Abydos: The Sacred Land at the Western Horizon (British Museum Publications on Egypt and Sudan) 9789042937987, 9789042937994, 904293798X

Citation preview

BRITISH MUSEUM PUBLICATIONS ON EGYPT AND SUDAN 8

ABYDOS: THE SACRED LAND AT THE WESTERN HORIZON

edited by

Ilona REGULSKI

PEETERS

ABYDOS: THE SACRED LAND AT THE WESTERN HORIZON

BRITISH

MUSEUM

PUBLICATIONS

ON

EGYPT

AND

SUDAN

ABYDOS: THE SACRED LAND AT THE WESTERN HORIZON

edited by

Ilona REGULSKI

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2019

8

Cover illustration: Votive pottery deposit on the eastern side of the tomb of Djer/Osiris, Umm el-Qaꜥab, Abydos. Photo: U. Effland.

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-90-429-3798-7 eISBN 978-90-429-3799-4 D/2019/0602/118 © 2019, Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage or retrieval devices or systems, without the prior written permission from the publisher, except the quotation of brief passages for review purposes.

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Contributors ...........................................................................................................................................

VII

2015 Colloquium Programme ...........................................................................................................................

IX

Ilona REGULSKI Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................

1

Mohamed ABUEL-YAZID Architecture of the slaughterhouse of the Seti Temple at Abydos...................................................................

7

Matthew Douglas ADAMS The origins of sacredness at Abydos ................................................................................................................

25

Laurel BESTOCK Visibility and invisibility in the landscape of Abydos: a case study in the effect of Early Dynastic monuments on the later use of sacred space.........................................................................................................................

71

Julia BUDKA Umm el-Qaꜥab and the sacred landscape of Abydos: new perspectives based on the votive pottery for Osiris

85

Kevin M. CAHAIL Laying the ancestors to rest: defining possible cemetery placement associated with the late Middle Kingdom town of Wah-sut at South Abydos ....................................................................................................................

93

Ayman M. DAMARANY, Yasser ABDEL-RAZIK and Ashraf OKASH The mꜥḥꜥ.t-chapel of Nebhepetre at Abydos .....................................................................................................

121

Christian KNOBLAUCH Serving the dead: some thoughts on changes in cultic deposits at Abydos from the late Old Kingdom to the early Middle Kingdom ................................................................................................................................

137

Thomas LANDVATTER Fluctuating landscapes: cross-cultural interaction, mortuary practice and ritual at Ptolemaic-Roman Abydos

153

Gianluca MINIACI The late Middle Kingdom burial assemblage from tomb G62 (Cemetery G) at Abydos ...............................

171

Vera MÜLLER A history of millennia: the configuration of a cultic landscape around the tomb of king Den at Umm el-Qaꜥab, Abydos ...............................................................................................................................................

215

Mary-Ann POULS WEGNER Birth and rebirth in the Abydos landscape .......................................................................................................

235

Steven SNAPE Memorial monuments at Abydos and the ‘Terrace of the Great God’ ............................................................

255

John H. TAYLOR Objects from Abydos in early 19th-century British collections: rediscovering ‘lost’ provenance and context

273

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Zsuzsanna VÉGH The mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris in Asyut.............................................................................................................................

301

Kei YAMAMOTO A late Old Kingdom burial assemblage from Abydos: tomb F109, excavated by the EEF in 1908 ..............

315

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Yasser Abd El-Raziq Ministry of Antiquities Egypt Mohamed Abuel-Yazid Ministry of Antiquities Egypt Matthew Douglas Adams Institute of Fine Arts New York University Laurel Bestock Brown University Julia Budka Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Kevin M. Cahail UPenn Ayman M. Damarany Ministry of Antiquities Egypt Christian Knoblauch OREA – Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna

Thomas Landvatter University of Michigan Gianluca Miniaci École Pratique des Hautes Études Paris Vera Müller OREA – Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna Ashraf Okash Ministry of Antiquities Egypt Mary-Ann Pouls Wegner University of Toronto Steven Snape University of Liverpool John Taylor The British Museum Zsuzsanna Végh Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Kei Yamamoto University of Tucson

2015 COLLOQUIUM PROGRAMME Thursday 9 July 9.30

Registration

10.00

Welcoming remarks Neal Spencer, The British Museum

10.10

A revered landscape Chair: Ilona Regulski, The British Museum

10.20

A history of millennia: the configuration of a cultic landscape around the tomb of King Den Vera Müller, Austrian Academy of Sciences (cancelled because of illness)

10.55

Visibility and Invisibility in the landscape of Abydos: a case study in the effect of Early Dynastic monuments on the later use of sacred space Laurel Bestock, Brown University

11.30

Coffee break

11.40

The Origins of Sacredness at Abydos Matt Adams, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University (video presentation)

12.15

Burial and Commemoration at South Abydos in the Middle and New Kingdoms Kevin Cahail, University of Pennsylvania

12.50

Lunch

14.00

A revered landscape (cont.) The falcon cemetery in North Abydos Mohamed Abuel-Yazid, Ministry of Antiquities Egypt

14.15

Monastic Landscapes in Late Antique Abydos: the Temple of Seti I Revisited Jennifer Westerfeld, University of Louisville

14.50

Coffee break

15.00

Abydos in Egypt Chair: Stephen P. Harvey, Ahmose and Tetisheri Project

15.10

Royal builders and craftsmen at Abydos: On travelling artists of Dynasty 12 Marcel Maree, The British Museum

15.45

The Tomb of Osiris in Asyut Zsuzsanna Végh, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München

16.20

Abydos in the Twenty-sixth Dynasty: local elite and royal court Anthony Leahy, University of Birmingham

17.00

Discussion

2015 COLLOQUIUM PROGRAMME

X Friday 10 July 10.00

Cult practices and ritual Chair: Elisabeth Frood, University of Oxford

10.10

Offering Cults in the Abydos Middle Cemetery Christian Knoblauch, Austrian Academy of Sciences

10.45

First Look at a New Temple: The Mahat of Nebhepetre at Abydos Ayman Damarany, Ministry of Antiquities Egypt

11.20

Coffee break

11.30

The Tell-Tale Heart: A ramesside ritual book from Umm el-Qaab Andreas Effland, Hamburg University

12.05

The slaughter-court project in the Seti temple Mohamed Abuel-Yazid, Ministry of Antiquities Egypt

12.25

Umm el-Qaab and the sacred landscape of Abydos: New perspectives based on the votive pottery for Osiris Julia Budka, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München

13.00

Lunch

14.15

Rediscovering Abydos Chair: Alice Stevenson, the Petrie Museum

14.25

Patterns of material assemblage in the Late Middle Kingdom: The burial equipment from the tomb G62 at Abydos (BM EA 37286–37320) Gianluca Miniaci, École Pratique des Hautes Études – Paris and UCL

15.00

Coffee break

15.10

Objects from Abydos in early 19th century British collections: rediscovering ‘lost’ provenance and context John Taylor, The British Museum

15.45

A View from the Ridge: News from 1908 Steven Snape, University of Liverpool

16.20

Discussion

Raymond and Beverly Sackler Foundation Distinguished Lecture in Egyptology 18.00

At the Gate of the Ancestors: saint cults and the politics of the past at Abydos Janet Richards, University of Michigan

INTRODUCTION

The site of Abydos (ancient Ꜣbḏ.w) lies about 450km south of Cairo, in Upper Egypt on the west bank of the River Nile. Few sites in Egypt have so frequently been visited by pilgrims, 19th-century collectors and modern archaeologists, whether in search of eternal life or archaeological treasures; nowhere else has a reflection of the past materialized so drastically in the production of religious buildings and votive objects. In 1907 BC, the overseer of the storehouse, Amenemhat, eternalized his impression of Abydos on a limestone stela: “I, moreover, made this chapel at the birthplace of Abydos, the sacred land (of) the western horizon … , where one transforms into akhs before their tombs” (BM EA 567). Amenemhat is one of many individuals who hoped to secure eternal life after death by supporting the cult of Osiris, the patron god of Abydos and ruler of the Afterlife. Originally the burial ground for the first kings of Egypt, Abydos became a site of great antiquity, and its ancient sanctity may have been a factor in establishing the belief that the most divine ruler must have been buried there. Continued ritual performance, endowments and pilgrimage transformed the site into a vast landscape of chapels and tombs, temples and towns. For millennia, Abydos was one of the most consecrated sites of Egypt. Rediscovering Abydos On New Year’s Day 1898, Émile Amélineau discovered the ‘Tomb of Osiris’ in the desert plain between the fertile grounds of Abydos and the edge of the mountain ridge (Amélineau 1899). His most impressive discovery was a large black basalt bier carrying a supine statue of the deceased Osiris surmounted by a kite representing Isis (Effland, Budka and Effland 2010; Effland and Effland 2013). The merging of Osiris and Isis symbolizes the conception of Horus, and thus the birth (and rebirth) of kingship (Pouls Wegner in this volume). The so-called ‘Osiris-bed’ was dedicated by king Khendjer of Dynasty 13 (c. 1745 BC), which has been considered a suitable terminus ante quem for the first monumental expression of the Osiris cult. An offering table attributed to the Dynasty

11 king Mentuhotep III (1998–1991 BC) and a stela fragment dated to the reign of Amenemhat II (1929–1892 BC) suggest earlier attention was given to the tomb. But even at that point in time, the ‘Osiris Tomb’ had already functioned as a final resting place for a king for more than a thousand years; the ancients purposely reused the tomb of Djer, the third king of Dynasty 1 (c. 3050 BC) as the centre of the Osiris cult. Djer’s royal tomb was part of a vast cemetery hosting not only the tombs of the earliest rulers of Egypt, but also their predecessors from a time when Egypt was not yet a unified country. Covered with a large number of small votive cups, the so-called qaʽabs, this area received the name Umm el-Qa῾ab, ‘mother of the pots’ (Pumpenmeier 1998, 125‒26; Müller 2006, 38; Budka 2010, 35). The site was investigated intensively at the turn of the 20th century, first by Émile Amélineau (1895–98), then by William Matthew Flinders Petrie (1899–1900), and parts of it yet again by Édouard Naville and Eric Peet (1909–10). The old excavation reports left many questions open, including the assignment of the tombs and the understanding of their architecture, so that follow-up research was initiated in 1977 by the German Archaeological Institute in Cairo. The main aim was to understand the architectural development of early tomb construction (Müller in this volume) and contextualize the many finds dispersed across international museum collections. In 1988 Günter Dreyer discovered in the tomb of a Predynastic ruler (Tomb U-j; Dreyer 1998) the earliest evidence of writing in Egypt, dating to some two centuries before Dynasty 1 (c. 3250 BC). Of exceptional importance with regard to understanding the origins of writing (Morenz 2004; Regulski 2010), this discovery encouraged a more intensive reinvestigation of the Preand Early Dynastic cemeteries. The intensive reuse of the Umm el-Qa῾ab in the context of the Osiris cult, evidenced through archaeological finds for at least two millennia, became the focus of a separate project under the supervision of Ute Effland (see Budka in this volume).

2

I. REGULSKI

Even if the specific identity of the builder had been forgotten, as seems likely to have been the case with the tomb of Djer (Leahy 1989, 56–57), collective memory of the presence of the first royal necropolis of Egypt may have provoked a general association with the concept of royal ancestry. Djer’s burial precinct was the largest of Dynasty 1 and contained the highest number of subsidiary tombs surrounding the main burial chamber, but it is hard to imagine how its superstructure would have looked more than a thousand years later (Dreyer 1991; Dreyer et al. 2017, 36–43). In fact, the expression of regenerating royal status and power through cult and performance was visible more clearly and for a longer time on the low desert terrace of the Abydos North Cemetery, where monumental enclosures provided a natural stage for the exclusive use of the king (Adams in this volume). Even though only the last one built by king Khasekhemwy at the end of Dynasty 2 (c. 2650 BC) still stands today, remains of most of the others have been revealed through excavation (Bestock in this volume). Known locally today as the Shunet el-Zebib, Khasekhemwy’s enclosure is the oldest standing mud-brick structure in Egypt and is significant for understanding the development towards the architecture of the Old Kingdom pyramid complexes. Surrounded by subsidiary tombs of courtiers and retainers, and their pets, who were sacrificed in service of the king, these ritual precincts instituted a profound statement of the king as ultimate authority over life and death. This is the essence of the Osiris cult and, in combination with the presence of the mortal remains of the earliest kings of Egypt, provided the fundamental basis for the exploitation of the sacred character of Abydos. Centred on the prototypical king of the afterlife, the Osiris cult became increasingly powerful; it structured the system of royal succession in Egypt but, at the same time, expressed a concept of ancestor cult that could be celebrated on a personal level. It is perhaps the latter that made the cult so attractive for popular engagement. As Amenemhat’s words illustrate, Abydos is the place where every deceased transforms into an eternal spirit (akh): the required state of being in order to live forever. It is unclear when the cult of Osiris really took off, but by the end of the 3rd millennium BC, the idea of divine ancestor cult was well established at Abydos. From the late Old Kingdom onwards (c. 2200 BC), Abydos transformed into a place where people from everywhere in Egypt commissioned monuments of

variable size and type. Extensive private cemetery fields spread over low desert terraces containing tombs of many (ancient) generations, from the most humble local inhabitants to high officials of the royal court. Mortuary cults for private individuals were centred on their tomb and maintained generations beyond their death. Since 1995, the University of Michigan Abydos Middle Cemetery Project has been investigating the primary burial ground for non-royal individuals at a part of the site called ‘the Middle Cemetery’ by modern excavators (Richards 2010). Several mapping and survey seasons followed by extensive excavation have shed light on the special organization of the cemetery, along with new facts regarding the political agenda and social practices underlying the development of the Old and Middle Kingdom mortuary landscape at Abydos. The study of pottery assemblages, in particular, reveals how changes in the performance of offering cults during the First Intermediate Period reflect fundamental shifts in the interpretation of death as a transformational phase (Knoblauch in this volume). Another material expression of the popularity of the Osiris cult are the mꜥḥꜥ.t-chapels, built to house an offering stela, or burial, or both, in a location frequently referred to as the ‘Terrace of the Great God’ (Adams; Vegh in this volume). Their position and layout, in particular the position of the votive objects in them, stresses the importance of processional ways that had meanwhile developed in the Abydos landscape (Effland, Budka and Effland 2010, 78–85; Damarany in this volume). These chapels have provided us with the largest collection of private stelae from the Middle Kingdom, which constitutes one of the most important written datasets available to the Egyptologist today (Simpson 1974; Snape in this volume). From the 2nd millennium BC until the beginning of the Late Antique period, many thus followed Amenemhat’s example, turning the peaceful resting place of the earliest kings of Egypt into a well-visited pilgrimage site dotted with cultic monuments and processional routes. Royal monuments at the site after the Early Dynastic period include royal (tomb) complexes of Senwosret III, Ahmose (II) and his grandmother Tetisheri (Harvey 1998; O’Connor 2009, 105‒10), with associated mortuary temples and towns. Supporting these buildings in perpetuity required a significant resident population whose houses and workshops are to a large extent still accessible for excavation. The University of

INTRODUCTION

Pennsylvania has been excavating at the mortuary complex of the Dynasty 12 king Khakaure-Senwosret III since 1994. The excavations have concentrated on the subterranean tomb; the mortuary temple and associated structures dedicated to his cult; and the urban remains of the Middle Kingdom town at an area today called ‘South Abydos’ (Cahail in this volume).1 Operating under the same aegis of the joint University of Pennsylvania-Yale-Institute of Fine Arts New York University Expedition to Abydos, Stephen P. Harvey re-excavated the area surrounding the cenotaph pyramids of pharaoh Ahmose, the founder of Dynasty 18 (c. 1550–1525 BC), and his grandmother Tetisheri, first discovered in 1899 (Randall-Maciver and Mace 1902; Ayrton, Currelly and Weigall 1904). The most prominent feature at the site today is the New Kingdom royal cenotaph temple erected by Seti I (c. 1294–1279 BC) with the famous King List (Kemp 1989, 21‒22). Its internal decoration yields some of the finest two-dimensional art ever produced in Egypt, and the content attests to a close affinity for the god Osiris. As with royal mortuary temples at Thebes, Seti’s Abydos temple was treated as a dynamic entity; the highly unusual L-shaped plan includes a precinct reserved for ritual services on the southeast side (AbuelYazid in this volume). Here, Seti is presented as the living king and a devoted servant of Osiris (O’Connor 2009, 45). Behind the temple and on the same axis is the cenotaph proper, where Seti, like so many before him elsewhere at Abydos, posthumously identifies with Osiris. The New Kingdom temple complex of Seti I grew in importance as time went on. Hundreds of graffiti testify to a reinterpretation of the temple complex beginning in the Late Period as a site for pilgrimage and of a healing cult, and then as an oracle centre frequented by Greek-speakers and non-Egyptians (Landvatter in this volume). By the Roman period, the landscape had reoriented around the Seti I temple

1

It is an archaeological convention within the Abydos region to identify north and south according to the local course of the Nile, as the ancient Egyptians did. The river flows (overall) from south to north, and so the direction towards which the river is flowing (downstream) is considered ‘local north’ and the upstream direction ‘local south’. At Abydos, the River Nile flows in a direction 55 degrees west of north. This means that ‘local’ or ‘river’ directions are not the same as compass

3

complex; archaeological evidence attests for activity up through the 6th century AD. More recently, in 2013, the temple yielded another treasure: thousands of paper documents—mostly in Arabic—written by employees of the Antiquities Authority from as early as the 1820s were rediscovered in a long-sealed chamber in the slaughterhouse area.2 The records include correspondence, excavation reports and survey maps belonging to the Sohag Inspectorate and the broader Egyptian Antiquities Service showing how hundreds of Egyptian inspectors, excavators, bureaucrats and guards actively engaged with their heritage during the formative years of Egyptology (Shalaby et al. 2019). To organize and document the archive, an Egyptian-led international team with members from the Ministry of Antiquities, the United States and Europe was formed to preserve this valuable information about the earliest excavations at the site and examine the early history of Egyptology from the viewpoint of Egyptians rather than through the lens of foreign missions. Collecting Abydos Decades of excavation have revealed the historical and cultural richness of the site and produced extensive study collections of archaeological material, representing every major component of the site and every period of Egyptian history, from the Early Dynastic period through Late Antiquity. Much of the material excavated in the early 20th century is now scattered over international collections all around the world. It was common practice at the time for export permits to be granted by the Egyptian Antiquities Service for more than half of the objects discovered by a foreign excavation. This, in turn, encouraged many institutions to subscribe to excavations in exchange for a proportion of the finds. The online portal ‘Artefacts of Excavation’ visualizes how ancient Egyptian artefacts from British

2

directions and ‘local north’ is actually northwest (O’Connor 1985, 162). South Abydos is due south of the Osiris Temple in local or river directions, but is actually east-southeast of the temple by the compass. (last consulted August 2018); (last consulted August 2018).

4

I. REGULSKI

excavations were accommodated within different museums around the world.3 The website allows users to explore the sites, the excavation seasons, the people who worked there, the objects they found and the places to which these objects travelled. More than 4,000 archival documents from the Egypt Exploration Society (EES) Lucy Gura Archive and the archive of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology are available to search. These record the distribution of Egyptian artefacts to more than 320 destinations around the world in 26 countries. A search for ‘Abydos’ immediately illustrates how complex and far-reaching the distribution of this material is, with many of the objects lacking detailed information on provenance and context. Yamamoto (in this volume) discusses a group of artefacts from a single tomb at Abydos, which was redistributed to the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto shortly after it was excavated. Using the EES archive, the author uses the context to discuss changes in funerary equipment during the late Old Kingdom. Even more difficult to reconstruct are the contexts from earlier uncontrolled excavations by European consuls who operated under the authority of firmans from the Ottoman government in the early decades of the 19th century. Abydos was one of many sites that fell victim to their commercial adventures, the main goal of which was the amassing of antiquities for museums and private collections in Europe. The recording of what was found was basic and incomplete, even when intact contexts were discovered. Today, a set of funerary equipment, for example, would be kept together; but at the beginning of the previous century, each artefact was considered to represent a specific type, rather than an integrated part of an assemblage that accompanied the deceased into the tomb. There were few scruples about a division of the objects from a single tomb between several museums. In other cases, information that was recorded in the early 19th century was lost after distribution or sale in the course of museum cataloguing practices (Taylor in this volume). Data recorded in notebooks or sale catalogues, or even written on the object, were not always copied accurately when transferring information to filing cards

or later, to digital collection databases. Identifying this material today and recovering its context is a laborious undertaking (Miniaci in this volume). One of the most striking objects removed from the site is the monumental King List from the temple of Ramses II discovered by William John Bankes in 1818. The ‘Table of Abydos’ is less well preserved than the famous list in the adjacent temple of Seti I, which was still to be discovered. Bankes at once appreciated the nature and importance of the inscription, and he made a careful copy. He shared the copy with Thomas Young, who ultimately published it in the first part of his Hieroglyphics in 1823. A few years later, in 1835, the King List was extracted from the wall by the dealer Demetrios Papandriopulos, acting as agent for J. F. Mimaut, the French Consul-General (James 1993, 309). In 1839, at the sale of Mimaut’s collection in Paris, it was acquired by the British Museum. Most of the more than 2,000 objects from Abydos kept in the British Museum were acquired through the two channels mentioned above: the early 20th century excavations, mainly by the EES; and the sales (private or by auction) of collections acquired by the European consuls (such as Henry Salt and Giovanni d’Athanasi) in the early 19th century. But a remarkable total of 460 objects from Abydos was bought by Sir Ernest Alfred Thompson Wallis Budge, Keeper of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities at the British Museum from 1894 to 1924, at the Egyptian Museum in Giza in 1897.4 In 1888, a formal decision was taken by the Egyptian Antiquities Service to establish a Sales Room (Salle de vente) at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo in order to dispose of surplus material. The museum sold nearly all categories of antiquities: papyri, scarabs, shabtis, coins, bronze figures, mummies, coffins and large sculpture. The artefacts were often cheaper than those sold by the established antiquities dealers. Larger objects or architecture could be delivered on demand (Hagen and Ryholt 2016). The Salle de vente continued well into the 1970s after the contents of the museum at Giza had been moved to the current location on Tahrir Square (then Midan Ismailya) in 1897.

3

4

(last consulted August 2018).

The purchase was discussed by the Trustees of the British Museum on 12 March 1898; in correspondence of the former Department of Antiquities, now housed in Department of Middle East, The British Museum.

5

INTRODUCTION

Abydos in 2015 The collection of papers presented here is the result of the 2015 Annual Egyptological colloquium ‘Abydos: the sacred land at the western horizon’, which took place on 9–10 July at the British Museum, London. The colloquium was organized on the occasion of the annual Raymond and Beverly Sackler Distinguished Lecture in Egyptology, delivered by Janet Richards from the University of Michigan, with the title ‘At the gate of the ancestors: saint cults and the politics of the past at Abydos’. The main aim of the colloquium was to contextualize recent fieldwork by including object studies as well as research on broader patterns of ritual, urban and economic activity. During the two-day conference, leading academic colleagues addressed the social and cultural dynamics of an ever-changing landscape serving a unique ritual narrative. Most field projects were represented at the colloquium and contributed to this book, alongside scholars researching Abydos in museum collections and archives. Several additional authors, not present at the conference, were invited to participate in this volume (Landvatter, Pouls Wegner, Yamamoto), while other contributions were adapted considerably or could not be incorporated. The current proceedings thus presents the latest research highlighting the important role of Abydos as one of the main cult centres of ancient Egypt during the pharaonic period. A workshop focusing on the Late Antique remains at Abydos was organized by Elisabeth R. O’Connell on the day before the colloquium (8 July 2015). The outcome of this workshop is published in

Bibliography Amélineau, É. 1899. Le Tombeau d’Osiris. Paris. Ayrton, E. R., C. T. Currelly, and A. E. P. Weigall. 1904. Abydos. Part III. Egypt Exploration Fund Memoirs 25. London. Budka, J. 2010. V. Die Keramik des Osiriskults: Erste Beobachtungen zu Formen, Datierung und Funktion. In U. Effland, J. Budka, and A. Effland, Studien zum Osiriskult in Umm el-Qaab/Abydos – Ein Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 66: 35‒69.

tandem with this volume as Abydos in the First Millennium AD. Acknowledgements The conference would not have been a success without the enthusiasm of the many colleagues who shared their latest research. The smooth organization was only possible with the hard work and dedication of colleagues in the Department of Egypt and Sudan at the British Museum (especially Eirini Koutsouroupa and Tania Watkins), but also those in the Web team and the Audio Visual unit. Special thanks are directed to Janet Richards, not only for delivering the keynote lecture, but also for advising on the content of the colloquium. Thanks are also due to the scholars who chaired the different sessions. The colloquium was made possible through support of the Raymond and Beverly Sackler Foundation. The editors furthermore express their gratitude to Bert Verrept and M. Peeters of Peeters Publishers in Leuven, along with the production team, for their support and willingness to publish the proceedings as part of the series British Museum Publications on Egypt and Sudan. Carolyn Jones is to be credited for copy-editing the papers. Finally, thanks are due to colleagues from the Ministry of Antiquities and particular those from the local inspectorate for their support to the many missions working at Abydos. Ilona Regulski, London, August 2018

Dreyer, G. 1991. Zur Rekonstruktion der Oberbauten der Königsgräber der 1. Dynastie in Abydos. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 47: 93–104. ———. 1998. Umm el-Qaab I. Das prädynastische Königsgrab U-j und seine frühen Schriftzeugnisse. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 86. Mainz am Rhein. Dreyer, G., E.-M. Engel, R. Hartmann, Chr. Knoblauch, E. C. Köhler, H. Köpp-Junk, R. Kuhn, M. Mahn, P. Meyrat, V. Müller, I. Regulski, and M. Sählhof. 2017. Umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof. 25./26./27. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen

6

I. REGULSKI

des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 73: 15–104. Effland, U., J. Budka, and A. Effland. 2010. Studien zum Osiriskult in Umm el-Qaab/Abydos – Ein Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 66: 19–91. Effland, U., and A. Effland. 2013. Abydos: Tor zur ägyptischen Unterwelt. Zaberns Bildbände zur Archäologie. Sonderbände der Antiken Welt. Darmstadt-Mainz. Hagen, F., and K. Ryholt. 2016. The antiquities trade in Egypt 1880–1930: The H. O. Lange papers. Scientia Danica. Series H, Humanistica, 4; 8. Copenhagen. Harvey, S. P. 1998. The cults of king Ahmose at Abydos. University of Pennsylvania, unpublished PhD thesis. James, T. G. H. 1993. William John Bankes, Egypt and Kingston Lacy. In Ägypten-Bilder: Akten des ‘Symposions zur Ägypten-Rezeption’, Augst bei Basel, vom 9.–11. September 1993, E. Staehelin and B. Jaeger (eds), 302– 03. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 150. Freiburg; Göttingen. Kemp, B. J. 1989. Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a civilization. London; New York. Leahy, A. 1989. A protective measure at Abydos in the Thirteenth Dynasty. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 75: 41–60. Morenz, L. D. 2004. Bild-Buchstaben und symbolische Zeichen. Die Herausbildung der Schrift in der hohen Kultur Altägyptens. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 205. Freiburg; Göttingen. Müller, V. 2006. Archäologische Relikte kultischer Aktivitäten in Umm el-Qa‘ab/Abydos. In Archäologie und Ritual. Auf der Suche nach der rituellen Handlung in den antiken Kulturen Ägyptens und Griechenlands, J. Mylonopoulos and H. Roeder (eds), 37‒52. Vienna. O’Connell, E. R. forthcoming. Abydos in the First Millennium AD. British Museum Publications on Egypt and Sudan 9. Leuven.

O’Connor, D. 1985. The ‘cenotaphs’ of the Middle Kingdom at Abydos. In Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar 2, P. Posener-Kriéger (ed.), 161–77. Bibliothèque d’étude 97. Cairo. ———. 2009. Abydos: Egypt’s first pharaohs and the cult of Osiris. London; New York. Pumpenmeier, F. 1998. Heqareschu-Hügel. In G. Dreyer et al., Umm el-Qaab, Nachunter-suchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 9./10. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 54: 123‒37. Randall-MacIver, D., and A. C. Mace. 1902. El Amrah and Abydos, 1899–1901. Egypt Exploration Fund Memoirs 23. London. Regulski, I. 2010. A palaeographic study of early writing in Egypt. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 195. Leuven. Richards, J. 2010. Honoring the ancestors at Abydos: The Middle Kingdom in the Middle Cemetery. In Millions of jubilees: Studies in honor of David P. Silverman 2, Z. Hawass and J. Houser-Wegner (eds), 137–66. Cairo. Shalaby, N., A. Damarany, and J. Kaiser. 2019. A lost historical narrative? The role of Egyptians in Egyptology’s formative years as echoed in the Abydos Heritage Archive. In Narrative – Geschichte – Mythos – Repräsentation. BAJA 8, A. Verbovsek (ed.), 131–43. Göttinger Orientforschungen IV, Band 65. Wiesbaden. Simpson, W. K. 1974. Terrace of the Great God at Abydos: The offering chapels of Dynasties 12 and 13. Publications of the Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition to Egypt 5. New Haven. Young, T. 1823. Hieroglyphics collected by the Egyptian Society. London.

