Temple S and Town at El Lahun A Study of

Introduction
Archaism and Innovation
i
Archaism and Innovation: Studies in the Culture of Middle Kingdom Egypt
Granodiorite statue of Hetep from Saqqara (Egyptian Museum, Cairo; see page 59, fig. 17).
ii
Introduction
Archaism and Innovation:

Studies in the Culture of Middle Kingdom Egypt
Edited by
David P. Silverman
William Kelly Simpson
Josef Wegner
New Haven: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Yale University
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology
2009
iii
Typeset in New Baskerville

Copyedited, typeset, designed, and produced by Peter Der Manuelian
Cover image: Reconstruction of a birth-brick scene of mother and child;

painting by Jennifer Wegner (see page 457, fig. 7)
isbn 13: 978-0-9802065-1-7

isbn 10: 0-9802065-1-0
© 2009 New Haven: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Yale University
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology
All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy,
recording, or any other information storage and retrieval system,
without prior permission in writing from the publisher
Printed in the United States of America by

Sawyer Printers, Charlestown, Massachusetts
Bound by Acme Bookbinding, Charlestown, Massachusetts
iv
Introduction
Table of Contents
Introduction: Archaism and Innovation: Towards Defining the

Cultural Expression of Egypt’s Middle Kingdom ix–xi
David P. Silverman, William Kelly Simpson, Josef Wegner
i. Royal statuaRy
A Middle Kingdom Masterwork in Boston: MFA 2002.609 1–15
Rita E. Freed and Jack A. Josephson
The Statue Acc. No. 25.6 in The Metropolitan Museum of Art:
Two Versions of Throne Decorations 17–45
Dorothea Arnold
ii. a RchitectuRe and the Royal MoRtuaRy tRadition

Non-Royal Burials in the Teti Pyramid Cemetery and the Early Twelfth Dynasty 47–101
David P. Silverman
The Tomb of Senwosret III at Abydos: Considerations on the Origins
and Development of the Royal Amduat-Tomb 103–169
Josef Wegner
iii. l ahun studies

Temple(s) and Town at el-Lahun: A Study of the Ancient Toponyms
in the El-Lahun Papyri 171–203
Zoltán Horváth
Lots I and II from Lahun 205–261
Mark Collier
iV. text and l anguage

Old and New in the Middle Kingdom 263–275
James P. Allen
The Stela of Sehetepibre (CG 20538): Borrowings and Innovation 277–293
Ronald J. Leprohon
V. a dMinistRation
Rulers and Administrators—Dynasty 12: The Rule of the House of Itj-towy
with Some Personal Reminiscences 295–304
William Kelly Simpson
Four Titles: What is the Difference? 305–317
Stephen Quirke
v
Vi. FuneRaRy a Rts

Funerary Pottery in the Middle Kingdom: Archaism or Revival? 319–339
Susan J. Allen
Funerary Equipment from Deir el-Bersha in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston 341–358
Denise Doxey
False Doors and History: The First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom 359–425
Edward Brovarski
Vii. R eligion and iconogRaphy

The Early History of “New Kingdom” Netherworld Iconography:
A Late Middle Kingdom Apotropaic Wand Reconsidered 427–445
Joshua Roberson
A Decorated Birth-Brick from South Abydos: New Evidence on Childbirth
and Birth Magic in the Middle Kingdom 447–496
Josef Wegner
vi
Introduction
List of Contributors
JaMes p. a llen susan J. a llen
Wilbour Professor of Egyptology and Chair Senior Research Curator
Department of Egyptology and Department of Egyptian Art
Ancient Western Asian Studies The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Brown University susan.allen@metmuseum.org
jamespallen@brown.edu
doRothea a Rnold edwaRd bRoVaRski

Lila Acheson Wallace Curator in Charge Independent Scholar
Department of Egyptian Art edward.brovarski@verizon.net
The Metropolitan Museum of Art
dorothea.arnold@metmuseum.org
M aRk collieR denise doxey

Senior Lecturer in Egyptology Curator, Ancient Egyptian, Nubian
School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, and Near Eastern Art
University of Liverpool Art of the Ancient World
m.a.collier@liv.ac.uk Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
ddoxey@mfa.org
R ita e. FReed Zoltán hoRVáth

John F. Cogan Jr. and Mary L. Cornille Chair Assistant Curator of Egyptian Antiquities
Art of the Ancient World Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston zoltan.horvath@szepmuveszeti.hu
rfreed@mfa.org
Jack a. Josephson Ronald J. lepRohon

Visiting Professor Professor of Egyptology
American University in Cairo Department of Near and Middle Eastern
Jajosep@attglobal.net Civilizations
University of Toronto
ronald.leprohon@utoronto.ca
stephen QuiRke Joshua RobeRson

Curator, Petrie Museum of Lecturer in Egyptology
Egyptian Archaeology University of Pennsylvania
Reader, Institute of Archaeology jroberso@sas.upenn.edu
University College London
s.quirke@ucl.ac.uk
daVid p. silVeRMan williaM k elly siMpson

Eckely B. Coxe Jr. Professor and Curator Professor Emeritus of Egyptology and Near
University of Pennsylvania Eastern Languages and Civilizations
University of Pennsylvania Museum of Yale University
Archaeology and Anthropology william.simpson@yale.edu
dsilverm@sas.upenn.edu
JoseF wegneR
Associate Professor; Associate Curator
University of Pennsylvania
University of Pennsylvania Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology
jwegner@sas.upenn.edu
vii
viii
Introduction
Introduction
Archaism and Innovation: Defining the Cultural

Expression of Egypt’s Middle Kingdom
David P. Silverman • William Kelly Simpson • Josef Wegner
t he iMpoRtance oF the past to the ancient egyptians is evident in almost every part of their
culture. Their very concept of time as both a daily cycle and a linear infinite ensured
that the past was always part of the collective consciousness. The people revered their ances-
tors, remembering and paying tribute to them through cults; they handed down funerary
texts through generations; they recorded lists of kings that spanned centuries; they included
ancient keepsakes in their burial provisions; and they replicated architectural models for mil-
lennia. Perhaps an aspect of the principles of maat, this reliance on tradition did not prevent
their civilization from marked evolution and development. Certain periods of Egypt’s long
history, however, exhibit more reliance on past models than others. A tendency toward selec-
tive archaism particularly manifests itself following periods of political instability and disunity,
although in Egyptian civilization archaism never comes to constitute a slavish dependence on
former achievements.
The Egyptians adapted past models as guidelines for the present. During the more than
three thousand year history of pharaonic Egypt, archaism periodically emerged as a significant
influence on a wide range of cultural and social expressions. Egyptologists who examine this
phenomenon sometimes see it as a politically motivated tool, linked to the ever present need to
maintain harmony and order. Periods of strong leadership and territorial unity could serve as a
model for chaotic or unsettled times when it became necessary to set a policy to reestablish the
pharaonic kingdom and preserve maat (divine order). At a political level, the copying of past
models could sometimes aid in affirming the legitimacy of the ruling elite, and symbolically
bring the land back to its past glories. Not surprisingly archaism emerges as a notable factor in
periods of reunification such as the early Middle Kingdom, the early 18th Dynasty, the Kushite
25th Dynasty, and the renaissance of the Saite 26th Dynasty. As expressed in language, litera-
ture, the arts, and architecture, the role of archaism is integral to the long-term resilience of
pharaonic high culture, particularly in the periods after the Old Kingdom.
The Middle Kingdom (Dynasties 11–13, ca. 2050–1700 bce) represents a period during
which Egypt experienced a process of reunification akin to that of the initial union of Upper
and Lower Egypt. The rebirth of the land under a single pharaoh, Nebhepetre-Mentuhotep II,
contrasted with the chaos of the First Intermediate Period and the prolonged conflict between
the Herakleopolitan and Theban kingdoms. Nebhepetre himself emphasized this pivotal
moment of time by adopting the Horus-name, Sema-Tawy: “The Unifier of the Two Lands.”
The foundation of the Middle Kingdom, however, did not proceed entirely smoothly and some
political disarray is apparent at the end of the 11th dynasty. Just what actually transpired to
put political power into the hands of the first of the pharaohs called Amenemhet is not to-
tally clear, but the balance of power did shift to this individual who did not descend from the
royal family. As new pharaoh, he established the 12th Dynasty, but initially continued using
Thebes, his area of origin, as the center of his administration. An astute politician who was
also geopolitically aware, he quickly saw the need to consolidate his empire and establish an
ix
administrative capital in the north. Through this move, he literally became a “Uniter of the Two
Lands” and appropriately named his capital city, Amenemhat-Itjet-Tawy (Amenemhat-Seizes-the-Two-
Lands). Located perhaps just north of the entrance to the Fayum, this new center of govern-
ment restored the state of geographical balance between Upper and Lower Egypt, mirroring
the focus on the city of Memphis as a center of administration that had existed during the Early
Dynastic and Old Kingdoms.
While the Middle Kingdom often viewed the Old Kingdom positively, they actively used the
events of the First Intermediate Period to illustrate the ill effects of a kingship in abeyance. The
corpus of literary compositions produced during the Middle Kingdom frequently portrays these
times as chaotic, lacking strong, centralized royal control. While conceivably based ultimately
on some factual political and economic aspects of the First Intermediate Period, this literature
has a common theme: chaos followed by the restoration and maintenance of order. Despite the
references to what may appear as historical facts, the underlying motif is the preservation of
maat. A strong king and attendant centralized government assures the effective maintenance
of the land and the establishment of order. The texts, therefore, are not only propagandistic
literature with religious significance, but they also are literary works imbued with a sense of
history. They, along with the often-repeated passages in the biographical texts from the First
Intermediate Period, form a type of social commentary on the immediate past.
Middle Kingdom art and architecture also drew heavily on past models. Classical Memphite
influence is witnessed both in relief and statuary at the beginning of the 12th Dynasty. Artistic
styles as they were redefined in the early 12th Dynasty—first in Memphis proper, and then in
the new capital of Itjet-Tawy—drew inspiration from the style and canons of Old Kingdom art.
The architects who built the royal funerary monuments from the 12th Dynasty relied primarily
on the model of Memphite pyramid complexes, and even elite mortuary structures, especially
those from Saqqara, used traditions of the past for inspiration. Against the backdrop of the
Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period, coupled with the conscious pursuit of a reinstated
unified kingdom, archaism as it occurs in the Middle Kingdom emerged for the first time in
Egyptian history as an integral feature in the redefinition of the Egyptian political, cultural,
and social organization.
Copying past models formed a tangible means of legitimization of kingship and the ruling
elite, but Middle Kingdom Egypt was situated in a political and social setting very different
from that of the Old Kingdom. A century and a half of political fragmentation and division into
two lines of kings ruling in different part of the country, affected religious beliefs and political
ideology. Concepts of kingship and aspects of religion showed changes. Deities prominent in
Upper Egypt, such as Montu and Amun came to the forefront of national gods. Mortuary texts
for the elite became more prevalent. The Coffin Texts had already appeared not long after the
Sixth Dynasty, the time period when the royal Pyramid Texts first appeared. Now, this collec-
tion of spells occurred throughout most parts of the country. At the same time, the pharaohs
of the Middle Kingdom no longer used such mortuary literature as a part of the decorative
program in their funerary monuments.
The Middle Kingdom also saw the rising influence of the middle class, the segments of
society that belonged neither to the governing elite nor to the lower levels of agricultural
workers. The country also faced increasingly powerful and assertive foreign lands both to the
north and south. The growing Levantine city states of the Middle Bronze Age and the powerful
Upper Nubian polities of the Middle Kerma culture formed an altered geopolitical context, one
that heavily influenced the characteristics and development of Egypt’s Middle Kingdom.
Faced with these internal and external changes, Egyptians utilized archaism as a form of
symbolic expression. Past models had an integral part to play in a dynamic and changing society.
The influences of archaism and innovation in an era of social and cultural flux came to define
the “face” of Egypt’s Middle Kingdom. One explicit area where archaism and innovation mani-
fest themselves is the royal mortuary tradition. The resuscitation of the classic late Old King-
dom Memphite pyramid complex under Amenemhat I and Senwosret I at Lisht (including the
x
Introduction
employment of reused blocks deriving from late Old Kingdom pyramid complexes at Saqqara)
represents a statement on the continuity of the Old Kingdom tradition into the early 12th
Dynasty. Amenemhat I was the Horus Wehem-Mesut, “repeater of births” who had restored the
glory of the Old Kingdom. The strong role of archaism continues in both royal and elite mortu-
ary tradition extending into the reign of Senwosret III. The pyramid complex of that pharaoh
at Dahshur represents a sophisticated union of archaistic architectural elements copied from
and inspired by the Step Pyramid of Djoser within the context of an innovative royal cult. The
appearance of a newly emergent royal temple form, the Mansion-of-Millions-of-Years, appears
to be a forerunner of the well-defined royal cult temples of the New Kingdom. Despite the use
of archaism, the royal pyramid tradition of the 12th Dynasty displays considerable change and
experimentation and signifies a dynamic innovative process of redefining the nature of the
royal tomb and afterlife.
Two authors in this volume address the opposite ends of the royal mortuary tradition of the
12th Dynasty. David Silverman considers the evidence for the period of transition to Itjet-Tawy
during which time the 12th Dynasty’s founder ruled from Memphis and may have initiated the
first of the Middle Kingdom royal pyramids in the north, perhaps at or near Saqqara. He also
demonstrates how the elite of the Middle Kingdom used royal models of the Old Kingodm as
a basis for their own tombs in the Teti Pyramid cemetery. Josef Wegner discusses the later mor-
tuary complex of Senwosret III at Abydos and presents evidence that this tomb is the earliest
departure from the pyramid form to a hidden royal tomb. He proposes that it is an “Amduat-
tomb,” a precursor of later modes of royal burial, and points out that its very form is part of the
development of the royal Amduat text during the 12th Dynasty. Susan Allen, in another study,
deals with archaism in other aspects of the elite funerary tradition. She shows how craftspeople
of the Middle Kingdom copied Old Kingdom red-polished ceramic vessels for mortuary use.
The ‘Queen’s ware’ they produced during the 12th Dynasty constitutes an artifactual correlate
to the archaism in the architectural tradition. Another author, Edward Brovarski, traces the
history and evolution of the false door from the First Intermediate Period through the Middle
Kingdom, and he explores how the elite continued certain older traditions, but also adopted
innovations in this ubiquitous component of non-royal funerary architecture.
Royal sculpture of the 12th Dynasty displays a sophisticated interplay between archaism
and innovation, and the resulting statuary reflects the priorities of kingship during this period.
The question arises, however, as to whether the inspiration for more “human” royal faces that
becomes popular during the period, suggest that the king who strives for the maintenance of
maat is a ruler whose divine office of kingship, depends on the recognition and support of the
gods. In whatever ways one interprets this royal sculpture, the artwork during the Middle King-
dom is completely distinctive. One paper by Dorothea Arnold and another by Rita Freed and
Jack Josephson deals with this subject. Arnold discusses copying and innovation in motifs on a
royal statue of the early 12th Dynasty in the Metropolitan Museum. Freed and Josephson focus
on the date and identification of a masterwork of 12th Dynasty royal art: a queen’s head now
housed in the collection of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.
A hallmark of Middle Kingdom cultural expression is the increasing use of magical and
divine imagery employed both in daily life and funerary traditions. With roots in the First
Intermediate Period, the practice quickly expanded. Amulets, particularly scarabs, become
commonplace during the early Middle Kingdom. The form of the scarab-beetle and what it
represented effectively bridged aspects of life on earth and in the netherworld, by linking them
with the cycle of solar birth and rebirth. The scarab, produced in a variety of materials, also
became the preeminent administrative tool in sealing practices that Middle Kingdom officials
used repeatedly, as a signature of their official duties. Magical imagery also appears on ivory
wands used in rituals of childbirth and healing practices, and Joshua Roberson’s study investi-
gates this topic. His analysis examines how this type of iconography played a pivotal role in the
daily life of Egypt’s Middle Kingdom and established the foundations for later New Kingdom
magical iconography. Josef Wegner tackles the subject also in his article on the use of decorated
xi
birth bricks in birthing practices. He details his discovery of the only known example of such a
birth brick at South Abydos and examines the concepts and practices of childbirth during the
Middle Kingdom.
No achievement of Egypt’s Middle Kingdom stands out so clearly as the intricate adminis-
trative system that came to define the period. Initially facing the age-old questions of central-
ization versus regionalism, the early Middle Kingdom pharaohs successfully integrated central
governmental and provincial administrative systems, even while maintaining some of the stature
of the long-established nomarchies and provincial elites. In her study, Denise Doxey investigates
the burial equipment from Deir el-Bersha and points out how this mortuary material illustrates
the creative and innovative approach to funerary arts witnessed in provincial elite during the
12th Dynasty.
Egypt’s administrative system evolved significantly over the course of the Middle Kingdom.
In order to accommodate the priorities and innovations of the state at that time, administrative
titles of the later 12th and 13th Dynasties increased in number and diversity. The fragmentary
and fluid relationship between royal power and the provinces characteristic of the 11th Dynasty
had now evolved into one in which policies of the central government appear to have fostered a
process of centralization and an increasingly intricate subdivision of officialdom. The notable
phenomenon of the widespread appearance of personal name and title scarab seals during
the later 12th Dynasty is undoubtedly to be understood as part of this evolving administrative
approach, and the tendency towards a “professionalization” of the bureaucratic system.
The very effectiveness of the late Middle Kingdom administrative system may have permitted
the 13th Dynasty to weather a lengthy period of short reigns. Ultimately, a marked decrease in
the visible expressions of royal power accompanied a kingdom that had to face a reduction in
its territorial scope. In many respects, the Middle Kingdom administrative system served as a
model for emulation during the New Kingdom, as indicated with the adaptation of classical
texts such as the Duties of the Vizier that appear in the early 18th Dynasty. W.K. Simpson explores
in his paper some of the key figures of the central administration connected with the govern-
ment centered on Itjet-Tawy, and Stephen Quirke in his study examines the difficulties that con-
front modern scholarship in interpreting the meaning and use of titles of this time period.
With its extensive archive of inscribed papyri and preserved site, Lahun, the pyramid
complex of Senwosret II at the entrance to the Fayum, stands out as one of the most important
archaeological areas that provide key data on Egyptian society during the Middle Kingdom.
Until recently, the body of papyrological material has remained under-published, but now,
Ulrich Luft, Stephen Quirke and Mark Collier have addressed several issues from the period.
In this volume, Mark Collier offers a discussion of the nature and content of the Lahun papyri
that extends his and Quirke and Collier’s ongoing publication of these texts that are in the
Petrie collection. An additional paper by Zoltán Horváth highlights the still debated questions
surrounding the nature of the Lahun town and temple and the toponyms associated with that
key site.
Finally, it is in its language and its literary output that the Middle Kingdom achieved
perhaps its most lasting legacy, one that Egyptians of later eras emulated to a great extent.
Middle Egyptian, the formal written language of the period became the classical mode of the
Egyptian language and retained its status well through the New Kingdom and even into the
First Millennium. The importance of the language, and its grammar, structure, and how it was
spoken during the Middle Kingdom, becomes clear in the Story of the Eloquent Peasant. This liter-
ary text also indicates how language reflects attitudes regarding class distinction. In this type
of composition as well as in other genres archaism and innovation play a large role. James Allen
examines the role and effects of archaism in language and grammar during the Middle King-
dom, especially in the stela of the steward Mentuwoser. Ronald Leprohon investigates a related
subject in his study of the practice of copying and selective redaction of earlier model texts. His
case study is the famous late 12th Dynasty stela of Sehepibre from Abydos.
xii
Introduction
In Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilization, Barry Kemp, presented the hypothesis that as
a result of its zeal to create a balanced sociopolitical organization, the Middle Kingdom
crystallized into a bureaucratically minded, prescriptive culture. He saw the society a rigid,
and ultimately brittle, one that lacked the ability to adapt and change. According to this view,
a culture with such maximized governmental control, may have over-developed the level of
administration as represented in texts such as the Instructions of Amenemhat and the Loyalist
Instructions. Other scholars have interpreted the nature of Egyptian control in Lower Nubia
during the Middle Kingdom as similarly representing a form of over-structured and excessive
regulation. For these reasons some scholars have tended to view the Middle Kingdom in a
somewhat negative light, implicitly suggesting it was a form of failed state system that almost by
necessity lost royal power and shed territorial control as the 13th Dynasty gave way to the Second
Intermediate Period.
The success of the kingdom of Itjet-Tawy in maintaining unity for some three centuries, as
well as in navigating major cultural and social shifts in Egyptian society, however, denotes the
remarkably dynamic qualities of this time period. The Middle Kingdom was a time during which
archaism, innovation, and change combined to create a successful and long-lasting society, one
that ultimately, later generations would look to for inspiration. History would repeat itself; just as
the founders of the Middle Kingdom had cast their eyes back to the Old Kingdom for direction,
the New Kingdom, the Kushite and the Saite Periods would consider the many achievements of
the kings who had ruled Egypt from Itjet-Tawy as models for emulation.
The current volume assembles a series of studies of Middle Kingdom culture gathered
around the theme of archaism, change, and innovation. The papers had their origin in a
symposium the University of Pennsylvania Museum hosted in 2002, and held in memory of the
great Middle Kingdom scholar, Oleg Berlev. The Penn Museum organized the conference that
received generous support from the Center for Ancient Studies of the University of Pennsylvania
and the Marilyn and William Kelly Simpson Endowment in the Department of Near Eastern
Languages and Civilizations at Yale University. For the publication, the authors revised and
augmented their essays, allowing this volume to include up to date information. The editors
also invited a few scholars to contribute additional studies resulting in a volume that deals with
the Middle Kingdom in a broader context. The Marilyn and William Kelly Simpson endowment
in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Yale University generously
provided the funds necessary for the publication of the volume. The editors are indebted to
Professor John Darnell of Yale University, both for his participation in the 2002 meeting, as well
as for his continued support in the publication of this volume. Special thanks go to Dr. Jennifer
Houser Wegner, Elizabeth Jean Walker, and Stephen Phillips for all of their help in the prepa-
rations for publication. Last but not least, the editors wish to thank Peter Der Manuelian for
bringing an Egyptologist’s eye to the production of this volume; he is a fitting colleague for the
present project, particularly in light of his own research into the role of archaism as it reemerges
a thousand years after the end of the Middle Kingdom during the renaissance of the Saite 26th
Dynasty. The models of the past were to be again rediscovered in later times; as the Egyptians
would have observed, life is eternal and repeating: ankh djet r neheh.
xiii
Horváth, Temple(s) and Town at El-Lahun: A study of ancient toponyms in the el-Lahun papyri
Temple(s) and Town at El-Lahun

