk nb swmnw Hr…)
and found by Petrie66. The pBerlin 1003167 contains a letter of a
‘hem-priest of Sobek’ (Hm-ntr sbk) with a list of goods brought
to the temple of Sobek, but no further indication. The pBerlin

58
See also doc. 82.
59
QUIRKE 1997, 27. For a possible cult of Khenty-khety at el-Lahun, see also: VERNUS
1978, 15; for Soped nb iAbtt, see: SCHUMACHER 1988, 119-121, 291; DAVID 1986, 133, 141;
KEMP 1989, 156; DAVID 1991, 36-37; QUIRKE 1997, 26-27; HIRSCH 2004, 83.
60
ZECCHI 2001, 113-115. Within the funerary chamber of the pyramid of Senusret II,
Petrie found an offering-table (CG 23043) with two offering-formulas addressed to
Anubis ‘on his mountain’ and Osiris ‘lord of Busiris’: PETRIE 1891, 4, pl. III; KAMAL
1909, 38-39.
61
PETRIE 1890, pl. X.65; PETRIE, BRUNTON, MURRAY 1923, 34, 42, pl. XLVII.19; XLVIII
(= UC 6641, STEWART 1983, 27, no. 94).
62
PETRIE 1891, pl. XII.11.
63
PETRIE 1891, pl. XII.11; STEWART 1979, 35, no. 148, pl.36 (UC 14339). On these forms
of Sobek, see also: ZECCHI 2004b, 17-19, and COLLIER, QUIRKE 2006, 259 (UC 32146G).
64
CG 405: PETRIE 1891, 13, pl. XII.14; BORCHARDT 1925, 17-18; PM IV 112.
65
KUENTZ 1929, 128; YOYOTTE 1957, 87.
66
PETRIE, BRUNTON, MURRAY 1923, pl. LXX.6; ZECCHI 1999, 15, no. 60, 81-82. For a wab-
priest of Sobek lord of Sumenu of the Middle Kingdom and who might have been
active at el-Lahun, see ZECCHI 1999, 65, no. 271, 88.
67
SCHARFF 1924, 32; LUFT 1998, 35.

– 33 –
Sobek of Shedet. The Crocodile God in the Fayyum in the Dynastic Period

1004768 mentions a ‘doorkeeper of the temple of Sobek’, [iry]-aA n

Hwt-ntr nt sbk, but there is no knowing if this was the Sobek of
Sumenu, of Ra-sehuy or of Shedet.
The roles of these three forms of Sobek within the pyramid
complex or in the whole territory of el-Lahun are uncertain. If,
on the one hand, the name of Sobek of Shedet occurs in the pa-
pyri, on the other hand, Sobek of Sumenu is mentioned in hi-
eroglyphic sources, both on royal and private objects. Actually,
the only crocodile god to be mentioned both in the papyri and
in the hieroglyphic documents and to be the beneiciary of offer-
ings within the pyramid complex of Senusret II is Sobek ‘lord of
Ra-sehuy’, who, very likely, was the speciic local crocodile deity.
In pBerlin 10056A, there are references to offerings (Htpw-ntr)
for Senusret II from the temple of Sobek of Shedet (Hwt-ntr nt sbk
Sdt) and from the temple of Hathor lady of Atih (Hwt-ntr nt HtHr
nbt tp-iHw) (doc. 81)69. In pBerlin 10203 four items of divine offer-
ings (Htpw-ntr) for Anubis tpy dw=f in Sekhem Senusret are men-
tioned, all coming from the ‘stalls of the divine offerings of Sobek
Shedety’, supervised by (?) Hetep Senusret (mdt nt Htpw-ntr sbk
Sdty xrp Hr Htp s-n-wsrt mAa-xrw) (doc. 83). The pUC 32179 (doc.
80) contains an account of cattle herds, citing the ‘stalls of the
divine offering of Sobek (Shedety, which are under this town)’,
mdt nt [Htpw]-ntr sbk and mdt nt [Htpw]-ntr sbk Sdty ntt r-xt n niwt
tn, and ‘cattle of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Sehetep-ib-
ra (= Amenemhat I), true of voice, which are in charge of this
town’, mnmnt nt nswt-bit sHtp-ib-ra mAa-xrw ntt r-xt n niwt tn. Apart
from slight differences in the usage of terminology, these papyri
show that the offerings were brought from the temples of Sobek
of Shedet and of Hathor lady of Atih, but is far from clear where
these two temples were located. According to Luft, they were in
el-Lahun70, while Quirke has claimed that they were in Shedet
and Atih respectively, both quite close to the pyramid complex of
Senusret II71. Unfortunately, we do not know how widespread the
cult of Sobek of Shedet in the Fayyum region was before the reign
of Amenemhat III. It is worthwhile to note that the pWilbour of
the Twentieth Dynasty records a ‘house of Sobek lord of Shed-
et, which is in rA-Hnt’ (pr-sbk nb Sdt nty m rA-Hnt) (A 15, 25) (doc.
146)72. One might suggest that this temple was already existing
during the Middle Kingdom and that it could be identiied with