ARCHITECTURE OF THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE OF THE SETI TEMPLE AT ABYDOS Mohamed ABUEL-YAZID

Abstract The temple of Seti I at Abydos is regarded as one of the masterpieces of Egyptian art and architecture. It is also known for containing a slaughterhouse, identified as such not just because of texts and scenes, but also based on its architecture and location. The slaughterhouse is the largest complex in the temple after the Osiris suite, located in the southeastern end of the south wing of the temple; it forms a semi-separate complex, rectangular in shape, consisting of a partially open-air court, with a columned portico, one hall and three other rooms. It can be externally accessed via an entrance in its east wall, whereas the connection with the temple is through a doorway in its north wall, giving access to the corridor of the King List. Despite the fact that this complex is a slaughterhouse, its position and design is convenient to the sacred focus of the temple. A closer look at the architectural plan and elements reveal how ritual and practical considerations regarding hygienic slaughtering affected the design of the structure. The slaughterhouse and its setting Location of the slaughterhouse and the L-shaped plan of the temple Logically the mortuary temples at Thebes were connected to rock-cut tombs for the dead king to the west. At Abydos, king Seti built a mortuary temple and connected it to a subterranean grave to its west, now named the ‘Osireion’. This functioned as a symbolic tomb or cenotaph for Seti as Osiris, lying immediately behind the temple (Kemp 1975, 38). The building contains water features that are possibly connected to a water source by a canal, thereby creating a model of the mythical mound of creation that the Egyptians believed rose from the primeval water. The temple of Seti I from east to west consists of a quay on a canal (Ghazouli 1954, 168), two courts, each fronted by a pylon, two hypostyle halls, seven sanctuaries and a suite for Osiris. An additional wing to the south consists of a section for Sokar-OsirisNefertem, two corridors, a Hall of Barques, archives

and a slaughterhouse. Behind this lies the Osireion. Both parts were surrounded by a massive mud-brick enclosure wall interspersed with tower-shaped buttresses. Thus far, three entrances have been identified in the wall, with the main one being the first pylon in the east, the second being the desert pylon in the west, and the third being smaller than the other two, and located south of the first pylon. Perhaps an additional one was constructed on the northern side (Fig. 1). The temple was almost completely built during the reign of Seti I, who died before the decoration of the pylons, courts and some parts of the interior of the temple, which were completed by his son Ramses II (Zayed 1963, 41; Ghazouli 1964, 167–69; David 1981, 8). The decoration of part of the south wing was finished during the reign of Ramses’ son, Merenptah, who completed the decoration of the Osireion (Brand 2000, 164–77). The L-shaped plan of Seti’s temple is a unique feature in Egyptian temple architecture. The temple was not built on a single axis; additional rooms and corridors were set at right angles to the main block. The reason for this is obscure, although various suggestions have been made (David 1981, 10). Some scholars believed that this unusual plan formed by the extended south wing was a sudden change made to avoid the Osireion (Caulfeild 1902, 14, pl. XXV; Zayed 1963, 76). However, as Seti built the Osireion in conjunction with his temple, there is no reason to think that he created the L shape to accommodate an earlier structure (Frankfort 1933, vol. 1, 23; Brand 2000, 176). In addition to the fact that the temple and the Osireion itself were designed to form an architectural unit, they also form a mythological one, with the Osiris complex fronting the Osireion, albeit in a separate building (David 1981, 10; see Fig. 1). Petrie suggested that the original location of the south wing was meant to be in the west, behind the temple (Caulfeild 1902, 14, pl. 25), but his conclusions should not be accepted as they were made before the Osireion was incontrovertibly identified as being part of Seti’s conception (Frankfort 1933, vol. 1, 24). There is no evidence that the south wing had any

8

M. ABUEL-YAZID

The slaughterhouse The slaughterhouse is a rectangular complex, oriented north–south, measuring 28.00 × 24.10m. It consists of a rectangular courtyard partially open to the sky, bordered on three sides by porticos; its western wall is interrupted by three doorways, the northern one giving access to a square hall [17] and the others to two smaller rectangular rooms [15–16], while the southern wall is pierced by only one doorway giving access to the smallest room [14] (Fig. 2). The courtyard has two entrances, in the north and the east walls. A screen wall connects one of the columns to the wall in front of the northern entrance. Along the eastern wall between this screen and the eastern entrance are water storage jars (Ikram 1995, 98).

Fig. 1: General plan of the temple (Baines and Málek 2002, 161).

intended location other than the one it presently occupies (Spencer 1984, 99; Wilkinson 1994, 48), especially as all the walls are bonded together and the design is continuous (David 1981, 10). Perhaps the south wing grew out of a need to add more rooms and corridors to the temple, which were required for its cult practices. The choice of the southern side might be due to cultic factors.1 However, it is more likely that this space was chosen because it includes the slaughterhouse, which is the largest section in this wing (see Fig. 1), and in this way a separation was created between the temple and the impure nature of slaughtering activities, while the materials from the slaughter process remained conveniently available (Ikram 1995, 98–101). The northern side would not have been sensible, owing to the prevailing wind, and it would have been impractical to locate a slaughterhouse on the roof of the temple.2

1

Such as containing a section for Sokar-Osiris (Gundlach 2001, 376).

Fig. 2: The slaughterhouse (court, hall and three rooms) (Calverley and Broome 1933, pl. 1A).

Surroundings The complex occupies the southeastern section of the south wing (see Fig. 1). It is situated at a higher level than the northern and eastern sides: about 1.50m higher than the northern doorway of the King List corridor (Caulfeild 1902, 8), but lower than the archives on the western side (Zayed 1983, 19). The corridor of the King List and the Hall of Barques are located on the north side, while the Room of the Archives is on the western side. Outside, to the south, is a space of about 15m wide, between the temple’s stone walls

2

As Ikram has noted during a discussion, stairs can be awkward for cows, although at least they would not have had to descend them again afterwards.

ARCHITECTURE OF THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE OF THE SETI TEMPLE AT ABYDOS

9

Fig. 3: The slaughterhouse from the eastern side (Photo by M. Abuel-Yazid).

and its mud-brick enclosure wall, where the garden of the temple lay (Omm Sety and el-Zeini 1981, 48). A Roman well exists here, about 9m south of the eastern corner. A similar space to the east, between its eastern wall and the western wall of the magazines, extends north–south, measuring about 37.50m long and 7.20m wide. It is at a lower level than the area to the south and was left completely empty during ancient times (Caulfeild 1902, 8). Its main element is a large stone gateway in the northern side. The eastern entrance to the slaughterhouse is located almost at the centre of its eastern side (Fig. 3); this corridor-like space also has a doorway at the northern end of the eastern wall (Zayed 1983, 20), which opens directly into the so-called magazines and palace area, and ends at an entrance to the south of the first pylon (Ghazouli 1964, fig. 3). Architectural elements of the slaughterhouse The eastern entrance of the slaughterhouse Termed W (Zippert 1931, 8), and located at about 2m north of the centre of the eastern wall (Caulfeild 1902, 8), this opening connects the slaughterhouse and thus the southern wing with the outside of the temple, as well as the so-called palace and magazines. Built of limestone blocks, with sandstone used only for its

lintel, it measures 3.30m high and 1.35m wide on the outer frame, and 1.66m wide on the inner side. It is 2.40m thick and was originally closed by a singleleafed door. It opened inward, towards the court, and served as the main doorway of the common workers. The entrance was obviously located here so that the animals could be brought directly into the court from the outside stables to be slaughtered (David 1981, 154). Its outer face was left completely rough; it is likely that Seti died before it had been finished. The northern entrance of the slaughterhouse The northern entrance of the slaughterhouse, termed I (Mariette 1869, pl. 3; Zippert 1931, 8), located at the eastern end of the northern wall, opens towards the King List corridor and the inner parts of the temple. It is built of limestone blocks with sandstone used mostly in its lintel. It measures 3.30m high and 1.40m wide on the outer frame, and 1.74m wide on the inner side. It is 2.12m thick and was originally closed by a singleleafed door. It serves as the division between the temple and the slaughterhouse. It was probably mainly used by the priests who carried the choice cuts of meat sent to the offering tables of the gods. Its façade is decorated with the same traditional decoration used in the main entrances of the halls and chapels in the

10

M. ABUEL-YAZID

temple, completely executed in sunk relief. Unfortunately, this technique was abandoned on the outer part of the reveal, so the other parts are mostly in polychrome painting. The lintel of the entrance is decorated with double scenes. The western one shows king Seti wearing the white crown while running with two vessels towards Wepwawet, while on the eastern one the king is shown running with an oar and flail towards Horus. The door jambs show Seti offering ointment to Osiris and incense to Horus on the west, and presenting a nmst-vessel to Osiris and offerings to Isis on the east. On the outer parts of the reveal, long cartouches for Seti are carved on both sides while the inner parts of the reveal, on the King List corridor side, are completely decorated with paint. The western side depicts the king standing holding an arm-censer in front of Osiris, and the eastern side is decorated with six columns of text containing the titles of Seti. The southern or inner face of the entrance is well prepared, but not decorated (AbuelYazid 2013, 103–24, figs 58–65) apart from Coptic graffiti on the west side (Murray 1904, 36). The slaughter court The slaughter court, named A (Mariette 1869, 25, pl. 3), is rectangular, oriented north–south, and

measures 19.74m in length and 8.90m in width, with the height at the western side varying between 5.25m in the north and 5.14m in the south. It is partially open to the sky, with a portico with seven cylindrical columns, five along the west side and one on each of the southern and northern ends. The northern end column is attached to a screen wall connecting it to the eastern wall. The edge of the roof ends in a bevelled edge sloping downwards. The walls and pavement are of limestone, while the whole portico, screen wall and lower course of hall 17 are of sandstone. The roofed parts of the portico in the eastern side are missing; the eastern wall itself is preserved to a maximum height of 3.40m. Between the eastern entrance and the screen wall are three large storage jars for water embedded in a low bench of red brick and mortar. A small hole in the pavement housed a bowl in front of the northeastern column next to the water storage jars, likely from the time of Seti and made for catching liquids (Fig. 4). The scenes are distributed in two registers and surmounted by a kheker frieze. The upper register depicts king Seti offering piles of meat offerings to the main gods. In smaller images, the lower register shows the activities supposedly carried out here by butchers, or butcher-priests, as suggested by Ikram (1995, 110), under the supervision of priests. This can be attested

Fig. 4: The slaughter court (Photo by M. Abuel-Yazid).

ARCHITECTURE OF THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE OF THE SETI TEMPLE AT ABYDOS

mainly in the originally roofed area, as the eastern wall is mostly damaged or might not have been completed. All the remaining decoration is painted, save for the northern side which is decorated in sunk relief, which is the only decoration of this type and date in the temple (Baines 1989, 13). The upper register scene in the northern wall is the largest and shows Seti with a censer consecrating piles of offerings to Osiris, Isis, Horus and Wepwawet. In the western wall he pours a libation over a pile of offerings before Ptah and Sekhmet. South of the doorway of hall 17 and opposite the eastern entrance of the slaughter area, Seti with a censer consecrates a pile of offerings to Amun and Mut, and to Re-Horakhty and Iusaas. The other scenes on the remaining walls are of similar types, with the king offering to different deities, including Onuris and probably Mehet (Abuel-Yazid 2013, 305–06, figs 66–76). The lower register, the soubassement, can be clearly identified only in the northern section, where it is executed in sunk relief. The subject of the scenes is a record of the steps in preparing the meat (Ikram 1995, 98–99). From the north of the entrance to hall 17 towards the northern entrance it can be read as follows: the ox is brought to the slaughterhouse and trussed up under the supervision of sem-priests; it is brought down while another priest looks on (Fig. 5); two gazelles are trussed and ready for slaughter; a butcher, supervised

11

by a lector-priest, cuts the foreleg off a slain bull; an oryx is tied and ready to be slaughtered. The latter is overseen by a hemneter-priest. At the eastern end, by the northern entrance, scenes depict the purification of the choice cuts of meat that are carried by priests into the temple proper under the supervision of the hesekpriest (Fig. 6) (Mariette 1869, pl. 48b; Naville 1930, pl. I; Abuel-Yazid 2013, 156–77, figs 77–88). At the northern end of the eastern wall, next to the screen wall, is another scene of slaughtering an oryx, and near the northern entrance priests carry choice cuts of this oryx into the temple under the supervision of a priest (Abuel-Yazid 2013, 185–88, fig. 91). Hall 17 Leading off the slaughter court through a doorway at the northern end of the western wall is a room variously called ‘hall 17’ (Calverley and Broome 1933, pl. 1a), ‘B’ (Mariette 1869, pl. 3) or ‘Z’ (Caulfeild 1902, pl. 26). It is referred to as hall 17 in this paper. This square hall, with its roof supported by four columns, is the largest of the complex’s rooms. It measures 10.52m east–west and 10.18m north–south, and is about 6.24m high. The roof, columns, pavement and the first course of the walls are of sandstone. Its roof was 1m higher than the rest of the temple in order to accommodate oblong slits or windows beneath the roof. There are

Fig. 5: The slaughter court: west wall, lower register (Photo by M. Abuel-Yazid).

12

M. ABUEL-YAZID

Fig. 6: The slaughter court: north wall, lower register (Photo by A. Damarany).

three in the north and three in the south, for lighting purposes (Caulfeild 1902, 8), as well as for the ventilation necessary to the function of the hall (Ikram 1995, 88), in addition to six normal skylights, which are insufficient for the functioning of the hall (Abuel-Yazid 2013, 71). A slight slope in the pavement can be seen as part of a drainage system. Unfortunately the original blocks of the roof and upper end of the walls and columns are largely missing or have been quarried away (Figs 7, 8).

The entrance to the hall is the widest of all the doorways of the rooms connecting to the court. Termed J (Mariette 1869, pl. 3), it is constructed of limestone blocks and a sandstone lintel. It measures 2.90m high and 1.32m wide on the outer frame, and 3.04m high and 1.66m wide on the inner side. It is 1.48m thick and was originally closed by a single-leafed door. Its design and width is almost identical to the eastern entrance of the slaughterhouse. Its outer façade is decorated in sunk relief, showing Seti standing on both door jambs. The

Fig. 7: Hall 17 before restoration.

ARCHITECTURE OF THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE OF THE SETI TEMPLE AT ABYDOS

Fig. 8: Hall 17 (Photo by M. Abuel-Yazid).

lintel shows a double scene, with the king offering to Horus in the northern scene and to Nefertem in the southern (Abuel-Yazid 2013, 68, fig. 101). At a later date, an additional doorway was cut in the southern end of the western wall, connecting it with the Room of the Archive (Omm Sety and el-Zeini 1981, 171; Zayed 1983, 23, fig. 1). The decoration of the inner walls is similar to that of the court; it has two registers, a large upper one and a small lower one, but here the two are separated by a horizontal line of dedicatory text. The hieroglyphics and scenes were painted, and have largely disappeared (Naville 1930, 5), some having been deliberately washed off to make room for some Coptic graffiti (Omm Sety and el-Zeini 1981, 171). The area has been

3

The copy was made from the northern side of the room, as the condition of the southern one is poor.

13

quarried away and thus many of the original features of the space are lost (see Fig. 7). The upper register contained twelve scenes, four of which depict Seti offering to the main gods of the temple, including Osiris, Isis, Amun, Mut, Ptah, ReHorakhty, the Ennead and Iwn-mutef. Other scenes depict the king carrying out rituals in front of the gods, including one with three male figures, pulling a net full of birds before a field goddess, lassoing a bull before Geb, then tying it up before Wepwawet, and killing an antelope before Re-Horakhty (Černy [n.d.] notes 30–40; David 1981, 158–59; Abuel-Yazid 2013, 112–22). The lower register of the hall is decorated similarly to that of the court, but at a slightly higher level and containing more varied subjects; about nineteen themes can be identified. The majority of scenes of the entrance wall were washed off, and the southern end of the western wall is missing. Butchery scenes begin with bringing the animals and continue to the point where processions of priests carry the purified choice cuts of meat as offerings (Daressy 1899, 6; Naville 1930, 8–11; Černy [n.d.] notes 30–40; David 1981, 158–59), as well as a wine press (Naville 1930, pl. 4-b1), and birds prepared for the offering table (Abuel-Yazid 2013, 271). More remarkable are the fat industry scenes, beginning on the eastern end of the south wall. They start with bringing the animal, lassoing and slaughtering it, then jointing the meat and keeping the fat pieces, followed by boiling and pressing them, and afterwards collecting the liquid in large vats carried by priests to be used for the lights of the temple (Naville 1930, 8–11; Abuel-Yazid 2013, 309–10). A dedicatory text of the complex is represented in duplicate, within horizontal bands between the upper and lower registers of the hall. The text begins in the centre of the western wall, progresses along both sides of the hall and terminates at the entrance in the east (Daressy 1899, 6; Naville 1930, pl. II; Černy [n.d.] notes 30–31; Kitchen 1975, 193–94; Abuel-Yazid 2013, 85–86). The titulary can be seen on the western wall, while the northern and southern walls contained the most important texts:3

14

M. ABUEL-YAZID

‘He has made as his monument for his father Amun-Re, king of the Gods, (for) Re-Harakhti, (for) Ptah South of his wall, lord of Ankh-tawy, (for) Osiris Khentyamentiu, Lord of Abydos, (and for) the gods and goddesses who are in the temple of Menmaatre, the making for them a pure slaughterhouse, of good white limestone of Ainu, lined with sandstone, its broad hall and storerooms (with) in walls whose doors are in cedar-wood of Lebanon, banded with Asiatic copper, painted on the walls and engraved with the mighty name of the Lord of Both Lands, Menmaatre, to present pure meat offering to all his fathers, the gods who are in the temple [… feasts] at their appropriate days, […] consisting of long-horned cattle’ (Kitchen 1993, 167).

The text continues on the east wall with a list of animals supposed to be slaughtered:

‘[…consisting of long-horned cattle] calves, [bulls], short-horned cattle, oryxes, gazelles and mrwt-bulls, abiding in their festivals in the Mansion of Menmaatre [in] Abydos, [...], living, prosperous, healthy, the son of Re, (Merenptah) […]’ (David 1981, 159).

Room 16 The middle room at the western side of the complex leads off the slaughter court through a doorway in the western wall. It has been variously named/numbered by different scholars: 16 (Calverley and Broome 1933, pl. 1a), C (Mariette 1869, pl. 3), and Y (Caulfeild 1902, pl. 26). It is here called room 16. The room is rectangular and measures 10.55m east–west and 5.76m north–south, and it is about 5.16m high. Its roof is supported by two columns and contained four skylights (Fig. 9). Columns and roof blocks are of sandstone. The main entrance is located at the northern end of the east wall, termed K (Mariette 1869, pl. 3). It is constructed, as are most of the other components of the complex, of limestone blocks with sandstone lintels. The doorway measures 2.71m high and 1.12m wide on the outer frame, and 2.84m high and 1.50m wide on the inner side. It is 1.50m thick and was originally closed by a single-leafed door. Its outer façade is decorated in the same tradition as that of hall 17, but the lintel here shows a double scene with king Seti offering to Amun in the north and presenting maat to another god in the south (Abuel-Yazid 2013, 234–35). At later times

the room was partially damaged and an additional two entrances were introduced into the south wall (Caulfeild 1902, 8–9, pl. 26; Arnold, Strudwick and Strudwick 2003, 220), and two windows were cut in the west wall (Abuel-Yazid 2013, 234–35). The decoration in the room consists of one large register showing king Seti and different gods, although it is partially hidden beneath soot and dirt. Nonetheless,

Fig. 9: Room 16 (Photo by M. Abuel-Yazid).

ARCHITECTURE OF THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE OF THE SETI TEMPLE AT ABYDOS

15

eleven scenes have been identified, the one on the entrance wall showing the king presenting tools used for rituals to deities. Other scenes depict the king presenting offerings and libations, and censing before different deities, including Ptah, Sekhmet, ReHorakhty, Horus, Isis, and Wepwawet (Abuel-Yazid 2013, 282–90). Room 15 A room, named by different scholars 15 (Calverley and Broome 1933, pl. 1a), J (Mariette 1869, pl. 3)4 or X (Caulfeild 1902, pl. 26), occupies the southwestern corner of the complex, leading off the slaughter court through a doorway at the southern end of the west wall. It is here called room 15. Its design, construction and decoration are almost identical to that of room 16. It measures 10.57m east–west and 5.25m north–south, and is about 5.18m high (Fig. 10). Its main entrance is located at the northern end of the east wall, and termed U (Zippert 1931, 8). It measures 2.64m high and is 1.05m wide on the outer frame, and 1.50m wide on the inner side. It is 1.50m thick and was originally closed by a single-leafed door. The lintel sports a double scene with the king offering milk to Atum on the north side and burning incense and pouring libation before ReHorakhty on the south (Abuel-Yazid 2013, 240–43). The room is poorly preserved, and in addition to the two entrances through the north wall (see discussion of room 16), two more secondary entrances were cut in later times, one in the southwestern corner, and another in the southeastern corner to room 14 (Arnold, Strudwick and Strudwick 2003, 220). Scenes are similar to those of room 16 but they are in worse condition and very faint. Also, much of the south wall is missing and other walls are partially damaged. All scenes represent Seti presenting offerings to deities (Abuel-Yazid 2013, 292–95). Room 14 A room, variously called 14 (Calverley and Broome 1933, pl. 1a) or D (Mariette 1869, pl. 3), is the smallest

4

Mariette thought that it belonged to the Archives, and thus termed it ‘J’, as he did not completely excavate the room. He considered that the later entrances, cut in the southwestern

Fig. 10: Room 15 (Photo by M. Abuel-Yazid).

room in the complex and the only one without columns. It is located in the south corner, leading off the Slaughter Court through a doorway at the eastern end of the south wall. It is rectangular with a sandstone roof, and measures 8.58m east–west and 3.17m north– south, and is about 5m high. Its main entrance is located at the eastern end of the north wall, termed L (Mariette 1869, pl. 3), and measures 2.45m high and 1.25m wide on the outer frame, and 2.60m high and about 1.40m wide on the inner side. The entrance was originally closed by a single-leafed door, and is the only one built completely of limestone, although this was probably not the initial plan. Another entrance at the south end of the western wall towards room 15 was cut at a later point in time. The tops of the walls are mostly missing, and probably the outer face of the southern and eastern walls were unfinished (Fig. 11). Little decoration is still preserved on the northern and western walls. One register contained four scenes. These mainly represent Seti with gods, but not offering to them as in the abovementioned scenes. Instead, these show the king being given things by gods, and being flanked by deities, who place their hands upon him— here, it is the king receiving benefits from the gods, rather than the other way around (Daressy 1899, 7; Abuel-Yazid 2013, 297–300).

corner, connected the room with the southeast room of the Archive (Caulfeild 1902, 9).

16

M. ABUEL-YAZID

Fig. 11: Room 14 (Photo by A. Damarany).

Notes on architectural features The corridor of the King List The corridor connecting the slaughterhouse with the main sacred section of the temple, which features the well-known King List, measures 23.44m north–south and 2.64m in width (Abuel-Yazid 2013, 54). The stone passageway slopes upward from north to south (the total rise between the two doorways is 1.50m; Caulfeild 1902, 8). There is a room on the roof at the southern side with a small entrance or window facing east (David 1981, 99; Baines 1989, 18–19, fig. 4), which might have been used for supervising activities in the magazines and the eastern space in front of the slaughterhouse. The passage’s main role in the rituals of meat offering between the slaughterhouse and the sanctuaries of the temple can be deduced by scenes at its northern and southern entrances. Choice cuts of meat prepared for the offering tables of the gods are depicted being carried and purified by a priest, who burns incense before entering the temple through the corridor, and at the end of the corridor towards the sanctuaries, where they are purified again but this time by the king ‘purifying the himself. The scenes are titled: offering’ (Fig. 12).

A section measuring about 5.60m at the southernmost end of the corridor, in front of the entrance to the Slaughter Court, south of the entrance to the Hall of Barques, is of special significance as it is different from the rest of the corridor. It has a slightly raised pavement and the wall height is roughly double that of the rest. It had no ceiling, and formed a transitional zone between the butchering area and the inner sacred part; this open part could have created an airflow to the court and got rid of any unpleasant smells (Fig. 13). It is the only undecorated part of the corridor, although its surface is well prepared. If decoration was intended, it would have been in sunk relief as the space is open to the sky. Any possible outlines have disappeared because of weathering or were washed off to make room for graffiti (Abuel-Yazid 2013, 54). The screen wall A screen wall is located at the northeastern corner of the court, in front of the northern entrance, connecting the column and the eastern wall (Figs 14–15). It measures 2.65m in height and 2.46m in width, and is constructed of five sandstone blocks. Its original thickness was 81cm, which is almost half the thickness of the column. It consists of a base, body and cornice.

ARCHITECTURE OF THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE OF THE SETI TEMPLE AT ABYDOS

17

Fig. 12: The King List corridor (illustrated by Y. Mahmoud and A. Halim; middle: Calverley and Broome 1933, pl. 1A; lower: Baines 1984, fig. 4).

Unfortunately its decoration was never completed; its surface was used later for Coptic graffiti, which may have covered ancient painting. Water storage jars are located between the wall and the eastern entrance. Stone screen walls are attested in the Djoser complex at Saqqara dated to Dynasty 3 (~2700 BC), and become more common from that moment onwards (Arnold 1999, 302–03). Such walls granted the interior of the building adequate seclusion, hiding the slaughtering activities from pure and sacred places (Ikram 1995, 98–99). It may have provided additional functions, such as strengthening the structure, and protecting the temple from the spattering when the water jars located to its south were filled (Abuel-Yazid 2014, 496). Roof of the complex

Fig. 13: Southern end of the King List corridor, open to the sky, with the screen wall visible behind the iron door (Photo by M. Abuel-Yazid).

The complex’s roof is well constructed of sandstone blocks, with a clerestory above hall 17. Its roof and side windows, as well as other skylights, are protected from rain by a slightly raised frame surrounding its mouth, and by a shallow canalization system cut on top of the blocks, still largely preserved on top of room 16.

18

M. ABUEL-YAZID

Fig. 14: Northern face of the screen wall (Photo by M. Abuel-Yazid).

The water is drained to the south, probably emptying into the garden, or to the empty space in the east (Abuel-Yazid 2013, 59) (Fig. 16). The portico’s roof edge is well designed, angling beyond the architrave and downward into the court to take rain away from the walls (Fig. 17), something that is seen before, but infrequently (Wilkinson 2003, 122, top right). Fig. 15: Section of the northern face of the screen wall (Illustration by M. Abuel-Yazid and H. Salah).

Fig. 16: Raised roof of hall 17 with the side windows and the channels of the drainage system (Photo by M. Abuel-Yazid).

ARCHITECTURE OF THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE OF THE SETI TEMPLE AT ABYDOS

19

Fig. 18 Side window of hall 17 (Photo by M. Abuel-Yazid).

Water supply

Fig. 17: Section of the edge of the roof of the court (Illustration by M. Abuel-Yazid).

Windows Windows in the slaughterhouses were important as they provided the necessary light and air (Eggebrecht 1973, 124–29; Ikram 1995, 88). Two kinds are attested in the complex: normal small skylights of conical shape on the roof, and windows of the clerestory type. The inner chapels contain the familiar small skylights: six in hall 17, four in each of rooms 16 and 15, while none could be identified in room 14 as its roof is largely missing. Six windows of the clerestory type can be seen in hall 17. All are 53cm wide, whereas the bestpreserved one, at the southeastern part, measures 1.60m in length (Fig. 18). Its lower and upper sides slope downward to allow more sunlight and air to reach the room’s floor. The wall of the Hall of Barques in the north side did not have a similar roof, as it would have blocked hall 17; instead, it has a large high rectangular aperture on the top of the eastern wall (Baines 1989, 20) (see Fig. 3).