A study of Ancient Toponyms
in the el-Lahun Papyri1
Zoltán Horváth
a s h ans a lexandeR s chaRFF claRiFied, the modern Arabic toponym el-Lahun derives from the
ancient form r£ ¢n.t / r£ n ¢n.t via the Coptic le˙wne,2 and may have been used to denote a
natural landscape formation, i.e. the swampy region where the Bahr Yusuf enters the Faiyum.3
Despite its occurrence in the hieratic papyri from the site, it is clear that the phrase could not
stand for the cult-complex of Sesostris II, nor for any of its components.4 Hieratic sources, on
the contrary, associate two separate basilophorous toponyms with the royal foundation: Ìtp
S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw and S∞m S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw.5
Otto Firchow was probably the first to highlight that contrary to the Old Kingdom custom
when a single name stood for the whole of the royal funerary complex incorporating the
pyramid, the mortuary temple and the pyramid town, in the 12th Dynasty the toponyms in
apparent association with a royal foundation outnumber the archaeologically attested mortuary
complexes.6 Moreover, the preference in the sources for the royal nomens Senwosret and
Amenemhat poses extra difficulties in linking a certain toponym with a royalty, so Petrie and
Griffith happened to attributed the toponym Ó™ S-n-wsr.t (in fact the name of the pyramid town
of Sesostris I) inaptly to the el-Lahun foundation.
Having collected all the available evidence of his days, Wolfgang Helck suggested that
each important element of the royal mortuary complex, i.e. the pyramid, the mortuary temple
and the pyramid town, had its own individual designation.7 His theory gained widespread
acceptance amongst the Egyptologists. As for el-Lahun proper, he heavily relied on selected
documents from the temple archive, which led him to identify Sekhem-Senwosret with the build-
1 This study developed from a paper read on the Third Central European Conference of Young Egyptologists, held
at Warsaw, 12–14 May 2004. The author is highly indebted to his doctoral supervisor Ulrich Luft for having access
to yet unpublished temple papyri, and to Josef Wegner for the invitation to contribute to this volume.
2 H.A. Scharff, “Illahun und die mit Königsnamen des Mittleren Reiches gebildeten Ortsnamen” ZÄS 59 (1924), p. 51.
3 The proper rendering of the word ¢n.t has long been a matter of debate, see an overview of the various proposals
in U. Luft, “The Ancient Town of El-Lâhûn” (1998), pp. 1–2.
4 pBerlin 10037A–Cro (x+25), a letter addressed to the steward Horemsaf: U. Kaplony-Heckel, Ägyptische Hand-
schriften I (1971)—henceforth referred to as “Kaplony-Heckel;” A. Scharff, “Briefe aus Illahun” (1924), pp. 33–35,
*6–*7. The papyrus is fully published in U. Luft, Urkunden zur Chronologie der späten 12. Dynastie: Briefe aus Illahun,
Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean VII, Wien (2006; henceforth abbreviated as
Urkunden).
5 Throughout the paper these toponyms will be referred to in their abbreviated forms: Hotep-Senwosret and Sekhem-
Senwosret, respectively. For an extensive but far from complete list of attestations, see F. Gomaà, Die Besiedlung
Ägyptens während des Mittleren Reiches I: Oberägypten und das Fayyûm (1986), pp. 407–10 for Hotep-Senwosret, and
pp. 403–405 for Sekhem-Senwosret. The sign prefixed to the king’s nomen was misread by both F.Ll. Griffith,
The Petrie Papyri. Hieratic Papyri from Kahun and Gurob (1898) (henceforth abbreviated as HPKG) and Scharff, in:
ZÄS 59, who transcribed it as . The correct reading has been established by B. Gunn, “The Name of the Pyramid-
Town of Sesostris II” (1945), pp. 106–107 which is supported by the occurrence of the toponym in hieroglyphs
on the Abydos stela of Sobekdidi, see F. Petrie, A. Gardiner, H. Petrie, and M.A. Murray, Tombs of the Courtiers and
Oxyrhynkhos(1925), pl. 12 [7].
6 O. Firchow, Studien zu den Pyramidenanlagen der 12. Dynastie (1942), pp. 48–49.
7 W. Helck, Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reiches 1 (1958), p. 248 (henceforth Verwaltung).
171
ing of the royal temple and an adjacent residential unit to accommodate the temple’s perma-
nent personnel.8 It should be noted, however, that in his discussion Helck uses the same term
“Totentempel” for two types of cult installations: the temple or offering place at the eastern side
of the pyramid (e.g. when identifying Ônm-sw.t Ópr-k£-r™ within the complex of Sesostris I), and
the valley (or lower) temple situated at the desert margin (e.g. in the case of el-Lahun).
In 1988 Dieter Arnold rejected Helck’s identification of Ônm-sw.t Ópr-k£-r™ with the pyramid
temple of Sesostris I. “Since a fairly significant cult of Hathor of Tp-j¢w (Atfih) must be allo-
cated to the Ônmt-jsw.t, it must be asked whether such a cult could have been accommodated in
a mortuary temple with its fixed scheme of rooms.”9 Arnold suggested that the cult of Hathor
may have been housed in a sanctuary in front of the ka-pyramid in the outer court, this way
extending the scope of Khenem-Sut to the pyramid precinct in general.10
By putting the el-Lahun documents into context, Stephen Quirke basically accepted Helck’s
view concerning the toponym, but refined his theory by calling attention to the segregation of
the el-Lahun papyri: documents from the town site most frequently refer to Hotep-Senwosret,11
whereas the temple acts currently in Berlin12 focus on Sekhem-Senwosret.13 Hence he identi-
fied the town site as Hotep-Senwosret as distinct from the “separate foundation of the cult for
Senusret II in the form of his pyramid with its valley temple” named Sekhem-Senwosret.14 A recent
treatment of the 12th Dynasty “pyramid names” by Hartwig Altenmüller seems to acknowledge
Quirke’s pattern of identification.15
In a lengthy article Luft quoted and analysed several passages from letters and temple day-
books, which were in one way or another related to one of these two particular toponyms, and
challenged the traditional view of el-Lahun described just above.16 He convincingly argued that
constant references to people attached to and houses as well as separate temples belonging to
(n.t) Sekhem-Senwosret make sense only if not a singe cult-building (i.e. the temple proper) but
a wider unit is concerned.17 He ultimately identified Sekhem-Senwosret as “the administrative
centre of the pyramid-town including the pyramid of Senwosret II” adding that “all arguments
(…) support the claim of the toponym S∞m z-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw pertaining to the whole territory of
the site.”18 His view, on the other hand, resulted in the need to look for a town named Hotep-
Senwosret elsewhere. A fragmentary papyrus listing fields, estates and settlements in a rather
obscure context has been interpreted by Luft as giving evidence for relocating Hotep-Senwosret
8 Ibid., pp. 249–50.

9 D. Arnold, The Pyramid of Senwosret I (1988), p. 17. The evidence for a Hathor-cult at Lisht is primarily based on
the inscription of Statue Durham Nr. 501 made for the mayor of Kha-Senwosret called Senwosret, who also held
the priestly title jmj-r£ ¢m.w-n†r m pr Ìw.t-¢rw nb(.t) Tp-j¢w ¢rj.t-jb Ônm-sw.t “overseer of the priesthood in the house
(estate?) of Hathor, Mistress of Atfih, amid Khenem-Sut”; for the inscription see F. Gomaà, “Die Statue Durham
Nr. 501” (1984), p. 108.
10 Ibid.
11 The so-called “town papyri,” which have been retrieved during Petrie’s excavation of the settlement site and partly
published by Griffith, HPKG, are now in the collection of the University College London. The complete edition
of them has just been prepared by M. Collier and S. Quirke, The UCL Lahun Papyri: Letters (2002) (henceforth
Lahun Letters); idem., The UCL Lahun Papyri: Religious, Literary, Legal, Mathematical and Medical (2004) (henceforth
Religious).
12 Shortly after that Griffith’s volume had come out, new papyrus fragments of a similar character were pur-
chased by German representatives on the antiquities’ market in 1899. Inspired by the occurrence of new papyri,
L. Borchardt conducted a small-scale excavation around the temple area and found an additional corpus of
hieratic manuscripts, known today as the “temple archive.” These papyri entered the Papyrus Collection of the
State Museum of Berlin; see L. Borchardt, “Der zweite Papyrusfund von Kahun” (1899), pp. 89–103.
13 S. Quirke, The Administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom (1990), pp. 158, 178 n. 10.
14 Ibid.
15 H. Altenmüller, “Die Pyramidennamen der frühe 12. Dynastie” (1992), p. 41.
16 Luft, in: Lahun Studies.
17 Op. cit. passim, but esp. pp. 31–38.
18 Op. cit. p. 38.
172
tentatively in the neighbourhood of modern Hawara.19 The theory of removing Hotep-Senwosret

from the immediate vicinity of Sekhem-Senwosret, however, is rather difficult to harmonize with
the overall evidence of papyri and archaeological record, so it may seem to be desirable to treat
the issue again.
hotep-SenwoSret and Sekhem-SenwoSret in the aRchiVe oF el-l ahun

Luft’s study is still the fullest account of Sekhem-Senwosret in the business letters and temple
journals. He quotes numerous examples, mostly from the correspondence between the ¢£tj-™
and the temple scribe, later steward Horemsaf to illustrate the administrative separation of
Sekhem-Senwosret from Hotep-Senwosret (the former is the place where the temple scribe resided,
the latter was the seat of the ¢£tj-™).20 The mayor frequently sent instructions to the chief func-
tionaries of Sekhem-Senwosret to carry them out, who were also expected to report the completion
of the task. Thus the person of the mayor was the link between the two functioning units: be-
yond acting as the leading official of the town, his concomitant title jmj-r£ ¢w.t-n†r labelled him
as the chief administrator overseeing the temple.21 This mutual relationship is also reflected in
the running of the temple. On one hand, compulsory deliveries to the temple were imposed on
the mayor: for instance, pBerlin 10016, a letter from the temple scribe Horemsaf to the mayor
Senwosret reveals that the ¢£tj-™ was obliged to send a bull (as a ¢tr) from Hotep-Senwosret to
Sekhem-Senwosret for the divine offerings of the wagi-feast.22 On the other hand, the mayor was
ranked first in the lists of the temple personnel, compiled to record the distribution of temple
income among those who serve; i.e. the ¢£tj-™ was the main beneficiary of temple income.23 His
position to oversee the cult also enabled him to command people registered at the temple to
carry out corvée-work on behalf of some state project. For discontent members of the temple
staff, the mayor of Hotep-Senwosret was the ultimate judicial authority to appeal.
¢£tj-™ jmj-r£ ¢w.t-n†r S-n-wsr.t ∂d n sfl£ [¢w.t-n†r Ìrw]-m-s(£)=f ∂d dj(=j) r∞=k r-nt.t spr.n n=j jrj-™£ n
¢w.t-n†r Sn.t s£ Jmnj / r-∂d jw£.kw ¢r s£=j k£wtj n ¢w.t-n†r (…) / (…) m-k p£j=f s£ km(w)
The mayor and manager of the temple Senwosret says to the [temple] scribe [Hor]emsaf: I
let you know that the doorkeeper of the temple, Senet’s son Ameni has appealed to me, /
saying: “I have been taken away on account of my son, the worker of the temple (…)” / (…)
Look, his son has met (the work obligation).24
19 pBerlin 10045 ro 6–13; the papyrus was published in Luft, Urkunden, 87–90, Tf. 27. See Kaplony-Heckel, No. 35;
Luft, in: Lahun Studies, pp. 32–33. For further details, see the discussion below.
20 For these textual references, it is essential for the reader to consult with Luft, in: Lahun Studies, passim. The
unusual address of pBerlin 10225a has been cited as an evidence that the mayor was connected to Hotep-Senwosret,
see U. Luft, Das Archiv von Illahun: Briefe 1 (1992), P 10225a (henceforth Archiv I); Kaplony-Heckel, No. 276.
21 Cf. V. Selve, “Les fonctions religieuses des nomarques au Moyen Empire” (1993), pp. 75, 77. It seems to be
important to differentiate between two attested usages of the title jmj-r£ ¢w.t-n†r: first, as the mayor’s concomi-
tant, second, as an independent title. At South-Abydos, Josef Wegner discovered seal impressions of officials who
did not hold the position of the mayor but bore the sole title jmj-r£ ¢w.t-n†r, see J. Wegner, “The Organization
of the Temple Nfr-K£ of Senwosret III at Abydos” (2000), p. 99 n. 29. The assumed existence of an independent
title manager of the temple would explain why the el-Lahun official Horemsaf was addressed as jmj-r£ ¢w.t-n†r on
pBerlin 10031 A ro 1, although he is not known to have ever held the title of the mayor. As the document in
question is one of the latest manuscripts associated with Horemsaf (dated to the period between year 22–25 and
38 of Amenemhat III, see U. Luft, “Illahunstudien, I: Zu der Chronologie und den Beamten in den Briefen aus
Illahun” (1982), pp. 153, 154 n. 103.), this title may have represented the peak of his career, the highest office he
has ever held. pBerlin 10031 A was published in Luft, Urkunden, 63–66, Tfs. 16–19.
22 pBerlin 10016 ro 2; Kaplony-Heckel, No. 13.; for a full edition of the papyrus, see Luft, Urkunden.
23 Such a list can be found on pCairo JdE 71580 (former pBerlin 10005 B) ro II 10–22; Kaplony-Heckel,
Anhang I,1.
24 pBerlin 10023 A ro 1–3; Luft, Archiv I, P 10023 A; Kaplony-Heckel, No. 17.; Scharff, in: ZÄS 59, pp. 27–28, *2–*4;
E. F. Wente, Letters from Ancient Egypt (1990), p. 74. This document is discussed in Quirke, Administration, p. 163
and in the unpublished doctoral dissertation of Katalin Kóthay, Organization of Work in Egypt during the Middle
Kingdom. A Study on Social Structure (1999), pp. 21–22.
173
It is very plausible that administrative distinction between Hotep- and Sekhem-Senwosret

comes together with architectural separation. Records from the temple journal reveal that on
certain festive occasions the ¢£tj-™ of Hotep-Senwosret paid a visit to Sekhem-Senwosret and spent the
day there; but otherwise he is not recorded to have participated personally in the daily routine
of temple rituals.25 Certain topics in letters exchanged by various officials of Sekhem-Senwosret
and Hotep-Senwosret imply that these two localities lay relatively close to each other. The sender
of pCairo JE 71581, for instance, writing from Hotep-Senwosret informs a leading official of the
temple (perhaps Horemsaf) that someone has been sent to Sekhem-Senwosret for the meat portion
(w™bjj.t) that is due from the sacrificial bull. The list included in the document suggests that the
main beneficiary of the meat is the mayor, who in turn has to subdivide this type of allotment
among the phyle controller and the chief lector priest.26 The transport of fresh meat would
then require a minimum distance between the two localities, not more than a day’s walk.
The town of Hotep-Senwosret undoubtedly belonged to the cult installation of a 12th Dynasty
king named Sesostris indicated clearly by the m£™-∞rw epithet in the hieratic sources. On seal
impressions, where this epithet is never attached to the toponym, Hotep-Senwosret is sometimes
double-determined by a and a and the royal name element is placed inside a ,27 most
likely to denote that the town in fact pertains to a royal funerary estate.28 Although Sekhem-
Senwosret is certainly a locality serving the cult of Sesostris II, the attestations of Ó™ S-n-wsr.t
m£™-∞rw (the pyramid town of Sesostris I) in the el-Lahun papyri29 indicate that the royal name
element in Hotep-Senwosret may have even been related to Sesostris III. Nevertheless, the fact
that el-Lahun is the primal source of seals and seal-impressions referring to Hotep-Senwosret with
known provenience,30 and the evidence of a small fragment of an early manuscript leaves little
doubt that the town was built under Sesostris II.
The jnw of Hotep-Senwosret is mentioned on pUC 32184 dated to the earliest stage of the
archive on palaeographical grounds.31
(1) [jn]w Ìtp [S]-n-wsr.t ™n∞

… …
(4) [Ìtp?] S-n-[ws]r.t ™n∞ ∂t [r n]¢¢
(7) [Ìtp?] S-n-[wsr.t] ™n∞ ∂t r n¢[¢ …]
25 See e.g. the unpublished pBerlin 10410 b discussed below.