68
KAPLONY-HECKEL 1971a, 27 note 3.
69
See also pCairo JdE 71580 (KAPLONY-HECKEL 1971, 266) and pBerlin 10201,
mentioning […] m Hwt-ntr sbk […] (KAPLONY-HECKEL 1971, 104).
70
LUFT 1998, 20-21.
71
QUIRKE 1997, 26, 28, 33.
72
GARDINER 1941-1948, 43-44.

– 34 –
 The Middle Kingdom

the temple of Sobek of Shedet of the el-Lahun papyri. This insti-

tution was not necessarily located within the pyramid complex of
Senusret II, but in its territory and, therefore, easily administered
by oficials of Hetep Senusret, as the papyri indicate. However,
as has been stressed by Quirke, Sekhem Senusret had no stalls
of its own for cattle. One might imply that the temple of Sobek
of Shedet, administered by Hetep Senusret, was wealthy enough
not only to maintain its own cult but also to supply el-Lahun with
goods and meat; it is probable that this might have been the case
also for the temple of Sobek in Shedet, the most important insti-
tution for Sobek cult in the whole Fayyum.
Evidence of Senusret II’s interest in Sobek of Shedet seems
to be restricted to a single surviving cylinder, bearing an inscrip-
tion in which the king calls himself ‘beloved of Sobek lord of
Shedet (sbk nb Sdt) (doc. 8)73. The king, in his pyramid complex,
did not abandon his predecessors’ tradition, which made Anubis
tpy dw=f one of the most attested deities in the royal pyramid
complexes, most likely due to his funerary connotations 74. At
el-Lahun, a certain degree of attention was paid to Sobek nb
swmnw, of the Theban area, and to a local form of the crocodile
god, Sobek nb rA-sHwy, who could share offerings with the dead
king and Anubis, albeit only occasionally. In this period, it is as
if Sobek of Shedet fails to attract due attention, and a lack of ac-
knowledgement for the main god of the Fayyum is perceived. His
main role at el-Lahun, at least apparently, was indeed not that of
a recipient of offerings, but of a provider of meat and goods for
the cults of Senusret II and Anubis.

The temple of Qasr el-Sagha

A further evidence of the importance of the Fayyum in Mid-

dle Kingdom is provided by the temple of Qasr el-Sagha, north
of the lake Qarun, 20 km north-east of Soknopaiou Nesos. Since
the building is completely devoid of decorations, its date re-
mains uncertain, even though researches on the site, carried
out by Dieter Arnold, have shown that, most likely, it was built

73
In another cylinder, Senusret II call himself ‘beloved of Sobek niwty’. This form of
Sobek is attested only in another cylinder, where the king’s name is unfortunately lost:
YOYOTTE 1957, 91. It seems likely that Sobek niwty is just another name for Sobek of
Shedet. The two signs of ‘city’, used to write niwty, might be a sort of abbreviated
writing for Sdty. But niwty and Sdty are also two nisbes, indicating the same crocodile
god: the ‘local’ Sobek is Sobek Shedety, residing in Shedet, the city par excellence
dedicated to the cult of this deity. See also: GOMAÀ 1984, 794-795; GOMAÀ 1986, 398;
ZECCHI 2001, 49-50.
74
ARNOLD 1977a, 12-13; QUIRKE 1997, 44.