In slaughterhouses, water is important for flaying the animals, and for cleaning the meat, the area, tools and the butcher’s hands (Ikram 1995, 81–108). The main source of water might have been from a well discovered inside the court (Mariette 1869, 25), or from the one that still exists in the vicinity in an empty space to the south of the temple, about 9m south of the southeastern corner. Moreover, the famous Strabo’s well or water spring that supplied the Osireion would have been close as well (Murray 1904, 2; David 1981, 10). Adjacent to the eastern wall of the court, between the entrance and the screen wall, three large ceramic storage jars are wedged into a supporting structure. Each jar had a spherical body and flat base, and all are almost the same size: about 73cm in diameter at the rim, 45cm at the base, and about 75cm deep. Each one can be filled with about 290 litres. These jars were embedded in a low bench of red brick (3.25m long, 1.95m wide and 90cm high), plastered with red lime mortar (Abuel-Yazid 2013, 66). It was connected to gutters or drainage holes at the base (Naville 1930, 5; Ikram 1995, 98). However, these date to the Roman period or later (Omm Sety and el-Zeini 1981, 171), although it is possible that they occupy a space that originally had been designated for a similar purpose during the time of Seti, as such water jars can be renewed over time (see Fig. 4). Drainage system It has been said that Seti’s slaughterhouse at Abydos was drained by a series of channels, as in the

M. ABUEL-YAZID

20

slaughterhouse of the sun sanctuary at Abusir (Arnold 1962, 91; Martinez 2006, 105). However, no remains of such a drainage system have been found. In front of the northeastern column next to the water jars is a small hole in the pavement that housed a bowl (incomplete; the remnants measure 28cm in diameter at the mouth and 28cm deep). It was presumably placed there for catching the blood running down from the slaughtered animals (Bussman 2000, 101), or for catching water splattered during the emptying and filling of the storage jars. This might explain the later placement of the Roman jars at the same location (see Fig. 4). Hall 17 also contains no channels, but the slope of the pavement might be identified as a form of drainage associated with a vessel in the floor (see Fig. 8). History of the complex Seti completed the physical construction of the complex but not all of its decoration, which is why some of it is in paint. Little is known about the history of the complex after Seti’s reign. From the 5th century BC to the 3rd century AD, the temple became a centre for pilgrimage and tourism, and by Ptolemaic times, Osiris had melded with Serapis and was, to some extent, replaced by Bes in the Roman period (Kemp 1975, 38–39). After the Christianization of Abydos, dramatized in the Life of Apa Moses, there are indications that the temple was used as a nunnery (Rutherford 2003, 180). The slaughterhouse was also affected by these changes. It was inhabited by Christians, perhaps before the building of the nearby Deir Sitt Damyana, early in the 7th century AD (Omm Sety and el-Zeini 1981, 171). They placed an altar there (Naville 1930, 9) and used it as a chapel5 or a church (Caulfeild 1902, 8; David 1981, 154). Most of the original paintings that once adorned the walls, architraves and columns have disappeared, or are hidden under soot. Some have been deliberately washed off to make room for Coptic graffiti, which survives in several places, particularly in the court and hall 17 (Fig. 19). During this time, additional niches and doorways were cut; two of them in hall 17 and room 15, connecting the complex with the archives (Zayed 1983, 23, fig. 1); others between rooms 14, 15 and 16 (Arnold,

5

Hall 17 is also labelled by scholars as the Coptic chapel (Murray 1904, 36–37; Rutherford 2003, 180).

Strudwick and Strudwick 2003, 220). The jars in the court may date from this era, as well as the remains of the small red-brick structure at the northwestern side of room 15, several kinds of niches and missing parts of walls, entrances and columns. Later, the Copts directed their attention to the monasteries, and neglected the temple area, which slowly disintegrated (see Fig. 7). Most of the roof and the eastern walls were quarried, and gradually buried under debris. Work in the slaughterhouse was started by Mariette, who began its clearance (1869, 25, pl. 3), and this was completed by Caulifield (1902, 8–9). The complex was closed off from the main temple by a metal door from the start of the 20th century (Naville 1930, 3) (see Fig. 13); the door was opened only occasionally for restoration and study. Preliminary documentation of many of the Coptic graffiti in the complex was undertaken by Murray (1904, 36–37). Brief studies of some scenes and texts in the lower register in the court and hall 17 were carried out by Naville (1930, 5–11), while a hand transcription for most of the texts in hall 17 was made by Černy, who unfortunately did not publish them. The complex became a storage magazine for antiquities, likely from the second half of the century up to 1996.6 Rooms 15 and 16 remain closed magazines sealed with solid iron doors, and room 14 was also partially used for the same purpose. It contained part of the archive of the Sohag inspectorate and some conservation and building materials. Hall 17 was occupied by other modern materials (David 1981, 158). Discussion The double dedicatory text on the walls of hall 17 record that king Seti built this complex as a slaughterhouse, where meat was prepared to be offered to the gods of the temple. The text also describes the design and the types of sacrificial animals. The upper register of scenes in both the court and hall 17 show the king presenting a pile of meat offerings to the gods. The lower register on the same walls shows the process of preparing meat by butchers supervised by priests, from bringing the animal to be slaughtered up to the sending of the purified cuts of meat to the temple, all of which indicate that this complex was a slaughterhouse.

6

An official magazine for the Sohag Antiquities office was built in Athribis (Sheikh Hamad) in 1996.

ARCHITECTURE OF THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE OF THE SETI TEMPLE AT ABYDOS

21

Fig. 19: Coptic graffiti on top of the butchering scene on the south wall of hall 17 (Photo by K. M. Cahail).

Theoretically each temple would have had a slaughterhouse. It would either be situated near the temple, among the cluster of outbuildings that surrounded it, or actually enclosed within the temple building itself, but separate from the main block. Because of the impure nature of butchering activities, it was necessary to separate them from the temple in some way, to keep the mess, noise, excrement, bad smells, visual pollution, flies and micro-organisms out of the temple proper. Only a limited number of slaughterhouses have been excavated; some of these were functional, while others were symbolic. Salima Ikram’s comprehensive study of slaughterhouses (1995, 81–108), as well as the work of Ghoneim (1977), Eggebrecht (1973), Amin (1987), Arnold (2005, 1–59), Verner (1986, 181–89), Gilbert (1988, 69–89), Bussman (2000, 101–09) and Martinez (2006, 95–111) have shown that the dedicatory texts and butchering representations are insufficient to identify the actual use of these rooms (Harpur 1987, 57;

7

No tools used in butchery have been found here, but that is probably due to the changing use of the area over time. Curiously, the magazines contained many animal bones, mostly of oxen and ovicaprids, but these are probably not the remains of the

Ikram 1995, 84, 98–99). These scholars indicate that practical considerations, such as size, design, location of the temple, separate area for keeping animals, connection to magazines, private access for animals, connection to the temple, water supply, drainage system, hygienic requirements allowing sun, light and air circulation, butchering tools and excavation evidence all play a part in identifying an abattoir. This slaughtering complex forms a designated space built within the temple, but away and separate from the main axis, albeit convenient to the sacred area, screened by a wall. It was connected to the outside world by the eastern doorway, so there was no need for animals and common workers to pass through the sacred halls. Yet, it remained accessible to the temple. The connection to what is called the palace and magazines of the temple (Ghazouli 1964, fig. 3; Zayed 1983, 20) would provide access to a place for the storage of tools,7 vessels, utensils, offerings (even meat could be stored), and live

animals slaughtered in the temple for sacrifice, as they were discovered with Roman pottery and this area had been in active use in the Ptolemaic period and after (Ghazouli 1964, 185–86).

22

M. ABUEL-YAZID

animals, all key to the butchery process (Ikram 1995, 98–100). The architecture of the space and the materials used in its construction support its identification as a butchery court: the slant of the floor that facilitates drainage; the differing heights of its ceiling, which create windows that let in purifying ultra-violet light and allow air circulation; the physical space, suitable for the movement and slaughter of animals; the availability of the water needed for butchery; as well as the texts and images (Caulfeild 1902, 8; Ghoneim 1977, 167; Ikram 1995, 98–100). The court could also have been used as a stop point for purifying an animal before it was slaughtered, and the joints of meat before they entered the temple. A text showing a bull being brought to the entrance of hall 17 bears the caption ‘dragging an ox to the slaughterhouse, twice behind the animal and the butcher’ (Naville 1930, pl. I). The water storage jars and the open area would also have cooled and aired the area. The meat processing sequence can be reconstructed as follows: 1. Workers select the sacrificial animal and bring it—if it was coming from the outside stable—to the eastern entrance of the slaughterhouse from the western pylon or from the front (see Fig. 1), where there is an east–west passage running between the magazines and the courts of the temple, connecting this rear part with the space to the east of the slaughterhouse, where two doorways could be used to move animals. 2. Animals may be kept separately for a while at a waiting point in the eastern area or in the magazine. 3. The animals enter the slaughterhouse from the east. 4. The animals stop in the court to be purified. 5. The animals enter hall 17 for slaughter. 6. The choice cuts are prepared, and are carried by a priest. 7. The priest stops again in the court to purify the cuts before crossing the entrance towards the King List corridor. 8. The final stop is at the end of this corridor, where the king or priest could purify the meat offering before sending it to offering tables in the sanctuary. Three additional rooms lead off the court; of these, rooms 15 and 16 are identical in size, shape and

decoration. Their purpose is not defined by the texts, although they both have references to slaughtering. They could have been used as subsidiary slaughter chambers, but their paucity of light, small entrances and limited space do not support the possibility of any slaughtering activities here. More likely, the space was used for the processing of the meat, similar to what is seen in the Meketre models (Ikram 1995, 100). According to the religious tone of what remains of their painted scenes, they could also have been priestly administrative offices (Omm Sety and el-Zeini 1981, 172), or perhaps a place where priests kept and purified the tools or utensils used in the slaughterhouse (Arnold 1962, 92; David 1981, 157), as seen presented by king Seti in the eastern wall of room 16 (Abuel-Yazid 2013, 311). Room 14 is the smallest room in the complex, and the only one without columns. As it occupied the southeastern corner of the entire temple, it has been identified as another ‘blind’ room similar to that in the northwestern corner (Caulfeild 1902, 9). However, room 14’s decoration is very different from that of rooms 15 and 16 and it is open to a court (Abuel-Yazid 2013, 79), and thus it must have had another purpose. It has also been identified as a purification chapel where the priests were prepared and cleansed in readiness for the rituals (Arnold 1962, 92; David 1981, 157), or a storeroom for butchers’ implements (Omm Sety and el-Zeini 1981, 172). Nothing in the design of the room or in the decoration supports any of these hypotheses. The four scenes still preserved suggest that this was a coronation or ka-chapel, while its relation with the slaughter court remains ambiguous. Future research might elucidate its precise role. Acknowledgements The author thanks Professor Shafia Bedir, Ali Abdelhalim of Ain Shams University, Mr Gamal Abelnaser, Mr Zein al-Abedin Zaki, Aziza Sayed Hasan, Yasser Mahmoud, Ayman Damarany, Hazem Salah, Mohamed Naguib and Ahmed Abu el-Tapl. Thanks are also due to the British Museum and the Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan for their support and help. I am indebted to Salima Ikram for her endless support, and also for her help with this text.

ARCHITECTURE OF THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE OF THE SETI TEMPLE AT ABYDOS

Bibliography Abuel-Yazid, M. 2013. Slaughterhouse of Sety 1st temple at Abydos and its adjacent rooms. MA thesis, Ain Shams University Cairo [in Arabic, unpublished]. ———. 2014. Architectural screen wall in Sety 1st Temple at Abydos. In New trends in the archaeological sciences: Proceeding of the international conference held at the faculty of Archaeology, Fayum University, April 7–9 2014, M. Eissa and A. M. M. Ameen (eds), 492–98 (in Arabic). Fayoum. Amin, Y. S. 1987. The sacrificial offerings in the representations and texts during the New Kingdom and the Late Period of ancient Egypt. MA thesis, Cairo University. Cairo [in Arabic, unpublished]. Arnold, D. 1962. Wandrelief und Raumfunktion in ägyptischen Tempeln des Neuen Reiches. Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 2. Berlin. ———. 1999. Temples of the last pharaohs. New York; Oxford. Arnold, D., N. Strudwick and H. Strudwick. 2003. The encyclopaedia of ancient Egyptian architecture, translated by S. H. Gardiner. Cairo. Arnold, Do. 2005. The architecture of Meketre’s slaughterhouse, and other early Twelfth Dynasty wooden models. In Structure and significance: Thoughts on ancient Egyptian architecture, P. Jánosi (ed.), 1–59. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 33; Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes 25. Vienna. Baines, J. 1984. Abydos, Temple of Sethos I: Preliminary Report. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 70: 13–22. Baines, J. 1989. Techniques of decoration in the Hall of Barques in the temple of Sethos I at Abydos. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 75: 13–30. Baines, J. and J. Málek. 2002. Atlas of Ancient Egypt. Cairo. Brand, P. J. 2000. The monuments of Seti I: Epigraphic, historical and art historical analysis. Probleme der Ägyptologie 16. Leiden. Bussman, D. 2000. Sacrificial slaughter. In Egyptian art: Principles and themes in wall scenes, L. Donovan and K. McCorquodale (eds), 101–09. Prism Archaeological Series 6. Guizeh. Calverley, A. M., and M. F. Broome. 1933. The temple of king Sethos I at Abydos, Vol. I: The chapels of Osiris, Isis and Horus. Edited by A. H. Gardiner. London; Chicago. Caulfeild, A. St. G. 1902. The temple of the kings at Abydos (Sety I). British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account 8. London. Černy, J. [n.d.] Notebook 17_156 (permission from the Griffith Institute). Unpublished.

23

Daressy, G. 1899. Les temples d’Abydos: Supplément à la publication de Mariette. Recueil de travaux rélatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes 21: 1–8. David, R. 1981. A guide to religious ritual at Abydos. Warminster. Eggebrecht, A. 1973. Schlachtungsbräuche im Alten Ägypten und ihre Wiedergabe im Flachbild bis zum Ende des Mittleren Reiches: Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Philosophischen Fakultät der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität zu München. Munich. Frankfort, H. 1933. The cenotaph of Seti I at Abydos. With chapters by A. de Buck and B. Gunn. Egypt Exploration Society 39. Vols 1–2. London. Gardiner, A. H. 1933. The temple of king Sethos I at Abydos, Vol. I: The chapels of Osiris, Isis and Horus. Copied by A. M. Calverley with the assistance of M. F. Broome. London; Chicago. Ghazouli, E. B. 1954. The palace and magazines attached to the temple of Sety I at Abydos and the facade of this temple. Annales du Service des antiquités de l’Égypte 58: 99–186. Ghoneim, W. 1977. Die ökonomische Bedeutung des Rindes im alten Ägypten. Habelts Dissertationsdrucke. Reihe Ägyptologie 3. Bonn. Gilbert, A. S. 1988. Zooarchaeological observations on the Slaughterhouse of Meketre. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 74: 69–89. Gundlach, R. 2001. Temple. In The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Vol. III, Donald B. Redford (ed.), 363– 79. Oxford. Harpur, Y. 1987. Decoration in Egyptian tombs of the Old Kingdom: Studies in orientation and scene content. Studies in Egyptology. London; New York. Ikram, S. 1995. Choice cuts: Meat production in ancient Egypt. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 69. Leuven. Kemp, B. J. 1975. Abydos. In Lexikon der Ägyptologie, Vol. I, W. Helck and E. Otto (eds), 28–41. Wiesbaden. Kitchen, K. A. 1975. Ramesside inscriptions, historical and biographical, I. Oxford. ———. 1993. Ramesside inscriptions, translated and annotated: Notes and comments, I. Ramesses I, Sethos I and contemporaries. Oxford; Cambridge, MA. Mariette, A. 1869. Abydos: Description des fouilles exécutées sur l’emplacement de cette ville. Vol. I: Ville antique. Temple de Séti. Paris. Martinez, Ph. 2006. Un ‘abattoir pur’ au Ramesseum? Memnonia 17: 95–113. Murray, M. A. 1904. The Osireion at Abydos. British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account 9. London. Naville, E. 1930. Détails relevés dans les ruines de quelques temples égyptiens. Translated by D. N. Belaieff. Paris.

24

M. ABUEL-YAZID

Omm Sety, and H. el-Zeini 1981. Abydos: Holy city of ancient Egypt. Edited by Arthur Wallace. Los Angeles. Rutherford, I. C. 2003. Pilgrimage in Greco-Roman Egypt: New perspectives on graffiti from the Memnonion at Abydos. In Ancient perspectives on Egypt, R. Matthews and C. Roemer (eds), 171–90. London. Spencer, P. 1984. The Egyptian temple: A lexicographical study. London. Verner, M. 1986. A slaughterhouse from the Old Kingdom. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 42: 181–89.

Wilkinson, R. H. 1994. Symbol and magic in Egyptian art. London. ———. 2003. The complete gods and goddesses of ancient Egypt. London. Zayed, A. H. 1963. Abydos. Cairo. ———. 1983. The archives and treasury of the temple of Sety I at Abydos. Annales du Service des antiquités de l’Égypte 65: 19–71. Zippert, E. 1931. Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos. Berlin.

THE ORIGINS OF SACREDNESS AT ABYDOS Matthew Douglas ADAMS

Abstract Fieldwork in recent years has shed substantial new light on how Egypt’s early kings used the dramatic desert landscape of North Abydos as an arena for royal display and performance. The same kings of Dynasties 1 and 2 who built tombs for themselves at Umm el-Qa῾ab built corresponding, highly visible, monumental walled ritual precincts on the expansive northern desert terrace overlooking the ancient town. Although the later reinterpretation of the area of the royal tombs has received considerable scholarly attention, I would argue that the singular use of the desert landscape of North Abydos by these early kings and the material remains left embedded in it also represent fundamental aspects of the phenomena that imbued the site with a unique significance in Egyptian culture, one that came to be expressed through both applied mythic meaning and ritual practice. Introduction For much of ancient Egyptian history, Abydos was best known to ancient Egyptians, as it is to modern scholars, as the primary cult place of Osiris, ruler of the land of the dead. The death, burial and resurrection of the god established the promise that every person could find his or her way to the eternal life of the next world. Beginning in the early Middle Kingdom, an increasingly standardized set of funerary formulae established Osiris, Abydos and the cultic practice at the site at the centre of funerary belief and practice in ancient Egypt. The voyage to Abydos, whether real or symbolic, became a long-lasting cultural ideal through which one could participate in the ritual life of the site, which was focused on Osiris, reinforcing one’s association with the god and making a successful passage into the afterlife more certain. At Abydos, perhaps more than at any other site in Egypt, religious belief and practice was very closely tied to landscape. This relationship was, perhaps, most clearly expressed through the great festival procession, whereby Osiris appears to have travelled from his temple in the town to his desert tomb, where he was buried

and resurrected, afterwards to return to his temple, the great mythic template for resurrection overcoming death having been reaffirmed and re-established. The place of the tomb of Osiris represents probably the most obvious aspect of the Abydos landscape to which mythic meaning was applied. It was here, among the tombs of Egypt’s early kings, that later Egyptians sought—and found—the tomb of Osiris in the tomb of the Dynasty 1 king Djer. In myth, Osiris was a king of Egypt in the beginning time, and, since the actual early kings were buried here, it was logical that the tomb of Osiris should be among them. Reference to landscape may be seen already in Early Dynastic times, since the early royal cemetery at Umm el-Qa῾ab was situated just in front of the mouth of a great desert canyon that may very well have been seen as the entrance to the road to the west. Although the association between Osiris and the early royal cemetery, a relationship encapsulated in Amélineau’s discovery of the Osiris-bed in Djer’s burial chamber (Amélineau 1899b, 109–15; Leahy 1977b), represents probably the clearest and most obvious aspect of a mythic interpretation of place at Abydos, it may not be the only one. Scholars have long discussed the possible nature of the relationship between the early history of Abydos and its later mythic reinterpretation and religious significance. I would like to offer a contribution to this discussion by drawing particular attention to an aspect of early royal activity at Abydos beyond the tombs themselves and to consider how this may have informed later meanings that were applied to the site. In particular, I would like to focus on an area of the desert landscape today called the North Cemetery (Fig. 1). This is situated on a fairly flat desert terrace that is distinctly elevated above the flood plain to the east and dry water channels, called wadis, on the north and south. Today, this part of the site is marked by the undulating ground that shows the location of old excavations, and it is well known to students of ancient Egypt from the early work of Mariette, Amélineau, Petrie and Peet, among others, which revealed it to be archaeologically very rich. Beginning in the early Middle Kingdom, it

26

M. D. ADAMS

Fig. 1: General view of the low desert terrace in North Abydos in which Egypt’s early kings built a series of monumental ritual enclosures, one of which, the Shunet el-Zebib, the enclosure of Khasekhemwy, is still standing. Photo: Greg Maka.*

became the primary cemetery at Abydos, eventually becoming dense with hundreds, if not thousands, of tombs that span millennia of ancient Egyptian history. Huge numbers of funerary offering stelae and other artefacts that today are distributed through major museum collections in Egypt and around the world originated here. In this paper, I will consider the earliest use of this part of the site and how its early history may have contributed to its later importance.

Today, the only visible evidence of the earliest use of the North Cemetery terrace is a monument known locally as the Shunet el-Zebib. It was built by King Khasekhemwy of Dynasty 2, the last of the early kings to be buried at Umm el-Qa῾ab. For some years, the Abydos Expedition of the Institute of Fine Arts (IFA), New York University has been engaged in the systematic

investigation of this monument and its place in the broader context of early royal activity at Abydos.1 As a result of this work, we can now say definitively that the low desert terrace of the Abydos North Cemetery was the location of a long series of monumental royal constructions, corresponding essentially to the sequence of royal tombs at Umm el-Qa῾ab. The great monument of Khasekhemwy, the last, most complex and most massive by far, is the only one of these still standing. All the others have been reduced to mere wall stubs and are detectable now only through excavation. Ayrton (Ayrton, Currelly and Weigall 1904, 1–5), Peet (1914a, 30–35), and Petrie (1925, 1–9) encountered and reported on a number of these monuments and associated features, but a fuller understanding of this phenomenon long remained elusive. The IFA Expedition’s work has provided a significantly more complete view and has allowed the early work to be situated in a broader context.

*

1

Early kings in the desert landscape of North Abydos

All photos are courtesy of the Abydos Expedition unless noted otherwise.

This discussion is based primarily on the results of several seasons of fieldwork undertaken between 2001 and 2013 under the general direction of David O’Connor and the field direction of the author.

THE ORIGINS OF SACREDNESS AT ABYDOS

Of the known early royal monuments in the North Cemetery, the most fully documented was built for King Aha at the beginning of Dynasty 1, the first king to build a monumental tomb at Umm el-Qa῾ab. It consisted of a massively built rectangular enclosure that defined a ritual precinct open to the sky (Figs 2, 3). The exterior wall faces were characterized by ‘palace façade’ niching, with simple niching on the northwest, southwest and southeast walls and a more complex pattern on the northeast, in which every fourth niche was ‘complex’—wider, deeper and with an interior reveal. A low brick bench was built at the bottom of the wall on all sides. The four corners were marked by moundlike buttresses made up of large rough stones embedded in mud. The enclosure had two gateways in the northeast wall, each taking the place in the niching sequence of one of the complex niches. The simpler northern of the two had been blocked at its inner end, leaving a deep space like an oversized niche in the wall. The other gateway was much more elaborate. The entrance itself was set back from the façade, and the interior faces of this set-back were niched. Right-angle turns in the low bench took it into the set-back to meet the interior façade on either side of the gateway. This opened into a small interior chamber, in which one must change direction to pass through a second doorway before entering the open space of the interior of the enclosure. The main interior feature was a small free-standing brick structure with three rooms (Fig. 4). The interior wall faces of the smaller two front rooms were finished in white plaster, and fallen fragments indicated that red pigment was applied over the white somewhere on the upper part of the walls. In the small northern room, separated from the entry room by a wall with a doorway, a low brick bench stood against the northeast wall (Fig. 5). Holes in the top of the bench suggested that originally something was set into it, perhaps a stela or statue. The bench, as well as the floor in front of it and the lower parts of the adjacent walls, bore traces of reddish-brown stains that suggested that liquids of some sort had been poured and splashed here. The pouring of liquids is a key element in cultic practice throughout ancient Egyptian history, and we have interpreted this structure as a cult place and this room specifically as possibly the main focus of cult. The largest of the three rooms spanned the full width of the structure behind the rear walls of both small front rooms, but it did not appear to have an entrance, at least not one that would be detectable in the lower parts of

27

the walls as preserved. The interior of this room bore no traces of white or other colour on the walls. Given the lack of evidence for an entrance, one may be tempted to interpret this space as perhaps an antecedent of the statue shrine of Djoser at Saqqara or of the serdab regularly incorporated into later funerary architecture (Brovarski 1984). Outside of the cult chapel, the remainder of the interior of the enclosure was remarkably empty. Few artefacts were found on the mud-plaster floor, which appeared to have been covered by finely woven plantfibre mats, impressions of which were preserved in spots. The only features detected in the open space of the northwestern half of the interior were two lines of small hearths, both oriented roughly southwest–northeast, parallel to the shorter end walls of the enclosure. These consisted of shallow pits cut into the hard-packed sand of the natural desert surface on which the monument had been built. The sand around and under each was fire-reddened, and each contained small pieces of wood charcoal and ash. The space between the groups is comparable to that taken up by the adjacent cult chapel and may represent an area defined by the hearths for a particular, presumably ritual, activity, though at present it is not possible to know what that might have been. The massive enclosure wall appears to have been built in order to create an interior space to be used specifically for the performance of cult focused on the king, or conducted on his behalf. Although the funerary associations seem logical, given the presence of the royal necropolis 1½km to the south, the use of the monument does not appear to have been limited only to the time of the king’s funeral. Particularly given observed wear and erosional patterns, it seems more likely that the monument stood for some years, perhaps more or less the duration of the reign of the king, and that the occasion of the royal funeral may have been the concluding episode in a use-life of some duration. If this interpretation is correct, the monument probably served an important cultic function during the reign of the king, not only at the time of his funeral, and the customary reference to the Abydos royal enclosures as ‘funerary’ may be something of a mischaracterization. The monument was surrounded by a series of buried structures that proved to be tombs. Originally, there were probably six tombs, of which five have been excavated, the sixth being inaccessible inside the adjacent modern cemetery. Each consisted of a massively built burial chamber, with walls more than a metre

28

M. D. ADAMS

Fig. 2: The excavated Aha 1 enclosure. The monument of Khasekhemwy is visible in the distance. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

Fig. 3: Reconstructed plan of the Aha 1 enclosure. Courtesy of the Abydos Expedition.

THE ORIGINS OF SACREDNESS AT ABYDOS

29

Fig. 4: Southeastern part of the interior of the Aha 1 enclosure, showing the remains of the chapel and east corner gateway. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

Fig. 5: Presumed cult room with bench in the chapel of the Aha 1 enclosure. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

thick and heavy timbers that supported a thick brick roof (Fig. 6). The entire construction was below the ancient ground level on the exterior of the enclosure, with no evidence of any features that would have been visible on the surface. It would appear that the tombs were paved over by the mud floor that was laid directly on the natural desert surface around the exterior of the monument. Rather than being features added at the end of the use-life of the structure, the subsidiary tombs appear to have been in place at its beginning. This also demonstrates that the tombs were ‘sealed’ by the floor in a single depositional event, which suggests that the occupants of the tombs were probably interred at the same time: archaeological evidence in favour of the burials being the result of human sacrifice, rather than being made after natural deaths. The burials may have served to sanctify and/or ritually activate the monument in some fashion. If the occupants had already been translated from this world to the next, then perhaps the monument itself was thereby defined as existing in a liminal state: materially present in this world, but also having a connection to the next. Although they had all been robbed in antiquity, a considerable amount of the original contents of the tombs, as well as the remains of the occupants,

30

M. D. ADAMS

Fig. 6: Subsidiary grave 3 of the Aha 1 enclosure. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

survived (Fig. 7). The tombs appear to have been well equipped, with grave goods that included travertine vessels, bone or ivory arrow points (Fig. 8), sets of ceramic cylinder vases (Fig. 9) and large wine jars (Fig. 10). Ink inscriptions on cylinder vases and seal impressions on wine jar stoppers provided the name of the royal owner of the monument: Aha (Fig. 11). Four of the five tomb occupants were adults, one male and three females.2 Each of these had originally been in an only slightly flexed position inside a large and heavily built rectangular wooden coffin that filled most of the space of the tomb chamber (Fig. 12). One tomb, no. 5, was exceptional in that it contained the burial of a child of three to five years of age (Fig. 13). This tomb proved to be more heavily disturbed than the others, with little remaining of the larger grave goods that may originally have been present. The child was provided, however, with a set of more than twenty ivory bangle bracelets still in situ in front of the legs (Fig. 14) and tiny amu-

2

3

The skeletal remains are being analysed by Brenda Baker, Arizona State University. The yellower sand deposited adjacent to the enclosure wall is that characteristic of the natural substrate in the immediate vicinity of the monument and was probably excavated nearby, perhaps in part during construction of the subsidiary graves. The

lets of lapis lazuli carved in the shapes of animals (Fig. 15). The jewellery should, perhaps, be taken as a measure of the likely quality of the now missing remainder of the burial assemblage. This grave contained no evidence of a wooden coffin. An important and somewhat unexpected aspect of the monument is that it appeared to have been deliberately demolished anciently. The walls had not been simply demolished: the monument had been very carefully prepared for demolition. The floors were swept clean; they were covered in fine sterile sand that could only have been deliberately deposited through human action; and the walls were then brought down onto this sand. The interior chapel appears to have been similarly treated. In this case, the floors of the two front rooms were covered by a deposit of sand that was noticeably lighter in colour and finer than that deposited around the enclosure walls.3 This sand showed staining that suggested drips of liquid, possibly evidence for the

nearest modern source of white sand similar to that found in the chapel is a sand and gravel quarry some 1.7km west-southwest. It seems likely, therefore, that the sand used to cover the floor of the chapel was especially selected for this purpose and brought from some distance away.