26 Former pBerlin 10017. The manuscript is included in Luft, Urkunden, 113–117, Tf. 35; description in Kaplony-
Heckel, Anhang I,2.; English translation in Wente, Letters, p. 78. In my reading the letter was not sent to but
brought from Hotep-Senwosret. Provided that the addressee is the mayor of Hotep-Senwosret (referred to in the
letter as “the Lord, l.p.h!”), he should have been responsible for sending from the best quality of meat to him-
self(!), which would not make much sense (cf. ro 8: j∞ dj nb ™.w.s. jn.t m bw nb nfr “I wish the Lord, l.p.h., would cause it
to be sent from the best” with ro 7 which states that the meat will be due r ™ nb ™.w.s. “to the portion of the Lord, l.p.h.”).
27 E.g. on the seal of mayor Noferankhy; G. T. Martin, Egyptian Administrative and Private-Name Seals (1971) (hence-
forth abbreviated as Private-Name Seals) No. 732, pl. 47,1 = W.M.F. Petrie, Kahun, Gurob and Hawara (1890), pl. X,
24 (henceforth abbreviated as KGH).
28 Luft, in: Lahun Studies, p. 18.
29 This town but rarely occurs in the source material. pBerlin 10160+10162 (former pBerlin 10072) quotes a
message sent from Kha-Senwosret-maa-kheru as an insertion into another letter addressed to the manager of the
temple Qemau: Kaplony-Heckel, No. 233; Luft, in: Lahun Studies, pp. 9–10. pUC 32190 (former pKahun III.1
A page 1–2) concerns the share of plots between Hotep-Senwosret and Kha-Senwosret: Griffith, HPKG, pp. 58–
59, pl. XXIII.; Collier–Quirke, Accounts, pp. 12–13, CD files UC32190–b–CE–LE, UC32190–b–LE, T32190lb,
T32190mb.
30 See Martin, Private-Name Seals, Nos. 42, 43, 324, 442, 732, 1255, 1563, 1618, 1829, 1847, 1882–1885 all from
el-Lahun.
31 Cf. the comment of Griffith, HPKG, p. 51: “(…) thick but angular, medium-sized signs.” For the document see Ibid.,
p. 51, pl. XX. and Collier-Quirke, The UCL Lahun Papyri, CD files UC32184–f, UC32184–b, T32181.
174
Curiously, at the end of the first line, the name of the town is appended with the epithet
™n∞ instead of the customary m£™-∞rw.32 It is followed by further compound names with the royal
nomen Senwosret (ll. 4 and 7 though in a rather damaged context) appended by ™n∞ ∂t r n¢¢,
regularly used to refer to the reigning king.33 Based on the character of the document record-
ing incoming goods from different sources,34 the same toponym could be expected to recur,
though it has to be admitted that wanting the initial elements it is hard to tell whether Hotep-Sen-
wosret was actually intended in lines 4 and 7 or not. The evidence for Hotep-Senwosret-ankh-[…(?)]
in line 1 instead of the customary Hotep-Senwosret-maa-kheru, however, may be explained in the
light of the transformation of the name of the Hawara foundation of Amenemhat III from
™n∞ Jmn-m-¢£.t ™n∞ ∂t r n¢¢ to ™n∞ Jmn-m-¢£.t m£™-∞rw.35 It must be emphasized that the change
of the epithet did not essentially coincide with the time of the king’s death, but with the sub-
sequent establishment of the mortuary cult. This may account for the use of S∞m Jmnjj ™n∞ ∂t r
n¢¢ (the pyramid town of Amenemhat II) in a control mark from the el-Lahun pyramid dated
to year 5 of Sesostris II.36 The attestation of the form Hotep-Senwosret-ankh-… therefore clearly
demonstrates that the town (though probably of a different character) existed as early as in
the reign of Sesostris II, long before the start of the building activity at Hawara around year
15 of Amenemhat III. Along with our evidence for the proximity of Sekhem-Senwosret and Hotep-
Senwosret, there is no need to relocate the latter at a site, absolutely virgin in those days, more
that 8 km away from the el-Lahun royal cemetery.37
Nevertheless, the remarkable passage of pBerlin 10045, which Luft used as basic evidence
that Hotep-Senwosret was situated in the w-district of Ankh-Amenemhat, i.e. in the vicinity of
modern Hawara, deserves special attention.38 The document is an incomplete sheet from the
temple journal with copies of two letters. The letter, which was enrolled into the day-book under
the date year 17, I peret, day 6, had been sent by a qnb.tj n w, a high official in charge of a
territory under the management of a local centre,39 evidently to a superior administrator of
32 Ro 1: [jn]w Ìtp S-n-wsr.t ™n∞. I suspect the toponym should be emended as Ìtp S-n-wsr.t ™n∞ ∂t r n¢¢, displac-
ing tentatively the end of the epithet to the beginning of line 2, which is unfortunately missing. See the other
candidates in line 4 and 7.
33 The long list of royal statues on pBerlin 10003 A dated to year 9 of Sesostris III refers to the statues of the
deceased king Sesostris II as twt n nsw.t-bjtj Ó™-∞pr-r™ m£™-∞rw, and those of the reigning king Sesostris III as twt
n nsw.t-bjtj Ó™-k£.w-r™ ™n∞ ∂t r n¢¢; see ro I 29, 32, 34, 36 and 37. Parts of the text were published in transcription
by L. Borchardt, in: ZÄS 37, pp. 95–97.; facsimile in G. Möller, Hieratische Paläographie (1927), Tf. V.1. For the
description of the item, see Kaplony-Heckel, No. 3.
34 See furthermore line 2 which clearly refers back to Hotep-Senwosret-ankh-… with the phrase s n njw.t tn “man of
this town.”
35 Both variants of the toponym are known from the el-Lahun papyri, however, these manuscripts are but seldom
dated. Ankh-Amenemhat ankh-djet-er-neheh is mentioned in pBerlin 10073 vso 1 dated after year 19 of Amenem-
hat III, since the recipient of the letter, Horemsaf is titled as steward (published in Luft, Archiv I, P 10073); pUC
32057 = former pKahun VI.1 vso 4 dated to year 29 (Collier–Quirke, The UCL Lahun Papyri, CD files UC32057–
page3–b–LE, T32181); pUC 32182 = former pKahun VI.15 ro 3 dated to year 43 (Collier–Quirke, Accounts,
pp. 48–49, CD files UC32182–b, UC32182–f, T32182b, T32182f); the seal of pUC 32212 = former pKahun V.1
is dated after the death of princess Noferuptah, daughter of Amenemhat III (Collier–Quirke, Lahun Letters,
pp. 138–41, CD files UC32212–f, UC32212–b, T32212; for the seal see Griffith, HPKG, pp. 80–81). See moreo-
ver the well-known inscription of Senwosret from Wadi Hammamat dating to year 19 (J. Couyat–P. Montet, Les
Inscriptions Hiéroglyphiques et Hiératiques du Ouâdi Hammâmât, (1912), p. 51). Ankh-Amenemhat maa-kheru occurs
in pUC 32209 = former pKahun XII.1, a letter to a lady with personal names typical more of the 13th Dynasty
(Collier–Quirke, Lahun Letters, pp. 128–31, CD files UC32209–f, UC32209–b, T32209bo, T32209t, T32209b).
36 See F. Petrie–G. Brunton–A.M. Murray, Lahun II (1923), p. 13, pl. LXX; republished in F. Arnold, Control Notes
and Team Marks (1990), p. 168. The change of the epithet in the case of the Hawara foundation has already been
noted by Gomaà, Besiedlung I, p. 417. See moreover stela BM 569 made for a certain Sahathor who served under
Amenemhat II; here the name of the town founded by the reigning king is appended by ™n∞ ∂t: E. Budge et al.,
Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae &c., in the British Museum II (1912), pl. 20, cat. no. 143, right, col. 1–2: rdj.t
sb.t r S∞m Jmnw ™n∞ ∂t / r ∞rp k£.t m twt=f 15.
37 Luft, in: Lahun Studies, p. 34.
38 See footnote 19 above.
39 He is perhaps identical with the official referred to in the first letter on the sheet.
175
the cult temple. Only the beginning of each line have been preserved, and Luft estimated that
at least about one-third of them have been lost.40 The content of the damaged letter is rather
difficult to comprehend but one may learn that the district councillor informs his superior of-
ficial that the steward of Hotep-Senwosret has sent him something41 – very likely the account of
plots, a part of which has been preserved in lines 9–12. The passage relevant to the argumen-
tation may be reconstructed as follows:
that could have been a heading to a list of ßdjj.t-plots; each of them bound to a given locality.
Roughly the same procedure is followed on pUC 32186, the great land-account among the
Petrie-papyri.42 With the lack of a well-established context, the rendering of the particular line
is almost optional. Since roughly the last third of the previous line is missing, it cannot be taken
for granted whether it is intended purely to state that Hotep-Senwosret is situated in the w-district
of Ankh-Amenemhat (in this case the relationship of this statement with the enumeration of
different plots afterwards needs further explication), or it formed part of an elaborated title
to the rest of the document, like *[¢sb £¢w.t n.t] / Ìtp S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw m w n ™n∞ J[mn-m-¢£.t
…] *“[account of the lands of] / Hotep-Senwosret maa-kheru in the district of Ankh-A[menemhat …].”43
pUC 32190 page 2 vso makes it clear that settlements could own ßdjj.t-plots even in a relatively
remote region, as Kha-Senwosret (located in the vicinity of modern el-Lisht) shared plots “on
the eastern bank” (¢r m£™ j£bj) with Hotep-Senwosret—perhaps the el-Lahun-Hawara channel is con-
cerned here at the mouth of the Faiyum.44 Moreover, the precise meaning of the administra-
tive term w is still unsettled; for instance, we are not informed about how large an area should
be meant on it.45 The great land-account in the collection of the University College London
mentions two ßdjj.t-plots within w Ìrw “the district of Horus:” the southern plot is apparently
situated in Hotep-Senwosret (ßd[jj.t ..] rsj.t m Ìtp S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw), while the northern one is bound
to another locality, the name of which has been lost (m¢tj.t […]).46 It implies that a w-district
was not essentially the immediate territory around a settlement, but rather a spacious unit ad-
ministered by a local centre, therefore, the w-district of Ankh-Amenemhat in the time of Ame-
nemhat III might well have been more expansive than the circuit of modern Hawara, perhaps
incorporating the cult-foundation of the royal ancestor Sesostris II.
a MayoRal Residence at el-l ahun

The mutual relationship between the urban settlement Hotep-Senwosret and the cult-installation
of Sesostris II can be best paralleled with a roughly contemporary temple-and-town compound
at South-Abydos serving the cult of Sesostris III.47 The mortuary complex consisted of a sub-
terranean tomb high up, beneath the limestone cliffs, an associated cult-temple at the edge
of the desert, and an extensive town site nearby, the name of which was established as W£¢-sw.t
40 See the description in Luft, Urkunden, 87.

41 Ro 8: jw rdj.n n=j jmj-r£ pr n Ìtp S-n-wsr.t [m£™-∞rw …]
42 pUC 32186 (former pKahun XIII.1); Griffith, HPKG, 52–54, pl. XXI; Collier–Quirke, Accounts, CD files UC32186–
f–TO, UC32186–f–BO, T32186f–r, T32186f–l.
43 Cf. the heading of the great land-account on the above mentioned pUC 32186 ro 2: ¢sb £¢.t n.t w™b ¢rj-s£ [n Spdw]
Rn-jqr-£w s£ Ìrj “account of plough-lands belonging to the w™b-priest who is over the phyle [of Sopdu], Reniqerau’s
son, Hori,” in Collier–Quirke, Accounts, pp. 74–75.
44 pUC 32190 page 2 vso 1–9. See footnote 29 above.
45 For example, Helck, Verwaltung, p. 76 pointed out that the term may occur both in a specific (administrative –
“district”) and a generic (“rural area,” “region”) sense. Cf. the extensive commentary of G. P. F van den Boorn,
The Duties of the Vizier(1988), pp. 52, 174–79, but esp. 175. There can be little doubt, however, that these particu-
lar sources discussed right now concern “the regions in between the urban centres (…) headed by councillors of the district”
(qnbtj.w n.w w.w), Ibid., 108. It implies that significant variation may be expected in the dimensions of various
w-districts. Cf. on the other hand, the remark of van den Boorn on the size of these units: “It is interesting to observe
in this respect that the dimensions of administrative districts (e.g. w) and provinces tended to coincide with those of (groups or
subdivisions of) natural basins” (Ibid., 241 footnote 51).
46 pUC 32186 ro 9. See footnote 42 above.
47 J. Wegner, “The Town of Wah-sut at South Abydos: 1999 Excavations” (2001), pp. 281–308 with further literature.
176
Ó™-k£.w-r™ m£™-∞rw m £b∂w “Enduring are the places of the deceased Khakaura in Abdju.”48 The
Pennsylvania–Yale–Institute of Fine Arts Expedition directed by Josef Wegner have been con-
ducting excavations on that area since 1994 and revealed that in many respect it is a kind of
smaller-scale mirror site of el-Lahun. The papyrus archive from el-Lahun has provided us with
the up to now most valuable sources to the organization and operation of an economic founda-
tion in the service of a royal cult, Petrie’s archaeological reports, however, neglect such funda-
mental questions like stratigraphy or the position of individual find-spots. On the other hand,
at South-Abydos, the well-documented archaeological context 49 complements the yet missing
corpus of administrative papyri,50 and offers an insight into the life of an active royal founda-
tion – although from a different perspective.
Only partially exposed, the architectural organization of the town of Wah-sut displays many
similarities to ‘Kahun’ (fig. 1).51 Both towns appear to have been rectangular, state-planned
settlements with an internal division into elite vs. low-status sectors. The elite sector is made up
of large residences as opposed to the small- and mid-sized houses which comprise the low-status
zone.52 Both settlements were built on the sloping, undulating ground of the low desert edge;
town architecture was adapted to the topography by terracing the houses.53 A large residential
building occupies a special position in the internal organization of both town sites.
At South-Abydos, a huge mansion in the southwestern corner of the town (Building A) were
built on the highest ground. As an indication of high status, it is situated the closest to the sacred
enclosure and its overall dimensions far exceed those of the other elite residences extending
east to west along the southern limit of the settlement. Wegner identified this building as pr ¢£tj-
™ “the residence of the mayor” through the accumulation of discarded mayoral seals, mainly in the
rear doorway deposit, behind the southern wall of the mansion.54 With a tripartite room group
accompanied by transverse inner apartments as the core residence,55 the pr ¢£tj-™ was adjoined
by an administrative gateway area (™rrj.t n.t pr-¢£tj-™) behind the back entrance which controlled
and administered goods and people moving in and out of the building.56
At ‘Kahun’, altogether ten elite mansions of equal size flank the main East–West Street of
the town site, and display virtually the same type of inner arrangement as just described above
(fig. 2). The westernmost position in the northern row of mansions is occupied by a building
sitting upon a prominence of bedrock. Its elevated position, as the building oversees the rest of
the settlement, led the excavator Petrie to call it ‘Acropolis.’57 Later re-use of the mansion in the
Roman Period as a burial ground destroyed most of the inner area, recent excavations by the
48 Although Wegner, in: JARCE 35, pp. 41–42 argues that the frequent use of the stamp seal W£¢-sw.t Ó™-k£.w-r™ m£™-
∞rw m £b∂w as well as two seal impressions where this name is compounded with titles of a w™b-priest and a scribe
suggest that this toponym referred not exclusively to the town site, but to the foundation as a whole incorporat-
ing the tomb, the temple and the town, I found no decisive evidence for this. Stela BM 839, for instance, offers a
parallel where the title “royal wab-priest” is directly connected to the pyramid town of Amenemhat II (w™b-nsw.t
n S∞m Jmnjj), see HTBM II, pl. 7, Cat. No. 147.
49 Wegner located and excavated several rubbish heaps bound to different components of the foundation and
analysed their content, especially the sigillographic material, from both qualitative and quantitative perspec-
tives: J. Wegner, “Excavations at The Town of Enduring-are-the-Places-of-Khakaure-Maa-Kheru-in-Abydos” (1998)
pp. 32–43; idem., in: Ä&L 10, pp. 93–100, 104–17; and see especially idem., “Institutions and Officials at South
Abydos: An Overview of the Sigillographic Evidence” (2001), pp. 77–106.
50 The seal impressions found at Wah-sut give evidence for the regular record-keeping and the transfer of the docu-
ments between the communicating institutions; see below.
51 Wegner, in: MDAIK 57, p. 281.
52 D. O’Connor, “The Elite Houses of Kahun” (1997), p. 389, 391; B.J. Kemp–R.S. Merrillees, Minoan Pottery in
Second Millennium Egypt (1980), p. 79; Wegner, in: MDAIK 57, p. 282.
53 Petrie, IKG, p. 5.; Wegner, in: MDAIK 57, p. 282.
54 Wegner, in: JARCE 35, pp. 41–42.
55 House Type IIIb in Bietak’s classification; cf. M. Bietak, “Zum Raumprogramm ägyptischer Wohnhäuser des
Mittleren und des Neuen Reiches” (1996), pp. 23–37.
56 Wegner, in: JARCE 35, pp. 20–22. J. Wegner kindly informed me that the gateway area formerly thought to have
been situated inside Building A is actually a separate building.
57 Petrie, IKG, p. 5.
177
Fig. 1. The town of Wah-sut-Khakaura-maa-kheru at South-Abydos (plan courtesy of J. Wegner).
Royal Ontario Museum, however, confirmed that, apart from some minor deviations in layout,
the ‘Acropolis’ did belong to the series of northern mansions.58
Beyond its distinguished position, the seal impressions also gave evidence to the identi-
fication of Wah-sut’s mayoral residence. Sealings and seal-impressions from the town site of
el-Lahun are, on the other hand, poorly documented, and—as I suspect—heavily selected for
publication, just like the ceramic corpus or the first edition of hieratic papyri.59 Concentrating
more on illustrating the evidenced variations, the reader of Petrie’s accounts is basically kept in
ignorance of the quantity, frequency and the spatial distribution of the various sealing types.
Even so, seals of the ¢£tj-™ from different sectors of the settlement were reported in 1890–91.
In Kahun, Gurob and Hawara, a report on Petrie’s first season at el-Lahun, the author con-
fined himself to make some hasty remarks on the seals and gave no clue about their find-
58 Quite recently a team directed by the late Nicholas Millet surveyed the town site and conducted small-scale
excavations at selected points on behalf of the Royal Ontario Museum in seasons 1991–1993 and 1996–1997.
Beyond the short reports in the “Digging Diary” sections in EA 9 (1996), 30 and EA 11 (1997), 28, as well as N.B.
Millet, “Royal Ontario Museum Excavation—Lahun 1992,” Bulletin of the Canadian Mediterranean Institute 13/2
(1993), pp. 5–6 and idem, “Les fouilles du Musée royal de l’Ontario à El-Lahun,” in Canadians on the Nile / Rives
égyptiennes. Le Musée royal de l’Ontario et la découverte de l’Egypte ancienne (Paris, 1999), pp. 44–51, the single scholar-
ly account of the fieldwork is R.A. Frey–J.E. Knudstad, “The Re-examination of Selected Architectural Remains
at El-Lahun,” JSSEA 34 (2007), pp. 23–65. For a report on the Acropolis, see pp. 30–34, and figs. 3-26–3-34.
59 For the selective nature of the ceramic corpus published by Petrie, see the remarks of J. Bourriau and S. Quirke,
“The late Middle Kingdom ceramic repertoire in words and objects” (1998), pp. 61–62.
178
Fig. 2. Plan of the temple-town compound at el-Lahun (based on Kemp, Ancient Egypt, fig. 53, p. 150
with modifications).
spots.60 We could have learnt, however, from Carla Gallorini’s excellent study on the progress
of the excavation that Petrie mainly focused on the temple area and the adjacent southern part
of the western sector at that time; only limited excavation was conducted in the large eastern
sector (Rank N and Q, following Petrie’s nomenclature).61
In the course of the second season, Petrie carried out extensive clearing in the zone of the
northern mansions (including the ‘Acropolis’), which was one of his target areas in those weeks,
60 Petrie, KGH, 31. Clay impressions of mayoral seals on Pl. X, nos. 22–24 and 31. Only vague comments on
the findplaces of seals and sealings found in the 1914/1920 seasons were published in F. Petrie–G. Brunton–
A.M. Murray, Lahun II (1923), p. 41.
61 C. Gallorini, “A reconstruction of Petrie’s excavation at the Middle Kingdom settlement of Kahun” (1998), p. 55,
chart.
179
and published subsequently the largest number of mayoral seals.62 This could in fact be mere
coincidence so far. On the other hand, his description that “nearly all of these sealings (i.e. seal-
ings in general – Z.H.) were picked up in two or three rooms of the town”63 suggests a remark-
able accumulation of seal impressions, which I would compare with the deposit of discarded
seals associated with central administrative activity at South-Abydos.64 Therefore, I would pro-
pose the sector of northern mansions the most likely candidate of the el-Lahun mayoral seals
found in the second season.
To conclude, the seals of the ¢£tj-™ at el-Lahun seem to cluster around two particular
regions:
1. the temple area incorporating the temple and its surroundings (probably the rubbish heap
north of the cult-building is included) as well as the southern part of the settlement’s west-
ern sector, closest to the temple;
2. the sector of the northern mansions in the eastern half of the town site, including the
‘Acropolis.’
Wegner recorded a corresponding distribution pattern for the mayoral seals of Wah-sut:
seal impressions of different mayors were retrieved from all four deposits, but were extremely
frequent in the deposit of discarded rubbish from the temple’s subsidiary domestic and admin-
istrative block (temple area, West Block—fig. 3),65 and in the rubbish deposit of the ™rrj.t n.t pr
¢£tj-™ (town site, mayoral residence). The case of having two remarkable accumulations of ¢£tj-™
seal impressions, one at the temple, the other at the local centre of administration, should be
the archaeological reflection of the two-sided character of the mayor’s office, as it was explained
above with respect to his regular titles: simultaneous and ongoing management of the temple
and the settlement. Furthermore, investigation of seal impression back-types at South-Abydos
revealed the high frequency of seals attached to papyrus documents in the temple refuse
deposits which attests an intensive written communication between temple administration and
the seat of the mayor.66 Such a correspondence is excellently exemplified by the vast majority of
el-Lahun letters, especially the archived acts of the temple scribe, later steward Horemsaf, who
sent and received letters from at least four, apparently successive mayors: Nubkaura, Senwosret,
Khentikhetihotep and Senwosret’s son Khakheperrasoneb;67 even Petrie published one clay
impression of a ¢£tj-™ seal which was once attached to a papyrus document.68
We have seen so far three factors to relate the ‘Acropolis’ of el-Lahun to the mayoral residence
at South-Abydos: direct parallelism in layout, eminent position within the settlement’s inner
organization, and traces of administrative activity which is characterized by an intensive com-
munication with temple management. Accordingly, I would tentatively identify the ‘Acropolis’
62 Petrie, IKG, pl. IX: 4, 6, 8, 16, 18, 23 and possibly 7.