– 35 –
Sobek of Shedet. The Crocodile God in the Fayyum in the Dynastic Period

in the Twelfth Dynasty, more precisely during the reign of Se-

nusret II or Senusret III75.
The building, in sandstone, measures 8.5 x 21.3 m and con-
sists of an offering hall, which gives access to seven chapels, of
which the central one is larger than the others. It is possible that
the original temple project included other architectural elements,
such as an inner court and a hypostyle hall, and that the works
were never concluded. In the area of the temple, a workmen’s
settlement and a small necropolis of the Middle Kingdom have
been brought to light76. The temple itself must have been a land-
mark in the history of the Fayyum of the Middle Kingdom, a sign
of the presence of the ruling dynasty on the borders of the region.
But its real function remains unknown77. Arnold has also sug-
gested that the temple of Qasr el-Sagha might never have been
used for a permanent cult and that it might have been visited by
priests only on special occasions78. In any case, it seems plausible
that the seven chapels were intended to house seven statues. To
my knowledge, the only other Egyptian temple with the same
number of chapels was built by Sety I at Abydos, where three
chapels were for the Osirian triad, three for the so-called ‘impe-
rial triad’ – that is Amon, Ra-Harakhty and Ptah - and one chapel
for the king himself. In their turn, the two triads and the king
formed another triad79. Despite the distance in time and space
between the temples of Qasr el-Sagha and Abydos, it cannot be
ruled out, even though it is just speculative, that also the temple
in the Fayyum was inspired by the same theological principle:
six chapels dedicated to two triads and one chapel for the king.
The main god of the Fayyum was perhaps among this group;
his usual epithet is the only reference to a deity which survived
from Qasr el-Sagha: outside the temple, Caton-Thompson found
a small fragment of basalt with the inscription […] Sdty mr[y…],
followed probably by a royal name80.

75
ARNOLD, ARNOLD 1979, 20-21. The date is based on the pottery found in the site, on
C14 dating and on the remains of alabaster vases. It has also been noted that some
architectural characteristics of the temple of Qasr el-Sagha have a parallel in the
funerary temple of Senusret III at Dahshur.
76
See, for example: GINTER, HEFLIK, KOZLOWSKI, SLIWA 1980, 105-169; SLIWA 1986, 167-
179; SLIWA 1987-1988, 89-216.
77
ARNOLD, ARNOLD 1979, 24-25.
78
ARNOLD, ARNOLD 1979, 25. See also HIRSCH 2004, 85. It is worthwhile to mention the
head-rest of the Twelfth Dynasty in the Brookly Museum (14650) belonging to the
‘lector priest’ (hry-Hb) and smr waty, xtmty-bity, imy-r smw and imy-r smyt Nekhet.
JAMES 1974, 41, no. 43, pl. XXXIII, writes that the object comes from Soknopaiou
Nesos. But this provenance has been rejected by GOMAÀ 1986, 432, who claimed that it
was actually discovered at Qasr el-Sagha.
79
TE VELDE 1971, 80-86, especially 82.
80
UC 3993: CATON,THOMSON, GARDNER 1935, 132-133; ARNOLD, ARNOLD 1979, 20, note 50.