THE ORIGINS OF SACREDNESS AT ABYDOS

Fig. 7: Interior of grave 2 of the Aha 1 enclosure during excavation, showing the jumble of bricks from the collapsed roof, broken grave goods and the remains of the grave’s occupant. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

31

ritual use of liquids during the preparation for demolition (Fig. 16). The roof of the chapel, supported by wooden poles, appears to have been pulled down directly onto this sand along with brick debris from the walls (Fig. 17). Large areas of the dense deposit of brick masonry from the now missing upper parts of the enclosure’s walls were preserved adjacent to the remaining lower parts (Fig. 18), which preserved the stratigraphy of the demolition sequence: sterile sand directly on the mud floor and heavy brick demolition debris directly on the sand (Fig. 19). There is no evidence of the gradual erosion of the walls. The demolition appears to have been a sudden, deliberate act. The intention may have been that the monument itself was to undergo a kind of burial, being put into the ground, perhaps so that the entire complex, both the enclosure and the occupants of the graves around it—and, importantly, the function they collectively served for the king—would be translated from this world into the next, to be available to the king there, in the same way that the king himself would be translated from this world to the next by means of a proper burial in his tomb at Umm el-Qa῾ab. The initial excavation on the northwest side of the enclosure of Aha suggested that additional Early Dynastic features existed in that direction, and subsequent work by Laurel Bestock (2009) revealed the

Fig. 8: Objects found in the subsidiary graves of the Aha 1 enclosure. Photos: Jody Waldron.

32

M. D. ADAMS

Fig. 9: Detail of the lower part of the burial in grave 3 of the Aha 1 enclosure. The collapse of the coffin resulted in wood resting directly on the legs and crushed a set of ceramic cylinder jars that had been placed inside the coffin near the feet. Photo: Jody Waldron.

Fig. 10: Excavation of a large wine jar in grave 3, with traces of a rope sling visible on the exterior of the vessel. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

remains of two more enclosures that were similar, though not identical, in plan and substantially smaller in size (Aha 2 and 3, for ease of reference, with Aha 1 being the larger southeastern enclosure discussed here). A range of evidence indicated that they, like Aha 1, had functioned as cult places, with some evidence that they, too, may have been deliberately demolished. These structures were also provided with subsidiary graves, though these were smaller and neither as massively built nor as richly furnished as those of the larger enclosure, with grave goods consisting only of a few ceramic vessels and their contents. Inscriptions showed that the two smaller monuments also belonged to the reign of king Aha. Bestock has interpreted these as cultic structures subsidiary to the larger enclosure on the southeast, with the existence of multiple enclosures standing as a kind of parallel to the similarly unique arrangement of Aha’s tomb at Umm el-Qa῾ab (Bestock in this volume). She further suggests they may have served as cultic buildings for individuals other than the king, perhaps relating to the two large subsidiary graves, B13 and B14, accompanying Aha’s tomb.

THE ORIGINS OF SACREDNESS AT ABYDOS

Fig. 11: Inscriptions giving the name of Aha from the subsidiary graves of the Aha 1 enclosure. Left, ink on a cylinder vase. Right, top, fragment of a seal impression on a wine jar stopper. Right, bottom, reconstruction of a similar seal impression. Photos: Jody Waldron. Graphic: Kaplony 1963, pl. 11, Abb. 27D.

Fig. 12: Interior of grave 3 of the Aha 1 enclosure, showing the in situ remains of the coffin and burial. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

33

34

M. D. ADAMS

Fig. 13: Interior of grave 5 of the Aha 1 enclosure, showing the cobble floor and the in situ legs and feet of the original occupant, a small child. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

Fig. 14: Detail of the in situ remains in grave 5 of the Aha 1 enclosure, including the mass of ivory bangle bracelets. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

Fig. 15: Amulets of lapis lazuli found in grave 5 of the Aha 1 enclosure. Photo: Jody Waldron.

The Aha 1 enclosure, though it may not be the first in the sequence at Abydos, demonstrates that by the beginning of Dynasty 1, a basic template had been established that defined key parameters—a kind of script—for royal practice at the site. With gateways at the north and east corners, an exterior façade characterized by long rows of niches, an interior chapel, surrounded by subsidiary graves, and deliberate demolition, this monument illustrates the template. This was then followed in most of its essentials by the subsequent kings who were buried at Umm el-Qa῾ab and who built similar ritual precincts nearby. Immediately southwest of the three enclosures of Aha is another, much larger royal monument that follows the same basic pattern. Unfortunately, most of it is today inaccessible, having been overbuilt by a modern cemetery. The southeast end of the monument, including part of the interior (Figs 20, 21), and small sections of the northeast and northwest walls have been excavated. Here, too was a massive enclosure wall with a niched exterior, corner buttresses and a complex east corner gateway.

THE ORIGINS OF SACREDNESS AT ABYDOS

Fig. 16: Partially excavated sand deposit in the doorway and first room of the chapel of the Aha 1 enclosure. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

Fig. 17: Cross section through the remains of the collapsed roof of the cult room in the chapel of the Aha 1 enclosure. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

35

36

M. D. ADAMS

Fig. 18: View along the exterior side of the northeast wall of the Aha 1 enclosure, showing a preserved section of the mud-brick demolition debris. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

Fig. 19: Detail of a section cut through the demolition debris and sand deposit above the exterior floor along the northeast wall of the Aha 1 enclosure. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

THE ORIGINS OF SACREDNESS AT ABYDOS

Fig. 20: General view of the excavated remains of the large enclosure southwest of Aha 1–3. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

Modern cemetery

0

10m

Fig. 21: Plan of the excavated portion of the enclosure illustrated in Fig. 20. Courtesy of the Abydos Expedition.

37

38

M. D. ADAMS

Fig. 22: Remains of the east corner gateway of the enclosure illustrated in Figs 20–21, with a large limestone basin still in situ adjacent. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

Two details of the gateway may be noted. First, just outside the opening in the enclosure wall, on the right of the doorway on approach from the northeast, was a massive limestone basin, c. 72cm in diameter (Fig. 22). The stone was badly deteriorated, probably from periodic exposure to the elements, which left no trace of any decoration that may once have been present on its surface, but the size and basic shape were clear. This object has a very close parallel in both style and dimensions in a greywacke basin from the tomb of Den (Fig. 23), which was found by Amélineau at Umm el-Qa῾ab and is now in Mariemont (Musée royal de Mariemont, B.101; Hendrickx and Eyckerman 2009; Amélineau 1899a, 121, 288). The presence of such a basin, clearly a ritual object, at the entrance to the enclosure underscores its basic ritual character and suggests that even entry was a ritual act. The second notable aspect of the gateway was the discovery inside of a large number of sealings. With the majority being impressions of the same two or three seals (Fig. 24), these appear to have been the products of the repeated sequence of opening, closing, sealing and re-opening of a wooden door, which presumably was located either

Fig. 23: Greywacke basin of king Den (Mariemont B.101) from his tomb at Umm el-Qa῾ab. Photo: Vinciane Lacroix [CC BY-SA 4.0 , from Wikimedia Commons, ].

THE ORIGINS OF SACREDNESS AT ABYDOS

Fig. 24: Seal impression from the east corner gateway illustrated in Fig. 22. Photo: Jody Waldron.

at the entrance to the gateway chamber from outside or else at the doorway to the open interior in the southwest wall of the chamber. Unfortunately, not one of the sealings produced a royal name, but stylistically they suggest the enclosure should be dated to early Dynasty 1 or perhaps to the end of Dynasty 0, a range that could fit with one of several kings buried at Umm el-Qa῾ab. In the absence of more definitive evidence for the dating, it may be useful to consider the position of this monument relative to its neighbours. Bestock (2009, 102–04) has suggested that it may stand in more or less the same position in relation to the enclosure of king Djer as the smaller ‘subsidiary’ enclosures of Aha do in relation to his larger ‘main’ enclosure. Given both its proximity to and alignment with the three known enclosures of Aha, an alternative interpretation, and one that I have come to see as perhaps the more likely, is that this monument, too, belonged to Aha. Considering the broader spatial context as now known, the four can be seen as comprising a distinct grouping, separated spatially by a gap of roughly 50m from another newly discovered enclosure to the northwest that seems very likely to be earlier (Bestock in this volume), and different in scale from the much larger succeeding monuments of Djer and Djet to the east (Fig. 25). If this interpretation is correct, scale alone suggests that this monument, hereafter ‘Aha 4’, should probably be viewed as the ‘main’ enclosure of the group, further complicating the question of the nature of the relationship between the multiple examples belonging to Aha’s reign. This enclosure exhibited the same evidence of careful preparation and deliberate dismantling as was seen in

39

Aha 1. The interior floor had been swept clean and covered by a thick (nearly 50cm) deposit of sterile sand and gravel (Figs 26–27). Brick debris from the demolition of the walls was deposited directly on this sand. Here, too, there was little evidence for the gradual erosion of the walls, but rather for a single destructive event. The Aha 4 enclosure, too, was accompanied by subsidiary graves, although, rather than housing the burials of human beings, they were found to contain the carefully interred remains of ten donkeys (Fig. 28). The three grave chambers were, together, a well-built single construction, with side walls of mud brick finished in mud plaster and floors of natural compacted desert sand over which plant-fibre mats were laid. Wooden poles set transversely across the chambers originally supported a roof of brick and mud, all below the ancient ground level, like the graves around the other Aha enclosures. The roofs had collapsed anciently. The animals had been carefully arranged on their left sides and were without grave goods, with the exception of a few rough ware bowls. Zooarchaeological analysis revealed that these donkeys, which are the oldest complete donkey skeletons known, were not yet fully domesticated, although they exhibited evidence of having performed hard work, probably as transport animals (Rossel et al. 2008). Their burial adjacent to a royal ritual precinct must have been in part a statement of their value to the king, but it may also have related to other, more conceptual aspects of kingship, particularly one well known in early royal iconography, the control of or association with the power inherent in certain animals (Baines 1995, 111; Kemp 2006, 93), a suggestion that finds support in the dangerous or violent connotations of donkeys as they are frequently depicted in Predynastic rock art, as well as in that of dynastic times (Huyge 2009). The symbolic significance of these animals is further supported by the occurrence of sacrificial donkey burials accompanying elite tombs of the Early Dynastic period at Abusir (Boessneck, von den Driesch and Eissa 1992), Tarkhan (Petrie 1914, 6, pl. 19) and Helwan (Saad 1947, 167, pl. 74; 1951, 37, pl. 47; 1969, 80, pl. 120). A significant difference in scale may be noted, however, between those in non-royal contexts and the Abydos examples. The others occur in sets of three individuals, whereas here there are ten individuals in three chambers, 4 + 4 + 2. The presence of the donkeys in this context seems akin to the burials of young lions among the subsidiary graves at the tomb of Aha at Umm el-Qa῾ab (Boessneck and von den Driesch 1990, 86–87).

40

M. D. ADAMS

Fig. 25: Plan of the known Early Dynastic royal cultic enclosures in North Abydos. Courtesy of the Abydos Expedition.

THE ORIGINS OF SACREDNESS AT ABYDOS

Fig. 26: Interior of the Aha 4 enclosure after excavation of the floor, which has been cut through by a number of later intrusive pits. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

Fig. 27: Interior of Aha 4 enclosure, showing the thick deposit of sand on the floor. The holes are later intrusive pits. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

41

42

M. D. ADAMS

Fig. 28: Panoramic view of the donkey burials associated with the Aha 4 enclosure. Photos: Robert Fletcher.

The basic parameters of the following stages of early royal activity at the site were defined by the work of Petrie, who, in his last season at Abydos in the winter of 1921–22, discovered a large number of graves of Dynasty 1, arranged in three large rectangles. A part of one of these had been encountered by Peet some years before (Peet 1914a, 30–35), which prompted Petrie’s return. After his work at the royal tombs, he was convinced that groupings of graves of this sort must be associated with a large central tomb, and he went about looking for these, though without success. O’Connor in the 1980s demonstrated conclusively that inside Petrie’s rectangle of graves from the reign of Djer stood a brick enclosure of similar design to the other known Abydos monuments, with an exterior ‘palace façade’ and bench, north and east corner gateways and an expansive interior space open to the sky (O’Connor 1989). Although it was somewhat more elaborate and was in the northwest rather than northeast wall (a change adopted by Djer’s successors), the north corner gateway of Djer’s monument (Fig. 29), like that of Aha 1, had been blocked with a solidly built brick wall, which created

an especially deep niche in the façade. The remains of the walls of Djer’s enclosure are highly denuded and in places were overbuilt or cut through by tombs and chapels of the Middle Kingdom. Only at the north gateway did a small area of stratigraphic deposits survive that may be informative as to the history of use of the monument. Here, too, however, there were indications that the monument had been deliberately demolished, with heavy brick debris deposited directly on the interior mud floor, although in this admittedly limited exposure there was no intervening sand deposit. More recent work has further refined our understanding of Djer’s monument, including the discovery of the remains of a mud-brick chapel in the southern part of the interior (Fig. 30). Like the walls of the enclosure, this was highly denuded and had been cut through and overbuilt by tombs and offering chapels of the Middle Kingdom. Only a few scattered patches of masonry survived to show its position and broad dimensions; however, there was evidence for an interior doorway situated perpendicular to the northeast wall and for the use of white plaster on at least some of the interior walls. It seems evident that king Djer followed the basic template established in the enclosures of his predecessor(s), but he expressed it on a vastly expanded scale (Fig. 31). Not only was the enclosure itself much larger, but the number of subsidiary graves surrounding it was of a different order of magnitude: 269. A careful re-examination of parts of the grave rectangle demonstrated conclusively that each of the contiguous groups of graves was roofed in a single construction event (Fig. 32), meaning that all the occupants were interred simultaneously. This, in turn, strongly suggests they were deliberately killed to be buried here. The scale of both the construction and the burials would suggest a greatly expanded sense of royal power, a change also evident at Djer’s tomb. On the basis of the evidence from Djer’s complex, we can reasonably project that inside the rectangle of graves Petrie found belonging to the reign of Djet, Djer’s successor, there was a monumental construction of similar scale, with a massive enclosure wall, interior ritual space and a small interior chapel. The repetition of the basic pattern in each reign is confirmed by sections of the walls of yet another enclosure, southeast of that of Djet, found initially by Peet and explored more extensively by Petrie (1925, 2, pl. 18, right). Objects from the subsidiary graves could be dated to the reign of Queen-regent Meret-Neith, mother of king

THE ORIGINS OF SACREDNESS AT ABYDOS

Fig. 29: Panoramic view of the remains of the north gateway of the enclosure of Djer. Photos: Robert Fletcher.

Fig. 30: Remains of the interior chapel of the Djer enclosure. The preserved areas of original mud-brick masonry are indicated. Most of the other visible architecture dates to the Middle Kingdom. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

43

44

M. D. ADAMS

Fig. 31: Plan of the excavated components of the enclosure of Djer. The subsidiary graves based on Petrie 1925, Pl. 16. Combined plan courtesy of the Abydos Expedition.

THE ORIGINS OF SACREDNESS AT ABYDOS

Fig. 32: Remains of the roof construction atop the wall of one of the northeast line of subsidiary graves of the enclosure of Djer. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

Den, who herself had a tomb at Umm el-Qa῾ab. To date, the IFA Expedition has not undertaken further work in the areas of the monuments of Djet or MeretNeith, and little can as yet be added to Peet’s and Petrie’s accounts. Although he did not recognize its true nature, Petrie found the remains of yet another royal enclosure of

Dynasty 1, which he called the ‘Western Mastaba’, located west of the Meret-Neith monument (Petrie 1925, 3, pl. 18, left). Further investigations by the IFA Expedition have confirmed its basic character, which followed the now-standard basic architectural template for the Abydos royal monuments: a massively constructed enclosure wall with an exterior ‘palace façade’ with bench and a blocked north corner gateway. Petrie made no mention of other features that may have been associated with this monument, but his discussion is very brief. Excavations on the southwest side of the enclosure resulted in a unique discovery: a series of long, narrow brick structures (Fig. 33). These are the now rather well-known boat graves of Abydos: fourteen boat-shaped brick grave structures, each containing the wooden hull of a real boat (Ward 2003). To date no inscriptions have been found in or around the boat graves that would identify their royal owner, but both the stratigraphic relationship between the northeast ends of the boat graves and the southwest wall of the ‘Western Mastaba’, as well as their spatial distribution in line with the monument, suggest they are to be associated with it.4 The boat graves fundamentally represent the same phenomenon as the human and donkey

Fig. 33: General view of a section of the southwest wall of the ‘Western Mastaba’ and associated boat graves. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

4

The stratigraphic relationships evident at the southwestern ends of the boat graves show conclusively that they pre-date Khasekhemwy’s monument.

45

46

M. D. ADAMS

burials that accompanied other royal enclosures. They constituted components of the larger ritual complex. Like the donkey burials, their presence argues for some degree of individualism on the part of each ruler. The king could choose to entomb beside his monumental cult place those living or inanimate things deemed important or essential to it or to him that, through burial, were to be translated into the next world to be available to him there, as part of the functionality of the complex as a whole. Interestingly, like the sacrificial burials of humans and donkeys, the interment of boats in a funerary context is not exclusive to kings. Boats have also been found in association with elite tombs of the Early Dynastic period at Saqqara (Emery 1939, 18; 1954, 138; 1958, 42), as well as at Helwan (Saad 1947, 111; 1951, 41–42; 1969, 70) and most recently at Abu Roash (Tristant et al. 2014). Thus, as with other types of subsidiary graves, it appears that the king for whom the ‘Western Mastaba’ was built drew on a shared vocabulary of ritual practice, while expressing it in an innovative fashion to make a distinctively royal statement. Most notable in this case is the difference in scale. Not only are the Abydos boats on average substantially larger than those at other sites, but the fact that there are fourteen—a veritable fleet—is wholly unprecedented. They occur singly in association with non-royal tombs. Further, at Abydos, they are associated not with a tomb, but rather a ritual enclosure, a royal cult place. Their use in this quite different context is also a unique statement, strongly distinguishing the deployment of boats by the king from the pattern of use by others. Recent excavations on the southeast side of the ‘Western Mastaba’ have revealed that, in addition to the boat graves, it was also provided with other, more typical subsidiary graves. Just a few metres beyond the southeast wall of the enclosure were found the remains of a line of small, hastily built brick tombs (Fig. 34), very similar to those Petrie found around the MeretNeith enclosure. In one of these, the floorboards and lower part of one side of a small rectangular wooden coffin were still in place (Fig. 35), but only a few small bones from the original occupant remained. These were insufficient to permit the determination of sex or age. 5

The ancient walled enclosure within which the church and village of Deir Sitt Damyana are situated, which early scholars interpreted as a ‘fort’ akin to the Shunet el-Zebib and other early royal enclosures, has been determined to be almost certainly of

No other objects were found in association with the graves. The recent work also revealed that the ‘Western Mastaba’ further conformed to the pattern of use established by the earlier royal monuments. Evidence for its deliberate ancient demolition was found in a large deposit of brick masonry along the interior side of the southeast wall (see Fig. 34). As with earlier enclosures, there appears to be no evidence for the gradual erosion of the wall, but rather only for a sudden demolition event. The question of the royal owner of the ‘Western Mastaba’ remains, for now, unanswered, although the discovery of subsidiary graves holds the promise of an eventual specific identification. In the present absence of objects with a royal name, its position on the ground relative to the other known enclosures and its similarity to that of Meret-Neith suggest that perhaps the most likely owner is Den, next in the sequence of royal tombs at Umm el-Qa῾ab. If the boat graves indeed belong to this monument, their presence as an innovative component may represent something of a parallel to the significant innovations seen in the architecture of both Den’s tomb and contemporary non-royal tombs. Given the continuity of royal practice at Umm el-Qa῾ab, we should expect that the later kings of Dynasty 1 also built cultic enclosures on the North Cemetery terrace. These probably are to be found in the area southeast of the enclosure of Meret-Neith and the ‘Western Mastaba’,5 and the natural topography of the terrace could accommodate additional royal enclosures, particularly if, as might be expected based on the pattern at the royal tombs, they were similar in scale to that of Meret-Neith and the ‘Western Mastaba’. Occasional later Dynasty 1 sherds have been observed on the surface in this region of the site, suggesting the presence there of features from this period. The main challenges to settling the question are presented by the density of large late tombs and the size of the associated spoil heaps from the early excavations. After the reign of Qa῾a at the end of Dynasty 1, there was a hiatus in royal activity at Abydos. The necropolis of the kings was shifted to Saqqara for several reigns, but late in Dynasty 2 the ‘Abydos tradition’, with the royal tomb at Umm el-Qa῾ab and a royal cultic Ptolemaic date, based on observations made by the author and L. Bestock of the bricks and method of construction and comparison to the walls of the nearby Ptolemaic ibis hypogeum.

THE ORIGINS OF SACREDNESS AT ABYDOS

Fig. 34: General view of a preserved section of the southeast wall of the ‘Western Mastaba’, with the subsidiary graves at right, adjacent to Middle Kingdom shafts. Photo: Greg Maka.

Fig. 35: Detail of the interior of a subsidiary grave on the southeast side of the ‘Western Mastaba’, with remains of a wooden coffin still in situ. Photo: Greg Maka.

47

48

M. D. ADAMS

enclosure in the North Cemetery terrace, was resumed. This re-engagement with longstanding earlier royal practice was not done by rote, although it involved a clear awareness of both the locations of the earlier monuments, even though none appears to have been standing, and their basic design. Dynasty 2 practice involved modifications of the earlier patterns that suggest that some of the ideas underlying the royal enclosures were changing, paralleling the significant changes seen in the contemporary royal tombs at Umm el-Qa῾ab. In the monument of Peribsen, the most basic elements of the earlier ‘Abydos tradition’ were followed and an awareness of the location of earlier features is evident. Its northeast wall was built rather close to and parallel with the southwest subsidiary grave trench of the Djer enclosure. Architecturally, it consisted of a rectangular enclosure wall built in mud brick, with an exterior ‘palace façade’ and complex gateways near the north and east corners, a structure that defined a large unroofed ritual space within which was a small freestanding brick chapel. It may be worth noting that, although its walls are considerably thinner, c. 1.6m, Peribsen’s enclosure is comparable in area to the largest of Dynasty 1, those of Djer and Djet, and may be deliberately evoking the grandeur of those monuments to make a statement about Peribsen’s power as king. A number of significant changes both in architecture and in practice are evident, however, paralleling changes at the royal tomb. In a notable departure from the Dynasty 1 pattern, the north corner gateway received the most elaborate treatment, whereas previously the east corner gateways were the more complex. Peribsen’s north gateway (Fig. 36) involved a deep set-back from the main line of the wall, which created a sort of mega-niche that defined a small forecourt in front of the doorway, with the niching of the main façade continuing onto the side walls of the court and up to the doorway opening. This had not been blocked, and it no longer opened directly onto the unroofed interior of the enclosure. Rather, it was separated from it by a new architectural feature, a small interior gateway chamber that required a change of direction and passage through a second doorway. This was previously an element of the east corner gateways in those Dynasty 1 monuments in which this gateway has been explored archaeologically, and this earlier pattern was repeated in the east corner gateway of Peribsen’s monument. Another apparent innovation at Peribsen’s monument is the addition of at least one, and possibly two, gateways. One was built in the middle of the southeast side

(Fig. 37), and takes the form of a simple, straight-sided, passage-like opening through the wall. Magnetic mapping data indicates that a comparably sized gap exists in the middle of the southwest side (Fig. 38) in essentially the same position as a fourth gateway in the succeeding monument of Khasekhemwy, suggesting that this may also have been an innovation of Peribsen’s reign. This feature, however, has not yet been confirmed by excavation, and the gap could be the result of damage to the wall. The addition of one or more gateways in addition to those at the north and east corners further suggests changes in how the royal enclosure was intended to function in Dynasty 2. Peribsen’s monument is the first to exhibit unequivocal evidence that the exterior was painted white: a thin layer of whitewash was applied over a thick coating of brown mud plaster (Fig. 39). A continuous horizontal stripe of red was added over the whitewash, a detail already noted by Ayrton (Ayrton, Currelly and Weigall 1904, 3). Paralleling the change in practice at the royal tomb, the phenomenon of subsidiary graves was abandoned. The low exterior bench that was a regular feature of the earlier enclosures was also lost. With Peribsen, there was a further shift in ritual practice, in that the material generated by the performance of cult at the monument was no longer cleared away so completely. In fact, just outside the east corner gateway was found a huge deposit of offering pottery (Fig. 40). The deposit is made up mostly of beer jars and appears to provide direct evidence of the nature and scale of the offering ritual that took place at the enclosure. Further evidence for ritual practice was seen in a large deposit of seal impressions found in front of the interior chapel, which likewise had not been cleared away at the end of the use of the monument. Significantly, Peribsen’s enclosure also produced evidence for its demolition, following the earlier tradition. This can be seen most clearly in a large deposit of brick debris on top of sterile sand, which appears not to be an aeolian deposit, along the interior side of the southeast wall of the enclosure (Fig. 41; see also Fig. 37, below). Similar brick debris has been encountered adjacent to the other three walls in almost every part of the enclosure excavated to date by the Expedition. It would appear, then, that, despite the other major changes, this aspect of the practice associated with the royal cultic enclosure—its burial— remained an essential component. The last of the early royal monuments to be built in North Abydos was that of Khasekhemwy. His was the largest tomb in the Abydos royal necropolis, with a

THE ORIGINS OF SACREDNESS AT ABYDOS

Fig. 36: Excavated north gateway of the enclosure of Peribsen. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

Fig. 37: Excavated southeast wall of the enclosure of Peribsen. A simple gateway was constructed in the middle of the wall. In the background is the southeast part of the interior chapel of the enclosure. In the foreground at lower left is part of a large deposit of mud brick from the demolition of the monument. Photo: Greg Maka.

49

50

M. D. ADAMS

Fig. 38: Magnetic map of the enclosure of Peribsen. Image: Tomasz Herbich.

Fig. 39: Detail of a section of the southeast façade of the enclosure of Peribsen, with traces of its original white finish with a horizontal band of red. Photo: Jason Goodman.

THE ORIGINS OF SACREDNESS AT ABYDOS

Fig. 40: Deposit of offering pottery in front of the east corner gateway of the enclosure of Peribsen. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

Fig. 41: Fallen mud-brick masonry on the interior side of the southeast wall of the Peribsen enclosure. Photo: Greg Maka.

51

52

M. D. ADAMS

number of innovative aspects, and the same can be said of his enclosure. Like all the others, it consisted of a monumental enclosure wall with an exterior ‘palace façade’ that defined a vast interior ritual precinct. Khasekhemwy’s monument followed and expanded on the example set by Peribsen, with a similarly elaborate treatment of the north corner gateway (Fig. 42). The east corner gateway retained the associated chamber, but this was reduced in size and largely absorbed into the thickness of the wall. This monument also had simple gateways in the southeast and southwest walls. Like the earlier enclosures, a relatively small chapel was the only brick construction in the interior (Fig. 43), though it was larger and internally much more complex than any of the earlier known examples. There is evidence that wooden structures may have been erected here that were dismantled when its original ritual use ended. The remains of large cut timbers, some more than 4m in length, were found in a pit in the middle of the northern part of the interior, and may be from just such a structure.6 This would parallel the remains of a stack of wooden poles found by Bestock in enclosure Aha 2 that appears likely to represent a dismantled structure (Bestock 2009, 72–73).

A number of findings may be informative as to how the monument may have been made ritually effective or ‘activated’. First, stratigraphic evidence establishes with complete certainty that the interior chapel was built before the adjacent walls of the main enclosure. A mud-plaster surface extends out for some distance from the base of its northeast and southeast walls, and this surface was found to run under the base of the enclosure walls. The white plaster used to finish the exterior of the chapel ran onto this surface, suggesting that the chapel was already a fully finished structure at the time the main enclosure walls were raised around it. This in turn suggests that the chapel may have been in use before the enclosure was built and that the rituals conducted in it may have been one means by which the site of the enclosure and the process of its construction were imbued with appropriate sanctity. A second notable detail is Ayrton’s discovery of a human burial, dated by him to Dynasty 2 on the basis of associated ceramics, under one of the walls of the main enclosure (Ayrton, Currelly and Weigall 1904, 47, pl. 5.6). Regrettably, his published report does not specify where exactly this burial was located, although it seems likely to have been under the southwest wall of the

Fig. 42: North corner gateway of the enclosure of Khasekhemwy. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

6

As of this writing, the deposit has not yet been fully investigated.