63 Ibid., p. 14.
64 Deposit of the administrative gateway area of the mayoral residence (™rrj.t). See above and footnote 61. See, how-
ever, Quirke’s remarks in his booklet Lahun: A town in Egypt 1800 BC, and the history of its landscape (2005), p. 87,
published since the completion of this manuscript, on a specific note in Petrie’s notebook no. 49 concerning
sealings found during the seasons 1889 which, if properly understood, refers to an area of middle-sized build-
ings in the Western Sector. See furthermore, Petrie Museum Archive CD-ROM (1999/2000), notebook 49.
65 Wegner, in: CRIPEL 22, p.103.
66 Ibid., p.100 n. 46.
67 Examples for the correspondence of mayor Nubkaure and temple scribe Horemsaf: pBerlin 10400 a, Kaplony-
Heckel, No. 594, Luft, Archiv I, P 10400 a; temple scribe Horemsaf and mayor Senwosret: pBerlin 10018,
Kaplony-Heckel, No. 14, Luft, Urkunden, pp. 35–42; mayor Khentikhetihotep and steward Horemsaf: pBerlin
10049 C, unpublished, Kaplony-Heckel, No. 39; mayor Khakheperrasoneb and steward Horemsaf: pBerlin
10030 B: Kaplony-Heckel, No. 21, Luft, Archiv I, P 10030 B. For the mayors of el-Lahun, see furthermore, Luft,
in: Oikumene 3, p. 150.
68 Petrie, KGH, Pl. X, p. 31.
180
Fig. 3. The temple site Nofer-Ka at South-Abydos (plan after Wegner, The Mortuary Temple of Senwosret III,
fig. 107, p. 254).
as the pr ¢£tj-™ of el-Lahun.69 Since the person of the mayor is bound to Hotep-Senwosret in both
the textual and sigillographic sources, the town in question should indeed be looked for at the
settlement site neighbouring the valley temple of Sesostris II.
Only two occurrences of the institution of mayoral residence are known to me from the
el-Lahun accounts. The verso of pUC 32168 is a cattle account from year 9 of Amenemhat IV,
which records various destinations of the cattle sent from a cattle-grid. In the list of expendi-
ture, the pr ¢£tj-™ is ranked first, as receiving two cattle as the annual tax (m b£kw) of the given
locality.70 Due to the small size of the fragment bearing the second instance of pr ¢£tj-™, it is hard
69 As B.J. Kemp suspected in his paper entitled Temple and town in ancient Egypt in P.J. Ucko–R. Tringham–G.W.
Dimbleby (eds.), Man, Settlement and Urbanism (1972), p. 662 writing about the Acropolis: “… here we may probably
recognize the civil government residence which appears in the legal papyri.” Quite independently, Quirke, assessing the
position of the mansion, has come to the same conclusion; Quirke, Lahun (2005), p. 47.
70 Former pKahun VI.21.: Griffith, HPKG, pl. XV; Collier–Quirke, Accounts, pp. 56–59, CD files UC32168–b,
T32168b. For an extensive commentary, see the still unpublished doctoral dissertation of Éva Liptay, Az adózás
rendszere Egyiptomban a Középbirodalom idején (The system of taxation in Egypt during the Middle Kingdom (2002),
pp. 76–77.
181
to reconstruct the context.71 The choice of red ink and traces of the hieratic equivalent of
suggest, however, that here part of the heading to a grain-account could have been intended.
The presence of ¢£tj-™ at the head of the el-Lahun foundation refers to its recognition as part
of the nationwide system of administration. This appears to be not exceptional, as—although
evidence is scarce—beyond Hotep-Senwosret, mayors are known of Ó™ S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw (Senbi,72
Senwosret73 and Kai),74 and of W£¢-sw.t Ó™-k£.w-r™ m£™-∞rw m £b∂w (Nakht, Nakht’s son Khentykhety,
Ameniseneb, Noferher, Paenhapy and Sehotepib);75 both are settlements attached to a specific
royal cult-installation.76
It is certainly not insignificant that all three high officials of local administration represent-
ing a settlement in the tax collection scenes of Rekhmire’s tomb,77 the mayor (∞£tj-™), the herald
or reporter, keeper of the public records (w¢mw), and the district councillor (qnb.tj n w), are
well attested in the el-Lahun archive.78 It has been declared that the mayor governed the town
of Hotep-Senwosret; whereas the reporter and the district councillor appear as bald titles with
no explicit association with any particular settlement. However, both titles are predominant
in letters concerned with private or public affairs and simultaneously missing from papers of
temple management, which emphasizes their secular nature. It cannot be excluded, especially
as to the correspondence, that some of the el-Lahun papyri involve people and matters outside
of the royal foundation. At least in formal cases, a title-holder’s attribution to a settlement dif-
ferent than the place of the record-keeping or that of the letter writer, is indicated with a geni-
tival construction: e.g. mtj n s£ n Ìnn-nsw.t “the phyle controller of Heracleopolis” on a small
fragment listing various officials,79 or jmj-r£ pr n Ìtp S-n-wsr.t [m£™-∞rw] “the steward of Hotep-
Senwosret [maa-kheru]” referred to in a letter sent to the temple management by a district coun-
cillor, who is suspected to be identical with the district councillor of Ta-aut(?), an unidentified
settlement, mentioned in the same document.80 The absence of such an adjunct for the two
titles in question could be explained in terms of their pertinence to the community proper, i.e.
to the local government of Hotep-Senwosret maa-kheru.
Similarly, most of the public offices, like the office of the vizier or the office of the nome,
are situated in the town of Hotep-Senwosret,81 which is defined as an independent legal entity
provided with its own bureaucratic apparatus (e.g. sfl£ n njw.t tn),82 whereas evidence for the exis-
tence of a coequal governing body in Sekhem-Senwosret maa-kheru is absolutely lacking.83 Sekhem-
Senwosret, consequently, should have been a locality in the service of the royal cult operating
essentially in direct subordination to the local administration of Hotep-Senwosret. This constel-
71 pUC 32323 r vso 1; Collier–Quirke, Accounts, pp. 82–83, CD files UC32323–2–b–LE, T32323l.
72 Martin, Private-Name Seals, Nos. 1544, 1544a.
73 Statue Durham Nr. 501: Gomaà, in: SAK 11.
74 P.E. Newberry, El Bersheh I (1895), p. 7, pl. 33.
75 The fullest account of the mayors of Wah-sut can be found in J. Wegner, “Social and Historical Implications of
the King’s Daughter Reniseneb and other Women at the town of Wah-Sut” (2004), p. 233.
76 Cf. W. Helck in LÄ I (1975), col. 878 s.v. Bürgermeister.
77 K. Sethe, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie IV (1961), 1119–39.
78 The w¢mw is attested on pUC 32058 ro 5, pUC 32095 C ro x+3, pUC 32114 C ro 1, pUC 32127 ro 5, pUC 32175
ro 3, pUC 32200 ro 2–5, pUC 32209 x+23–x+24, pUC 32293 ro 1, pBerlin 10032 B ro 1, 5, pBerlin 10038 A ro 8;
the qnb.tj n w occurs on pUC 32092 A ro 4, pUC 32128 ro 5–6, pBerlin 10021 ro 12, pBerlin 10032 A ro 1, pBerlin
10045 ro 2, 6. (For the University College papyri, Collier–Quirke, Lahun Letters, and idem., Accounts should be
consulted. From the Berlin documents, pBerlin 10038 A was published in Luft, Archiv I, pBerlin 10021 and
10045 in Luft, Urkunden, while pBerlin 10032 B is still unpublished.
79 pUC 32095 Cii ro x+3, Collier–Quirke, Accounts, pp. 194–95, CD files UC32095B–f, T32095C.
80 pBerlin 10045, which was discussed above.
81 ∞£ n †£tj on seal UC 6707: Martin, Private-Name Seals, No. 1847., Petrie, IKG, pl. 9 [5], and on pUC 32167 ro 2:
Collier–Quirke, Religious, pp. 118–19, CD files UC32167–f–RI, T32167f; ∞£ n sp£.t on pUC 32168 ro 2: Collier–
Quirke, Accounts, pp. 56–57, CD files UC32168–f, T32168f.
82 On pUC 32167 ro 6, it is ’the scribe of this town’ who approves a document. See the previous footnote.
83 It should also be noted that there is no seal or impression of a private-name or institutional seal at our disposal
which may be related to Sekhem-Senwosret.
182
lation conforms to the use of epistolary formulae in letters sent from Sekhem-Senwosret to the
mayor of Hotep-Senwosret, which betray the subordinate position of the high officials of temple
management to the ¢£tj-™.84 To conclude, the temple-and-town compound, as a whole, may not
be equated with Sekhem-Senwosret maa-kheru.
Sekhem-SenwoSret and the teMples oF el-l ahun

If Hotep-Senwosret is inseparable from the town site of el-Lahun, and Sekhem-Senwosret, the locality
deeply concerned with maintaining the cult in the royal temple, may not stand for the whole
of the royal foundation, the theory proposing that the pyramid, the mortuary temple and the
pyramid town had its own designation deserves reconsideration again.
As it was discussed above, the identification of the pr ¢£tj-™ at el-Lahun leads to the under-
standing of the town site as Hotep-Senwosret-maa-kheru, hence the pyramid and the mortuary
temple would be the most likely candidates for Sekhem-Senwosret-maa-kheru.
pBerlin 10116 A c, a letter from a subordinate to his superior, formulates the name of
the pyramid as mr n nsw.t-bjtj Ó™-∞pr-r™ m£™-∞rw “the pyramid of the dual
king Khakheperra, true-of-voice.”85 This is a technical term in the register of administration,
consequently does not rule out that otherwise the pyramid may have had its own basilophorous
designation, like Ó™-sw.t Jmn-m-¢£.t for the pyramid of Amenemhat I,86 or S-n-wsr.t ptr-t£.wj for
that of Sesostris I.87 Nevertheless, the synchronous use of the phrase mr n nsw.t-bjtj Ó™-∞pr-r™ m£™-
∞rw besides S∞m S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw within the archive, implies different frames of reference.88
As to the mortuary temple, the verso of pBerlin 10003 A, a large sheet of the temple journal
from year 9 of Sesostris III, enumerates three temples in a rather damaged context, but evidently
in relation to Sekhem-Senwosret:89
(6) [… … …] S∞m S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw

(7) [… … …] ¢w.t-mr n nsw.t-bjtj Ó™-∞pr-r™ m£™-∞rw
(8) [… … ¢w].t-[n†r] n.t Jnpw tpj-∂w=f m S∞m S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw
(9) [¢w.t-n†r n.t Sbk nb R£-s¢].wj (?) m S∞m S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw
Line 6 is the end of an introductory note to the list of temples, too fragmentary to come up with
a coherent text. An official, Senwosret’s son Ameni is somehow related to “coming from ß-Sbk.”
The text also mentions the food production area of the divine offerings (ßn™ n ¢tp.w-n†r), and
refers to a certain Horemsaf(?), scribe of the temple, who is not identical with the well-known
temple scribe Horemsaf, whose business files constitute the core of the el-Lahun correspon-
84 The analysis of epistolary formulae in private letters from the Old and Middle Kingdoms is the subject of the
author’s PhD dissertation.
85 Unpublished. Kaplony-Heckel, No. 127; facsimile in Luft, in: Oikumene 3, p. 146, fig. 55. Cf. Luft, in: Lahun
Studies, p.18. The name of the pyramid is written vertically in the original.
86 Sources collected in Gomaà, Besiedlung Ägyptens II, pp. 40–41.
87 Arnold, Pyramid of Senwosret I, p. 90, nos. 1, 4.
88 It should also be noted that with the exception of the two pyramids near el-Lisht, where finds from the founda-
tion deposit revealed and assured the name of the royal tomb, the designations of the late 12th dynasty pyramids
are equivocal or not known to us at all.
89 pBerlin 10003 A vso 6–9. The inventory of statues and the phyle-transfer protocol on the recto have been pub-
lished and commented by many of the scholars (see below), the text on the verso, however, is still unpublished;
see Kaplony-Heckel, No. 3.
183
dence. I suppose, offerings presented to the specified temples are concerned in this part of
the document. The passage is of special importance not only because it reveals that at least two
temples (¢ww.t)—the temple of Anubis and perhaps that of Sobek—are located within the area
of Sekhem-Senwosret, but it refers to the temple dedicated to the cult of Sesostris II as ¢w.t-mr; a
building with this function is elsewhere mentioned as ¢w.t-n†r n.t nsw.t-bjtj Ó™-∞pr-r™ m£™-∞rw m
S∞m S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw.90 Moreover, it is the only item in the enumeration which is not appended
by the m S∞m S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw locative.
Another unique allusion to a temple in relation to the pyramid of Sesostris II can be found
on pBerlin 10096, an extract from the temple journal with a copy of a letter, dated to the reign
of Sesostris III.91
[¢w].t-[n†r] n.t S∞m S-n-wsr.t [m£™-∞rw] mr
The letter goes on with the catalogue of temple walls compiled perhaps for an inspection of the
overall state of the building.
The word mr in apposition to ¢w.t-n†r suggests that in both cases raises the question if the
building in question may be the pyramid temple. Petrie, however, found only the foundation of
what seems to have been a small offering place at the eastern side of the pyramid, where the cus-
tomary elaborated temple would be expected.92 Only chips of red granite with coloured hiero-
glyphs survived from the original decoration.93 It is very likely, therefore, that the temple ¢w.t-
n†r n.t S∞m S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw mr, the architectural components of which are described on pBerlin
10096, is actually not the small offering place, but the valley temple of el-Lahun. Just as on the
seal of the ¢£tj-™ Noferankhi,94 here the expression mr follows the full-form designation of the
temple, and may have been used to highlight that the building belonged indeed to the funerary
enclosure of Sesostris II.95 On the contrary, pBerlin 10003 A cited above, gives the name of the
temple as a compound in which the word for ‘pyramid’ is directly adjected to ¢w.t-n†r, and I am
tempted to conceive that in this second instance, de facto the offering chapel at the pyramid is
90 As it is exemplified in pBerlin 10007 ro 6. Kaplony-Heckel, No. 6. The papyrus, which is a summary of expendi-
ture of the incoming goods of the temple of Anubis who is upon his mountain in Sekhem-Senwosret, was partly
published in U. Luft, Die chronologische Fixierung des ägyptischen Mittleren Reiches nach dem Tempelarchiv von Illahun
(1992), pp. 44–47, Tf. 4, and discussed, idem., in: Lahun Studies, p. 21.
91 pBerlin 10096 ro 3. The document was published in Luft, Urkunden, pp. 109–112, Tf. 34. See furthermore
Kaplony-Heckel, No. 82; Scharff, ’Briefe,’ pp. 47–48, Tf. *10–*11; U. Luft, “Der Taltempel vol el-Lahun” (1996),
pp. 171–73; idem., in: Lahun Studies, pp. 18–19. Having completed this manuscript, I discussed the content of that
particular document at length in a separate article and with a slightly different outcome; see Z. Horváth, in: Acta
Ant. Hung. 46 (2006), esp. pp. 103–111.
92 Petrie, KGH, p. 21; idem., IKG, p. 4; Petrie–Brunton–Murray, Lahun II, pp. 5, 8, pls. 8, 17. M. Lehner, The Complete
Pyramids (1997), p. 175.
93 Petrie–Brunton–Murray, Lahun II, p. 5. A recent analysis of the chapel with special attention to its decoration
was published by A. Oppenheim, in: The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt. Essays in Honor of David B. O’Connor
(2007), pp. 207–218. The re-excavation of the area by the expedition of the Royal Ontario Museum apparently
could not contribute to the structure of the building.
94 Martin, Private-Name Seals, No. 732; Petrie, KGH, pl. X, p. 24.
95 As it was proposed by Luft, in: Lahun Studies, p. 18. Note, however, that elsewhere I argued that in pBerlin 10096,
where mr follows the full-form designation of the temple, the phrase should be resolved as referring to two
separate edifices: “the temple of Sekhem-Senwosret-maa-kheru (and that of) the pyramid,” i.e. the valley temple
and the pyramid (or eastern) chapel; see Horváth, in: Acta Ant. Hung. 46 p. 106.
184
intended.96 Although about 1,5 km far from the valley temple, textual sources allude to some
regular ritual activity at the pyramid. pBerlin 10012 A ro II records the list of wab-priests who
kept vigil at the pyramid for a fixed period,97 while pBerlin 10128 B b98 specifies their duty as
“keeping vigil” (rsw) and “adoring” (dw£w), which was perhaps taken place at either the eastern
or the northern chapel of the pyramid.99 Whichever chapel is concerned, the cult activity and
its participants were administered in Sekhem-Senwosret, the place where the files of the temple
management were archived.100
It has just been noted that the valley temple proper is referred to in the papyri as ¢w.t-n†r n.t
nsw.t-bjtj Ó™-∞pr-r™ m£™-∞rw m S∞m S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw “the temple of the dual king Khakheperra, true-
of-voice, in Sekhem-Senwosret-maa-kheru,”101 which puts it clear that the temple building is not
identical with, but situated within Sekhem-Senwosret. The mode of denominating a temple dedi-
cated to the royal mortuary cult in administrative context upon the pattern “temple of King
X” can be paralleled with the cylindrical seal of Senbi, mayor of Ó™ S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw, who was
simultaneously jmj-r£ ¢w.t-n†r ™n∞-msw.t “manager of the temple of Ankh-mesut (= Sesostris I).”102
It has so far been demonstrated that Sekhem-Senwosret could not be identical with the pyra-
mid or the lower temple proper, but with a wider unit housing the temple of the king and hav-
ing authority over the cult activity at the pyramid’s offering chapel. The extension of the unit
is illustrated, furthermore, by the fact that—as it can be learnt from e.g. pBerlin 10003 A—
besides the valley temple of Sesostris II, at least two more temples were accommodated within
the boundaries of Sekhem-Senwosret: the temple of Anubis who-is-upon-his-hill and that of a
local form of Sobek, perhaps Sbk nb R£-s¢.wj. Stephen Quirke, who presented a thorough study
96 A later but comparable textual attestation of the temple+pyramid compound comes from the Abydos stela of
Ahmose I, where the king declares: jw £b.n ¢m(=j) dj.t jr.t n=s m T£-∂sr m s£¢.t mnw.w n.w ¢m(=j) “(My)
Majesty desired to have a pyramid-chapel built for her (his grandmother, Queen Tetisheri) in the Sacred Land, in
the approach(-route?) of the monuments of (my) Majesty.” (Urk IV, 28 1–2; E.R. Ayrton–C.T. Currelly–A.E.P. Weigall,
Abydos III (1904), pl. 50.) The building in question is a mudbrick chapel with a core formed by a grid of retaining
walls filled with debris, and a small offering chapel with the stela erected at the back of it. The chapel was placed
intentionally onto the axis of the Ahmose-complex, roughly halfway between the pyramid and the cenotaph;
see S. Harvey, Monuments of Ahmose at Abydos, EA 4 (1994), pp. 3–5; a summary of the state of affairs is in
Lehner, Complete Pyramids, pp. 190–91. The passage, referring to a building which bears no resemblance to the
enclosure-like structure represented by the ¢w.t-hieroglyph, shows—as Spencer aptly remarks—that “the basis for
applying this term to a particular building lay not in its plan, but in its function” (Spencer, Egyptian Temple, p. 25), i.e.
to serve as an offering place for the cult of a person, just in the case of the small offering chapel to the east of
the pyramid of Sesostris II. Although the term “pyramid” has been interpreted as denoting (quite surprisingly
and exceptionally) the Tetisheri-chapel proper, I had rather take it to qualify the building as pertaining to the
nearby pyramid of Ahmose (in this case the pyramid was associated with two offering places: the so-called small
temple of the king, and the chapel built for his grandmother).
97 This particular list of the otherwise well-known document is still unpublished. Kaplony-Heckel, No. 10; S.
Quirke, “Gods in the temple of the king: Anubis at Lahun” (1997), p. 28.
98 Unpublished. Kaplony-Heckel, No. 171; Quirke, in: Temple in Ancient Egypt, p. 28.
99 Petrie located two small shrines at the northern and the eastern sides of the pyramid, respectively. For the north-
ern shrine, of which painted wall fragments with offering scenes, an altar made of black granite and a diorite
statue (not specified) were found in 1890 and 1914; see Petrie, IKG, p. 5, and Petrie–Brunton–Murray, Lahun II,
p. 8, pl. XVII.
100 This could be the reason, I guess, why the toponym Sekhem-Senwosret maa-kheru rather exceptionally has the pyra-
mid determinative at its second occurrence on the Abydos stela of Sobekdidi. See W. M. F. Petrie, Tombs of the
Courtiers and Oxyrhynkhos (1925), pl. 12, and cf. with the remarks of Luft in: Lahun Studies, p. 18, footnote 127.
185
on Anubis at el-Lahun, emphasized that the significance of the cult of this god appears to be
comparable with the royal mortuary cult.103
Accounts from the archive reveal that the royal mortuary temple was also as ritually as
economically bound to the temple of Sobek of Shedit and Hathor, Mistress of Atfih (Tp-j¢.w),
but these temples of nationwide importance at that time are never found stated as belonging
to the el-Lahun foundation.104 There is good evidence from both Old and Middle Kingdom
pyramid complexes that the royal mortuary cult involved the active participation of a series of
gods;105 in the case of el-Lahun, the ‘Great Festival Papyrus’ in London provides a list of deities
whose festivals were regularly kept at the valley temple of Sesostris II. On the other hand, these
gods need not be essentially resident at the funerary complex: for instance, the festival “Sailing
(fln.t) of Hathor, Mistress of Heracleopolis” rather implies a visitation of the (image of the)
goddess from her not too remote cult centre,106 whereas Sokar, whose festivals were strictly
103 Quirke, in: Temple in Ancient Egypt, passim. As compared with the other deities attested in the archive, the out-
standing character and the established cult of Anubis and Sobek, Lord of Ra-sehui at el-Lahun is demonstrated
by the following selective list of textual references: 1) references to a ¢w.t-n†r dedicated to the god in Sekhem-
Senwosret: pBerlin 10003 A (Anubis and Sobek, Lord of Ra-sehui), pBerlin 10007 (Anubis), pBerlin 10012 A
(Anubis and Sobek), pBerlin 10069 (mentions the roll of the temple journal of the temple of Sobek, Lord of
Ra-sehui), pBerlin 10300 b (Sobek), the Abydos stela of Sobekdidi (for literature, see above); 2) references to
daily and festival offerings presented to the deity in Sekhem-Senwosret: pBerlin 10011 (for the deceased Sesos-
tris II, Anubis and Sobek, Lord of Ra-sehui), pBerlin 10044 (for Anubis), pBerlin 10055 (for Anubis), pBerlin
10112 B c (for the king, Anubis and Hathor), pBerlin 10203 (for Anubis), pBerlin 10415 b (for Khakheperra,
Anubis, who-is-upon-his-hill and another form of Anubis); 3) the occurrence of priestly titles in relation to the
god’s cult: pBerlin 10031 A (¢m-n†r Sbk – it is not clear if Sobek, Lord of Ra-sehui is meant here), pBerlin 10046
(wtw Jnpw); 4) references to rituals centred on the god’s image: pBerlin 10003 B (procession of the image of
Anubis), pBerlin 10248 (festivals of ∞np-ß™w for and mn∞.t of Anubis, who-is-upon-his-hill), pBerlin 10307 f
(procession of the image of Anubis). The data gathered by Quirke on the prominence of Anubis at el-Lahun
could be complemented with pBerlin 10007 ro col. 1 which reveals that besides the temple of the royal cult,
statues of officials could also have been housed temporarily inside the Anubis-temple in Sekhem-Senwosret: nfr
pw twt nb n smr m ¢w.t-n†r [n.t] Jnpw m S∞m S-n-wsr.t [m£™-∞rw] “There was no statue of a courtier inside the temple [of]
Anubis in Sekhem-Senwosret-[maa-kheru].” For literature, see footnote 89 above. For statue-list of officials, see the
unpublished pBerlin 10239 d (Kaplony-Heckel, No. 311.) or pBerlin 10312 d (Kaplony-Heckel, No. 421).
104 Luft, in: Lahun Studies, p. 21 claimed that based on pBerlin 10095 the temple of Hathor, Mistress of Atfih
was also located in Sekhem-Senwosret. The document, the beginning of which is missing, is an extract from the
temple journal with a copy of a letter, concerning offerings presented to the deceased Sesostris II and to the
royal wife, king’s mother, the deceased Khnumetnoferhedjet. I am convinced that the passage (ro x+1–x+3) n
nsw.t-bjtj Ó™-∞pr-r™ m£™-∞rw m S∞m S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw m ¢w.t-n†r / Ìw.t-¢rw nb.t Tp-j¢.w mjt.t jr.t n ¢m.t-nsw.t mw.t-nsw.t
Ônm.t-nfr-¢∂.t [m£™.t-∞rw] / m S∞m S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw should be meant as “(offerings) to the dual king Khakheperra,
true-of-voice, in Sekhem-Senwosret-maa-kheru FRoM the temple / of Hathor, Mistress of Atfih; the same to the royal
wife, king’s mother, the deceased Khnumetnoferhedjet / in Sekhem-Senwosret-maa-kheru.” Unpublished papyrus.
See Kaplony-Heckel, No. 81. The Hathor-temple is cited on pBerlin 10006 (ro III 9: ¢sb ™qw jnn m ¢w.t-n†r n.t
Ìw.t-¢rw [nb.t Tp-j¢.w] “account of meal brought from the temple of Hathor [Mistress of Atfih]”) as well as on
pBerlin 10056 A ro II 5 (this time together with the temple of Sobek, the Shedtite) as (one of) the source(s)
of the divine offerings. pBerlin 10006 was partly published in Luft, Chronologische Fixierung, pp. 39–44, Tf. 3,
and commented in A. Spalinger, “Praise God and Pay the Priests” (1998), pp. 43–57; see furthermore Kaplony-
Heckel, No. 5. This relevant part of pBerlin 10056 A has not been published yet, see Kaplony-Heckel, No. 44
and Quirke, in: Temple in Ancient Egypt, p. 29 for the Hathor-temple.
105 Fragments of relief decoration and statuary from the temple areas within the royal pyramid complexes con-
stitute our basic source of information for this. See furthermore the feasts of gods mentioned in the Abusir
Papyri; P. Posener-Kriéger–J. L. de Cenival, Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum. Fifth Series: The Abu Sir Papyri
(1968), esp. pls. 13–14, 19, 60, and 82; P. Posener-Kriéger, Les archives du temple funéraire de Néferirkarê-Kakaï
(1976), pp. 59–123; 535–63.
106 pUC 32191 (former pKahun XLI.1); for an image, transcription, and brief overview of the papyrus, see
Collier–Quirke, Accounts, pp. 92–95, CD files UC32191–frame2–b–LE, UC32191–frame2–b–RI, UC32191–
f–RI, T32191b2, T32191b3, T32191f3, T32191f4. The document is discussed in details in Luft, Chronologische
Fixierung, pp. 138–42 and fig. 2. The feast “Sailing of Hathor, Mistress of Heracleopolis” is commented from
a chronological point of view in Ibid., p. 178. For a similar understanding of Hathor’s position within the cult-
complex, see Quirke, in: Temple in Ancient Egypt, p. 45.
186
bound to the institute of Egyptian kingship, is frequently cited in the papyri for his contribution
to the sustenance of the royal mortuary cult.107
The satellite cults of Anubis and Sobek at el-Lahun could be paralleled with the attested
cults of Anubis, who-is-upon-his-hill and Hathor, Mistress of Atfih within the funerary enclosure
of Sesostris I at el-Lisht (Ônm-sw.t Ópr-k£-r™). The inscription of the seated statue of Senwosret,
mayor of Kha-Senwosret (i.e. the pyramid town of Sesostris I), reveals that the owner of the statue
was simultaneously overseer of priests in the “house” (pr) of Hathor, Mistress of Atfih amid
Khenem-Sut and priest of Anubis, who-is-upon-his-hill (¢m-n†r Jnpw tpj-∂w=f ).108 The same cult of
Anubis is likely to be referred in the Memphite annals of Amenemhat II, which clearly place the
“altar (∞£.t) of Anubis, who-is-upon-his-hill, in Khenem-Sut-Kheperkara.”109 It must be admitted,
however, that just as at el-Lahun, the architectural exploration of the funerary precinct has
not yet helped us with locating the sanctuaries in question. As it was mentioned above, the
cult of Hathor, Mistress of Atfih served as basic evidence for Dieter Arnold to reject the theory
that the term Ônm-sw.t denoted the building of the mortuary temple at the eastern side of
the pyramid. Based on Hathor’s close association with the royal ka in Old Kingdom pyramid
complexes, he hypothetically identified the extensive limestone subfoundations in front of the
small ka-pyramid of Sesostris I in the outer court with the sanctuary (pr) of Hathor.110 Needless
to say, it is an attractive idea but still awaits confirmation. Unfortunately, we still miss the clue
to the possible location of the cult-building of Anubis in Khenem-Sut, either. A relief from the
area of the pyramid temple, on which the king is “beloved of Anubis, who-is-upon-his-hill,”111
or the wooden shrine containing the jmj-wt-emblem of Anubis, found together with a pair of
painted statues of the king in a brick chamber, east to the pyramid, north to the upper end of
the causeway, constructed in the thickness of the enclosure wall of the tomb of the High Priest
of Heliopolis, Imhotep, will not take us further in positioning the Anubis-chapel within the
sacred enclosure.112 Quirke would draw parallel between the funerary enclosure near el-Lisht
and the Djeser-djeseru complex of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari, where a chapel of Hathor and
another of Anubis append to the central building of the royal cult.113 Such an architectural
setting with two subsidiary chapels counterbalancing each other is indicative in a sense that
both are labelled as ¢w.t-n†r “temple” in the inscriptions,114 suggesting architecturally indepen-
dent buildings, yet integrated into the supreme functioning unit, Djeser-djeseru, in the service of
the royal mortuary cult.
The cult-buildings of Anubis and Sobek at el-Lahun are denoted likewise as ¢w.t-n†r, a term
applied normally to “the main building of the temple complex, the temple itself, in which the image of the
god was kept, and the offering rituals performed,” as Patricia Spencer puts it in her lexicographical
107 See e.g. pBerlin 10041 ro I 1–3, published in Luft, Chronologische Fixierung, pp. 63–65.
108 Gomaà, in: SAK 11, pp.108–110. The inscription on the right side of the seat entitles Senwosret as overseer
of priests of Wadjet, Mistress of Weptawi, stolist of Min, and priest of Khnum, Lord of Semenuhor; see Ibid.,
pp. 109, 111–12. The cult of Hathor in the funerary enclosure is further supported by a fragment of an offer-
ing table from the pyramid temple, which invokes Kheperkara and Hathor, Mistress of Atfih, amid Khenem-Sut
(J.E. Gautier–G. Jéquier, Memoire sur les Fouilles de Licht (1902), p. 60 and fig. 69) and the scarab seal of Horsobek,
great wab-priest of Hathor, Mistress of Atfih, amid Khenem-Sut (Martin, Private-Name Seals, No. 1125).
109 W.M. Flinders Petrie, Memphis I (1909) pl. 5, line 3.
110 Arnold, Senwosret I, p.17, footnote 33. On the nature of the term pr and the wide variety of meanings it con-
veys both in domestic (“house-building” and “estate”) and in temple architectural context (“temple-building,”
“temenos” and “administrative estate of the temple”), see Spencer, Egyptian Temple, pp.14–20.
111 Gautier–Jéquier, Licht, p. 20 and fig. 13.
112 W. C. Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt I (1953), pp. 193–94.
113 Quirke, in: Temple in Ancient Egypt, pp. 44–45.
114 The chapel of Anubis: K. Sethe, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie I (1906), p. 299, 13–14; E. Naville, The Temple of Deir el
Bahari II (1896), pl. 33; the chapel of Hathor: Urkunden der 18. Dynastie I, p. 301, 7; E. Naville, The Temple of Deir
el Bahari IV (1901), pl. 88.
187
study on the Egyptian terms of temple architecture.115 It is beyond doubt that the dimensions
of the ruined area can hardly allow for the reconstruction of a three-temple compound, similar
in arrangement to the Djeser-djeseru of Deir el-Bahari, in which the central main building was
flanked with smaller shrines housing secondary cults.116 Could it then be that the valley temple
itself housed the cults of Anubis and Sobek in the form of rooms sanctified to these deities? A
passage of pBerlin 10069 referring to the roll of the journal of the temple of Sobek, Lord of
Ra-sehui makes it very implausible;117 a temple archive kept apart from the documents of the
royal temple rather implies a separate cult installation. If pBerlin 10046 really proves to be the
list of individuals attached to the temple of Anubis, as Luft suspects, the same may hold true for
the Anubis-temple, too.118
The often-cited section of pBerlin 10012 A, temple journal from year 7 of Sesostris III, may
help to clarify the relationship between these three temples of Sekhem-Senwosret-maa-kheru.119
(17) mjtj n [ß™.t h£b.t m Ìtp] S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw jnn

(18) ¢£tj-™ jmj-r£ [¢w.t-n†r Nwb-k£.w-r™ ∂]d n flrj-¢£b.t ¢rj-tp Ppj-¢tpw
(19) ∂d dj(=j) <r>∞=k r-nt.t ∞pr pr.t Spd.t m £bd 4 prj.t sw 16 j∞ ¢r jm[… …]
(20) wnw.t ¢w.t-n†r n.t S∞m S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw n.t Jnpw tpj-∂w=f n.t Sbk [… …]
(21) ¢n™ rdj.t jr.t(w) t£ ß™.t ¢r hrwjj.t n.t ¢w.t-n†r
(17) Copy of the [document sent from Hotep]-Senwosret-maa-kheru. Deliverer:

(18) The mayor, [manager of the temple, Nubkaura s]ays to the chief lector-priest Pepihotep,
(19) saying: (I) let you <k>now that the heliacal rising of Sothis will happen on day 16, fourth month
of Perit. Please, inform(?) [… …]
(20) the phyla of the temple of Sekhem-Senwosret-maa-kheru, that of Anubis, who-is-upon-his-hill,
and that of Sobek [… …] thereof.
(21) Furthermore, have this document enrolled into the journal of the temple.
115 P. Spencer, The Egyptian Temple (1984), p. 55. Cf. with the inscription of the Karnak stela of Sobekhotep IV men-
tioning components of a ¢w.t-n†r; W. Helck, Historisch–biographische Texte der 2. Zwischenzeit und neue Texte der 18.
Dynastie (1975), pp. 32–33; Spencer, Egyptian Temple, p. 46.
116 The most detailed description of the temple area is given in Petrie–Brunton–Murray, Lahun II, p. 40: “The
causeway led up the hill to a temple about 125 ft. wide, with an annexe of about 17 ft. more on the north. About
157 ft. from the front line is the square pit in the rock with a foundation deposit (…). This pit was about the
centre of the whole site, which extended altogether rather over 300 ft. from front to back.” Based on Petrie’s
report, the elongated temple area surrounded by a thick enclosure wall, measured roughly 39 m in width, and
over 91 m in length.
117 Ro I 2–3: ßfdw n hrjj.t n.t ¢w.t-n†r n.t Sbk nb R£-s¢.w[j] / rdj jn sfl£ ¢w.t-n†r […] S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw [S-n]-wsr[.t s£ ..]-∞wj
“The roll of the journal of the temple of Sobek, Lord of Ra-sehui / given by the scribe of the temple [of Sekhem]-Senwosret-
maa-kheru, [Sen]wosr[et’s son ..]-khu.” In line 3, the length of the lacuna does not allow an emendation with the
name and epithet of a god. This particular section of the otherwise unpublished papyrus was discussed by Luft,
Chronologische Fixierung, pp. 81–83. See, Kaplony-Heckel, No. 54.
118 pBerlin 10046 is an unpublished papyrus. See Kaplony-Heckel, No. 36. For the interpretation of the name-list,
see the remarks of Luft, in: Lahun Studies, p. 24, footnote 168.
119 For this section, see Luft, Chronologische Fixierung, pp. 54–57 with extensive bibliography. To the list of literature,
add M. Müller, “Randnotizen zu einigen Illahun-Papyri” (1996), pp. 20–26.
188
Note. In defence of the translation, hereby I intend to emphasize that although the ductus sug-
gests an experienced hand, the text is in fact a corrupt copy of a letter in the temple journal, which
would account for many of the uncertainties. I would ascribe the followings to the inattentive
work of the scribe: 1) the specification of the person who has delivered the document is missing
from the end of line 17 (cf. however, pBerlin 10050 ro II 1–2: mjtj n s[fl£ j]nn m Ìtp S-n-wsr.t [m£™]-
∞rw / jnn †bw S™n∞-pt¢ s£ Wr-n-pt¢ “Copy of the document, brought from Hotep-Senwosret-maa-kheru,
/ the deliverer: the sandal-maker, Seankhptah’s son, Werenptah”120 or pBerlin 10002 B ro 17–18:
mjtj n sfl£ h£bjj n jmj-r£ ∞tm.t n Ìtp S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw / S-n-wsr.t s£ Snb=tj=fj jnn jrj-™£ n ¢w.t-n†r ™£m S-n-
wsr.t-™n∞ “Copy of the document sent to the treasurer of Hotep-Senwosret-maa-kheru, / Senwosret’s son,
Senebtifi; the deliverer: the doorkeeper of the temple, the Asiatic Senwosretankh,”121 both are headings to
letter-copies in the temple journal; and see pBerlin 10410 b ro I 6 cited below). 2) As opposed to
Matthias Müller, who argued for an optative s∂m=f at the beginning of line 18,122 I would follow
Luft’s reasoning in identifying the construction as the corrupt version of the pattern X ∂d n Y
∂d dj(=j) r∞=k r-nt.t well attested in the el-Lahun correspondence,123 see e.g. pBerlin 10038 B.124
On the other hand, the ligature regularly transcribed as should be corrected to
dj(=j) <r>∞=k.125 This writing could be due to the failure to reproduce precisely in the horizontal
lines of the temple journal the original text, arranged most likely into columns,126 where the
sequence ∂d-dj-r∞-=k normally appears as one long ligature. 3) Following the same principle, I
would rather explain the obscure ¢r jm[…] initiated by the particle j∞ at the very end of line 19
as an abnormal variant of the construction rdj ¢r n.127
The letter is the announcement of the heliacal rise of Sothis, brought from the mayor of
Hotep-Senwosret to the chief lector-priest, Pepihotep, who is instructed to inform the personnel
of the temple of Anubis and that of Sobek about it, and to ensure that the message would be
entered into the temple day-book. It has been discussed that the mayor’s concomitant title jmj-r£
¢w.t-n†r reflects his position as the highest administrator of the temple. In the papyri, if the term
¢w.t-n†r is not qualified (like ¢w.t-n†r n.t Sbk), the royal cult-building should always be meant. In
all likelihood, the addressee of the letter, the flrj-¢£b.t ¢rj-tp Pepihotep worked for the same insti-
tution (so resident in Sekhem-Senwosret at the moment of delivery), especially in the light of that
we have no evidence within the archive for a chief lector priest serving for a temple other than
that of the deceased Sesostris II. The document could also be taken as giving evidence for the
simultaneous service of three separate temple staff (wnw.t): one in the royal temple, another in
the temple of Anubis, and the third one in the temple of Sobek (presumably Lord of Ra-sehui);
the latter two apparently under the responsibility of the royal temple’s high management.128
The hierarchy of temple management could be outlined as follows:
120 For the papyrus, see Kaplony-Heckel, No. 40. For the facsimile of this passage, see Möller, Hieratische Lesestücke,
p. 18, transcription in Borchardt, in: ZÄS 37, p. 98, and in K. Sethe, Ägyptische Lesestücke. Texte des Mittleren Re-
iches (1959), p. 97. English translations can be found in Wente, Letters, pp. 73–74, and in R.B. Parkinson, Voices
from Ancient Egypt (1991), p. 89.
121 Unpublished papyrus. See Kaplony-Heckel, No. 2; U. Luft, “Asiatics in Illahun: A Preliminary report” (1993),
pp. 291–97; idem., in: Lahun Studies, pp. 8–9.
122 Müller, in: GM 150, p. 23.
123 U. Luft, ‘Dj.j r∞.k’ (1984), passim, but esp. p. 104 and 111.
124 Published in Luft, Archiv I, P 10038B.
125 For palaeographical evidence, cf. the corresponding passage on pBerlin 10056 A ro II 12–13, a copy of a letter
in the temple journal dated to year 8–11 of Amenemhat III: dj=j r∞=tn (with dittography);
unpublished papyrus, parts of which were transcribed and commented in Luft, Chronologische Fixierung, 70–78,
photograph on Tf. 12–13; Kaplony-Heckel, No. 44.
126 Until the second half of Amenemhat III’s reign, the body of the el-Lahun letters was regularly arranged into
columns. Since the letter-copy of the temple journal in question is dated to year 7 of Sesostris III, I hypothesize
the same layout for the original document.
127 Proposed by Luft, Chronologische Fixierung, p. 56. For an opposite view, see Müller, in: GM 150, pp. 24–25.
128 Cf. Luft, in: Lahun Studies, p. 16 and 20.
189
the ¢£tj-™ jmj-r£ ¢w.t-n†r in Hotep-Senwosret

overseeing the royal temple
฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀↓฀
top officials of the management of the cult activities in Sekhem-Senwosret
[ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ ฀
personnel (wnw.t) of the royal ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀↓ ]
temple
personnel of the Anubis-temple personnel of the Sobek-
temple
To sum up, the temples of Anubis, who-is-upon-his-hill and of Sobek, Lord of Ra-sehui at el-
Lahun may be taken as architecturally independent cult-installations with their own temple staff,
whose activity was recorded on documents kept separately from those of the royal temple (in this
respect, the journal of the Sobek-temple is indicative). Yet these temples within Sekhem-Senwosret
seem to have functioned in subordination to the administration of the royal mortuary cult.
Above I argued that the ruined area proper, which once housed the valley temple, is not
likely to have accommodated a compound of three interconnected temples. Notwithstanding,
it can be deduced from the intercourse of the temples on festive occasions, that these
cult-installations were situated near one another. For instance, a rather obscure but remarkable
passage of pBerlin 10003 B ro 6–7 reports that during the festival “Sailing of the land,” the
image of Anubis proceeded to fraternize in the royal temple in Sekhem-Senwosret-maa-kheru (wd£
s∞m Jnpw r snsn m ¢w.t-n†r [n.t] / nsw.t-bjtj [Ó™-∞pr-r™ m£™-∞rw] m S∞m S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw ∞ft fln.t n.t t£).
The entry is followed by the inventory of religious equipment used in the course of the proces-
sion (the sßm-statue of Anubis, his throne, an ivory statue of the reigning king Sesostris III, an
ebony statue of the deceased Sesostris II, a copper ¢s.t-vase, an electrum censer etc.) and the list
of personnel attending the procession, which might have departed from the nearby temple of
Anubis, who-is-upon-his-hill in Sekhem-Senwosret-maa-kheru.129 A document of a similar nature
has not been attested so far for the god Sobek, Lord of Ra-sehui.
The question of where exactly the temples of Anubis and Sobek were situated remains
unanswered. With attention to the strong tendency in the town’s internal organization to
demarcate the elite sector from low-status sector, sacred space from the secular quarters, the
temples could be expected to have clustered around the valley temple; a site which was easily
accessible in antiquity from the direction of the canal leading to the approach of the royal cult-
building, but has been entirely denuded in the course of time.130
It has already been proposed by Kemp that the ruined building situated immediately south
to the pr ¢£tj-™ (‘Acropolis’), roughly at the centre of an open space, should be seen as the temple
129 Still unpublished. Kaplony-Heckel, No. 3. This particular passage is treated by Quirke, in: Temple in Ancient
Egypt, p. 29, 31, and Luft, Chronologische Fixierung, pp. 34–39, Tf. 2.b. The procession has already been noted by
Helck, Verwaltung, p. 249. A similar procession is concerned on pBerlin 10307 f; see Kaplony-Heckel, No. 413,
and pBerlin 10312 d vso; see Kaplony-Heckel, No. 421; Quirke, in: Temple in Ancient Egypt, p. 32.
130 pUC 32204 ro 5 contains an explicit reference to the temple of the goddess Heqet, whose cult is otherwise not at-
tested at el-Lahun. See my forthcoming article entitled “Remarks on the Temple of Heqet and a Sarcastic Letter
from el-Lahun,” in S. Grallert–W. Grajetzki (eds.), Life and Afterlife in Ancient Egypt during the Middle Kingdom and
Second Intermediate Period, where I explain the unexpected occurrence of Heqat as a scribal error for the word ¢q£
standing for the reigning king, in that case Amenemhat III. For the papyrus, see Griffith, HPKG, 76–77, pl. 32;
Collier–Quirke, Lahun Letters, pp. 118–19, CD files UC32204–f, UC32204–b. Translation in Wente, Letters,
p. 85; Parkinson, Voices, p. 93; Luft, in: Lahun Studies, p. 15.
190
of Sopdu, Lord of the East, often cited in papyri from the town site.131 Due to its position,
Petrie labelled this building in Hotep-Senwosret as the “guard’s house,” since he believed that
the Acropolis served as the temporary residence of the king.132 It has been claimed that the
more detailed ground plan provided by the Royal Ontario Museum demonstrates a high level
of similarity with the small temple in the fortress of Buhen (if that really was a temple and not
an administrative building),133 but its association with a cult of Sopdu in Hotep-Senwosret has not
been convincingly verified. Nevertheless, a clay sealing impression from the town site clearly
alludes to a temple located in Hotep-Senwosret, perhaps the building under discussion: sfl£ ¢w.t-
n†r n(.t) Ìtp S-n-[wsr.t] Snbw “scribe of the temple of Hotep-Senwosret, Senbu;” this being our
exclusive reference to a temple which was located in the temple-town compound of el-Lahun,
but not within the limits of Sekhem-Senwosret-maa-kheru.134
In our attempt to assess the location and the dimensions of Sekhem-Senwosret, additional
installations must also be taken into account, namely the ßn™ (the food production area) and the
ßnw.t (granary) of Sekhem-Senwosret-maa-kheru. Stephen Quirke has collected the textual refer-
ences for them in the temple papyri:135
• ßn™: pBerlin 10048 + 10319 contains the “name-list of estate workers of the food produc-
tion area of Sekhem-Senwosre-maa-kheru.”136
• ßnw.t: pBerlin 10055 vso mentions the “granary of divine offerings,” while pBerlin 10203
vso concerns the deficit “which is outstanding in the granary which is in Sekhem-Senwosret-
maa-kheru.”137
In the case of two further attestations, the term “granary” seems to be specified as pertaining
to the cult of a god: in a damaged passage of pBerlin 10307 b, the granary appears to be related
to Sobek, Lord of Ra-sehui,138 while pBerlin 10414 b is a reference to the “granary of the divine
offerings of Anubis, Foremost of the West.”139
The installations of ßn™ and ßnw.t are also mentioned on clay seal impressions from the
cult-complex of Sesostris III at South-Abydos (jmj-r£ ßn™;140 sfl£ n ¢rj ßn™;141 jmj-r£ ßnw.t;142 ∞tm.t
131 Kemp, in: Man, Settlement and Urbanism, p. 662 and 663, fig. 2, where he also noted that the building’s layout
resemble the ‘temple’ in Uronarti; idem., Ancient Egypt. Anatomy of a Civilization, London–New York 1989, p.156.
From the group of Petrie-papyri, deposited in London, see e.g. pUC 32055, pUC 32058 for the assumed own
priesthood of Sopdu (priestly title w™b ¢rj-s£ n Spdw nb j£bt.t) and pUC 32126, pUC 32198 and pUC 32199 as letters
invoking Sopdu, Lord of the East in their blessing formulae. pUC 32055 and 32058 are newly published in Col-
lier–Quirke, Religious, pp. 102–103, CD files UC32055–f–LE, UC32055–f–RI; pp. 104–105, CD files UC32058,
UC32058–b, UC32058–f–CE, UC32058–f–LE, UC32058–f–RI; for the letters, see Collier–Quirke, Lahun Let-
ters, pp. 62–65, CD files UC32126TO–f, UC32126TO–b, UC32126BO–f, UC32126BO–b; pp. 92–95, CD files
UC32198–f, UC32198–b; pp. 96–99, CD files UC32199–f, UC32199–b. Please note, however, that these papyri
constitute a unique set of documents mostly of legal flavour, very likely a private archive of a family, whose mem-
bers were resident in the southern part of the western half of the town, i.e. in the vicinity of the valley temple
(Rank A and the southwestern corner of the sector, following Petrie’s nomenclature); cf. K.A. Kóthay, “Houses
and Households at Kahun: Bureaucratic and Domestic Aspects of Social Organization During the Middle King-
dom” (2001), pp. 363–68; and especially Quirke, Lahun, pp. 76–80, where he associated the group of papyri
with the westernmost suite of rooms in Rank C; and Mark Collier’s paper in the present volume.
132 Petrie, IKG, p. 6.
133 See the summary of the ROM’s work on the presumed temple area in Frey–Knudstad, in: JSSEA 34, pp. 34–36.
134 Seal UC 6717 = Martin, Private-Name Seals, No. 1563 = Petrie, IKG, Pl. 9, 26.
135 Quirke, in: Temple in Ancient Egypt, p. 29.
136 pBerlin 10048 ro 1: jmj-rn=f mr.t n.t ßn™ [¢tp]w-n†r S∞m [S]-n-wsr.t [m£™-∞rw]. Unpublished papyri, see Kaplony-
Heckel, Nos. 38 and 429.
137 pBerlin 10055 vso: ßnw.t n.t ¢tpw-n†r, unpublished document; see Kaplony-Heckel, No. 43. pBerlin 10203 vso: nt.t
™¢™ m ßnw.t nt.t m S∞m [S-n]-wsr.t [m£™-∞rw], unpublished papyrus, see Kaplony-Heckel, No. 243.
138 Unpublished temple journal; see Kaplony-Heckel, No. 412, and Quirke, in: Temple in Ancient Egypt, p. 29.
139 Unpublished papyrus with an extract of the temple journal; see Kaplony-Heckel, No. 622, and the remark of
Quirke concerning this form of Anubis, Op.cit. p. 29.
140 Wegner, in: Ä&L 10, p. 96 no. 9; idem., in: CRIPEL 22 (2001), p. 105, fig. 9.
141 Idem., in: Ä&L 10, p. 96 no. 10.
142 Idem., in: CRIPEL 22, p. 105, fig. 9.
191
ßnw.t),143 which Josef Wegner relates to the extensive sherd-rich zone immediately on the east
of the temple, where the predominant ceramic forms (cylindrical bread moulds, roughware jar
and beaker fragments) as well as the architectural remains indicate that the area was principally
linked with the production and processing of temple offerings (fig. 3).144 Wegner assumed
that the area could be a real ßn™ n ¢tpw-n†r, known form the temple papyri, but archaeologically
unidentified at el-Lahun.
The papyrological record presented above suggests that at el-Lahun, a single ßn™ may have
provided for all the institutions of Sekhem-Senwosret,145 whereas the processed food was appar-
ently stored in each cult’s separate granary (ßnw.t).
If Wegner is on the right track in taking the location of this production zone at South-
Abydos as representative of other complexes,146 the ßn™ n ¢tpw-n†r of Sekhem-Senwosret should
have situated somewhere in the immediate surroundings of the royal temple. Since the exposed
architectural remains of el-Lahun lay in a natural hollow, bordered by a rise of the rock on the
west and on the north, I supposed the low desert to the south, southeast of the temple site, long
denuded and therefore archaeologically inaccessible, would be the most likely candidate for
accommodating the food production area.147
In his argument for extending the scope of the toponym to the whole of the settlement site,
Luft referred to p BM EA 10864, a letter evidently belonging to the el-Lahun correspondence,
which evinces clearly that domestic architecture formed part of Sekhem-Senwosret-maa-kheru.148
In the letter, an official, whose name has broken out, announces his arrival to Sekhem-Senwosret
to the seal-bearer Neni,149 and informs him about his expectations to find the house (pr) “tidied
up” (s:m™r) and “in very good order” (bw nb nfr) and to receive a “full report on the health and
life of the nurse Tima(t)” (s∞r nb n snb ™n∞ n mn™.t Tjm£).150 It is implied by the content of the letter
that both the addressee Neni and the nurse are staying in the house which is in Sekhem-Senwosret.
Similarly, the arrival of a superior official to Sekhem-Senwosret is dealt with in two other papyri of
143 Ibid., 87 and 83, fig. 3, (5); idem., in: Ä&L 10, p. 117, fig. 22.
144 Idem., in: Ä&L 10, pp.115–17, and p. 87, fig. 2 and a more detailed account can be found in V.E. Smith, Recent
Excavations of the Shena Adjacent to the Mortuary Temple of Senwosret III at Abydos (2004), pp. 20–22.
145 Cf. Quirke, in: Temple of Ancient Egypt, p. 29.
146 Wegner, in: Ä&L 10, p. 117. His reasoning is based on the comparison with the neighbouring Ahmose-complex,
the two Aton-temples at el-Amarna and the Middle Kingdom temple of Ezbet Rushdi.
147 This arrangement would conform to Wegner’s theory which explains that by locating the production areas
to the south (or “local south”) of the temple, the prevailing north wind could carry the smoke emitted by the
industrial installations away from the temple and the living quarters; see Ibid.
148 Luft, in: Lahun Studies, p. 26. The papyrus, then in the collection of M.G. Michaelidis of Cairo, was published by
B. Grdseloff, “A New Middle Kingdom Letter from El-Lâhûn” (1949), pp. 59–62. Translation in Wente, Letters,
pp. 78–79.
149 Luft presumed that Neni would be identical with the servant of the estate Neni, sender of pUC 32199 (former
pKahun II.2); see Luft, in: Lahun Studies, p. 26. The palaeography of our letter as well as the arrangement of
the text into columns, however, suggest that the papyrus should be placed rather among the early documents
of the archive (from Sesostris III up to the first half of the reign of Amenemhat III). On the other hand, the
letter from the London collection (pUC 32199) could be dated to the very end of the reign of Amenemhat III or
the first years of Amenemhat IV, based on the identity of the temple manager Teti mentioned in the letter (cf.
D. Franke, Personendaten aus dem Mittleren Reich. Dossiers 1–796 (1984), Dossier Nr. 736), and the reference in the
body of the letter to the “house of Wah,” which relates this document to the dossier centred on the person of w™b
¢rj-s£ Spdw nb j£bt.t Wah and his relatives. The layout of the letter, written in horizontal lines, also supports this
dating. Therefore, it is more likely that these two attestations of the same name designate different persons.
150 For the full form of this female proper name, written merely as Tima in this document, see the stela of Sobekdidi
from Abydos, right col. 2 and 7. For literature on the stela, see above.
192
the University College.151 In the case of pBerlin 10410b, a partly published temple journal, we
can at least be sure that the high-ranking person coming to Sekhem-Senwosret is the mayor.152
(1) [wrß] ¢£tj-™ jmj-r£ ¢w.t-n†r S-n-wsr.t ™.w.s. m S∞m S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw
(2) jnw […] S-n-wsr.t-snbw-wr m ¢bj.t Skr
(3) ¢b[j.t] n.t sm£-t£ n.tsic sn.t-nsw.t ™n∞t.t m£™-∞rwsic (…)
(4) rnp.t-sp 16 £bd 4 £∞.t sw 21

(5) wrß ¢£tj-™ jmj-r£ ¢w.t-n†r S-n-wsr.t ™.w.s. m S∞m S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw
(6) km.t jnj.t m Ìtp S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw jnn ßmsw Ktw (…)
(1) The mayor and manager of the temple, Senwosret, l.p.h., [is staying] at Sekhem-Sen-
wosret-maa-kheru.
(2) Incoming goods […] Senwosretseneb, the elder, as festival offering of Sokar;
(3) fes[tival] offering of the funeral of the king’s sister Ankhtet, deceased (…)
(4) Year 16, 4th month of akhet, day 21.