– 36 –
 The Middle Kingdom

The reign of Senusret III

There is only one surviving document quoting both the names

of Senusret III and Sobek of Shedet. It is a fragmentary inscrip-
tion preserved on three blocks in the Museum of Berlin (15801-
15803), which will be discussed later.
Unless Senusret III was the builder of the temple of Qasr el-
Sagha, this king, who chose Dahshur as his burial ground, did
not show particular interests for the Fayyum or its main god.
However, it is worth noting that pBerlin 1003B from el-Lahun
contains an inventory of statue processions, among which is an
ivory statue of Senusret III anx dt r nHH and that pBerlin 1003C
mentions statues of Senusret II, Senusret III and two queens81.
The expression anx dt r nHH might suggest that these statues were
dedicated in el-Lahun during the reign of Senusret III himself,
who, in this way, evidently intended to participate in the rituals
for the cult of his deceased father82.

Amenemhat III, Sobek of Shedet and kingship

As we have seen, Petrie outlined a brief history of the tem-

ple of Shedet from the Middle Kingdom to the Roman Period83.
However, our knowledge of the sequence of monumental build-
ing programme in Shedet during the Twelfth Dynasty is very
scanty. The Old Kingdom temple, of which nothing is known,
was very probably replaced with a new one or simply enlarged
by a king, whose name, at present, remains unknown. If the
dyad of Amenemhat I and the statue of Senusret I were actually
dedicated by these kings in the temple of Shedet, it seems logi-
cal to believe that, already in that period, the locality must have
been a cult centre interesting enough to receive royal statues.
The monument of Abgig also corroborate this hypothesis. But
to assert that one or both of them were involved in the construc-
tion of the temple of Sobek would be far-fetched, since it must
be said that at present no evidence whatsoever exists to support
this claim. It seems instead possible to state that Amenemhat III
was involved in the construction of the local temple. As is well

81
QUIRKE 1997, 31. For the presence of statues of Senusret III at el-Lahun, see also
pBerlin 10248 and 10313.
82
See also HIRSCH 2004, 103. See also the letter in the pUC 32092 for an uncertain
rewarding of the name of the king (nswt-bit xa-kAw (?)-ra), followed by mAa-xrw, in a
wish for favour in greeting: COLLIER, QUIRKE 2002, 4-5. Senusret III’s name is attested at
el-Lahun thanks also to a scarab and three cylinders: PETRIE , BRUNTON, MURRAY, 1923,
33, 41, pls. LXIII.10, LXIV.210.
83
PETRIE 1889, 57-59.

– 37 –
Sobek of Shedet. The Crocodile God in the Fayyum in the Dynastic Period

known, this king was a very active constructor in the Fayyum.

He undertook a building and religious programme that aimed at
emphasising both his person and local cults. His building proj-
ects were clustered around at least four sites: Hawara, with his
pyramid complex, Medinet Madi, with a temple for Renenutet
and Sobek, Biahmu, and Shedet. Probably, the king heavily fa-
voured the Fayyum because it was chosen as his burial ground
and because, very likely, he carried out, perhaps in the footsteps
of some of his predecessors, irrigation works to control the lake
level and to improve the exploitation of the agricultural potenti-
alities of the region.
At Biahmu, at about 7 km north of Medinet el-Fayyum, there
are the remains of two large stone pedestals, 6.4 m high, that
once bore two seated quartzite statues of Amenemhat III84. Pet-
rie estimated that these colossi were 12 m high. Their identiica-
tion as images of Amenemhat III had already been surmised by
ancient authors85 and was conirmed by Labib Habachi, who in
the same area found fragments with the names of the king86.
Each statue was surrounded by a sloping wall and located at the
centre of an open court. Their function remains unknown. Ha-
bachi claimed that they were erected by Amenemhat III to cel-
ebrate the construction of a dyke to control the level of the water
in the region. It has also been suggested that they were recipients
of a cult in honour of the king, who was worshipped as creator
and fertility god87. Since it is likely that in the Middle Kingdom
the lake extended in the south as far as Biahmu (15 m above sea
level), it is possible that the two statues ornamented the dam or
a quay, which functioned as port for the ancient Shedet88. How-
ever, the sources do not reveal who was the irst king to start to
reclaim land in the Fayyum depression. It has been suggested
that Amenemhat I restored or created a communication between
the Nile and Lake Moeris89. Others have claimed that Senusret II
was the irst builder of a dyke across the Hawara channel90. Con-
sidering the inluence of the region during the Twelfth Dynasty, it
is plausible that more than one king contributed to the improve-