THE ORIGINS OF SACREDNESS AT ABYDOS

53

Fig. 43: Northeast façade of the interior chapel of the Khasekhemwy enclosure. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

main enclosure, since the southwest corridor appears to have been a particular focus for Ayrton. The single published photograph and his brief description give the basic character of the burial: it was tightly contracted, covered by a large vat-shaped ceramic vessel turned upside down and located under the base of the wall. Given presently available evidence, it is not possible to know whether the burial was made in a pit that was then covered by the wall or whether the burial pit was dug under the wall after it had been built. In either case, if Ayrton’s dating is correct, the presence of this burial suggests that the concept of the subsidiary burial associated with the royal enclosure may not have been completely abandoned in Dynasty 2. Lastly, a deposit of carefully arranged offering pottery found in the north corner gateway chamber may have been part of the ‘activation’ of this component of the monument (Fig. 44). Although the original mud floor is now mostly lost, the stratigraphic position of the few preserved remnants suggest that the floor was laid down over the deposit and that thus it is an original feature.

7

As much as 1 metre in some locations on the basis of presently available evidence.

As with Peribsen’s enclosure, considerable evidence has been found that illustrates the ritual functioning of that of Khasekhemwy. Substantial quantities of artefacts that reflect the performance of cult have been found around the chapel, including offering pottery (beer and wine jars), many seal impressions from the opening of containers, both bags and boxes, stains on the walls that may be from liquid offerings and a ball of what appears to be incense on the floor of room ‘J’ (on the plan published in Ayrton, Currelly and Weigall 1904, pl. 6) at the chapel’s south interior corner. The material products of the performance of cult were not limited to the area of the chapel. Virtually the entirety of the area excavated to date along the southeast exterior side (Fig. 45) was covered by a thick7 deposit of material generated by the activities involved in the functioning of the monument. This deposit was made up of thousands of beer jars (Fig. 46), including many complete or nearly complete vessels, as well as sealings from the opening of containers, quantities of wood charcoal and a considerable number of whole bovine

54

M. D. ADAMS

Fig. 44: Deposit of offering pottery under the floor of the interior chamber of the north gateway of the Khasekhemwy enclosure. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

Fig. 45: General view of the excavations on the southeast side of the enclosure of Khasekhemwy. Photo: Greg Maka.

THE ORIGINS OF SACREDNESS AT ABYDOS

55

Fig. 46: Offering pottery deposit on the southeast exterior side of the Khasekhemwy enclosure. Photo: Greg Maka.

crania that were deposited in groups (Fig. 47). The latter in particular evoke the offering scenes so familiar from later periods. It appears that the material generated by the performance of cult inside the enclosure were carried out through the south gateway and dumped over a wide area. This was eventually levelled and covered with a layer of mud that constituted a final ‘clean’ exterior floor. This process may perhaps be akin to the cleaning at the end of the use-life of the earlier enclosures described above, though at present there is no evidence of a similar pattern at that of Peribsen. Presently, only the top of the deposit has been defined over most of its area, and a more detailed future study is planned. A completely unique aspect of Khasekhemwy’s monument is its sheer massiveness (Fig. 48). At 5m thick and at least 11m high, the walls of its larger inner enclosure represent a completely different scale of construction from any of its predecessors. This covered an area of more than 10,000 square metres, greater than any of the other Abydos enclosures. Khasekhemwy added further to the mass of his monument through the construction of a second enclosure wall, which itself was of comparable thickness and height to the largest of the earlier monuments, although covering a considerably greater area. This outer wall appears to have

been a secondary addition (Włodarska 2017, 561–62) and may parallel the series of enlargements and modifications made at the royal tomb (Dreyer et al. 2003, 108–11). It served to enclose the enclosure, constituting an additional boundary that further separated the interior ritual space from the normal world outside and one that probably was intended, at least in part, to make the king’s monument appear even grander. On the basis of the changes already noted between the monuments of the Dynasty 1 kings and that of Peribsen, it appears that some of the conceptions underlying the royal cultic enclosures had evolved over time, paralleling changes in the royal tombs, and this process appears to have continued with the monument of Khasekhemwy. Most fundamentally, I would suggest that the sheer scale of construction meant that—unlike all the earlier examples—this monument was never intended to be demolished at the end of the king’s reign. Rather, it was built from the beginning to stand permanently in the North Abydos landscape. This fundamental aspect of material permanence is something we associate very closely with Egyptian royal monuments in all subsequent periods, beginning with the funerary complex of his successor, Netjerikhet (Djoser), but it may have been among the most important conceptual innovations of the reign of Khasekhemwy.

56

M. D. ADAMS

Fig. 47: Bovine crania in the offering pottery deposit on the southeast exterior of the Khasekhemwy enclosure. Photo: Greg Maka.

Fig. 48: General view from the north of the enclosure of Khasekhemwy. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

THE ORIGINS OF SACREDNESS AT ABYDOS

On the basis of the work of recent years in the North Cemetery, we now have a more developed understanding of the nature of early royal practice at Abydos. From the beginning of Dynasty 1, or perhaps the end of Dynasty 0, each king buried at Umm el-Qa῾ab had a two-part funerary complex. From the perspective of an inhabitant of Abydos at that time, the royal tomb would probably have been a remote feature, situated in front of the mouth of a great desert canyon—at the threshold of the entrance to a road to another realm?—at a considerable remove, both spatially and conceptually, from the world of everyday experience that was largely based in the Nile alluvial plain. The other components of the royal complexes, the cultic enclosures, built as they were on the North Cemetery terrace, overlooked and were highly visible from the quotidian world of human beings. Particularly given the likely relatively modest character of any surface features at the royal tombs (Dreyer 1991; Dreyer et al. 2003, 108–11), I would argue that the enclosure was intended to serve as the monumental and visible part of each royal complex and the primary statement of royal presence in the Abydos landscape. The setting for the enclosures, near the desert edge and elevated more than 10m above the contemporary ground level in the adjacent town and the flood plain

57

beyond, would have been a place where kingship was on much more immediate display than was possible at the royal tomb (Fig. 49). Indeed, one might characterize the North Cemetery terrace as a sort of broad, natural stage for the exclusive use of the king and on which royal performance played out. The flat desert expanse of the terrace, with the huge cliffs of the edge of the Nile Valley serving as a backdrop in the distance behind, may have constituted an essential element in how the royal enclosures were intended to be perceived. Within that setting each enclosure would have constituted a highly visible focal point, made all the more so by the emptiness around it, a monumental material representation of and expression by the king and, further, a place for the performance of ritual conducted for or perhaps even by him. Although much of what took place would have been shielded from view by an enclosure’s walls, the structure—and all that it may have connoted—would have been a singular presence in the landscape. In Dynasty 1 the tombs of courtiers and retainers sacrificed in service of the king and his cult place probably would have in themselves constituted a profound statement of royal status and power, an expression of the king, focal point of the newly emergent state, as having ultimate authority over life and death (Morris

Fig. 49: General view from the northwest of the area of the enclosures of Djet, Djer, Peribsen, Meret-Neith, the ‘Western Mastaba’, and the enclosure of Khasekhemwy. Photo: Greg Maka.

M. D. ADAMS

58

2014, 72–73). Conceptually they would probably also have contributed substantially to the sanctity of the cult place of which they were a part. Morris observes that depictions of the sacrifice of human beings on ivory tags from the reigns of Aha and Djer are annotated with the word ms(t), ‘creating’, with the things created being cultic objects that may have been ‘animated or enriched by the souls of sacrificial victims’ (Morris 2014, 65–68). Evidence that the occupants of the subsidiary graves around each enclosure may have been interred as part of the process of construction, rather than at the end of the monument’s use-life, would support the idea that their sacrifice was integral to the creation of the enclosure as a place in which ritual could be conducted and perhaps also to the power inherent in and the effectiveness of the rituals themselves. The enclosure that stood within the space bounded by the graves was thus in part defined by the actions involved in their creation, and it may have thereby been imbued with a liminal quality, as existing both in this world and the next or somehow between them, making it a suitable place for the rituals conducted inside. The physical presence of the walls of the enclosures would have served to define an interior ritual space that was physically and conceptually separated from the world outside, and the presence of the subsidiary burials may have been an essential part of defining this ‘otherness’. Given the observed patterns of demolition, each enclosure stood alone as a cult place and monumental statement for each ruler in turn. Both the visual singularity of each king’s monument and the repetition of the pattern with each reign over several centuries would have emphasized the uniqueness of the place. This was the place where kings did what kings do, each deploying a vocabulary of royal expression that was part of the process of defining the nature of Egyptian kingship: build monumentally following a well-defined template; command the interment and translation from this world to the next of human beings and things of great value (a fleet of fourteen boats!); and conduct, or be the focus of, ritual in the monumental setting that was imbued with some essential quality by virtue of the previous. It was part of what became a longstanding ‘Abydos tradition’: burial in a tomb in the ancient necropolis at Umm el-Qa῾ab and construction and use

8

With reference to ‘river’ or ‘local’ direction.

of a highly visible monumental cult place on the North Cemetery terrace. In the absence of evidence for any alternative, it seems likely that the Abydos enclosures should be seen as the signature monuments for each king’s reign, in much the same way as were the royal funerary complexes of the succeeding Old Kingdom. Viewed in the context of their time, they are unique in form and scale, as well as in constituting Egypt’s first great royal monumental building tradition. The immediately succeeding royal monuments referenced the architectural vocabulary of the Abydos tradition. In particular, the design of the walled enclosure of the Netjerikhet complex would seem to have drawn, at least in part, on the Abydos enclosures: in its proportions, façade, the locations of its gateway and interior cultic structures and its expansive interior open space. Like many of their successors, the early kings whose funerary complexes were at Abydos exhibited a keen awareness of landscape and how it could be used for dramatic effect as an arena for royal performance. The setting of the royal necropolis on an elevated desert terrace, framed by cliffs hundreds of metres high and directly in front of the opening of a huge canyon, is awe-inspiring even to modern visitors to the site. Viewed from the perspective of the edge of the bluff of the low desert terrace adjacent to the ancient town site, the cliffs constitute the entire ‘western’8 horizon, and the eye is drawn to the great notch of the canyon mouth, just in the centre of the line of cliffs and which, more than any built feature, marked the location of the royal tombs. The dry outflow channel of this canyon, the later ‘processional’ or ‘sacred’ wadi, cut across the low desert of North Abydos, dividing the landscape in two, with the North Cemetery terrace on the ‘north’ side and the Middle Cemetery terrace on the ‘south’. This channel provided an easy and obvious route from the town to Umm el-Qa῾ab. Consideration of the broader landscape begs the question why the enclosures were constructed in the North Cemetery terrace. Much of the Middle Cemetery terrace is considerably higher in elevation than the North Cemetery and so would certainly have provided visual prominence to any large constructions within it. It is, however, on the opposite side of the wadi from the town. The North Cemetery

THE ORIGINS OF SACREDNESS AT ABYDOS

terrace is, on the other hand, immediately adjacent to the town site. The natural boundary between the two, obscured today by a much later enclosure wall, was an escarpment at least 10m high. Coming up onto the North Cemetery terrace from below would have involved a sudden opening of perspective, with long sight lines to the cliffs in the distance, and would have provided direct entry onto the edge of a broad flat expanse of low desert. It was here, in the part of the low desert landscape that was both topographically and experientially immediately adjacent to and overlooking the town, that the early kings built the structures that were to constitute their primary monumental statements. It may also be worth noting that the projection to the north of a line drawn between the canyon mouth and the area of the Dynasty 1 tombs at Umm el-Qa῾ab runs directly to that of the enclosures. This alignment may very well have been both deliberate and conceptually significant.

59

terrace, in an area that was at a somewhat lower elevation, labelled Cemetery ‘D’ by Peet (Peet and Loat 1913, 8–22), while in the later Old Kingdom the main cemetery of Abydos appears to have been on the local ‘south’ side of the wadi, at first on the so-called ‘eastern ridge’ and the lower part of the northeast slope of the high Middle Cemetery terrace, with the elite components gradually expanding upslope and onto the Middle Cemetery terrace proper late in the period (Richards 2010, 347–58). Other components of the landscape clearly or probably tied to early royal activity, namely, the royal necropolis itself and the processional wadi leading to it, likewise were largely avoided. This ‘exclusion zone’ of North Abydos may very well have been maintained as a matter of state policy. Certainly, later kings took a direct interest in the use of the Abydos landscape and in ensuring that key ritually important components of it remained free of intrusions, as demonstrated by the well-known decree stela of Wagef, later usurped by Neferhotep I (Leahy 1989).

Interlude In Early Dynastic times virtually the entirety of the desert landscape between the cliffs framing Umm el-Qa῾ab on the south and west and the edge of the alluvial plain on the north and east along the Middle Cemetery, the mouth of the ‘processional’ wadi and the North Cemetery terrace, appears to have been an exclusively royal zone, essentially a sort of gigantic arena reserved for royal performance. After the end of Dynasty 2, when the ancient royal necropolis at Abydos was finally abandoned, the last and greatest expression of royal performance in the Abydos tradition—the monument of Khasekhemwy—remained, marking the place where Egypt’s early rulers had expressed and defined what they were through what they did. The early royal activity at Abydos broadly, and the use of the North Cemetery terrace specifically, may have imbued this component of the landscape with significance that both shaped what happened there and the meanings applied to it for many centuries. The tradition of the North Cemetery terrace as being exclusively royal space was long honoured. For around 700 years after the reign of Khasekhemwy, the area remained virtually untouched, although the occupation of the adjacent town appears to have been continuous through the 3rd millennium BC. The desert cemeteries of the earlier and later Old Kingdom gave it a wide berth (Fig. 50). The earlier cemetery was located at the extreme northern margin of the North Cemetery

Terrace of the Great God It was only in the early Middle Kingdom that the prohibition against intrusion into the exclusive landscape of the North Cemetery terrace appears to have been lifted. At that time, the great desert arena of royal display became the primary locus of tomb-building and burial. This transformation took place in the context of the broader reinterpretation of the early history of Abydos and its landscape in mythic terms and the formalization of the cult of Osiris. Much scholarly attention has been given to the religious aspects of Middle Kingdom Abydos and to the large numbers of funerary or votive stelae of this period the site has produced as sources for understanding both religious belief and ritual practice (Snape in this volume). Mariette’s excavations, as well as the even less controlled digging on behalf of collectors in the earlier 19th century, generated large numbers of stelae that now comprise major components of museum collections in Cairo and around the world. The well-known ‘Abydos Formula’ that occurs frequently on, though is hardly limited to, these stelae served to situate the dedicators as active participants in the conceptual landscape of Abydos, just as the stelae as material objects positioned them in the physical landscape onto which this conceptual ‘layer’ was mapped. Simpson argued that the stelae should be understood as components of offering chapels erected by one or

M. D. ADAMS

60

Royal tombs

Wadi Later OK cemetery

Royal enclosures

Town and temple Early OK cemetery/ Cem. ‘D’

Fig. 50: GoogleEarth satellite image of North Abydos, showing the locations of the early and later Old Kingom cemeteries. Image © CNES/Airbus.

more individuals at Abydos, and that discrete groupings of stelae that must once have been physically grouped together in those chapels could be identified on internal criteria (Simpson 1974). Stelae often include reference to the dedicator erecting a mꜥḥꜥ.t at Abydos, which has been interpreted as referring to the structure that originally housed the stela (Damarany in this volume). Some make specific reference to the physical nature of the mahat, e.g., ‘It was in brick that I laid (myself) that I made this offering chapel [mꜥḥꜥ.t] in Abydos’ (Simpson 1974, 11, CG 20733). Some also explicitly situate the stela in the mꜥḥꜥ.t, e.g., ‘It was my father Ikhernofret who ordered the making for me of this stela in his mꜥḥꜥ.t of vindication’ (Simpson 1974, 11, BM 202). Abydos stelae also give some of the specific benefits their owners would receive by virtue of having a mꜥḥꜥ.t with its stela in the physical and ritual landscape of

Abydos. ‘I have made an offering chapel … so that [I] may receive offerings in the presence of the great god, and that I may inhale incense…’ (Simpson 1974, 10–11, CG 20099). These are oft-repeated references and make clear that, through the mꜥḥꜥ.t with its stela, the owner expects to benefit directly from the ritual practice associated with the cult of Osiris. The spells of the ‘Abydos Formula’ also specify a range of boons that the owner will receive, which further integrate him or her into the ritual life of the site, including offerings from those of the god, acceptance as one of the god’s followers and participation in rituals, specifically those of the Festival of Osiris (Lichtheim 1988, 55–134; Wegner 1996, 62–69; Smith 2017, 202–04). Specific performative episodes of the festival are referenced, including the ‘great procession’ to Poker, almost certainly the early royal cemetery at Umm el-Qa῾ab, now reinterpreted as the location of the tomb of Osiris.

THE ORIGINS OF SACREDNESS AT ABYDOS

The well-known stela of the Dynasty 12 official Ikhernofret provides a complementary window on the broad patterns of ritual practice at Abydos at that time, noting his participation in some of the same rituals named in the spells of the Abydos Formula (Otto 1968, 40–44; Lichtheim 1988, 98–100). A considerable number of Abydos stelae of the Middle Kingdom (and later) make topographical references that appear to characterize their context at the site. These further support the suggestion that the Abydos landscape in which the stelae stood in their chapels was both spatially defined and conceptually, ritually active. Chapels are described as being located in the ‘district of great renown’, the ‘district possessing ḥtp.tofferings’, the ‘district which gives ḥtp.t-offerings’, the ‘district possessing ḏfꜢ.w-offerings’ and the ‘district possessing life’ (Simpson 1974, 13). It is difficult to understand today exactly what parts of the landscape may have been intended; however, some degree of spatial definition and the conceptual contextualization of the chapels in the ritual landscape seem evident. The area or areas intended were not outside the boundaries of the context of ritual life at Abydos, but on the contrary were integrated in it. An additional topographical term that occurs with some regularity is rwd n nṯr ꜥꜢ, the ‘Terrace/Staircase of the Great God’. The stelae are often explicit in stating that it was by virtue of being situated in this special place that they were made effective on behalf of their dedicators, enabling them to participate in and benefit from the performance of ritual at the site: ‘I have made an offering-chapel at the Terrace of the Great God, lord of life, foremost of Abydos, in the midst of my fathers who created [me?], the nobles of the first occasion, so that [I] may receive offerings in the presence of the great god, and that I may inhale incense…’ (Simpson 1974, 10–11, CG 20099). Simpson interpreted ‘Terrace of the Great God’ as denoting an area along the top of escarpment at the northeast edge of the North Cemetery terrace overlooking the Temple of Osiris and the route of the festival procession (Simpson 1974, 9–10), a thesis supported by the considerable number of stelae that appear to have originated in the general area.9 Confirmation of this interpretation seemed evident in the dense zone of

9

See Simpson 1974, 1–2, n. 7, for the provenience designations given in the Catalogue général of Middle Kingdom stelae

61

mud-brick chapels discovered here by David O’Connor in the 1960s (O’Connor 1985). The chapels were constructed to house stelae, and the architectural clustering would appear to correspond well to Simpson’s groupings. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that the chapels excavated by O’Connor are not associated with tombs or burials; there are no subterranean components. They are chapels only. A broader study of the surface distribution of cultural material in this part of the site provides further evidence that the area was not used for mortuary purposes before the Third Intermediate Period, or around the beginning of the 1st millennium BC, and that the zone of offering chapels of the Middle Kingdom was probably considerably larger than the area covered by O’Connor’s excavations (Pouls Wegner 2002, 46). Thus, during the Middle Kingdom, the high ground immediately overlooking the temple and town appears to have comprised a district especially dedicated to offering chapels, which has been characterized in modern scholarship as the North Abydos ‘Votive Zone’. I would argue that equating the ‘Terrace of the Great God’ with the North Abydos Votive Zone may be taking too narrow a view. Mariette’s published report on work at Abydos suggests that his excavations were hardly limited to the northeast edge of the North Cemetery terrace, and his topographical attributions of Middle Kingdom stelae suggests that we should consider the question of context more broadly. He designated the large expanse of desert between the Shunet el-Zebib, the cultic enclosure of king Khasekhemwy, on the southwest and the enclosure wall around the ancient town and temple area on the northeast as his ‘Nécropole du Nord’, which he characterized as the main area of Middle Kingdom activity at the site (Mariette 1880a, 42). ‘Nécropole du Nord’ is the provenience designation given for the majority of Middle Kingdom stelae in Mariette’s catalogue of objects from his excavations (Mariette 1880b, 104–373). Fewer, although still a significant number, are said to have come from the ‘Nécropole du Nord—zone du nord-est’ or sometimes more specifically, ‘zone du nord-est, contre le mur d’enceinte’. The location meant by the latter designations is clarified by the map of the Abydos town and temple site and immediate environs

from Abydos in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo (Lange and Schäfer 1902–25).

62

M. D. ADAMS

published by Mariette (1880a, pl. 65), which labels as the ‘Nécropole du Nord-Est XIIe, XIIIe dyn.’ the area immediately northwest of the chapels excavated by O’Connor. That Mariette’s work in the North Cemetery was wide-ranging is further suggested by Currelly’s note that Mariette’s overseers ‘dug for thirteen years, in one part or another’ (Ayrton, Currelly and Weigall 1904, 7), implicitly including the area where Currelly was then working north and west of the Khasekhemwy enclosure. Large numbers of stelae were also produced by the unsystematic digging at Abydos on behalf of collectors in the earlier 19th century. For example, virtually all the stelae in the catalogue from the 1837 auction of the collection of Giovanni d’Athanasi (Anonymous 1837), who also worked as an agent for British Consul Henry Salt (d’Athanasi 1836), are described as having come from Abydos. A significant proportion of those in the catalogue of the collection of Giovanni d’Anastasi, Swedish Consul in Egypt, also are likely to be from Abydos, since he is known to have collected a great many from the site (Lenormant 1857; Simpson 1974, 5–6). Agents working for Bernardino Drovetti, French Consul in Egypt, were also active at Abydos in the early 19th century (Bierbrier 2012, 306). The sheer volume of material generated by this early work, which came to comprise significant components of several major European museum collections, would suggest that it was wide-ranging. D’Athanasi himself (1836, 68) characterizes the tombs in Abydos in which he worked as being situated ‘in the plain’, which would suggest the topography of the low desert cemeteries broadly, rather than the high ground adjacent to the enclosure wall of the town and temple site. His description of the mud-brick architecture of tombs he encountered, as well as the variable preservation of the burials in the tombs, further suggests that his excavations may have been broad, since the vaulted type of tomb he describes occurs widely across both the North and Middle Cemeteries, and the number of Middle Kingdom stelae in his collection would argue for extensive work in the main area of Middle Kingdom activity, i.e., the North Cemetery. The British excavations of a century ago as well as those in more recent years have demonstrated conclusively that chapels that once held stelae, sometimes clustered similarly to those in the ‘Votive Zone’, also characterized a considerable expanse of the North Cemetery in the Middle Kingdom. Peet’s work in ‘Cemetery S’, the area of the cultic enclosure and

subsidiary graves attributable to the reign of Queenregent Meret-Neith of Dynasty 1, revealed several such groupings (Peet 1914a, 35–46, fig. 8). The published plan of Garstang’s work in his ‘Cemetery E’, south of the Khasekhemwy enclosure, shows a large number of shaft tombs but only a few structures that can be interpreted as chapels (Garstang 1901, pl. 2). Recent work in the same area directed by the author has demonstrated that it is, in fact, full of offering chapels that once contained stelae (Adams 2015, 31–41). Currelly notes the presence of ‘many small mastabas’, i.e., offering chapels, northwest of the Khasekhemwy enclosure that were associated with shaft tombs containing burials of the Middle Kingdom (Ayrton, Currelly and Weigall 1904, 7). Petrie (1925, 10–11) describes a number of Middle Kingdom stelae he found in association with tombs during his excavations in the North Cemetery, which also almost certainly originally stood within mud-brick offering chapels. Broadly distributed excavations directed by David O’Connor (1989, 72–73), Janet Richards (2005, 156– 72, 185, 187, 200, 202), and the author beginning in the 1980s have generated considerable additional information on the patterns of use of the North Cemetery in the Middle Kingdom. Of particular significance to the present discussion is the occurrence over a very wide area of mud-brick offering chapels that once contained stelae and that can with reasonable certainty be dated to the period. These chapels range in size from large structures several metres on a side that once must have held equally impressive stelae, to simple constructions consisting of only a few bricks stacked to shelter stelae of comparable modesty. They not infrequently occur in groupings reminiscent of those in the ‘Votive Zone’ and likewise paralleling those of Simpson. Illustrative of this pattern are chapels near the ‘main’ enclosure of king Aha, in the northwest part of the North Cemetery (Figs 51–52), those built in the vicinity of the Djer chapel (see Fig. 30) and a cluster excavated southeast of the Khasekhemwy enclosure (Fig. 53). Further evidence as to the notable density of Middle Kingdom tombs and associated chapels in some parts of the North Cemetery is to be seen in data from magnetic survey conducted for the IFA Expedition by a team led by Tomasz Herbich (Herbich, O’Connor and Adams 2003). Although buried architecture of all periods represented archaeologically appears, architectural forms typical of the Middle Kingdom can be readily identified, including groupings of brick-lined tomb shafts and rectilinear structures almost certainly to be

THE ORIGINS OF SACREDNESS AT ABYDOS

Fig. 51: Offering chapels of the Middle Kingdom near the Aha 1 enclosure. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

Fig. 52: Plan of the Middle Kingdom chapels and shaft tombs near the Aha 1 enclosure. Courtesy of the Abydos Expedition.

63

64

M. D. ADAMS

Fig. 53: Cluster of Middle Kingdom chapels in Operation 222 southeast of the Khasekhemwy enclosure. Photo: Greg Maka.

identified as offering chapels (Fig. 54). Excavation, for example, of a cluster of chapels near the Aha enclosure that is prominent on the magnetic map has confirmed the basic reliability of these interpretations, although, since smaller features and those not within 1m or so of the surface generally do not appear, the actual density of buried architecture is probably greater than what is visible in the magnetic data. An abundance of evidence suggests that there were many more chapels distributed across the North Cemetery than in the so-called ‘Votive Zone’ on the desert edge near the town. Architecturally the cemetery chapels were more or less identical to those in the ‘Votive Zone’, with the main difference between them being that the former were associated with tombs, usually brick-lined shafts. In a few instances, offering stelae of the Middle Kingdom have been found still in place in chapels in the North Cemetery (Fig. 55) (Richards 2005, 167–68; Adams 2010). We should, then, consider the context of offering stelae of the Middle Kingdom from Abydos to be not exclusively, or even primarily, the Votive Zone, but the North Cemetery as a whole, populated as it is with mꜥḥꜥ.t-chapels. Given the considerable number of stelae that situate their context at the ‘Terrace of the Great God’, it seems likely that this likewise should be viewed as corresponding to the North Cemetery

Fig. 54: A portion of the magnetic map of the North Cemetery illustrative of the density of buried architecture. A considerable number of distinctive rectangular shafts characteristic of the Middle Kingdom are visible, as well as rectilinear structures that probably are chapels and others that can be identified as later vaulted tombs. Image: Tomasz Herbich.