(5) The mayor, manager of the temple, Senwosret, l.p.h., is staying at Sekhem-Senwosret-
maa-kheru.
(6) Summing-up of what has been brought from Hotep-Senwosret-maa-kheru; the deliv-
erer: the follower Ketu (…)
As it was mentioned, the ¢£tj-™ belonged to the temple priesthood only ex officio, and residing in
Hotep-Senwosret, he did not partake personally in the daily rituals. His travels to Sekhem-Senwosret
may have been connected to certain festive occasions, which determined the period of his stay-
ing there. Such visitations possible required a temporary residence for him, even if the distance
between Sekhem-Senwosret and Hotep-Senwosret was negligible.153 Moreover, the separate but par-
allel entries in the temple journal imply that the mayor might have stayed overnight.154
We would expect to find such domestic architecture in the immediate environment of the
temple building. In Lahun II, Petrie gives a short account of much denuded “chambers and
brick pavements” next to the town-wall, north of the temple,155 which roughly fill the space
between the temple and the southernmost row of houses (Rank A), still indicated as a large
open area on the site map published after the second season,156 and provides an architectural
context for the ‘porter’s lodge’ and another building north of it (fig. 2). This latter structure
had a court with a central stone tank, accompanied by side rooms, similar to those in the ‘por-
ter’s lodge’ and in the elite mansions of Hotep-Senwosret.157 As no comparable major construc-
tion has been attributed to Sesostris II, the closest parallels to the el-Lahun temple area, in the
151 pUC 32204 ro 1–2: s:w∂£-jb r-nt.t ∂d n b£k-jm jw nb ™.w.s. spr r S∞m S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw m £bd 4 ßmw sw 10 “It is a com-
munication that the humble servant has been told: ’The Master, l.p.h., arrived at Sekhem-Senwosret-true-of-voice
on IIII shemu, day 10,’” see Collier–Quirke, Lahun Letters, pp. 118–19, CD files UC32204–f, UC32204–b, and my
study on this short letter in Grallert–Grajetzki, Life and Afterlife in Ancient Egypt (see footnote 130 above); pUC
32205 vso 4–5: ∂d.tw n b£k-jm [jw] nb ™.w.s. m jw.t r S∞m S-n-w[sr.t] m£™-∞[rw] “It is said to the humble servant, the Master,
l.p.h., [is] coming to Sekhem-Senwo[sret]-maa-khe[ru],” see Collier–Quirke, Op.cit., pp. 120–23, CD files UC32205–f,
UC32205–b.
152 pBerlin 10410 b ro I 1–3; the relevant passage was published in Luft, Chronologische Fixierung, pp.127–30 with
Tf. 30 (only lines 4–6 on the photograph), and mentioned in idem., in: Lahun Studies, p. 26. Kaplony–Heckel,
No. 612.
153 See the discussion above where the transport of fresh meat, mentioned in pBerlin 10017, was used to demon-
strate the minimum distance between the localities.
154 The relationship between the two successive entries is not clear to me. Only the date of the summing-up is
given (4 akhet, day 16). The festivals cited in the previous entry may or may not have fell on the same date. For
the date of the Feast of Sokar, see the argumentation of Luft with the outcome that it was celebrated in 4 akhet
(Chronologische Fixierung, p. 181).
155 Petrie–Brunton–Murray, Lahun II, p. 40 and pl. 23.
156 Petrie, IKG, pl. 14.
157 Gallorini, in: Lahun Studies, p. 47. Petrie himself compared the stone tank with that of the ’porter’s lodge’ in his
Notebook 39b, 44; see The Petrie Museum Archives published on CD-ROM by the Petrie Museum of Archaeology,
University College, London.
193
form of temple sites incorporating housing units in close proximity to the cult-building, could
be the lower temple of South-Abydos, the Middle Kingdom (“Early Formal”) temple of Montu
at Medamud, and the second building phase of the temple of Ezbet Rushdi, all built under the
reign of Sesostris III.158
At the Middle Kingdom temple site dedicated to Montu, a rank of magazines, perhaps a
granary and altogether six units supported the temple, the latter identified as dwellings for the
priests, positioned in the southeastern part of the enclosure, south of the cult-building(s). Simi-
lar although less elaborated constructions have been located by Josef Wegner at South-Abydos
which flanked the central limestone building of the royal mortuary cult, thus making up a
three-block unit, named Nofer-Ka,159 enclosed by a rectilinear mudbrick wall (fig. 3). The five
separate units east of the cult-building (local south) has been interpreted as a magazine block
(‘East Block’), whereas the ‘West Block’ (local north) was composed of three multi-room units
of a different nature.160 Based on the layout (entrance chamber, central room, kitchen and a
private apartment), and the associated archaeological material (traces of hearths and extensive
deposits of ash inside, domestic pottery types, typical household rubbish and large amount of
administrative seal impressions including institutional as well as private name/title seals from
the West Block discard deposit), Wegner concluded that the unit was used as internal accom-
modation for the temple personnel and as the place of temple administration.161
At el-Lahun, a position analogous with the West Block at South-Abydos is occupied by the
Western Sector of the settlement, north of the valley temple, which has often been described as
“the pyramid builders’ houses,” obviously due to their small dimensions and strongly uniform
design.162 On the contrary, recent scholarly literature on ‘Kahun’ suggested that the strip of
dwellings accommodated perhaps the priests and the personnel servicing the temple and the
royal mortuary cult.163 This western stretch of buildings on the high desert plateau is indeed a
remarkable feature of the el-Lahun settlement, and it was also proposed that separation derives
from topographical reasons.164 Nonetheless, it is certainly indicative that the partition wall,
running along a north–south axis, is of the same thickness (3 m) as the northern and eastern
boundary walls of the town site, and wanting a passageway, excluded the direct communication
between the two main sectors. It implies, in my opinion, strict, intentional, and perhaps admin-
istrative separation. Moreover, the regular north–south axis of the westernmost boundary wall,
which is clearly integral with the north side of the temple,165 breaks at a point, approximately
between Petrie’s Rank D and C, to become aligned with the temple (fig. 2). The slightly but
markedly differing orientation of the valley temple and these southernmost house-blocks lean-
ing against the boundary wall as compared to the rest of the town site might reflect distinctive
function, that is, association with the temple, although a carefully recorded stratigraphic record
158 The mortuary complex of Sesostris III has already been dealt with on account of its similarity to the town site of
el-Lahun. The housing units of the temple will be discussed below. For the temple of Medamud, see with critics
C. Robichon–A. Varille, “Médamoud. Fouilles du Musée du Louvre 1938” (1939), pp. 82–87, and consult with
the comments of D. Arnold, Die Tempel Ägyptens, (1992), p. 160, 161 Abb., and Kemp, Ancient Egypt, pp. 66–67
with fig. 22 on page 68. For the temple surrounded by brick structures at Ezbet Rushdi, founded originally
under Amenemhat II, see M. Bietak–J. Dorner, “Der Tempel und die Siedlung des Mittleren Reiches bei ‘Ezbet
Rushdi. Grabungsvorbericht 1996” (1998), pp. 9–29, Tfs. 1–11.
159 This name has been frequently attested on institutional stamp seal impressions from the discard deposits.
Wegner, in: CRIPEL 22, pp. 85–86.
160 Wegner, in: Ä&L 10, pp. 86–88, and fig. 2 on page 87.
161 Ibid., pp. 90–100.
162 E.g. Petrie, IKG, 5: “… such a barrack would never have been wanted here except for the pyramid builders;” ibid., p. 8:
“These were evidently workmen’s dwellings”; apparently the same statement repeated in E.P. Uphill, Egyptian Towns
and Cities (1988), p. 27. Above, I argued for locating the ßn™ of Sekhem-Senwosret on the opposite side of the valley
temple conforming to the arrangement of the Sesostris III complex.
163 Quirke, Administration, p. 178 note 10; O’Connor, in: Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Near East, p. 389.
164 Kemp–Merrillees, Minoan Pottery, p. 79.
165 See the description of Petrie in KGH, 23, but especially in Lahun II, p. 40 with pl. 23.
194
would be essential to elucidate the relationship of the sector’s two parts.166 This disparity in
orientation may come together with the fact that the roughly uniform design, characteristic of
the northern part of the sector, is superseded in the southern area by structural heterogeneity
of buildings with altered orientation (Rank C, B, and A).167 Aside from the secondary transfor-
mations on the plan, Rank A and C resemble the northern house-blocks in respect that they
comprise small domestic buildings of the type labelled as ‘workmen’s house’, whereas Rank B
is outstanding as being composed of ‘medium sized houses’ repeating almost precisely a uni-
form layout.168 Large scale architecture and composite internal organization normally indicate
higher or special status in Middle Kingdom settlement archaeology, which is further empha-
sised in the case of Rank B by two finds of papyri: Lot III and presumably IV.169 Judged by their
content, many of these documents, dated to the end of 12th Dynasty, are clearly the product of
regular administrative activity, and others concern matters related to temple management;170
so it is tempting to ascribe both residential and administrative functions to at least these ‘mid-
dle sized buildings’. Perhaps the position of Borchardt’s Tempelkôm, due north of the temple
outside the boundary wall, with the discarded business letters and journals also indicates that
temple administration could have been centred on the Western Sector’s southern corner.171
Based on these considerations but with restrictions which are going to be presented, I would
hypothesize a functional parallelism between the Western Sector (or at least the southern part
of it) at el-Lahun and the West Block adjacent to the cult-building of Sesostris III at South-
Abydos. In both cases, but probably more prominent at South-Abydos, intentional isolation
166 The different orientation of the temple has already been noted by O’Connor, in: Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the
Near East, p. 389, but he thought of some symbolical or cosmological explanation. For archaeological evidence
that the two parts of the settlement is not coeval, see Frey–Knudstad, in: JSSEA 34, pp. 25–26.
167 Although a different sense of structural heterogeneity is concerned here, Kóthay is absolutely right as she claims
that the layout of the houses in this sector underwent major alterations some time during the late Middle King-
dom, while the northern dwellings with traces of restricted New Kingdom activity show only minor transforma-
tions; idem., in: Mélanges Varga, p. 367. She uses the passage in Wah’s jmj.t-pr document: pUC 32058 ro (12)–(13)
jr grt n£-n ™w.t qd n=j sn=j ∞tmw kf£-jb ™n∞-rn wnn t£j=j ¢m.t jm nn rdj.t dj.tw.s ¢r t£ jm jn rm† nb.t “Moreover, as for the
rooms that my brother, the trustworthy sealbearer Ankhren built for me, my wife will live there without letting
anyone to evict her from there” (highlighted by the author) as a textual reference to illustrate this phenome-
non. For the papyrus, see Collier–Quirke, Religious, pp. 104–105, transcription on fold-out, CD files: UC32058,
UC32058–f–RI, UC32058–CE, UC32058–LE, UC32058–b. The method of re-structuring the inner space and
appending new rooms to the core-building is well attested at North-Lisht and South-Abydos; see F. Arnold,
“Settlement Remains at Lisht-North” (1996), pp. 13–21; and Wegner, in: JARCE 35, pp.14–17, 28–32; idem., in:
MDAIK 57, pp. 292–97, 306, respectively.
168 I make use of the terminology of Felix Arnold; see F. Arnold, “A Study of Egyptian Domestic Buildings” (1989),
p. 77 and fig. 1 on page 76. In ’workmen’s houses’ a single room forms each living quarters, the building owes a
central court, a small entrance chamber and another small side chamber entered from the former. In ‘medium
sized houses’ a room with “bed-niche,” a living or reception room, and another room entered from the recep-
tion room make up the living quarters.
169 See Gallorini, in: Lahun Studies, p. 46 with 57 note 44, but cf. with Collier–Quirke, Lahun Letters, viii–ix, who
are hesitating to accept Rank B as the find-spot for Lot IV.
170 Actually these are the only documents which have been found in the Western Sector but do not belong to the
private archive of Wah’s family. The model letters on pUC 32196 (former pKahun III.2) as well as the math-
ematical fragments (pUC 32129, former pKahun IV.2: a table for the doubling of odd fractions; pUC 32160,
former pKahun IV.3: part of a calculation to estimate the volume of a cylindrical granary + calculation of
the share due to each man) could have been scribal aids. Letters pUC 32203 (pKahun III.3) and pUC 32197
(pKahun IV.4) concern weaving linen (an activity well attested for the temple) and the senders equally invoke
the deceased Sesostris II in the blessing formulae. The small fragment pUC 32171 (pKahun III.10) was most
probably a heading for the list of people attached to the ßn™. pUC 32166 (pKahun IV.1) is the often-cited house-
hold-list of Khakaurasnofru, ordinary lector priest of Sekhem-Senwosret-maa-kheru. For the papyri, the reader is
asked to consult with Collier–Quirke, Lahun Letters, idem., Religious, and idem., Accounts.
171 Borchardt, in: ZÄS 37, pp. 89–90; for the position of the heap see the figure on page 89, but cf. with the com-
ment of Luft, in: Lahun Studies, p. 4. Since the deposit is situated immediately next to the temple area, appar-
ently on the top of a rock scarp (cf. with the map on Petrie–Brunton–Murray, Lahun II, pl. 23), I would not
hesitate to equate it with Petrie’s “mason’s pottery heap, just north of the temple, outside the town wall” in idem., KGH,
p. 25; see however the reservations of Gallorini, in: Lahun Studies, p. 43.
195
of temple functionaries was realized by architectural separation from the secular quarters. As
Wegner puts it referring to Sauneron, such a practice must be explained in terms of 1) locating
the temple staff in direct proximity to the place of cult to ensure the continuous performance
of prescribed rituals; 2) maintaining the ritual purity of cult attendants during the period of
service.172
It must be admitted, however, that the presumed residential quarter of the el-Lahun temple
would far exceed the dimensions of the West Block of South-Abydos, which cannot be acciden-
tal. Wegner argued that the three domestic units of the Nofer-Ka complex functioned as tempo-
rary accommodation and office for the highest status temple functionaries (the large Unit A)173
and temporary residence for the ritual personnel serving on a rotational basis. In his view, other
individuals belonging to the temple staff and involved in the service and supply of the cult, but
not pertaining to any of the phyles would have come to the temple on a daily basis from their
permanent residences in the town site (Wah-sut Khakaura) or elsewhere.174 Proceeding from the
list of personnel on pCairo JdE 71580 (former pBerlin 10005 B),175 he established the number
of people who should be accommodated in the West Block as 10–12 title-holders.176 Unit A
could have been occupied by one or more of the top-ranking temple functionaries (jmj-r£ ¢w.t-
n†r, mtj n s£ and sfl£ ¢w.t-n†r), while the rest of the ritual personnel could have been stationed in
Units B and C. Some remarks must be made, however, concerning this reconstruction.
1. The overall floor-space of the three units seem to be insufficient to house a group of
10–12 individuals (Unit A: approx. 64 m2, B: 44 m2, C: 58 m2, calculated from each room’s
measurements).177
2. He seems to underestimate the number of phyle-members,178 partly because he relied too
heavily on a single document in Borchardt’s transcription.179 In the case of domestic architec-
ture, however, we should concentrate on the total number of people who could be resident in
these house-blocks, i.e. those who serve on a monthly rota. The list on pCairo JdE 71580 enumer-
ates 19 title-holders who would constitute the core of the temple personnel (wnw.t):180 1 phyle
controller, 1 temple scribe, 1 ordinary lector-priest, 1 embalmer, 1 jmj-st-™-priest, 3 libationers
and 2 royal w™b-priests—altogether 10 men making up a phyle;181 1 “policeman” (m∂£j), 4+2
door-keepers of the temple and 1 worker of the temple—altogether 8 people, who also served
for 1 month and were temporarily attached to the core-phyle during the period of service. Old
Kingdom parallels suggest that the chief lector-priest was a resident at the temple; therefore his
person should be added to the 18 men listed above. If the rare occurrence of the bare title jmj-r£
¢w.t-n†r, discussed above, proves to denote an independent high-ranking office in the hierarchy
of temple administration, he would augment the number up to 20 title-holders. So we can count
with 19–20 persons as the wnw.t, working on a rotational basis except for the chief lector-priest
172 S. Sauneron, The Priests of Ancient Egypt (1980), pp. 35–42, cited in Wegner, in: Ä&L 10, p.100 footnote 33.
173 For the designations of individual units, see Wegner, in: Op.cit., pp. 92–93, figs. 6–7.
174 Wegner, in: Op.cit., pp. 99–100.
175 Ro II 10–22. See Borchardt, in: ZÄS 37, p. 94; Kaplony-Heckel, Anhang I,1 and Tf. II.
176 Wegner, in: Op. cit., p. 100.
177 See the plan published by Wegner, in: Op. cit., p. 92, fig. 6. Josef Wegner kindly informed me that the alcove in
the central chamber of Unit A is too narrow to be a bed niche as I proposed; rather it may have been a built-in
storage or shelf unit.
178 He apparently made no distinction at that time between phyle-members and those who serve on a monthly rota
but did not belong to a phyle.
179 Some of his readings of the enumerated titles need to be corrected: read flrj-¢b(.t) ¢rj-tp instead of flrj-¢b tpj, the
accurate form of the ‘embalmer priest’ is wtw, in place of jmj-st read jmj-st-™, and the worker of the temple is writ-
ten as k£w.tj n ¢w.t-n†r. I find it extremely important to note that the lack of jmj-£bd=f after the chief lector priest
is not due to scribal error as Wegner assumes (Ibid., p. 100.).
180 The mayor, manager of the temple heading the list in fact does not belong to the temple personnel; his
occurrence is rooted in the nature of the compilation: an account including allowance paid to the temple-crew.
Name-lists of the phyle entering the service normally do not contain the mayor (e.g. pBerlin 10050).
181 Only these officials are amended by the phrase jmj-£bd=f “who is in his month.”
196
who served for a significantly longer period. Two other lists on pBerlin 10160+10162 ro–vso
append extra 45 people to the core of the personnel: the 15 ladies of the musical troop (s.t n.t
∞nj) attending the festivals, and the 30 tenants (∞ntj.w-ß) who seem to have worked in a monthly
system, although their presumed duty, management of “temple business outside the enclosure wall
of the temple, mainly temple lands” would not prefer a rotational service.182 The total number of
64–65 people serving on a monthly rota is naturally valid exclusively for el-Lahun, and does not
include the ancillary labourers at the bottom of the hierarchy, who performed regular menial
work on behalf of the temple (reparation, food production etc.).183 Nevertheless, this rapid cal-
culation should at least demonstrate that the West Block of the temple at South-Abydos could
hardly house the wnw.t in full force during the monthly service. I would rather ascribe each of
the domestic units to one of the top temple administrators.184
Accounting for the significantly larger size of the residential Western Sector at el-Lahun,
one should not forget that at least three temple-crews were on duty simultaneously:185
• one wnw.t in the temple of the royal cult,
• one wnw.t in the temple of Anubis, who-is-upon-his-hill,
• and another in the temple of Sobek, Lord of Ra-sehui(?).
It does not follow that the total number of officials in the royal temple’s wnw.t (that is 18
persons, as all three cults fell under the authority of a common flrj-¢£b.t ¢rj-tp) must be automati-
cally tripled; we are basically kept ignorant of the number of people serving for these second-
ary cults, respectively. Some categories of the temple personnel, like the musical troop or the
tenants may not have been essentially bound to a particular cult, but rather to the funerary
enclosure housing and administering the temples. As far as I know, cults of gods, secondary to
the mortuary cult of Sesostris III, have not been traced yet at South-Abydos; hence the person-
nel, reduced in number as compared to el-Lahun, might have required a less elaborate system
of accommodation: the highest-ranking functionaries responsible for running the cult-building
could have been stationed in the three West Block units adjacent to the temple building, while
the rest of the personnel, both regular and permanent, had their residence in the nearby town
of Wah-sut.
conclusion
In search for Sekhem-Senwosret on the archaeological map of el-Lahun, the following principles
have been established:
• The absence of local government demonstrates that Sekhem-Senwosret could not have been
an independent settlement, but it should be looked for in the immediate environment of
Hotep-Senwosret, identified as the main state-planned settlement site of el-Lahun.
• Sekhem-Senwosret was an architecturally separate unit ultimately concerned with the mortu-
ary cult of Sesostris II, but functioning in administrative subordination to Hotep-Senwosret.
• The toponym in question could not refer to the pyramid or the mortuary temple proper,
as both appear in the archive under a different name.
• Sekhem-Senwosret had its own food production area and one or more granaries. Finally, we
could learn that it was an extensive unit housing three temples and some form of domestic
architecture, intended primarily as temporary residence during monthly service in the
temple.
182 Quotation from S. Quirke, “Townsmen” in the Middle Kingdom” (1991), p. 144.
183 It does not mean that all 64–65 people were resident in the Western Block during the service. I wonder, for
instance, if the 30 ∞ntj.w-ß, provided that they were really engaged in managing temple lands, were accommo-
dated in temporary domestic buildings.
184 One of them could be the chief lector priest on account of his high position in temple administration and the
longer period of service. However, due to the lack of evidence, I would not guess at the identity of the other two
occupants, but acknowledge that both the phyle controller and the temple scribe, frequently attested in the
corpus of sealings from the West Block debris (Wegner, in: Ä&L, p. 99) are likely candidates.
185 See the discussion above on the temples of secondary cults at el-Lahun.
197
Fig. 4. The location of Sekhem-Senwosret and Hotep-Senwosret within the settlement site of el-Lahun (based
on Kemp, Ancient Egypt, fig. 53, p. 150 with modifications).
The function of accommodating temple personnel has been attributed to the Western Sector,
the southern part of which displayed obvious association with the temple area: the house-blocks
were aligned with the valley temple and the quarter as a whole was strictly isolated from yet
adjacent to the main Eastern Sector (i.e. Hotep-Senwosret). The position of the cult-building’s
rubbish heap indicated that temple administration was also centred on this area. These features
lead me to conclude that both papyrological and archaeological record prefer an identification
of the toponym Sekhem-Senwosret-maa-kheru with a unit, composed of the valley temple, the resi-
dential Western Sector, and presumably the long denuded area south of the temple building,
where the subsidiary temples of Anubis and Sobek might have been situated (fig. 4). The stela
of Sobekdidi, found by Petrie at Abydos, seems to elucidate the relationship of Sekhem-Senwosret
with Hotep-Senwosret as the owner of the monument held the following titles:186 “ordinary lector
186 The stela has been frequently cited throughout this paper. See literature above.
198
priest in Sekhem-Semwosret-maa-kheru, who sees the initiate (bs) in the temple of Anubis, who-is-
upon-his-hill in Sekhem-Senwosret-maa-kheru,” and simultaneously, he was also a “member of the
officialdom (ntj m sr.t) in Hotep-Senwosret-maa-kheru.” The first title defines him in terms of his
priestly duties, as member of the wnw.t of Anubis in Sekhem-Senwosret, whereas the other one
positions him within the more secular dimension of local administration. The bifold title helps
to imagine Sobekdidi as temporary resident in the domestic quarter of Sekhem-Senwosret during
his monthly service as ordinary lector priest, otherwise attached to Hotep-Senwosret on account
of his office and permanent domicile.
199
bibliogRaphy
Altenmüller, Hartwig. “Die Pyramidennamen der frühe 12. Dynastie.” In U. Luft (ed.), The
Intellectual Heritage of Egypt. Studies presented to László Kákosy by friends and colleagues on the
occasion of his 60th birthday, Studia Aegyptiaca XIV, Budapest (1992), pp. 33–42.
Arnold, Dieter. The Pyramid of Senwosret I. The South Cemeteries at Lisht Vol. I, New York
(1988).
Arnold, Dieter. Die Tempel Ägyptens. Zürich (1992).
Arnold, Felix. “A Study of Egyptian Domestic Buildings.” Varia Aegyptiaca 5 (1989), pp. 75–93.
Arnold, Felix. Control Notes and Team Marks. The Southern Cemeteries of Lisht, New York
(1990).
Arnold, Felix. “Settlement Remains at Lisht-North.” In: M. Bietak (Hg.), Haus und Palast im Alten
Ägypten, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie
14, Wien (1996), pp. 13–21.
Ayrton, Edward A., C.T. Currelly and A.E.P. Weigall. Abydos III. London (1904).
Bietak, Manfred. “Zum Raumprogramm ägyptischer Wohnhäuser des Mittleren und des Neuen
Reiches.” In idem. (Hg.), Haus und Palast im Alten Ägypten, Österreichische Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 14, Vienna (1996), pp. 23–43.
Bietak, Manfred, and J. Dorner. “Der Tempel und die Siedlung des Mittleren Reiches bei ‘Ezbet
Rushdi. Grabungsvorbericht 1996.” Ä&L 8 (1998), pp. 9–29 and Tf. 1–11.
van den Boorn, Guido P.F. The Duties of the Vizier. Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom.
Studies in Egyptology, London–New York (1988).
Borchardt, Ludwig. “Der zweite Papyrusfund von Kahun und die zeitliche Festlegung des mit-
tleren Reiches der ägyptischen Geschichte.” ZÄS 37 (1899), pp. 89–103.
Bourriau, Janine, and S. Quirke. “The late Middle Kingdom ceramic repertoire in words and
objects.” In S. Quirke (ed.), Lahun Studies, New Malden (1998), pp. 60–83.
Budge, E.Wallis, et al. Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae &c., in the British Museum II. London
(1912).
Collier, Mark and S. Quirke. The UCL Lahun Papyri: Letters. BAR International Series 1083,
Oxford (2002).
Collier, Mark, and S. Quirke. The UCL Lahun Papyri: Religious, Literary, Legal, Mathematical and
Medical. BAR International Series 1209, Oxford (2004).
Collier, Mark and S. Quirke. The UCL Lahun Papyri: Accounts. BAR International Series 1471,
Oxford (2006).
Couyat, J.–P. Montet, Les Inscriptions Hiéroglyphiques et Hiératiques du Ouâdi Hammâmât. MIFAO,
Le Caire (1912).
Firchow, Otto. Studien zu den Pyramidenanlagen der 12. Dynastie. Diss. Göttingen (1942).
Franke, Detlef. Personendaten aus dem Mittleren Reich. Dossiers 1–796. Ägyptologische
Abhandlungen 41, Wiesbaden (1984).
Frey, R. and J.E. Knudstad. “The Re-examination of Selected Architectural Remains at
El-Lahun.” JSSEA 34 (2007), pp. 25–26.
Gallorini, Carla. “A reconstruction of Petrie’s excavation at the Middle Kingdom settlement of
Kahun.” In S. Quirke (ed.), Lahun Studies, New Malden (1998), pp. 42–59.
Gautier, Joseph–E. and G. Jéquier. Memoire sur les Fouilles de Licht. MIFAO 6, Cairo (1902).
Gomaà, Farouk. “Die Statue Durham Nr. 501.” SAK 11 (1984), pp. 107–12.
Gomaà, Farouk. Die Besiedlung Ägyptens während des Mittleren Reiches I: Oberägypten und das Fayyum.
Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Reihe B Nr. 66/1, Wiesbaden (1986).
200
Grdseloff, Bernard. “A New Middle Kingdom Letter from El-Lahun.” JEA 35 (1949), pp. 59–62.
Griffith, Francis Llewellyn. The Petrie Papyri. Hieratic Papyri from Kahun and Gurob. London
(1898).
Gunn, Battiscombe. “The Name of the Pyramid-Town of Sesostris II.” JEA 31 (1945),
pp. 106–107.
Harvey, Stephen. “Monuments of Ahmose at Abydos.” EA 4 (1994), pp. 3–5.
Hayes, William C. The Scepter of Egypt I. New York (1953).
Helck, Wolfgang. Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reiches. Probleme der Ägyptologie 3,
Leiden–Köln (1958).
Helck, Wolfgang. “Bürgermeister.” in LÄ I, Wiesbaden (1975), cols. 875–80.
Helck, Wolfgang. Historisch–biographische Texte der 2. Zwischenzeit und neue Texte der 18. Dynastie.
Kleine ägyptische Texte, Wiesbaden (1975).
Horváth, Zoltán. “What was the “August Chamber” of El-Lahun? A Lexicographical Approach
to the Cult Complex of Sesostris II.” Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 46/1–2
(2006), pp. 99–118.
Horváth, Zoltán. “Remarks on the Temple of Heqet and a Sarcastic Letter from el-Lahun.” In
S. Grallert–W. Grajetzki (eds.), Life and Afterlife in Ancient Egypt during the Middle Kingdom and
Second Intermediate Period, London (2007), pp. 81–90.
Kaplony-Heckel, Ursula. Ägyptische Handschriften I. Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften
in Deutschland XIX,1, Wiesbaden (1971).
Kemp, Barry J. “Temple and town in ancient Egypt.” In P.J. Ucko–R. Tringham–G.W. Dimbleby
(eds.), Man, Settlement and Urbanism, London–Cambridge (1972), pp. 657–79.
Kemp, Barry J. Ancient Egypt. Anatomy of a Civilization. London–New York (1989).
Kemp, Barry J. and R.S. Merrillees. Minoan Pottery in Second Millennium Egypt. Mainz am Rhein
(1980).
Kóthay, Katalin A. Organization of Work in Egypt during the Middle Kingdom. A Study on Social
Structure. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Budapest (1999).
Kóthay, Katalin A. “Houses and Households at Kahun: Bureaucratic and Domestic Aspects of
Social Organization During the Middle Kingdom.” In H. Györy (ed.), “le lotus qui sort de
terre” Mélanges offerts à Edith Varga, Bulletin de Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts Supplément,
Budapest (2001), pp. 349–68.
Lehner, Mark. The Complete Pyramids. London (1997).
Liptay, Éva. Az adózás rendszere Egyiptomban a Középbirodalom idején (The system of taxation in Egypt
during the Middle Kingdom. Budapest (2002).
Luft, Ulrich. “Illahunstudien, I: Zu der Chronologie und den Beamten in den Briefen aus
Illahun.” Oikumene 3 (1982),pp. 101–56.
Luft, Ulrich. ‘dj.j r∞.k’ in: Studien zu Sprache und Religion Ägyptens. Festschrift Westendorf I. Göttingen
(1984), pp. 103–11.
Luft, Ulrich. Das Archiv von Illahun: Briefe 1. Hieratische Papyri aus den Staatlichen Museen zu
Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Lieferung 1, Berlin (1992).
Luft, Ulrich. Die chronologische Fixierung des ägyptischen Mittleren Reiches nach dem Tempelarchiv
von Illahun. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.–hist. Kl., Sitzungberichte,
Bd. 598, Vienna (1992).
Luft, Ulrich. “Asiatics in Illahun: A Preliminary report.” Sesto Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia.
Atti II, Torino (1993), pp. 291–97.
Luft, Ulrich. “Der Taltempel vol el-Lahun.” In M. Schade-Busch (Hg.), Wege öffnen. Festschrift für
Rolf Gundlach zum 65. Geburtstag. ÄAT 35, Wiesbaden 1996, 165–74.
201
Luft, Ulrich. “The Ancient Town of El-Lâhûn.” In S. Quirke (ed.), Lahun Studies. New Malden
1998, pp. 1–41.
Luft, Ulrich. Urkunden zur Chronologie der späten 12. Dynastie. Briefe aus Illahun. Contribution to
the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean VII, Vienna (2007).
Martin, Geoffrey T. Egyptian Administrative and Private-Name Seals, principally of the Middle King-
dom and Second Intermediate Period. Oxford (1971).
Millet, Nicholas B. “Royal Ontario Museum Excavation—Lahun 1992.” Bulletin of the Canadian
Mediterranean Institute 13/2 (1993), pp. 5–6.
Millet, Nicholas B. “Les fouilles du Musée royal de l’Ontario à El-Lahun.” In Canadians on the
Nile / Rives égyptiennes. Le Musée royal de l’Ontario et la découverte de l’Egypte ancienne, (Paris,
1999), pp. 44–51.
Möller, Georg. Hieratische Lesestücke für den akademischen Gebrauch I: Alt- und Mittelhieratisch.
Leipzig (1909).
Möller, Georg. Hieratische Paläographie. Die ägyptische Buchschrift in ihrer Entwicklung von der fünften
Dynastie bis zur römischen Kaiserzeit I. Leipzig (1927).
Müller, Matthias. “Randnotizen zu einigen Illahun-Papyri.” GM 150 (1996), pp. 13–32.
Naville, Edouard. The Temple of Deir el Bahari II. London (1896).
Naville, Edouard. The Temple of Deir el Bahari IV. London (1901).
Newberry, Percy E. El Bersheh I. London (1895).
O’Connor, David. “The Elite Houses of Kahun.” In J. Phillips, J. et al. (eds.), Ancient Egypt, the
Aegean, and the Near East. Studies in Honour of Martha Rhoads Bell II, San Antonio (1997),
pp. 389–400.
Oppenheim, Adela. “Three Deities in Procession: A Relief Block from the Pyramid Com-
plex of Senwosret II at Lahun in The Metropolitan Museum of Art.” In Z.A. Hawass–J.
Richards (eds.), The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt. Essays in Honor of David B. O’Connor
II, CASAE 36, Cairo (2007), pp. 207–18.
Parkinson, Richard B. Voices from Ancient Egypt. An Anthology of Middle Kingdom Writings. London
(1991).
Petrie, William M.F. Kahun, Gurob and Hawara. London (1890).
Petrie, William M.F. Illahun, Kahun and Gurob. London (1891).
Petrie, William M.F. Memphis I. London (1909).
Petrie, William M.F. Tombs of the Courtiers and Oxyrhynkhos. London (1925).
Petrie, William M.F, G. Brunton, and A. M. Murray, Lahun II. London 1923.
Petrie, William M.F., A. Gardiner, and H. Petrie–M.A. Murray. Tombs of the Courtiers and
Oxyrhynkhos. London (1925).
Posener-Kriéger, Paule and J.L. de Cenival. Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum. Fifth Series: The
Abu Sir Papyri. London (1968).
Posener-Kriéger, Paule. Les archives du temple funéraire de Néferirkarê-Kakaï (Les papyrus
d’Abousir) I–II. Bd’E 65, Cairo (1976).
Quirke, Stephen. The Administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom. The Hieratic Documents.
New Malden (1990).
Quirke, Stephen. “‘Townsmen’ in the Middle Kingdom.” ZÄS 118 (1991) pp. 141–49.
Quirke, Stephen. “Gods in the temple of the king: Anubis at Lahun.” In idem. (ed.), The Temple
in Ancient Egypt. New discoveries and recent research, London (1997), pp. 24–48.
Quirke, Stephen. Lahun. A town in Egypt 1800 BC, and the history of its landscape. London
(2005).
202
Robichon, Claude, and A. Varille. “Médamoud. Fouilles du Musée du Louvre 1938.” Cd’E 27
(1939), pp. 82–87.
Sauneron, Serge. The Priests of Ancient Egypt. New York (1980).
Scharff, Heinrich A. “Briefe aus Illahun.” ZÄS 59 (1924), pp. 20–51, Tf. 1–12.
Scharff, Heinrich A. “Illahun und die mit Königsnamen des Mittleren Reiches gebildeten
Ortsnamen.” ZÄS 59 (1924), pp. 51–55.
Selve, Valerie. “Les fonctions religieuses des nomarques au Moyen Empire.” CRIPEL 15 (1993),
pp. 73–81.
Sethe, Kurt. Ägyptische Lesestücke. Texte des Mittleren Reiches. Hildesheim (1959).
Sethe, Kurt. Urkunden der 18. Dynastie I. Leipzig (1906).
Sethe, Kurt. Urkunden der 18. Dynastie IV. Berlin (1961).
Smith, Vanessa. “Recent Excavations of the Shena Adjacent to the Mortuary Temple of
Senwosret III at Abydos.” ARCE Bulletin no. 186 (2004), pp. 20–22.
Spalinger, Anthony. “Praise God and Pay the Priests.” Ä&L 7 (1998), pp. 43–57.
Spencer, Patricia. The Egyptian Temple. A Lexicographical Study. London–Boston–Melbourne–
Henley (1984).
Uphill, Eric P. Egyptian Towns and Cities. Shire Egyptology 8, Haverfordwest (1988).
Wegner, Josef. “Excavations at The Town of Enduring-are-the-Places-of-Khakaure-Maa-Kheru-in-
Abydos. A Preliminary Report on the 1994 and 1997 Seasons.” JARCE 35 (1998), pp. 1–44.
Wegner, Josef. “The Organization of the Temple Nfr-K£ of Senwosret III at Abydos.” Ä&L 10
(2000), pp. 83–125.
Wegner, Josef. “The Town of Wah-sut at South Abydos: 1999 Excavations.” MDAIK 57 (2001),
pp. 281–308.
Wegner, Josef. “Institutions and Officials at South Abydos: An Overview of the Sigillographic
Evidence.” In Le Sceau et l’Administration dans la Vallée du Nil. CRIPEL 22 (2001), pp. 77–106.
Wegner, Josef. “Social and Historical Implications of Sealings of the King’s Daughter Reniseneb
and Other Women from the town of Wah-Sut.” in M. Bietak—E. Czerny (eds.), Scarabs of
the Second Millennium BC from Egypt, Nubia, Crete and the Levant: Chronological and Historical
Implications, Vienna (2004), pp. 221–40.
Wegner, Josef. The Mortuary Temple of Senwosret III at Abydos. Publications of the Pennsylvania–
Yale Expedition to Egypt, vol. 8. New Haven and Philadelphia (2007).
Wente, Edward. Letters from Ancient Egypt. Atlanta (1990).
203