84
PETRIE 1889, 54-54; HABACHI 1941, 722-732, pls. LXXXIII-LXXXVI; PM IV, 98;
EGGEBRECHT 1975, 782-783; DAVOLI 1998, 360; FREED 2002, 111-112.
85
HABACHI 1941, 728-729.
86
HABACHI 1941, 724-728, pls. LXXXIV-LXXXVI. See also a small fragment found by
Petrie (PETRIE 1889, pl. XXVII.1) with two lines of inscription: […] nswt-bit n-mAat-ra
gm.n Hm=f […] wA r dw Hr=s wd Hm=f […], which seems to allude to repair works
carried out by the king in the Fayyum (PETRIE 1889, 55; HABACHI 1941, 725-726;
LEPROHON 1980, 127).
87
ARNOLD 2003, 32-33.
88
ARNOLD 2003, 32-33.
89
BELL 1975, 251.
90
See, for example, HAYES 1971, 511.

– 38 –
 The Middle Kingdom

ment of its irrigation system. It is also very likely that Amenem-

hat III, too, accomplished irrigation works in the region, even
though it is not possible to ascertain to what extent. An inter-
esting reference to works effected by this king in the Fayyum is
offered by Diodorus91; as suggested by Ronald J. Leprohon92, it
is possible, as well, that a great portion of the irrigation works
carried out during the whole Twelfth Dynasty was eventually as-
cribed to Amenemhat III for his role of great builder in the area
and for the presence in the region of a cult in his honour.
Amenemhat III’s interest for the Fayyum and its main god
lasted for most of his reign. As a dated Wadi Hammamat inscrip-
tion indicates93, the pyramid complex at Hawara was still in con-
struction at the end of the second decade of his reign, while the
temple of Medinet Madi was likely built quite late, possibly in the
ifth decade. As for Shedet, no document coming from this settle-
ment is dated, so nothing can be said on the period of the works
in the temple of Sobek. Archaeological evidence would be nec-
essary to assess the plan, decoration and scale of the temple of
Sobek, which, therefore, remain unknown. Moreover, it is worth-
while to note that for the Middle Kingdom there is no proof of
the existence of extensive hard stone temples for local deities
in Egypt94. The dificulty in the attempt to evaluate the scale of
Sobek’s temple is increased by the fact that some monuments of
Amenemhat III are said to come from the Fayyum, but not from
a speciic site of the region. Moreover, even the architectural ele-
ments discovered at Medinet el-Fayyum which belonged to this
king might actually come from the pyramid complex of Hawara,
and, as Quirke has pointed out, ‘moveable monoliths cannot be
ascribed with any certainty to their modern location’95. Never-
theless, Amenemhat III attributed great importance to Sobek,
not only in Hawara, but also in Medinet Madi and it would be
quite surprising that the king neglected the main cult-centre
of the god. Besides, the combined evidence from Medinet el-
Fayyum seems to support the hypothesis of the existence of a
local temple, large enough to contain statues and, very probably,
a hall with monolithic columns.

91
‘He also dug a canal… from the river to the lake, and by the canal, sometimes turning
the river into the lake and sometimes shutting it off again, he furnished the farmers
with an opportune suplly of water…’ (I, 52).
92
LEPROHON 1980, 202-204.
93
COUYAT, MONTET 1912, 51-52, pl. XIV.
94
KEMP, in TRIGGER, KEMPL, O’CONNOR, LLOYD 1983, 103-104, who has pointed out the
small scale of the temples for cults for deities in comparison with those for the royal
cult prior to the New Kingdom. See also KEMP 1989, 65-79.
95
QUIRKE 1997, 40.