THE ORIGINS OF SACREDNESS AT ABYDOS

65

Fig. 55: Middle Kingdom stela still in situ in its chapel. Photo: Robert Fletcher.

broadly, or at least that part of the desert terrace that was in use during the Middle Kingdom. There is both textual and archaeological support for this idea. Although most references are to the mꜥḥꜥ.t being what was located at the ‘Terrace of the Great God’, a number specifically place the tomb (js) there. The stela of the Overseer of Cattle in the Thinite Nome, Nakhty, is explicit: ‘I made this tomb at the Terrace of the August God …’; likewise the scribe Intef-iqer: ‘Now I have come to this tomb at the Terrace of the August God …’ (Lichtheim 1988, 67, 73). Both include an additional clause that makes clear that the tomb was so situated in order that the dedicator would benefit from participation in the ritual life of the site, receipt of offerings, becoming a follower of the god, etc. Although most Abydos stelae known today are lacking information about their specific archaeological context, examples from known contexts that reference the ‘Terrace of the Great God’ come from the excavations of Garstang in his Cemetery ‘E’ and those of Petrie in the vicinity of the Djet enclosure, both being well within the North Cemetery and at a considerable remove from the ‘Votive Zone’. In Garstang’s Cemetery E, south of the Khasekhemwy enclosure, a stela belonging to Khu-Sobek specifically situates his mꜥḥꜥ.t at the

‘Terrace of the Great God’, and he provides a specific reason: in order to inhale the incense that was generated by the great ritual cycle of Osiris (Garstang 1901, 6, 32–33, pls 4, 5; Peet 1914b; Baines 1987). The stela was found out of context in a later tomb, but it almost certainly originally stood in a chapel in the same vicinity that was associated with Khu-Sobek’s tomb. Considering the broad distribution of mꜥḥꜥ.t-chapels across the desert terrace of the North Cemetery, as well as the specific references to tombs at the ‘Terrace of the Great God’, should the North Cemetery terrace as a whole then not be taken as the setting in which Egyptians could say ‘I will be powerful and effective in the company of the great god’ (Simpson 1974, 12, Louvre C170)? I would suggest that what imbued this place with the particularly sacred character referred to so often, was its early history, namely, its use by Egypt’s early kings. Their actions—a cycle of monumental royal performance, repeated over many generations in a setting exclusive to the kings—may have imbued the place with this quality. By the beginning of the Middle Kingdom, the North Cemetery terrace had been royal, exclusive, probably formally protected space for a millennium. Becoming the focus of intense activity at that time may have been a response to this longstanding

66

M. D. ADAMS

sacredness in the context of the broader reinterpretation of Abydos’ early history and its landscape in mythic terms. This ‘mythicization’ seems most evident in the Middle Kingdom response to the early royal necropolis at Umm el-Qa῾ab, with the tomb of king Djer reinterpreted (and restored) as the actual tomb of Osiris. This act alone would seem to establish Osiris in mythic terms as a primeval king of Egypt and to imbue the monuments left by the kings buried in the Umm el-Qa῾ab necropolis with the qualities of the mythic realm that the god inhabited: they were the material products of both an earthly history and a mythic one. Thereafter, the necropolis appears to have been Poker, the destination of the great festival procession of Osiris and the location of its ritual climax (Leahy 1989, 55–56). The shallow wadi, the dry water channel that served as the route connecting the town and temple to Umm el-Qa῾ab, likewise was formalized as a component of the sacred landscape. The degree of sanctity with which it was imbued may be reflected in the severity of the penalty to be applied to anyone violating it: death by burning (Leahy 1977a; 1989, 49). The reinterpretation of a third major topographical feature, the desert terrace of the North Cemetery, is seen in its apparently sudden and broad use in the Middle Kingdom, after centuries of total avoidance. It became the context for engagement with and benefit from the rituals conducted in the cult of Osiris through the installation of the mꜥḥꜥ.t, whether this was attached to a tomb or not. The particular characteristics or qualities of the site that established the potentiality for this engagement are probably denoted by the place name that becomes standard at this time: ‘Terrace of the Great [or August] God’. It would seem likely, given the millennium-long exclusivity of the North Cemetery terrace, deriving from its use by the early kings, that its meaning in the Middle Kingdom was a consequence or a reinterpretation of its earlier character, part of the broader reinterpretation of the Abydos landscape. In the transformation of the North Cemetery terrace, I would suggest that its ancient sacredness became the means by which people could associate themselves with Osiris, himself in part a mythic expression of ancient kingship, becoming a follower of the god and a beneficiary of the products generated by his cultic ritual. In considering how the North Cemetery terrace may have been perceived in the Middle Kingdom, it may be useful to note the likely general appearance of the

landscape at the beginning of that period. Given the pattern of deliberate demolition of the early royal monuments that now seems well attested, only the enclosure of Khasekhemwy still stood as a visible feature in the landscape, with all the known earlier monuments reduced more or less to ground level (see Figs 1, 49). With no other standing structures in the area and with the surrounding ground not yet disturbed by the coming centuries of tomb-building and grave digging, the monument’s visual dominance of the landscape would have been unchallenged. In fact, the massive presence of the Khasekhemwy enclosure, situated as it would have been, standing in splendid isolation in the middle of a broad and otherwise empty expanse of desert, may very well have constituted the feature that had long marked the special sacred character of the place. Even if the specific identity of the builder had been forgotten, as seems likely to have been the case with the tomb of Djer (Leahy 1989, 56–57), its general association with and representation of early royal presence may have remained, underpinning the long-term maintenance of the desert terrace in which it stood as protected space. The pattern of Middle Kingdom activity in the vicinity of Khasekhemwy’s enclosure suggests that, even while the ground around it was being filled with chapels, shaft tombs and burials, the monument itself remained essentially inviolable, as though the former exclusivity of the North Cemetery terrace as a whole had been reduced to or become concentrated in the fabric of its dominant ancient feature. Recent excavation of virtually the entire exterior perimeter and much of the interior of the monument has demonstrated that Middle Kingdom activity largely did not cross the boundary of the walls. A few shaft tombs were built within a few metres of the outer enclosure wall, but there is no evidence to date of surface chapels closer than around 30m, which may be an indicator that, whether through informal local convention or official proscription, built features with a certain degree of visibility were not to be built adjacent to the monument. Individual interments not associated with architecture, however, were a different matter. With these, the immediate proximity of the outer enclosure wall appears to have been a preferred location (Fig. 56). The distribution of Middle Kingdom burials along the southeast side of the monument is illustrated in Fig. 57. Burials were made right up to the outer walls, but not inside them. There was virtually no intrusion into either the corridor between the outer and inner

THE ORIGINS OF SACREDNESS AT ABYDOS

Fig. 56: A wooden coffin of the Middle Kingdom buried on the exterior side of the southeast perimeter wall of the Khasekhemwy enclosure. Photo: Greg Maka.

enclosures or the interior of the latter.10 The walls, which after centuries of exposure would have looked much as they do today, and the space they defined appear to have remained sacrosanct, a reduced but clearly demarcated zone of avoidance and implicitly of sacredness. In fact, roughly another thousand years passed before the interior of the monument was violated, and then only to be used as a sacred animal necropolis (Ikram 2007). Conclusion In the desert landscape of Abydos today, with but few exceptions, surface sands obscure the remains that

10

A single child’s burial of the Middle Kingdom was mentioned by Ayrton as having been found in the sand dune that accumulated against the interior side of the northwest wall of the main enclosure of the Shuneh (Ayrton, Currelly and Weigall 1904, 4).

67

are a rich palimpsest. Even a modest excavation will, however, reveal, superimposed and intercut, material evidence documenting the thousands of years when the expansive North Cemetery terrace constituted a key element in the conceptual significance of and ritual practice at the site. Beginning in the Middle Kingdom—and for long afterward—the North Cemetery terrace was the place where individuals could conceptually participate in and benefit from the great rituals of Osiris as followers of the god. This appears to have been achieved through the establishment of a material presence in a location frequently named as the ‘Terrace of the Great God’. The main forms of this presence were the mꜥḥꜥ.t-chapel, built to house an offering stela, or burial, or both. Surviving stelae that refer to their context are frequently explicit that it was by virtue of being situated in this place that the dedicator would receive the benefits from the god’s ritual. Thus, the place in which the chapels were built and the burials made had a particular conceptual quality, a sacredness, which made this interaction between the individual and the god possible. I have argued that the fundamental basis for the sacred character of the desert terrace of the North Cemetery is likely to have been its original use by Egypt’s early kings. The kings of Dynasties 1 and 2 whose tombs were situated in the Umm el-Qa῾ab necropolis also built large cultic structures—ritual enclosures—on the North Cemetery terrace, which appear likely to have served as the visible monumental components of each king’s two-part funerary complex. A broad examination of early royal activity in the North Cemetery— what these kings built and what was done in and around these built places—reveals the repeated deployment of a vocabulary of practice that reflects and was a means of defining the nature of kingship and royal power in early Egypt. The archaeological evidence suggests that each king’s construction stood alone as his grand monumental statement, both a new monument for an individual king and a repetition of the royal pattern, situating the individual king as the current incarnation of a greater and ongoing phenomenon. The setting of the North Cemetery terrace made both aspects of these royal monumental statements highly visible to

A second burial, an adult also of the Middle Kingdom, was found near the foot of the dune during IFA Expedition excavations in 2001.

68

M. D. ADAMS

Fig. 57: Distribution of Middle Kingdom burials along the southeast exterior of the Khasekhemwy enclosure. Courtesy of the Abydos Expedition.

the world of living Egyptians, in contrast to the more remote setting of the royal tombs. In Early Dynastic times the whole of the desert landscape of North Abydos appears to have been exclusively royal space, framing two physically separate but functionally related zones of royal performance, the necropolis and the North Cemetery terrace. Even after the permanent shift of the royal necropolis to the Memphite region at the beginning of Dynasty 3, much of this exclusivity of the landscape was maintained, whether through local tradition or state policy. Over time there were intrusions on the margins as cemeteries developed in the early and later Old Kingdom, but the core zones of royal activity, the necropolis and the North Cemetery terrace, as well as the desert wadi connecting them, appear to have remained essentially inviolate. In the Middle Kingdom, at the same time that the royal cemetery appears, in merging of history and

myth, to have been reinterpreted as the location of the tomb of Osiris, and thus a most sacred site, the setting of the early royal cultic enclosures became the primary place of tomb-building, burial and association with the god. The special sacred quality with which the place was imbued seems clearly expressed in the repeated use of the term ‘Terrace of the Great God’. The source of this quality almost certainly must be in its earlier history: its original use as an arena of royal performance and the utter exclusivity that long outlasted its active use by Egypt’s kings. At the beginning of the Middle Kingdom only the great enclosure of Khasekhemwy still stood in the desert landscape of the North Cemetery terrace. After centuries of exposure to the elements, its overall appearance would probably have been rather similar to what a visitor can see today, a huge, dark, eroded mass that dominates the site, definitely architectural in character,

THE ORIGINS OF SACREDNESS AT ABYDOS

69

of human origin, but of a scale—in ancient terms at least—far beyond that of ordinary human experience. Even after the North Cemetery came to be populated by thousands of tombs and offering chapels, the monument itself, both its fabric and the spaces it defines, remained largely unviolated, as though the former exclusivity of

the North Cemetery more broadly came to be concentrated there. It may have been understood as a sentinel of the place’s deep mythic past, its looming mass marking the place where the early material expression of kingship was transformed into lasting sacredness in a ‘district of great renown’.

Bibliography

Boessneck, J., A. von den Driesch, and A. Eissa. 1992. Eine Eselsbestattung der 1. Dynastie in Abusir. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 48: 1–10. Brovarski, E. 1984. Serdab. Lexikon der Ägyptologie 5: 874–79. Dreyer, G. 1991. Zur Rekonstruktion der Oberbauten der Königsgraber der 1. Dynastie in Abydos. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 47: 93–104. Dreyer, G., R. Hartmann, U. Hartung, T. Hikade, H. Köpp, C. Lacher, V. Müller, A. Nerlich, and A. Zink. 2003. Umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof. 13./14./15. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 59: 67–138. Emery, W. 1939. Excavations at Saqqara 1937–1938: Hor-Aha. Cairo. ———. 1954. Excavations at Sakkara: Great tombs of the First Dynasty 2. Egypt Exploration Society Memoir 46. London. ———. 1958. Excavations at Sakkara: Great tombs of the First Dynasty 3. Egypt Exploration Society Memoir 47. London. Garstang, J. 1901. El Arábah. Egyptian Research Account 6. London. Hendrickx, S., and M. Eyckerman. 2009. Vasque du roi Den. In Antiquités Égyptiennes au Musée Royal de Mariemont, C. Derriks and L. Delvaux (eds), 305–06. Morlanwelz. Herbich, T., D. O’Connor, and M. D. Adams. 2003. Magnetic mapping of the northern cemetery at Abydos, Egypt. Archaeologia Polona 41: 193–97. Huyge, D. 2009. Detecting magic in rock art: The case of the ancient Egyptian ‘malignant ass’. In Desert Animals in the eastern Sahara, H. Riemer, F. Forster, M. Herb and N. Pöllath (eds), 293–307. Colloquium africanum 4. Köln. Ikram, S. 2007. Animals in the ritual landscape at Abydos: A synopsis. In The archaeology and art of ancient Egypt: Essays in honor of David B. O’Connor 1, Z. Hawass and J. Richards (eds), 425–28. Annales du Service des antiquités de l’Égypte Cahier 36. Cairo. Kaplony, P. 1963. Die Inschriften der ägyptischen Frühzeit 1. Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 8. Wiesbaden.

Adams, M. D. 2010. The stela of Nakht, son of Nemty: Contextualizing object and individual in the funerary landscape at Abydos. In Millions of jubilees: Studies in honor of David P. Silverman 1, Z. Hawass and J. H. Wegner (eds), 1–25. Cairo. ———. 2015. In the footsteps of looters: Assessing the damage from the 2011 looting in the North Cemetery at Abydos. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 51: 1–63. Amélineau, E. 1899a. Les nouvelles fouilles d’Abydos 1895– 1896. Paris. ———. 1899b. Le tombeau d’Osiris. Monographie de la découverte faite en 1897–1898. Paris. Anonymous. 1837. Catalogue of the very magnificent and extraordinary collection of Egyptian antiquities, the property of Giovanni d’Athanasi, which will be sold by auction by Mr. Leigh Sotheby at his house, 3, Wellington Street, Strand, on Monday, March 13th, 1837, and six following days, (Sunday excepted), at one o’clock precisely. London. d’Athanasi, G. 1836. A brief account of the researches and discoveries in Upper Egypt, made under the direction of Henry Salt, Esq. London. Ayrton, E. R., C. T. Currelly, and A. E. P. Weigall. 1904. Abydos. Part III. 1904. Egypt Exploration Fund Memoir 25. London. Baines, J. 1987. The stela of Khusobek: Private and royal military narrative and values. In Form und Mass: Beiträge zur Literatur, Sprache und Kunst des alten Ägypten, J. Osing and G. Dreyer (eds), 43–61. Wiesbaden. ———. 1995. Origins of Egyptian kingship. In Ancient Egyptian kingship, D. O’Connor and D. Silverman (eds), 95–156. Probleme der Ägyptologie 9. Leiden. Bestock, L. 2009. The development of royal funerary cult at Abydos: Two funerary enclosures from the reign of Aha. MENES 6. Wiesbaden. Bierbrier, M. 2012. Who was who in Egyptology. 4th ed. London. Boessneck, J., and A. von den Driesch. 1990. Menschen- und Tierknochen aus den Nebengräbern des Aha. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 46: 86–87.

70

M. D. ADAMS

Kemp, B. 2006. Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a civilization. 2nd ed. London. Lange, H., and H. Schäfer. 1902–25. Grab- und Denksteine des Mittleren Reichs im Museum von Kairo No. 20001–20780. 4 vols. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire Nos 20001–20780. Berlin. Leahy, A. 1977a. Death by fire in ancient Egypt. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 27: 199–206. ———. 1977b. The Osiris ‘bed’ reconsidered. Orientalia N.S. 46: 424–434. ———. 1989. A protective measure at Abydos in the Thirteenth Dynasty. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 75: 41–60. Lenormant, F. 1857. Catalogue d’une collection antiquités égyptiennes. Cette collection rassemblée par M. d’Anastasi, Consul general de Suède à Alexandrie. Paris. Lichtheim, M. 1988. Ancient Egyptian autobiographies chiefly of the Middle Kingdom. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 84. Freiburg; Göttingen. Mariette, A. 1880a. Abydos. Description des fouilles exécutées sur l’emplacement de cette ville 2. Paris. ———. 1880b. Catalogue général des monuments d’Abydos découverts pendant les fouilles de cette ville. Paris. Morris E. 2014. (Un)dying loyalty: Meditations on retainer sacrifice in ancient Egypt and elsewhere. In Violence and civilization: Studies of social violence in history and prehistory, R. Campbell (ed.), 61–93. Joukowsky Institute Publications 4. Oxford. O’Connor, D. 1985. The ‘cenotaphs’ of the Middle Kingdom at Abydos. In Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar 2, P. Posener-Kriéger (ed.), 161–77. Bibliothèque d’étude 97. Cairo. ———. 1989. New funerary enclosures (Talbezirke) of the Early Dynastic period at Abydos. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 26: 61–81. Otto, E. 1968. Egyptian art and the cults of Osiris and Amun. London. Peet, T. E. 1914a. The cemeteries of Abydos part II. 1911– 1912. Egypt Exploration Fund Memoir 34. London. ———. 1914b. The stela of Sebek-khu. Manchester Museum Handbooks 75. Manchester. Peet, T. E., and W. L. S. Loat 1913. The cemeteries of Abydos. Part III. 1912–1913. Egypt Exploration Fund Memoir 35. London. Petrie, W. M. F. 1914. Tarkhan II. British School of Archaeology in Egypt 25. London. ———. 1925. Tombs of the courtiers and Oxyrhynkhos. British School of Archaeology in Egypt 37. London.

Pouls Wegner, M. A. 2002. The cult of Osiris at Abydos: An archaeological investigation of the development of an ancient Egyptian sacred center during the Eighteenth Dynasty. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia. Richards, J. 2005. Society and death in ancient Egypt: Mortuary landscapes of the Middle Kingdom. Cambridge. ———. 2010. Spatial and verbal rhetorics of power: Constructing late Old Kingdom history. Journal of Egyptian History 3 (2): 339–66. Rossel, S., F. Marshall, J. Peters, T. Pilgrim, M. D. Adams, and D. O’Connor. 2008. Domestication of the donkey: Timing, processes, and indicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (10): 3715–20. Saad, Z. 1947. Royal excavations at Saqqara and Helwan (1941–1945). Supplément aux Annales du Service des antiquités de l’Égypte 3. Cairo. ———. 1951. Royal excavations at Saqqara and Helwan (1945–1947). Supplément aux Annales du Service des antiquités de l’Égypte 14. Cairo. ———. 1969. The excavations at Helwan. Art and civilization in the First and Second Egyptian Dynasties. Norman, OK. Simpson, W. K. 1974. Terrace of the Great God at Abydos: The offering chapels of Dynasties 12 and 13. Publications of the Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition to Egypt 5. New Haven. Smith, M. 2017. Following Osiris: Perspectives on the Osirian afterlife from four millennia. Oxford. Tristant, Y., F. Briois, G. Castel, and O. Onézime. 2014. ‘Barques sur le Nil…’ Le mastaba M06 d’Abou Rawach et sa barque funéraire (Ire dynastie, règne de Den): Découverte de la plus ancienne embarcation égyptienne actuellement conservée en Égypte. Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 114: 563–88. Ward, C. 2003. Sewn planked boats from Early Dynastic Abydos, Egypt. In Boats, ships and shipyards. Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Venice 2000, C. Beltrame (ed.), 19–23. Oxford. Wegner, J. 1996. The mortuary complex of Senwosret III: A study of Middle Kingdom state activity and the cult of Osiris at Abydos. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia. Włodarska, M. 2017. Some remarks on the construction process of Khasekhemwy’s enclosure at Abydos in light of recent excavations. In Egypt at its Origins 5: Proceedings of the fifth international conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Cairo, 13th–18th April 2014, B. Midant-Reynes, Y. Tristant, and E. M. Ryan (eds), 551–64. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 260. Leuven.

VISIBILITY AND INVISIBILITY IN THE LANDSCAPE OF ABYDOS: A CASE STUDY IN THE EFFECT OF EARLY DYNASTIC MONUMENTS ON THE LATER USE OF SACRED SPACE Laurel BESTOCK

Abstract It is well accepted that the ritual and built landscape of Abydos was conditioned by the presence and reinterpretation of Early Dynastic royal monuments, both the tombs at Umm el-Qaꜥab and the funerary enclosures in the North Cemetery. An important factor in determining how later people interacted with these structures, from immediately after their construction to millennia on, must be the degree to which they were visible features of the landscape. Points for consideration in this regard include the apparent deliberate destruction of the funerary enclosures very early in their history, and the distance from the settlement site of the tombs. A recently discovered funerary enclosure, probably the earliest yet known, has been uncovered in an area of the North Cemetery that also includes extensive evidence of use from the First Intermediate Period through the Late Roman Period. Destroyed to its lowest courses, as all the First Dynasty funerary enclosures were, there is nonetheless reason to ask if and how the memory of this effectively invisible monument affected later decisions about sacred space in the North Cemetery. This paper will examine the dense palimpsest of usage over a 4000 year span in a very small area from the perspectives of visibility, invisibility, and the selective reverence for earlier monuments shown by later users of the site. Introduction The intent of this paper is twofold. First, I hope to pose a broad question about ways in which people see

1

The BUAP operates under the aegis of the University of Pennsylvania-Yale University-Institute of Fine Arts, New York University (PYIFA), which is co-directed by David O’Connor and William Kelly Simpson. The field director of the PYIFA is Matthew Adams. I had the good fortune to study under David O’Connor and to dig for many years under Matthew Adams, and many of the ideas presented here had their genesis in

the monumentality—both built and natural—of their own landscapes; in particular, how not only visible but also invisible monuments can affect meaning, movement and the subsequent construction of monuments. By ‘monument’ in this case I mean features that are both physically and notionally large, understood to carry a defined, consistent and significant meaning by those who see and/or construct them. By ‘invisible’ I refer not to strict absolute invisibility, but rather cases in which visual emphasis was deliberately avoided—a contrast to the alternative strategy of visibility employed in the construction of some monuments. This lens of monumentality both visible and invisible is a particularly fruitful one for examining Abydos in the Early Dynastic period, when, I will argue, meaningful play with how what could be seen was important to emerging concepts of kingship. We can be confident about this even if we cannot be precisely sure what the reasons and meanings behind such choices were. Second, I want to look at a particular corner of Abydos that has been used for some five thousand years and ask how both antiquity and ways of seeing may have affected what was built there. This corner of the site, a section of the so-called Abydos North Cemetery, has been the focus of the Brown University Abydos Project since 2008, and many of the constructions discussed here have been found during the excavations of this project.1 By examining this small area through the lenses of landscape, monumentality and (in)visibility, I hope to build a case for examining such issues in other places as well.

conversations I had with Matt while walking this remarkable site. This will be abundantly clear from his own contribution to this volume, which plays with many of the same ideas I treat here. I gratefully acknowledge both David and Matt for their generosity and encouragement from the time I was a very young student onwards. I thank Luiza Silva for editorial help with this chapter.

L. BESTOCK

72 Invisible Monuments in the Landscape

The meat of the question might be stated thus: how do people understand and respond to invisible monuments in their environs? To tackle this I must first explain what I mean by an invisible monument and how, given its invisibility, we know that anyone knew it was there, and how it could fit my definition of notionally large if the physical part of monumentality was absent. Really I mean two things by invisible monuments, both of which I will argue are relevant to an understanding of Abydos. The first of my types of invisibility consists of buildings that were intentionally built to be out of sight, or that had limited visual impact. Hiding a monument may seem counterintuitive to the very idea of monumentality, but in fact we see this not infrequently in Egypt—the unmarked rock-cut royal tombs of the New Kingdom are obvious such monuments, but so are, for instance, boundary stelae. There may have been good reasons to hide both tombs and boundary stelae—perhaps to deter detection, or because the necessary location for the monument was by definition peripheral. But I want to leave in play the possibility that Egyptians considered the invisibility itself an important factor in such cases, instead of merely a means to an end.2 My second type of invisibility is a bit simpler: monumental human constructions that were once present but are no longer there, or at least no longer visible. They exist in memory, and did once exist as visible presences, but are not extant in the landscape. Neither type need be entirely invisible, but the intentional de-emphasis on visual impact is central to both. The idea that the second type, that of destroyed invisible monuments, can have a formative effect on landscapes in which humans live and work should not be surprising, since it is not foreign to us. Our own cities are shaped by invisible monuments, with good examples coming from, to pick two, London and New York. The White Hall of Whitehall, for example, has been gone since the 17th century, but its effect on the name and function of that part of London, as well as on its layout, is far from gone. The structure and meaning of London’s landscape reflect the once-presence of this

2

That ancient Egyptians cloaked the sacred, and deliberately and meaningfully nested layers of invisibility, is not a feature limited to monuments, but rather one that is present in many aspects of Egyptian culture, particularly visual culture. Christina Riggs’

now invisible monument. Wall Street in New York can also be considered an invisible monument with longterm physical and notional resonance—the wall is gone, but the street name and its role in the demarcation of space, organized so differently below and above it, make it an invisible but still vital presence. It is perhaps worth noting that both of these invisible monuments are so present that they have become personified and metonymic—Whitehall decides, Wall Street tumbles—even though these references no longer conjure images of halls or walls. How long can an invisible monument continue so powerfully to affect the people around it? Abydos suggests it can do so for a very long time indeed. Apart from its longevity, what is so notable about monumental invisibility in the landscape of Abydos, and what distinguishes it from the examples of London and New York given above, is that much of the invisibility appears to have been quite deliberate. I do not speak of the deliberate knocking down of earlier monuments—that is of course extremely common around the globe—but instead of a built-in invisibility of both sorts that was designed from the very first to be a principal component of the monuments in question. This is quite remarkable because these monuments are the earliest known royal constructions from Egypt, which invisibly affected major cultural and historical developments over millennia. A Royal Cemetery beneath the Cliffs The importance of the site of Abydos for pharaonic Egypt derived largely from its role as the burial ground for the kings of the transitional period when kingship itself was emerging and solidifying, from the Protodynastic period through Dynasty 1, with the last two kings of Dynasty 2 also buried there. Subsequent kings and commoners revered the site for millennia, and it eventually came to be particularly associated with the god Osiris because of this early royal connection. Temples were built, stelae erected, pilgrimages made; this volume gives a good cross section of the range of archaeologically recovered activities that so often relate in some way to this early thread. But modern pilgrims

thought-provoking book Unwrapping ancient Egypt confronts many aspects of this phenomenon, including our own role as viewers and unwrappers.

VISIBILITY AND INVISIBILITY IN THE LANDSCAPE OF ABYDOS

to the site—and there are a moderate number of tourists who come here, as it is not a terribly long drive from Luxor and the temple of the New Kingdom king Seti I is still quite well preserved—almost never go to see the early royal tombs at the part of the site called Umm el- Qa‘ab. The tombs are well preserved, and one of them was recently cleared, conserved and left open. But a tourist destination Umm el- Qa‘ab is not, and for good reason: it lies quite a long hike into the desert, not close to the rest of Abydos at all, and the preserved parts of the tombs are entirely subterranean. You cannot see them until you are on top of them. You probably could never have seen them well—the distance precludes easy viewing even if you know what to look for, and while they may well have had some superstructures, none of the reconstructions proposed are large at all (Dreyer 1991). While you really cannot see the early royal tombs from the urban area of Abydos, what you can see— what your eye is drawn to whether you want it to be or not—is the area of the tombs. If you are standing at the junction of the cultivated land and the low desert anywhere in northern Abydos and facing west, your eye

73

moves towards the break in the cliffs of the desert known as the Great Wadi (Fig. 1). Perhaps this is especially true for the archaeologist, who knows what this wadi marks: the cemetery of the first kings lies beneath it. An ancient audience would have known, too. Umm el-Qa‘ab is not directly at the mouth of the wadi, but that can really only be discerned from looking at a map; visually the cliffs and their break dominate the landscape and point to the area of the tombs, which can be seen only as a smudge, rather than as individual structures. No tomb, nor collection of tombs, looks large from far away, but the landscape itself does, and the landscape marks the place of burial. The notional as well as physical monumentality of the landscape preceded the construction of the first big royal Egyptian tombs; Umm el- Qa‘ab, with its cliffs in the background, was home to generations of tombs of the local leaders who preceded the first kings of pharaonic Egypt. This history, this landscape and the invisibility of the early royal tombs were intentionally entwined by the kings of Dynasties 1 and 2. This can be convincingly argued not only from the continuity in use of space but also more particularly on two grounds:

Fig. 1: The cliffs of Abydos, with the Great Wadi leading down from the high desert to the low. Watercolour by Simon Sullivan.

L. BESTOCK

74

first, the tombs themselves probably incorporated hidden aspects other than their necessarily underground burial chambers, as shown by a subterranean mounded superstructure best seen in the case of Djet (Petrie 1900, 9–10).3 This hidden mound clearly had significance for the functioning of the tomb, but equally clearly was not intended to be seen by living humans walking the Abydene desert. Second, the same kings built monuments with quite large superstructures not 2km away, in the North Cemetery. It was not lack of engineering know-how or inability to command labour that kept the superstructures of the early tombs at least partly underground and small. It was a choice. The conscious invocation of invisibility by the builders of the royal tombs makes them good examples of my first type of intentional invisibility, but the same kings also employed the second type at different structures and at a different part of the same site. Royal Cult places at the Desert Edge It has been known for some time that the Early Dynastic kings built monumental structures in the Abydos North Cemetery. Indeed, one of them—that of the last king of Dynasty 2, Khasekhemwy—is very much not invisible, but rather one of the oldest standing monuments in the world and a hulking presence in the cemetery: if you stand in the town and look to that gash in the cliffs, Khasekhemwy’s monument occupies the middle ground (Fig. 2). It was the last in a line of such monuments, the specific chronology and purpose of which are somewhat more elusive than those of the royal tombs. We call them funerary enclosures, and currently believe them to have been cult places associated with the giving of offerings for the living king, with each new king building a new such enclosure (Bestock 2008). We also believe them to have been deliberately destroyed, quite possibly at the end of the lives of the kings who built them (see Adams, this volume). It is notable that in each case the footprint of the building was left intact when it was destroyed; they neither remained as visible presences in the landscape nor were completely erased. Each successive king built next to the location of earlier enclosures. This area of

3

Dreyer (1991) suggests that the other tombs at Umm el-Qaab had similar mounds.