Temple S and Town at El Lahun A Study of

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Temple S and Town at El Lahun A Study of

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Temple S and Town at El Lahun A Study of

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction

Archaism and Innovation

Archaism and Innovation:

Typeset in New Baskerville

Cover image: Reconstruction of a birth-brick scene of mother and child;

isbn 13: 978-0-9802065-1-7

All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted

Printed in the United States of America by

Introduction: Archaism and Innovation: Towards Defining the

ii. a RchitectuRe and the Royal MoRtuaRy tRadition

iii. l ahun studies

iV. text and l anguage

Vi. FuneRaRy a Rts

Vii. R eligion and iconogRaphy

doRothea a Rnold edwaRd bRoVaRski

M aRk collieR denise doxey

R ita e. FReed Zoltán hoRVáth

Jack a. Josephson Ronald J. lepRohon

stephen QuiRke Joshua RobeRson

daVid p. silVeRMan williaM k elly siMpson

Archaism and Innovation: Defining the Cultural

Temple(s) and Town at El-Lahun

8 Ibid., pp. 249–50.

tentatively in the neighbourhood of modern Hawara.19 The theory of removing Hotep-Senwosret

hotep-SenwoSret and Sekhem-SenwoSret in the aRchiVe oF el-l ahun

It is very plausible that administrative distinction between Hotep- and Sekhem-Senwosret

(1) [jn]w Ìtp [S]-n-wsr.t ™n∞

(4) [Ìtp?] S-n-[ws]r.t ™n∞ ∂t [r n]¢¢

(7) [Ìtp?] S-n-[wsr.t] ™n∞ ∂t r n¢[¢ …]

25 See e.g. the unpublished pBerlin 10410 b discussed below.

a MayoRal Residence at el-l ahun

40 See the description in Luft, Urkunden, 87.

Fig. 1. The town of Wah-sut-Khakaura-maa-kheru at South-Abydos (plan courtesy of J. Wegner).

62 Petrie, IKG, pl. IX: 4, 6, 8, 16, 18, 23 and possibly 7.

Sekhem-SenwoSret and the teMples oF el-l ahun

(6) [… … …] S∞m S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw

[¢w].t-[n†r] n.t S∞m S-n-wsr.t [m£™-∞rw] mr

(17) mjtj n [ß™.t h£b.t m Ìtp] S-n-wsr.t m£™-∞rw jnn

(17) Copy of the [document sent from Hotep]-Senwosret-maa-kheru. Deliverer:

the ¢£tj-™ jmj-r£ ¢w.t-n†r in Hotep-Senwosret

(4) rnp.t-sp 16 £bd 4 £∞.t sw 21

(4) Year 16, 4th month of akhet, day 21.

You might also like