– 39 –
 Sobek of Shedet. The Crocodile God in the Fayyum in the Dynastic Period

Fig. 3 - Relief Berlin Monuments of Amenemhat III found at Medinet el-Fayyum:

16953.
Wall relief Berlin 11584 (limestone)96
Wall relief Berlin 11585 (limestone) (doc. 10)
Wall relief Berlin 11586 (limestone) (doc. 11)
Wall relief Berlin 11587 (limestone)97
Wall relief Berlin 11588 (limestone)98
Wall relief Berlin 11589 (limestone)99
Wall relief Berlin11590 (limestone)100
Wall relief AEIN 822 (limestone)101
Fragmentary relief (granite) (doc. 15)
Fragmentary relief (granite)102
Fragment (granite) found by Petrie103
Fragment (granite) found by Petrie (doc. 14)
Seventeen fragments of papyrus bundle columns (red granite)
(doc. 17)
Fragment of column, found by Lepsius being used as a threshold
(doc. 18)
Statue CG 395 (black granite)104

96
PM IV, 98; ÄIB I, 139; HIRSCH 2004, 346, no. 290.
97
PM IV, 98; HIRSCH 2004, 347, no. 294.
98
PM IV, 98; ÄIB I, 139; HIRSCH 2004, 347, no. 293.
99
PM IV, 98; HIRSCH 2004, 347-348, no. 296.
100
PM IV, 98; HIRSCH 2004, 347, no. 295.
101
PM IV, 98; KOEFOED-PETERSEN 1956, 29-30, no. 30, pl. 24; HIRSCH 2004, 349-350, no.
301.
102
DAVOLI, ABD EL-AAL 2001, 206-207, pl. X.
103
PM IV 98; PETRIE 1889, 57, pl. XXVII.10.
104
PM IV, 99. See also, for example, MARIETTE 1872, pl. 39a; BORCHARDT 1925, 13, pl.
64; EVERS 1929, pls. 127-128; RUSSMAN 1989, 66-67, no. 29; HIRSCH 2004, 355, no. 320.

– 40 –
 The Middle Kingdom

Monuments of Amenemhat III from the Fayyum, but of un- Fig. 4 -Relief British
certain provenance: Museum EA 1072.

Block Berlin 16953 (said to come from Kiman Fares, limestone)

(doc. 12)105 (Fig. 3)
Blocks Berlin 15801-15803 (limestone) (doc. 9)106
Block Berlin 15804 (limestone)107
Block British Museum EA 1072 (limestone) (doc. 13)108 (Fig. 4)
Block discovered at Abuksa (limestone) (doc. 16)
Offering table CG 20699 (doc. 31)
Fragment of a statue base CG 769 (doc. 29)
Fragment of a statue base of the Museum of Saint Georges (Cai-
ro) (granite) (doc. 30)
Fragment of a statue of the king with nemes (sandstone)109.

With Amenemhat III, Sobek of Shedet became the best exam-

ple of the success of the crocodile-gods in the Twelfth Dynasty.
In a wide range of objects, this king adopted, as had never hap-
pened before, the epithet ‘beloved of’ Sobek of Shedet. Here the
god may appear alone (mainly in small cylinders) or syncretised

105
The relief consists now in a few fragments.The photograph of the relief was taken
before World War II, when it was destroyed.
106
HIRSCH 2004, 345, no. 288, assignes these blocks to Medinet el-Fayyum.
107
PM IV, 103; ÄIB I, 138; HIRSCH 2004, 346, no. 289 (who assignes this block to
Medinet el-Fayyum).
108
On the provenance of this relief, see: PM IV, 101; HALL 1913a, 7, pl. 15 (who assignes
the block to the Labyrinth of Hawara); PARKINSON 1999, 118, no. 35 (‘…the exact
provenance is unrecorded…’); UPHILL 2000, 34, 44, 66 (Hawara); HIRSCH 2004, 348-349,
no. 298 (who assignes the block to Medinet el-Fayyum); BLÖM-BOER 2006, 111-113
(who assignes the block to Hawara).
109
VANDIER 1958, 201, 597, pl. LXVI,2; BLÖM-BOER 2006, 286.