Abydos was not used for any other purpose during the Early Dynastic period than the construction of such monuments and their surrounding subsidiary graves. The way it looks today, with one standing enclosure, thus may be very similar to the way it looked throughout its use in the Early Dynastic period. While this is a reasonable rather than proved hypothesis, for the sake of argument here I will accept it without further question. The contrast in meaning between the two types of invisibility employed by the same kings at Umm elQa‘ab and in the North Cemetery is striking. With regard to the tombs, the effect of having a monumental landscape marking relatively invisible individual tombs creates a whole, a collective, a place of kingship more obviously than of kings. A single standing enclosure at any given time in the North Cemetery rather emphasizes the opposite: the individuality of the particular king for whom cult is performed there. These two threads of kingship, the institution and the individual, are of central importance to pharaonic Egypt over millennia, though their weight and means of expression changed over time. When did the practice of building and destroying enclosures begin, and did their invisible presence affect activity at Abydos beyond the Early Dynastic period itself, as the invisible presence of the tombs at Umm el-Qa‘ab did? An excellent place to address both questions is found in the very northern part of the cemetery, in an area currently under excavation by the Brown University Abydos Project. The origins of Visibility and Invisibility in the North Cemetery To date, the earliest king to whom an enclosure can be ascribed on the grounds of in situ inscribed artefacts is Aha. Aha had three enclosures. He is also the first king to have built a monumental (if subterranean) tomb at Umm el-Qa‘ab, though his predecessors were buried there in smaller graves. Aha’s enclosures offer some of the clearest evidence of invisibility, and do so in two ways. Two of the three have evidence of the intentional destruction of their interior cult buildings, with one

VISIBILITY AND INVISIBILITY IN THE LANDSCAPE OF ABYDOS

Fig. 2: The enclosure of Khasekhemwy, Dynasty 2, with the cliffs of Umm el-Qa‘ab in the background. The foreground is the location of multiple other such enclosures of Dynasty 1, anciently reduced to their footprints. Photo by author.

Fig. 3: An intact subsidiary grave from one of the Aha enclosures. No superstructure marked this grave, thus rendering it invisible once the floor outside the enclosure covered it in early Dynasty 1. Photo by author.

75

76

L. BESTOCK

having clean sand—not windblown—poured on the floors directly below destruction layers. This suggests a ritual dimension to the destruction, which seems to have taken place before the buildings had a chance to decay on their own. It is thus most probable that the destruction was an intended part of the life-cycle of this type of building (O’Connor and Adams 2003, 84; Bestock 2009, 72).4 Second, one of the subsidiary graves next to one of the small Aha enclosures was found intact, with the floor outside the enclosure running directly over it (Fig. 3). There was no trace of a superstructure over this grave, suggesting that it was a deliberately hidden feature from the start (Bestock 2009, 83). This appears to be quite a complex play with visibility. The central monument was visible for a generation but then destroyed; its surrounding graves were invisible from the time of their construction onwards but equally well retained in memory—it is not just the footprints of the walls that were respected by each successive king building in this area, but also the lines of graves. The question ‘why destroy a monument when you do not wish to dishonour its builder?’ is inevitable, but not entirely answerable with regards to the enclosures. Various strands of thought suggest themselves. Our expectation of permanence may itself depend on the myth of an eternal Egypt, conditioned by pyramids of a later age and our own time’s tendency to beat the drum of a static Egyptian past. The time of the enclosures themselves was anything but static in general, and in the period when kingship was being solidified these buildings were not all that was being killed; so, too, were the people who were interred in the surrounding subsidiary graves. These kings took everything with them, from luxury goods to people to their own most obvious monumental constructions, leaving none in the land of the living. It must have been a powerful statement, to command the ability to remove all of these things. A further effect of these destructions, of buildings and people, was to limit the means available for the transmission of knowledge. If the prototype is not there to be followed, then the next iteration of that type of monument relied on the participation of people

who knew by means other than seeing, and people themselves were not all allowed into the next generation. Tight control of symbols and means of knowing by the kings of the Early Dynastic period can also be seen in other ways, most notably with writing and art.5 Mundane considerations may have played some role in destruction, too, though I hesitate to think that the reuse of material was the sole deciding factor in tearing down one enclosure while building another. Most convincing to me is a simultaneous need of the dead king to take his building with him, and of the new king to be singularly visible in the landscape. Even if this is correct, the question whether the idea originated with the king who first built an enclosure, or with his successor who first pulled one down, remains unknown. If the origin of invisibility with enclosures is obscure, so too is even the early development of the type. Who built the first one? I initially thought Aha the most likely candidate, because his enclosures are anomalous in number and size, suggesting a period of experimentation that made sense as the start of something new. But recent excavations strongly suggest that another enclosure, further north, might belong to Narmer, a king from a generation earlier than Aha (Bestock 2012, 40–45). As is the case for all enclosures of Dynasty 1, this one is no longer a visible feature in the landscape and most probably was intentionally destroyed. The walls, well over 2m thick, are preserved uniformly to one or two brick courses high. This enclosure exists in an area particularly rich in later remains, and in fact is located in the heart of a modern Coptic cemetery, giving us five thousand years of activities in one place that can be studied in relation to one another. The nature and date of the walls found here are established by architectural details and associated material culture, though unfortunately none of the latter has yet been found in its original context. The walls have the typical niching pattern and exterior bench associated with Dynasty 1 enclosures (Fig. 4). The northwest corner of the structure has been found, and it has a rounded bastion-shaped feature around the bench that is similar to features found at the Aha enclosures, though it is shaped somewhat differently. Objects

4

5

The possibility that the enclosures were ritually destroyed was suggested even before this corroborative evidence was found (O’Connor 1995, 319–29).

Wengrow (2001) has suggested that the control of knowledge by the newly defined Egyptian kingship caused an ‘evolution of simplicity’, which led to restrictions on the repertoire of available images as well as on the contexts where they were found.

VISIBILITY AND INVISIBILITY IN THE LANDSCAPE OF ABYDOS

Fig. 4: Excavation of the remains of the wall of a recently discovered funerary enclosure that was probably built for Narmer. The pattern of niching on its face, so reminiscent of a serekh, could be traced as a line of mud plaster between the wall face itself and the bench that ran around the bottom of the enclosure, though both had been destroyed down to a uniform height. Photo by author.

found in the area include an Early Dynastic seal impression and a large amount of pottery of various types, including cylinder vessels and wine jars. The assemblage as a whole can be dated to the Naqada IIIC1, and appears entirely appropriate for a subsidiary grave.6 That we have not yet found such a grave in the area is probably due to the large amount of later construction outside the walls of the enclosure and the presence of the modern cemetery. If the dating of this enclosure to the reign of Narmer is correct, it is notable both because Narmer had a rela-

6 7

The ceramics are being studied by Christian Knoblauch. Various scholars, including Gardiner (1957), Wilkinson (1985), O’Brien (1996) and Arnold (2006) have long accepted that the

77

tively small tomb and because Narmer comes at the end of a quick few generations during which the convention of writing the king’s name in a serekh had developed. The size matters because it suggests that temples, instead of tombs, were earlier foci for monumentality for the early kings of Egypt—perhaps precisely because the landscape itself provided monumentality to the area of the burials. In this light we should remember that by far the most famous artefact of Narmer’s reign, and the most important early extant statement about the ideology of kingship, was also notably not found at Narmer’s tomb. Together, the construction of a big enclosure at Abydos and the dedication of the palette at Hierakonpolis strongly suggest that the avenues towards monumentalizing the nascent ideology of kingship that mattered most to Narmer were not mortuary. The serekh association matters because it is the most consistent emblem of Egyptian kingship across pharaonic history and because it represents a building—a rectangular building with a niched façade and apparently open interior space. The traditional monumental enclosure is by far the best currently attested building type that might be represented by the serekh, and even if the assumption that the façade on the serekh represents a palace (Hendrickx 2001, 90)7 is correct, we would then have to say that the palace and enclosure are such closely related architectural forms that such relation must be intentional and meaningful. Enclosures are royal, kingly and associated precisely with those kings who developed the serekh as an emblem of kingship. It is reasonable to expect that enclosures themselves were built by serekh-having kings prior to Narmer, as has indeed also been argued on the basis of changes in tombs at Umm el-Qa‘ab after tomb U-j (Dreyer, Hartung and Pumpenmeier 1993, n. 4; Dreyer 1998, 19). Unfortunately the area north of the presumed Narmer enclosure, the most likely area for such structures, has been lost to fields. If the recently discovered enclosure can thus help us understand the chronology and meaning of this type of building, and—if it is Narmer’s—its relation to invisibility and Umm el-Qa‘ab, what about its effect on the later use of the area? Here we cannot be certain, but the density and arrangement of constructions in the

serekh represents the royal palace, though other theories (such as that it stands for a royal ritual complex or the royal tomb) also exist.

78

L. BESTOCK

immediate vicinity of the newly discovered enclosure are suggestive of a continued knowledge of a presence of early significance in this area, and apparently even continued respect for the footprint of the structure itself. After the first use of this area, no further buildings were constructed here for the best part of a millennium. The next phase of use dates to the First Intermediate Period or early Middle Kingdom, and is found in the form of shallow shaft tombs with rectangular coffins; scant nearby remains of similar bricks suggest that chapels with stelae were erected in conjunction with these tombs. While not monumental in anything like the way of an earlier royal enclosure, such chapels would have changed the visual experience of this area from a blank to one dotted by small private memorials. Only a few graves and chapels of this period remain because of the extensive later disturbance of the area, but they are notable for their shallowness and their apparent earliness, which can be suggested by the regular scatter of presumably once-associated ceramics throughout the disturbed sand nearby. The shafts of the Middle Kingdom graves do not lead to subterranean chambers but rather are themselves the places in which rectangular coffins were buried. We have also found a solitary burial in a rectangular coffin that was deposited in a pit, instead of in a shaft. In this case, the coffin was given a small and rather ad hoc superstructure consisting of bricks placed on top of its lid. The bricks, not well laid nor mortared together, are of the same size and fabric as the bricks of the nearby Early Dynastic enclosure wall, suggesting that at least some bricks from the destruction of that monument were still lying around to be reused during the Middle Kingdom. While this is an active engagement with the material of the all-but-invisible earlier monument, none of the Middle Kingdom private constructions lie on top of or cut through the footprint of the Early Dynastic wall. Whether this was accidental or respectful cannot be known. Previous exploration of Middle Kingdom remains in the area of the enclosures in the North Cemetery had suggested that it was only in the Middle Kingdom proper that such burial activity occurred, perhaps indicating either prohibition or taboo on the private use of this royal space in the Old Kingdom (Richards 2002, 22; Richards 2009, 154). The new enclosure expands our knowledge of where the North Cemetery itself should be understood to lie; it pushes the cemetery’s boundary northward and also suggests that the earliest

reuse of the area was earlier than previously thought, and that it may have been in the area of earliest known initial use. Is this coincidence, or does it reflect historical memory that accorded a prime place to a location not visibly marked but recalled as significant? Or is the opposite the case: that the area of the enclosures was remembered as remarkable, but it was the standing monument of Khasekhemwy that attracted reverence, and the first private use of the cemetery was considered rather a profane activity and placed as far as possible from that revered earlier mass? Either of these cases suggests a conscious engagement with the earlier monuments on the part of Middle Kingdom tomb builders, but whether invisible or visible monuments conditioned this interaction is a significant difference. What is clear is that in a later—much later—period, one of the most significant monuments known from Abydos was constructed in direct proximity to the invisible, very early enclosure. This monument dates to the Ptolemaic period, and was itself substantially and spectacularly altered in the late Roman period; the intervening material is scant. Apart from the few Middle Kingdom graves, nearly everything we have found in this small, currently unused area inside the modern Coptic cemetery that predates the Ptolemaic period has been loose in the fill. Even this material is infrequent: a handful of shabtis, a fragment of relief on limestone. The reason for the scattered nature of this material is the near-total destruction of previous remains during the Ptolemaic period, at which point a new and massive structure was built there. We have not yet uncovered this entire monument, and will not be able to because it runs beneath the modern cemetery. But its nature is clear: it is a subterranean set of galleries in the form of mud-brick vaults, with a central corridor vault giving access to parallel rows of galleries on both sides. Eighteen such side vaults are now known. They were used for the burial of animal mummies: overwhelmingly ibises, but also including a few hawks and snakes and a dog. While the animal mummies are extremely disturbed, evidenced by the smashed state of all of their thousands and thousands of jars, the use of the structure is definitely unambiguous (Fig. 5). Within the context of invisibility and reuse, three aspects of the ibis galleries deserve special mention. The first is that, while the construction of this building obliterated nearly everything in the area, it conspicuously did not disturb the remains of the Early Dynastic enclosure. The second is that the galleries themselves

VISIBILITY AND INVISIBILITY IN THE LANDSCAPE OF ABYDOS

79

Fig. 5: Excavating underground in one of the vaults of the ibis hypogeum, where all the pots that once contained mummified animals have been smashed. Photo by author.

are in no way typical for Abydos. Abydos does have more animal cemeteries holding a wider range of species than is typical for most sites in Egypt (Ikram 2007, 428–29). But built structures for those burials are not the norm here, and none of the others comes close to the size and complexity of the ibis galleries. As such, the galleries clearly represent a major activity and intervention in the landscape of Abydos, which would not have been situated randomly and—since the destruction of earlier graves was clearly not a concern— could have been located in a number of places. Finally, the extant part of the galleries themselves is underground, and thus invisible. While there was originally an enclosure wall above ground, there is no evidence that any real superstructure ever existed. Even if it did, the hidden nature of the burial grounds themselves is clear if not at all unexpected. The first two of these points—that the footprint of the Early Dynastic enclosure survived, and that the galleries were uniquely big and deliberately sited— suggest that a relationship between these two buildings was deliberately sought by the constructors of the second, some 2,500 years after the first was built and destroyed (Fig. 6). The main part of the galleries is subterranean, essentially an enormous brick cube buried in a massive hole dug in the desert. Above ground are the stairs that lead to the central corridor,

which underwent at least two phases of construction, and a perimeter wall that roughly defined the area occupied by the galleries below. The perimeter wall and the underground galleries do not match up precisely; in the east the wall runs above the corner of the galleries, while in the west there are nearly 10m between the two. The outer perimeter wall in the area of the enclosure runs exactly parallel to the earlier construction, though that was not a standing wall at the time. The cut for the subterranean structure could not have been made much closer to the enclosure wall without undermining it. It seems likely to me that the Ptolemaic builders knew the earlier wall was there and chose to respect it in the location and orientation of their own monument. Furthermore, secondary phases of construction, which included the rebuilding and perhaps realignment of the stairs, also left the earlier wall alone. Indeed, even the placement of the stairs may be deliberate: while we have not actually found the southwest corner of the enclosure, it is likely that it was quite near where the stairs are located. This would have been more than a vague historical memory, though there may have been that, too. It is an almost unbelievable length of time for a mostly invisible monument to continue to affect the use of a landscape. But only almost: we accept that Abydos as a whole had continued meaning across

80

L. BESTOCK

Fig. 6: Plan showing the Early Dynastic enclosure wall, subterranean ibis galleries and the superstructure associated with the latter. Two of the vaults were substantially remodelled in the late Roman period. Plan copyright Brown University Abydos Project, with thanks to Ian Brownstein, Timothy Sandiford, and Jonathan Weiland.

VISIBILITY AND INVISIBILITY IN THE LANDSCAPE OF ABYDOS

millennia because of its early use; we know that the wall of Wall Street and the hall of Whitehall so conditioned movement and meaning as to affect all subsequent use. Even without being a looming presence in the view of the inhabitants of Abydos, the location of this earliest of royal monuments may have been known, respected and celebrated. On a much smaller level, aspects of interplay between invisibility and visibility can be seen even in a small construction built to the northwest of the stairs. This was built some time after the perimeter wall of the galleries had been missing in this location, as it ran across its path. A low rectangular structure approximately 2m long, with a single course high of bricks defining three sides and a covering of mud plaster, this looked to me initially like a small and rather poor grave, probably very late (Fig. 7). Upon excavation it proved to be no such thing, but rather the marker for a burial of 300 bronze coins and a small cachette of sculpture. The coins are all early Ptolemaic in date, and were buried in a linen bag. The sculpture, also probably bagged, consisted of two bronze Osiris figurines, one quite fine; and a steatite child-god—perhaps Harpocrates—shown sucking his finger, enthroned on an elaborate lion throne, and embraced from behind by a winged goddess (Fig. 8). When first discovered this statue did not appear particularly fine, being rather muddy in detail. However, it turned out to have been just that: muddy. The very fine layer of mud, more or less baked on to the statue and difficult to remove, was clearly deliberate and also clearly had nothing to do with the context of burial, which was sand. This intentional masking of the beautiful features of a small sculpture may be seen as a small but no less intriguing type of invisibility within this landscape of hiddenness. We have left the statue half-cleaned, so that both its fine carving and its deliberate masking can be observed. The final major phase of use of this small corner of the Abydos North Cemetery dates to the late Roman period. During this period, at least two of the vaults of the Ptolemaic ibis galleries were emptied, remodelled, reused and adapted to become combined religious and domestic spaces for Christians. As was the case with the animal burials themselves, this type of activity in Abydos is not rare at all. What is uncommon, again, is the scale and care with which this particular instance was achieved in this particular area. One of the remodelled vaults, our number 9 (see plan, Fig. 6), is on the typical side for late Roman Christian reuse of earlier vaults in the North Cemetery.

81

Fig. 7: A small structure, originally assumed to be a tomb, that both marked and hid a small cache of coins and statuary near the stairway leading down to the ibis galleries. Photo by author.

In this case a stair was built down from the ground level into the vault, and two distinct rooms were created by the construction of a cross wall. One room was white-plastered and provided with niches in the eastern wall; one of these had a red line drawing of a haloed saint. The second remodelled space (second in terms of our discovery—their relative date is not known) is considerably more elaborate. In Vault 12, a large two-storey structure resulted from the reconfiguration of the subterranean vault and the addition of a suite of rooms above ground. A central open room with beautifully built stairs provided access between levels as well as allowing light to filter below (Fig. 9). The preserved space above ground included a number of small, plastered rooms of uncertain purpose, as well as a large kitchen with three ovens and a cellar. Below ground were three distinct spaces. The central stairs/light well served as a courtyard, with niches in the walls and a substantial bench, large enough to sleep on, against the

82

L. BESTOCK

Fig. 8: A statuette of a child-god, possibly Harpocrates, sucking his finger. When found, the sculpture was coated with a hard layer of mud, rendering its fine features less than visible. (Compare left, as found, and right, as half-cleaned.) Photos by author and Kathryn Howley.

east wall. To the south, this courtyard led to a domestic space, with the vaulted roof repurposed from the ibis galleries still intact. The niches in this room still had circular stains on their shelves where some ancient monk had set down his beverage. The northern subterranean room was spectacular. All of the walls contained paintings and inscriptions. The paintings on the north and east walls were notable. On the north were various animals and figures, among them Abraham grasping Isaac by the hair, knife in hand. Abraham turns to look over his shoulder at a tree, from which a hand extends. This painting is executed in red and brown and black. The decoration on the east wall is even more elaborate and includes at least two phases of bichrome lionesses suckling young. But the masterpiece is the central niche, augmented with engaged columns on the sides that held polychrome faces of saints. The apsidal niche itself includes a central cross painted in green and yellow and red.

It is flanked by Peter and Paul, and a smaller angel (Fig. 10). Above the cross are the feet and shins of Christ. Unfortunately the very carving of niches into the east wall resulted in the collapse of the vault itself, and much of this room and all that might have been above it are destroyed. But the quality of what remains is striking. Here, in beauty, sat Coptic hermits in the late Roman period. They sat in what was manifestly their own space, but one that was built in a much earlier building, beside a yet earlier construction. What of this 3,500year history was known to or cared about by those who burnt incense before this niche? How direct was the influence of earlier reverence, of earlier structures? We cannot know, can only suggest. But we can ourselves stand in awe and appreciation of the deep history of this place, grateful to have had the chance to help make the invisible visible again, to bring its weight to bear in yet another era.

VISIBILITY AND INVISIBILITY IN THE LANDSCAPE OF ABYDOS

Fig. 9: The white-plastered stairs down to the central courtyard in the Christian hermitage built in remodelled Vault 12 of the Ptolemaic ibis galleries. Modern Coptic graves surround the area of excavations, the negotiation between past and present uses of the space on-going. Photo by author.

Fig. 10: The feet of Christ above a cross, with Saints Peter and Paul, from the apsidal niche in the northeast wall of the oratory of Vault 12. Photo by author.

83

84

L. BESTOCK

Bibliography Arnold, D. 2006. The Serekh palace revisited. In Timelines: Studies in honor of Manfred Bietak, E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman and A. Schwab (eds), Vol. I, 37–45. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149. Leuven. Bestock, L. 2008. The Early Dynastic funerary enclosures of Abydos. Archéo-Nil 18: 42–59. ———. 2009. The development of royal funerary cult at Abydos: Two funerary enclosures from the reign of Aha. Wiesbaden. ———. 2012. Brown University Abydos Project: Preliminary report on the first two seasons. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 48: 35–79. Dreyer, G. 1991. Zur Rekonstruktion der Oberbauten der Königsgräber der 1. Dynastie in Abydos. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 47: 93–104. ———. 1998. Umm el-Qaab I: Das prädynastische Königsgrab U-j und seine frühen Schriftzeugnisse. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 86. Mainz. Dreyer, G., U. Hartung, and F. Pumpenmeier. 1993. Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 5./6. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 49: 23–62. Gardiner, A. H. 1957. Egyptian grammar. 3rd. rev. ed. Oxford. Hendrickx, S. 2001. Arguments for an Upper Egyptian origin of the palace-façade and the serekh during Late Pre-

dynastic–Early Dynastic times. Göttinger Miszellen 184: 85–110. Ikram, S. 2007. Animals in the ritual landscape at Abydos: A synopsis. In The archaeology and art of ancient Egypt: Essays in honor of David B. O’Connor, Z. Hawass and J. Richards (eds), 417–32. Cairo. O’Brien, A. 1996. The serekh as an aspect of the iconography of early kingship. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 33: 123–38. O’Connor, D. 1995. The social and economic organization of ancient Egyptian temples. In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East 1, J. M. Sasson, J. Baines, G. Beckman, and K. S. Rubinson (eds), 319–29. New York. O’Connor, D., and M. Adams. 2003. The royal mortuary enclosures of Abydos and Hierakonpolis. In Treasures of the Pyramids, Z. Hawass (ed.), 78–85. Cairo. Petrie, W. M. F. 1900. The royal tombs of the First Dynasty, Part 1. London. Richards, J. 2002. Time and memory in ancient Egyptian cemeteries. Expedition Magazine 44 (3): 16–24. ———. 2009. Society and death in ancient Egypt: Mortuary landscapes of the Middle Kingdom. Cambridge. Riggs, C. 2014. Unwrapping ancient Egypt. London. Wengrow, D. 2001. The evolution of simplicity: Aesthetic labour and social change in the Neolithic Near East. World Archaeology 33 (2): 168–88. Wilkinson, R. H. 1985. The Horus Name and the form and significance of the Serekh in the royal Egyptian titulary. Journal of the Society of the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 15: 98–104.

UMM EL-QAʽAB AND THE SACRED LANDSCAPE OF ABYDOS: NEW PERSPECTIVES BASED ON THE VOTIVE POTTERY FOR OSIRIS Julia BUDKA

Abstract Material evidence for the sacredness of the landscape of Abydos can be found in numerous pottery vessels deposited at Umm el-Qaʽab and other places connected with rituals and festive processions for Osiris. The pottery attests to cultic activities from the late Old Kingdom throughout all ages until late Roman/early Byzantine times. According to the ceramics evidence, one of the heydays of the cult for Osiris at Umm el-Qaʽab was Dynasty 25. Recent fieldwork by the German Archaeological Institute in Cairo has resulted in a considerable increase in our understanding of the nature, date, size and variability of in situ pottery deposits in the surroundings of the tomb of Djer/Osiris datable to Dynasty 25. The large deposit O-NNO allows us for the first time to specify the contemporaneous use of large votive vessels and the well-known offering cups, the so-called qaʽabs. The ritual framework for the cult of Osiris will be discussed, including references to textual sources, architectural remains and the sacred landscape of Abydos. Umm el-Qaʽab: ‘Mother of pots’ The German Archaeological Institute in Cairo has been conducting excavations at Umm el-Qaʽab since 1977 (Dreyer 1999; Müller 2006b, 37, n. 1; Dreyer 2007; O’Connor 2009, 137‒57). The burial ground of the Proto- and Early Dynastic rulers gained special importance once again from the Middle Kingdom onwards. Possibly as early as in Dynasty 13, the tomb of king Djer of Dynasty 1 was reinterpreted as the burial place for the god Osiris himself (Amélineau 1899).1 Since 2006, a new project directed by Ute Effland has focused on the cultic activities at Umm el-Qaʽab that post-date the Early Dynastic period and were connected

1

For more recent work see Effland, Budka and Effland 2010; Effland and Effland 2013; Budka 2014.

with Osiris (Effland, Budka and Effland 2010; Effland and Effland 2013). The tomb of Djer/Osiris, which has been re-excavated by the German Archaeological Institute Cairo in the last few years, was the main focus of this project. The major material remains of the cult connected with this tomb are millions of sherds and thousands of complete pots (Budka 2010a, 52‒53). The name ‘Umm el-Qaʽab’ is based on the large number of small votive cups, the so-called qaabs; ‘mother of pots’ is, therefore, a most suitable name (Pumpenmeier 1998, 125‒26; Müller 2006b, 38; Budka 2010a, 35; Budka 2014, 57). The votive pottery deposited at Umm el-Qaʽab around the Early Dynastic royal tombs, studied in detail since 2008, has revealed certain heydays of use and also illustrates various cult activities (Budka 2010a, 55‒58; Budka 2010b, 51). The main types of votive pottery at Umm el-Qaʽab are beer jars, qaabs, incense burners and several types of jars including wine amphorae from different regions (Budka 2015b). There was a first heyday during the Tuthmoside era, another during the Ramesside period and finally a revival of cultic activity at the site in the Late Period, especially during Dynasty 25 (Budka 2010a, 52‒53; 2010b, 55‒58; 2014). Votive pottery tradition at Umm el-Qaʽab The millions of pottery vessels deposited at Umm el-Qaʽab, spanning a time period of more than 3,000 years, are all votive vessels for Osiris, dedicated either by identified persons or by anonymous donors (Budka 2015a, 284). Depositing pots in the area had a very long tradition and started even before the reuse of the Early Dynastic cemetery. The long-lasting tradition of ceramic votive areas in Umm el-Qaʽab can be traced back to the Naqada III period.2

2

For early votive offerings in North Abydos, see the contributions by Knoblauch and Bestock in this volume.

J. BUDKA

86

In this respect, the Predynastic cemetery adjacent to the royal tombs of Dynasties 1 and 2 at Umm el-Qaʽab, Cemetery U (see Adams 1999; Hartung 2007), is of importance. In the vicinity of the famous tomb U-j (see Dreyer 1998; Dreyer 1999), offering cult and the deposition of ceramic vessels was observed. Dreyer (1998, 15‒16) documented an offering place (in German ‘Opferplatz’): a cultic area with more than 100 votive vessels on the desert surface. Most common are simple dishes and plates, usually deposited upsidedown on the ground (Dreyer 1998, 15‒16, figs 8‒9). One example shows irregular red paint, maybe a reference to blood and to real food offerings. As will be shown below, both the upside-down position of dishes and plates on the ground and red splashes on votive vessels are common features of the later cult associated with Osiris. The tomb of Osiris and ancestors’ cult The tomb of Djer stands out because it is the earliest substantial monument with hundreds of subsidiary tombs (Dreyer 2012). During the Middle Kingdom, the main chamber was re-excavated and equipped with a staircase connected with the reinterpretation of the tomb as the burial place of the god Osiris (Petrie 1901, 9; Müller 2006b, 44; O’Connor 2009, 89‒90). The most impressive relic of the Middle Kingdom re-modification of the tomb of Djer is the Osirian bed representing a mortuary bed with the recumbent Osiris (Effland, Budka and Effland 2010, 33‒35). The location of this statue discovered by Amélineau was reconstructed by Ute and Andreas Effland in the central chamber, enclosed in a newly discovered limestone shrine (Effland and Effland 2013, 17‒20). The bed, and especially texts and reliefs from the temple of Seti I at Abydos, illustrate the main themes of the Osirian cult (see David 1981, passim): the regeneration of the god; his awakening from a passive mode; and the impregnation of Isis, which are all essential for the cosmic cycle, and for both the royal and the funerary cult (see O’Connor 2009, 31‒41). References to the royal ancestors’ cult are specific to Abydos and can be illustrated by the complex of Ahmose and the pyramid of Tetisheri (Harvey 1998;

3

Khenti(y)amentiu as deity and protector of the necropolis, cf. Dreyer 1996, 73; Wengrow 2006, 131.