– 41 –
Sobek of Shedet. The Crocodile God in the Fayyum in the Dynastic Period

with Horus (mainly on architectural elements): mry xnt Sdt (doc.

34); mry sbk Sdt/Sdty (doc. 27-28, 33, 35-36, 38-51)110; mry sbk wr
Sdt (doc. 37) and mry sbk Sdt/Sdty Hr Hry-ib Sdt (doc. 10, 12-13, 17,
20-21, 29, 31, 52-53)111.
The majority of the objects found at Medinet el-Fayyum bear
hieroglyphic inscriptions associated with the names of the king
and of Sobek of Shedet or Sobek Shedety – Horus who resides in
Shedet112. In a fragment of a wall relief, Amenemhat III is called
‘beloved of [Sobek] foremost of Ra-sehuy (xnty rA-sHwy)’ (Berlin
11584). Petrie discovered two fragments in granite which had
been re-used in a pylon of the Ptolemaic temple. One cites the king
and Horus ‘who resides in Shedet’, the other might refer to the ar-
rival of Amenemhat III in the Fayyum: ‘[…] his lord came to the
land of the lake to […] the house of the lord113 […], [the Horus] Aa-
baw, the two ladies Itjiuta[wy], the Horus of Gold [Wakh-ankh],
the beautiful god, the lord [of the two lands…]’114. Another frag-
ment (Berlin 11588) mentions tA skr, the ‘land of Sokar’, perhaps
located in the territory of Atih115. Also the drop-shaped alabastron
made of serpentinite discovered in the royal tomb of Tell MiSrife/
Qatna (Syria) (doc. 51), with a hieroglyphic inscription mention-
ing Amenemhat III ‘beloved of Sobek Shedety’, might originally
come from the temple of Shedet, where, as it has been suggested,
might have been used for religious purpose116.
An examination of the inscriptions from the Fayyum, and espe-
cially those supposed to come from Medinet el-Fayyum, indicates
that Amenemhat III wanted to impose the idea of a crocodile-god
completely interwoven with kingship. Unlike other forms of this
deity, such as, for example, Sobek of Sumenu117, who preferred
to be associated with the solar-god Ra, Sobek’s distinctness in the
Fayyum was his syncretism with Horus. Sobek of Shedet became a
creature designed above all for the speciic purpose of heightening

110
See also the fragmentary statue British Museum EA 35361 in white quartzite,
representing the lower part of a seated king, probably Amenemhat III, with epithet
‘beloved of Sobek Shedety’ (doc. 65).
111
Possibly also the block from Abuksa (doc. 16).
112
BERLIN 11585 (doc. 10), 11586 (doc. 11), 15801-15803 (doc. 9), 16953 (doc. 12),
British Museum EA 1072 (doc. 13), relief in granite (doc. 15), fragments of columns
found by Habachi (doc. 17), statue CG 769 (doc. 29) and statue (doc. 30).
113
Or ‘[his] lord’, nb[=f]?
114
[…] iit nb=f (written with the sign of the hawk on a stendart) r tA-S r […] pr n nb […]
[… Hr] aA-bAw nbty iti-iwat-tA[wy] Hr-nbw [wAH-anx] ntr nfr nb [tAwy…].
115
YOYOTTE 1962, 89-93.
116
AHRENS 2006, 27-29, has pointed out that the exact origin and purpose of the vessel
remain hypotetical. Also the reason of the presence of this monument in the royal
tomb is uncertain. The alabastron might belong to the group of objects looted from
Shedet during the Hysos period.
117
On this form of Sobek, see BETRÒ 2006, 91-102 (with previous bibliography).

– 42 –