O’Connor 2009, 105‒10), but also the famous King List from the Seti I temple (Kemp 1989, 21‒22; A. Effland 2014, 27). However, lists of royal names and a possible ancestors’ cult seem to go back at Abydos to the very early history of the site. Two necropolis clay sealings from the tomb of Den and Qa‘a give a sequence of royal names of Dynasty 1. Although other explanations are possible,3 the most likely interpretation for the seal of Qa‘a is that the king appears here as Foremost of the Westerners (=Khenti(y)amentiu) in front of his predecessors (Dreyer 1996, 72‒73, fig. 26; Morenz 2004, 108, n. 458). This early reference to the ancestors’ cult could explain the continuous importance of the site for pharaonic kingship and the legitimacy of rulers throughout the centuries (see Effland and Effland 2013, 90‒97). A long-lasting tradition appears to be one of the key themes of Abydos—nicely illustrated, for example, by the building activity of Ahmose (Dynasty 18), reflecting on the architecture of the Old and Middle Kingdom while at the same time composing something innovative. The clear references to earlier periods were intended to express legitimacy and encouraged the strong royal interest in Abydos. All in all, as Ute Effland has proposed, the ancestors’ cult might be viewed as the most important ‘cult-impact’ (Effland 2013, 324‒26) for the site. Votive pottery marking sacred places at Abydos One of the major buildings in Abydos is the complex of Seti I (Eaton 2007; O’Connor 2009, 43‒61; Schröder 2010, 104, with further literature). Within its main east–west axis there is a so-called desert pylon in the western part, opening towards Umm el-Qaʽab. Interestingly, in front of this desert pylon, a large deposit of votive pottery is noticeable (Effland and Effland 2010, 142). Based on a surface check, this pottery mainly dates to the Late Period, especially to Dynasty 25. Thus, the area behind the Osireion was of importance during this era. The investigations of Ute and Andreas Effland (2010) have shown that there were several important connections between North Abydos, Umm el-Qaʽab, the Seti I complex and South Abydos. A significant landmark at Umm el-Qaʽab was the so-called Southern

UMM EL-QAʽAB AND THE SACRED LANDSCAPE OF ABYDOS

Hill (Effland, Budka and Effland 2010, 82‒83, fig. 52; Effland and Effland 2010, 137‒39). It is striking that the main cultic axes constructing the sacred landscape of Abydos and representing the processional ways during the festival for Osiris were marked by votive deposits, predominately dating to the Late Period. Thus, Dynasty 25 obviously reused already-existing structures and revived processional features set up during the New Kingdom. Votive pottery of Dynasty 25 at Umm el-Qaʽab The votive pottery of Dynasty 25 has the potential to illustrate cultic activities at Abydos, especially at Umm el-Qaʽab (Budka 2010b, 55‒58). The heyday of cultic activity at Umm el-Qaʽab, which produced tonnes of pottery, is the Late Period and here especially Dynasties 25 and 26. Dynasty 25 marks the beginning of the typical shape of the so-called qaabs, which continued into the Ptolemaic era (Müller 2006a, 82; Budka 2010a, 45). The qaabs are reminiscent of miniature vessels of the Middle Kingdom and in some respects they recall canopic jars (see Budka 2010b, 58). Some were found with organic contents: small branches, some grain, also charcoal and, interestingly, goat droppings (U. Effland 2010, 29‒30). An in situ deposit of qaabs in the surroundings of the tomb of Khasekhemwy was investigated by Ute Effland (U. Effland 2010, 25‒30). She was able to demonstrate that this deposit is not a random assemblage, but was carefully laid out, reflecting organized votive activities embedded in the yearly festival of Osiris. Organic remains strongly point to Osiris as god of vegetation, but especially to the aspects of regeneration and fertility (U. Effland 2010, 30). Apart from the qaabs, a specific type of storage vessel, the so-called Late Period bottles, are most common during Dynasty 25 at Umm el-Qaʽab. These large bottles are a very special type of vessel, clearly locally produced in very large numbers. At Umm el-Qaʽab, they were arranged to form rows respectively to mark pathways (Budka 2010b, 56‒57). Until recently, no traces of any content were found within the bottles, suggesting that they were deposited empty (but see below). Interestingly, the rows of jars at Umm el-Qaʽab share some similarities with embalming deposits at Thebes (Budka 2006; 2010b, 60‒61). Each kind of deposit follows local aspects that resulted in individual

87

orientation and specific features, but in both cases the focus seems to be on aspects of regeneration and the cult of Osiris. Ritual killing holes (intentional perforations of vessels executed post-firing) of the vessels are attested both at Umm el-Qaʽab and at Thebes (see Budka 2006, 96 with further references). The deposit O-NNO The discovery of a very large new ceramic deposit at the tomb of Djer/Osiris allows an updated assessment of Late Period votive activity at Umm el-Qaʽab. Already in 2011, the first vessels were unearthed along the eastern edge of the subsidiary tombs of Djer. We soon assumed that these are related to the row of wellpreserved vessels leading towards the south (Effland and Effland 2010, 138) found in the area in front of the tomb of Den by Naville (1914, 38, pl. XVIII.4 and pl. XIX.1) and by Müller (2006b, 39‒48). In 2012 and 2013, more vessels of this deposit labelled O-NNO were unearthed. It became obvious that the deposit excavated in 1985 above B40 (Aston 1996) was probably once part of O-NNO in its southeastern area (Fig. 1). All in all, the pottery assemblage comprising O-NNO (Fig. 2) and the rows of vessels discovered by Naville and Müller once formed an alley from the subsidiary tombs of the tomb of Djer to the tomb of Den and farther towards the so-called Southern Hill (see Effland and Effland 2010, 138). The votive deposit O-NNO was completely excavated in 2013. The pottery vessels were documented and studied in 2014 (see Budka 2014). A total of 2,686 vessels could be reconstructed from 3,806 sherds—the actual number of deposited vessels was probably even larger, as parts of the deposit were disturbed in antiquity. The most important vessel types fall into the two categories of closed and open forms. Of these, 24% are storage vessels of types already well attested at Umm el-Qaʽab: the so-called Late Period bottles (Budka 2010b, fig. 16). More than 2,000 pieces are small qaabs (Budka 2010a, fig. 23; 2014, fig. 5). In addition, a few other dishes and incense burners are present. Interestingly, as observed in other votive deposits, there are several references to rituals in O-NNO (Budka 2014, 57). First of all, a large number of killing holes was observed (Fig. 3). Secondly, several traces of irregular red paint, possibly also with an apotropaic character, were documented on various types of vessels—on qaabs as well as Late Period bottles.

J. BUDKA

88

O-NNO

B 40

Aha

B 50

subs

idiar

y tom

bs o

f Dje

r

Osiris

Fig. 1: Plan of deposit O-NNO on the eastern side of the tomb of Djer/Osiris. Plan by U. Effland, I. Klenner, M. Sählhoff et al. © DAI Osiriskultprojekt.

Fig. 2: Votive pottery deposit O-NNO; the large vessels form an alley leading towards the south. Photo: U. Effland.

UMM EL-QAʽAB AND THE SACRED LANDSCAPE OF ABYDOS

89

understanding of the process of depositing the vessels. In some cases, the votive dishes were obviously positioned in already-laid-out storage vessels. In other cases, small groups of qaabs were put next to the Late Period bottles. This is well illustrated by a small assemblage of sixteen votive dishes found still in situ (Fig. 4). All of the vessels of this assemblage were deposited with the opening to the ground—a position already attested for offering dishes during the Naqada III period at Cemetery U (see above) and also for Late Period dishes found in situ in front of the tomb of Den (Müller 2006b, 40). An unusual feature of the assemblage within O-NNO, however, is that from the sixteen vessels, one is not of Late Period date, but is actually an Early Dynastic lid (Budka 2014, 63, fig. 17). Therefore, old and new vessels were used side by side within a pottery votive deposit of the 8th century BC. The Early Dynastic lid is probably a piece from the original burial of Djer and obviously became ritually important for the votive offerings to Osiris more than 2,000 years later. ‘Archaism’ as guarantee of continuation Fig. 3: Late Period bottle with killing hole from O-NNO. Photo: J. Budka.

Most important, however, is that for the first time there are traces of contents inside the Late Period bottles, which were previously assumed to have been deposited empty. Complete examples and fragments of qaab-dishes, and remains of their filling (botanical remains and sand) were discovered. Thus, for the first time, the deposition of the large Late Period bottles can be directly associated with the ritual deposition of qaabs. Because the contents of the qaabs are identical with what was documented by Ute Effland in the in situ deposits, a similar ritual framework embedded into the calendar of the Osiris cult seems likely. Another interesting detail is that the bottles of O-NNO frequently have a hole in the base. In a number of cases, muddy remains closing this perforation (well attested for beer jars) were still found within the vessel. It remains unclear whether this indicates an original filling of these vessels with Nile water (strongly associated with the cult of Osiris) or with Nile mud, as is attested from other periods. All in all, the association of the qaabs with the Late Period bottles is of great importance to our

‘Archaism’ and references to the original tomb contents seem to be important aspects in understanding the complex composition of the Late Period votive pottery at Umm el-Qaʽab. In an earlier paper, I have proposed that the so-called Late Period bottles recall ovoid jars from the Pre- and Early Dynastic tombs (Budka 2010b, 60). There was obviously a clear intention to connect to, and to physically continue, the original inventory for Osiris Djer (Budka 2014). Given the Kushites’ preferences for ‘archaism’ in relief and sculpture, it is no coincidence to find this in pottery datable to Dynasty 25 at Abydos (Budka 2010b, 60 with further literature). I believe that change and continuity are key aspects of the votive activities at Umm el-Qaʽab; the qaabs are nothing other than a continuation of a very specific shape from the Sesostris III complex (Budka 2010a, 58), but with a slightly modified shape, manufactured in Late Period clay fabrics. Red paint splashes on Late Period dishes find their predecessors in Naqada III dishes from the offering place at Cemetery U (see above). Osiris as king and as god forms a unity, and by this specific way of composing votive offerings making a connection between the original inventory and later activities, an everlasting cycle was evoked.

J. BUDKA

90

Fig. 4: Qaab-deposit within O-NNO. Photo: U. Effland.

The ritual framework for Osirian votive vessels The new finds in O-NNO illustrate the fact that, despite the very high number of ceramic votive vessels, the millions of pots at Umm el-Qaʽab were deposited in an organized way during the Late Period. The ritual traces strongly speak against an open ‘pilgrim activity’. This was already indicated by the in situ deposits of qaabs meticulously studied by Ute Effland (U. Effland 2010). Since the pottery deposit O-NNO allows a clear association between qaabs and Late Period bottles, it is now unlikely that any kind of vessel could have been deposited at Umm el-Qaʽab in the 1st millennium BC by an ordinary traveller or an individual pilgrim. We have to assume that priests and other personnel of the temples were responsible, along similar lines to what was always proposed for the earlier periods (especially the New Kingdom). It is clear that a lot of manpower must have been involved in arranging the votive vessels on special occasions (festive dates) embedded in the sacred landscape of Abydos. A parallel may be drawn to a Late Period animal necropolis, where thousands of votive vessels are similarly integrated into a complex structure with a high degree of organization (see Kessler 1989; 2003; Fitzenreiter 2003, 234).

Most importantly, the references in the Late Period to the Pre- and Early Dynastic Period, thus to the original phase of use of the necropolis, have been underestimated. The deposit O-NNO forms an integral part of the sacred landscape shaped during Dynasty 25 in Abydos. Following major landmarks from earlier periods, especially the complex of Seti I with the Osireion, the Kushites also activated the old processional way through the large wadi. The importance of Abydos, and here especially the concept of a sanctuary of Osiris as represented by the Osireion, led to the much-debated form of the underground rooms of the pyramid of Taharqa in Nuri (see Kendall 2008). The row of votive vessels at Umm el-Qaʽab (of which O-NNO is a part) emphasizes in particular the importance of the connection between the Osireion and the Southern Hill. Similar to finds made by Naville, during recent work more clay statues of Osiris were discovered (Pamer and Effland 2015). These statues were buried during the Khoiak rites at Umm el-Qaʽab. This all implies that the pottery vessels were themselves votives, but also markers of important pathways during the Osirian festivals.

UMM EL-QAʽAB AND THE SACRED LANDSCAPE OF ABYDOS

91

The long-lasting tradition of pottery votive offerings at Umm el-Qaʽab, reaching from the Predynastic period until late Roman times with a florescence in the Kushite period, refers to kingship, royal ancestors and the god Osiris. Ute and Andreas Effland have convincingly argued that concepts of the Egyptian Netherworld were projected on to the landscape of Abydos, which in turn became a sacred place (Effland and Effland 2013, 11; A. Effland 2014, 27). The plateau of Umm el-Qaʽab with the earliest burials facing the entrance to the Netherworld was the perfect place to perform rituals aiming to achieve regeneration and resurrection. Umm el-Qaʽab was the centre of this cult activity, which lasted several millennia, resulted in millions of pots and focused on continuity as well as change.

Acknowledgements

Bibliography

zell, and S. Rzepka (eds), 283–97. Lingua Aegyptia – Studia Monographica 16. Hamburg. ———. 2015b. Pot marks on New Kingdom amphorae from the oases. The case of Umm el-Qaab. In Non-textual marking systems in ancient Egypt (and elsewhere), J. Budka, F. Kammerzell, and S. Rzepka (eds), 299–305. Lingua Aegyptia – Studia Monographica 16. Hamburg. David, R. 1981. A guide to religious ritual at Abydos. Warminster. Dreyer, G. 1996. IV. Grabkomplex des Qa’a, 3. Kleinfunde. In G. Dreyer et al., Umm el-Qaab, Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 7./8. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 52: 71‒76. ———. 1998. Umm el-Qaab I. Das prädynastische Königsgrab U-j und seine frühen Schriftzeugnisse. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 86. Mainz. ———. 1999. Abydos, Umm el-Qa‘ab. In Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt, K. Bard (ed.), 109‒14. London. ———. 2007. Friedhof B: Vom König zum Gott – Die Anfänge monumentaler Architektur. In Begegnung mit der Vergangenheit. 100 Jahre in Ägypten. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut 1907-2007, G. Dreyer and D. Polz (eds), 193‒96. Mainz am Rhein. ———. 2012. Nebengräber ohne Ende. Der Grabkomplex des Djer in Abydos. Sokar 24: 6‒11. Eaton, K. 2007. Memorial temples in the sacred landscape of Nineteenth Dynasty Abydos: An overview of processional routes and equipment. In The archaeology and art of ancient Egypt: Essays in honor of David B. O’Connor, Z. A. Hawass and J. Richards (eds), Vol. I, 231‒50. Cairo.

Adams, M. D. 1999. Abydos, North. In Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt, K. Bard (ed.), 97‒100. London. Amélineau, É. 1899. Le tombeau d’Osiris. Monographie de la découverte faite en 1897–1898. Paris. Aston, D. A. 1996. A group of Twenty-Fifth Dynasty pots from Abydos. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 52: 1‒10. Budka, J. 2006. Deponierungen von Balsamierungsmaterial im spätzeitlichen Theben (Ägypten). Befund, Kontext und Versuch einer Deutung. In Archäologie und Ritual. Auf der Suche nach der rituellen Handlung in den antiken Kulturen Ägyptens und Griechenlands, J. Mylonopoulos and H. Roeder (eds), 85‒103. Vienna. ———. 2010a. V. Die Keramik des Osiriskults: Erste Beobachtungen zu Formen, Datierung und Funktion. In U. Effland, J. Budka, and A. Effland, Studien zum Osiriskult in Umm el-Qaab/Abydos – Ein Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 66: 42‒58. ———. 2010b. The use of pottery in funerary contexts during the Libyan and Late Period: A view from Thebes and Abydos. In Egypt in transition. Social and religious development of Egypt in the first millenium BCE, L. Bareš, F. Coppens, and K. Smoláriková (eds), 22–72. Prague. ———. 2014. Votivgaben für Osiris. Sokar 29: 56‒65. ———. 2015a. Marks on Egyptian festival pottery. The use of pot marks in the context of Osirian rituals at Umm el-Qaab, Abydos. In Non-textual marking systems in ancient Egypt (and elsewhere), J. Budka, F. Kammer-

The investigation of the ceramic material from Umm el-Qaʽab was undertaken under the auspices of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (DAI) Research Cluster 4 in the context of the project ‘The Cult of Osiris in Abydos’ initiated in 2006. First of all, I wish to thank Ute Effland as the project director. I am especially grateful to Andreas Effland for constant support, and an inspiring exchange of thoughts and comments on this paper. Further thanks are due to all involved in studying the deposit O-NNO, especially to Günter Dreyer, Ulrich Hartung, Leon Ziemer, Ines Klenner, Nicole Mosiniak, Julia D. Preisigke and the local specialists and workmen from Quft.

92

J. BUDKA

Effland, A. 2014. Abydos. Von der Frühzeit bis zur Zeitenwende. Archäologie in Ägypten, Magazin des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 2: 22–27. Effland, U. 2010. III. Funde und Befunde. In U. Effland, J. Budka, and A. Effland, Studien zum Osiriskult in Umm el-Qaab/Abydos – Ein Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 66: 24–30. ———. 2013. Das Grab des Gottes Osiris in Umm el-Qaab/ Abydos. In Forschungscluster 4. Sanktuar und Ritual – Heilige Plätze im archäologischen Befund. Menschen – Kulturen – Traditionen, I. Gerlach and D. Raue (eds), 321‒30. Studien aus den Forschungsclustern des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 10. Berlin. Effland, U., J. Budka, and A. Effland. 2010. Studien zum Osiriskult in Umm el-Qaab/Abydos – Ein Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 66: 19‒91. Effland, U., and A. Effland. 2010. ‘Ritual Landscape’ und ‘Sacred Space’ – Überlegungen zu Kultausrichtung und Prozessionsachsen in Abydos. MOSAIKjournal 1: 127‒58. ———. 2013. Abydos. Tor zur ägyptischen Unterwelt. Darmstadt; Mainz. Fitzenreiter, M. 2003. Die ägyptischen Tierkulte und die Religionsgeschichtsschreibung. In Tierkulte im pharaonischen Ägypten und im Kulturvergleich, M. Fitzenreiter (ed.), 229‒63. Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie IV. Berlin. Hartung, U. 2007. Der prädynastische Friedhof U: Nilpferdjäger und erste Bürokraten. In Begegnung mit der Vergangenheit. 100 Jahre in Ägypten. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut 1907–2007, G. Dreyer and D. Polz (eds), 187‒92. Mainz am Rhein. Harvey, S. P. 1998. The cults of king Ahmose at Abydos. University of Pennsylvania, unpublished PhD thesis. Kemp, B. J. 1989. Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a civilization. London; New York. Kendall, T. 2008. Why did Taharqa build his tomb at Nuri? In Between the cataracts: Proceedings of the 11th Conference for Nubian Studies, Warsaw University, 27 August–2 September 2006. Part One: Main papers, W. Godlewski and A. Łajtar (eds), 117‒47. Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean, Supplement Series 2 (1). Warsaw.

Kessler, D. 1989. Die heiligen Tiere und der König, Teil I: Beiträge zu Organisation, Kult und Theologie der spätzeitlichen Tierfriedhöfe. Ägypten und Altes Testament 16. Wiesbaden. ———. 2003. Tierische Missverständnisse: Grundsätzliches zu Fragen des Tierkultes. In Tierkulte im pharaonischen Ägypten und im Kulturvergleich, M. Fitzenreiter (ed.), 33‒67. Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie IV. Berlin. Morenz, L. 2004. Bild-Buchstaben und symbolische Zeichen. Die Herausbildung der Schrift in der hohen Kultur Altägyptens. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 205. Freiburg; Göttingen. Müller, V. 2006a. III. Deponierungen südöstlich des Grabes des Dewen. In G. Dreyer et al., Umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 16./17./18. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 62: 73‒92. ———. 2006b. Archäologische Relikte kultischer Aktivitäten in Umm el-Qa‘ab/Abydos. In Archäologie und Ritual. Auf der Suche nach der rituellen Handlung in den antiken Kulturen Ägyptens und Griechenlands, J. Mylonopoulos and H. Roeder (eds), 37‒52. Vienna. Naville, E. 1914. The cemeteries of Abydos I. Egypt Exploration Fund 33. London. O’Connor, D. 2009. Abydos. Egypt’s first pharaohs and the cult of Osiris. Cairo. Pamer, I., and U. Effland. 2015. Aus dem Reich der Toten auferstanden. Die Restaurierung von fünf fragmentierten polychromen Osirisfiguren. Restauro 6: 14‒23. Petrie, W. M. F. 1901. The royal tombs of the earliest dynasties II. Egypt Exploration Fund 21. London. Pumpenmeier, F. 1998. Heqareschu-Hügel. In G. Dreyer et al., Umm el-Qaab, Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 9./10. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 54: 123‒37. Schröder, S. 2010. Millionenjahrhaus. Zur Konzeption des Raumes der Ewigkeit im konstellativen Königtum in Sprache, Architektur und Theologie. Wiesbaden. Wengrow, D. 2006. The archaeology of early Egypt, social transformations in North East-Africa, 10,000 to 2650 BC. Cambridge.

LAYING THE ANCESTORS TO REST: DEFINING POSSIBLE CEMETERY PLACEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM TOWN OF WAH-SUT AT SOUTH ABYDOS Kevin M. CAHAIL

Abstract

The site of Abydos holds a unique position within the evolution of ancient Egyptian funerary culture. As the location of the earliest Egyptian royal tombs,

Abydos was eventually identified as the burial place of the divine ruler of the underworld himself: Osiris. Flowing from this important divine connection, both kings and commoners alike strove to link their own funerary cults with those of their ancestral rulers and gods at the site of Abydos. The royal monuments of Abydos are fairly well documented, but these structures describe only a part of the overarching cultural significance of the site. In order to access the full picture, one must also include non-royal monuments and practices.2 How did private individuals perceive the landscape of Abydos, and how did they interact with it? Where did they place their tombs, and what might they have looked like? What factors (geographic, religious, etc.) may have affected tomb placement at South Abydos? Scholars have been working at Abydos since the 19th century, and the results of their endeavours have begun to answer some of these questions. However, one area of the site which has received comparably little attention up until the past few decades is the late Middle Kingdom (Senwosret III–end of Dynasty 13) (Bourriau 1991, 9–10; McCormack 2008, 10; Cahail 2014a, 2–4) settlement of Wah-sut at South Abydos.3 This large, orthogonally designed settlement represents a major cultural focal point at Abydos during the late Middle Kingdom. Identifying and studying the funerary practices of the people who lived in this town has the potential to expand our knowledge of late Middle Kingdom cultural attitudes toward death and burial. The main aim of the following paper will be to identify the problems and questions relevant to our understanding of the funerary practices carried out by this town’s

1

3

The site of South Abydos was a bustling hub of activity during the late Middle Kingdom. Housing the mortuary complex of Senwosret III, two tombs probably belonging to the mid-Thirteenth Dynasty kings Neferhotep I and Sobekhotep IV, and the necropolis of the so-called Abydos Dynasty, South Abydos represents an important nexus of Royal activity during the period. Yet a number of questions still remain. How did non-royal citizens interact with the royal monuments at South Abydos? How and where did these people bury their dead? How did the non-royal citizens of South Abydos memorialize their loved-ones after they were gone? As part of ongoing excavations at South Abydos, we have begun to examine these and other questions. Working under the hypothesis that not all the inhabitants of Wah-sut buried their dead at North Abydos, recent fieldwork and study have uncovered indications of funerary and domestic cult practices of the late Middle Kingdom within the town of Wah-sut and its hinterland. Since late Middle Kingdom tombs are still unknown in the area directly around Wah-sut, this paper seeks to explore what evidence exists to corroborate the existence of late Middle Kingdom burials at South Abydos, and where they might be located. Introduction1

2

I would like to extend my thanks to Ilona Regulski, and all those involved, for organizing the Abydos colloquium, and for inviting me to participate in what was a very interesting and constructive conference. For the purposes of this paper, the term royal refers only to the pharaoh, and not the entire family of the pharaoh. Non-royal individuals were those who did not hold the office of pharaoh.

At Abydos, the Nile River flows in a direction 55 degrees west of north. This means that ‘local’ or ‘river’ directions are not the same as compass directions. South Abydos is due south of the Osiris Temple in local or river directions, but is actually east-southeast of the temple on the compass. In this paper we will use compass directions, unless otherwise stated.

K. M. CAHAIL

94

citizenry. Specifically, we will explore cemetery placement at a handful of roughly contemporary town sites, and compare these data to the layout of Wah-sut, combining this approach with an analysis of the results of past and present archaeological work at South Abydos, in order to hypothesize potential cemetery sites. Wah-sut at South Abydos Between the late Predynastic period and the late Middle Kingdom, South Abydos seems to have been virtually ignored by the local population, and no significant monuments or remains dating to this period have yet come to light. Consequently, the Dynasty 12 pharaoh Khakaure Senwosret III perhaps saw South Abydos as a locus of untapped potential. Desiring to create an extensive funerary complex, Senwosret III was forced to move away from the crowded core of Abydos in order to obtain the space he required to actualize his vision. Throughout the Middle Kingdom, the area around the Osiris temple had become encumbered with mahat chapels and tombs (Simpson 1974; O’Connor 1985a, 161–77). As a result, Senwosret III’s builders chose an outcropping of the high desert roughly 2km southeast of the Osiris temple as the focus of his funerary establishment. Senwosret III’s funerary complex consists of a mortuary temple near the cultivation, paired with a subterranean tomb which burrows into the high desert below a natural pyramid shape formed by the gebel (Fig. 1). In order to support these buildings in perpetuity, the pharaoh’s design included an orthogonally arranged town, situated about 300m to the east-southeast of his mortuary temple. Senwosret III’s new settlement was named in his honour: WꜢḥ-sw.t-ḫꜢ-kꜢ.wRꜥ-mꜢꜥ-ḫrw-m-Ꜣbḏ.w, ‘Enduring are the places of Khakaure, True of Voice, in Abydos’ (Wegner 1998; 2001; 2010), henceforth Wah-sut. Royal interest in South Abydos did not cease at the end of Dynasty 12. Recent excavations have highlighted the distinct probability that two large tombs, called S9 and S10, situated just north of the Senwosret III tomb enclosure belong to the pharaohs Neferhotep I and Sobekhotep IV of Dynasty 13 (Wegner and

4

Currelly called these Mansions I–III, while Wegner has reassigned them the letters K–M.

Cahail 2015). Indeed, construction at the site continued during the Second Intermediate Period, when the pharaohs of the Abydos Dynasty (Ryholt 1997, 191, 202–03, 264–65, 304, 310, 392; Wegner 2015) placed their modest, mud-brick tombs in the same area as S9 and S10. Finally, at the dawn of Dynasty 18, pharaoh Ahmose I created a mortuary complex modelled on that of Senwosret III just to the southeast (Harvey 1998). South Abydos is defined by its royal funerary monuments, yet in contrast to these static stone royal funerary edifices, the town of Wah-sut represents a nexus of non-royal life. Living in the shadows of these royal institutions, the citizens of Wah-sut have, until recently, remained largely under-represented in modern Egyptology. The remains of Wah-sut straddle the edge of the modern cultivation (Fig. 2). The modern town of South el-Arabah el-Madfuna partly overlays the ancient town, and hence Wah-sut’s full size is currently unknown (Wegner 2001, 287; Cahail 2014a, 175–79). The southwest corner of the town is defined by a palatial mayoral residence (Building A, pr-ḥꜢ.tj-ꜥ) and its associated administrative gatehouse just to the south (ꜥrr.wt). Directly to the east of this building is a block of four identically laid out houses (Buildings B, D, E and F). The existence of similar blocks of four houses each to the north, northeast and east has also been confirmed by excavation, though the bulk of these structures lies beneath modern buildings. During his 1902 field season at Abydos, Charles Currelly excavated two houses which shared a common wall, with a street to the east, and a portion of another house to the west. Since all the houses thus far examined in Wah-sut consist of four-unit blocks, we can assume that the walls at the west and east of Currelly’s exposure represent the beginnings of other blocks of houses.4 These domestic structures, which he called ‘mansions’, lie roughly midway between the Senwosret III mortuary temple and the New Kingdom Ahmose funerary complex. Based upon pottery and artifact analysis, he dated the houses to Dynasty 18, and dubbed the area the ‘Ahmose Town’ (Ayrton, Currelly and Weigall 1904, 37–38 and pl. LIII). However, based upon their location directly in line with the rest of

LAYING THE ANCESTORS TO REST

95

Fig. 1: Sketch map of Abydos showing the location of the Senwosret III cult complex at South Abydos. Topography of the high desert cliffs is shown with downward pointing wedges. Map by K. Cahail.

Wah-sut, and the fact that their internal architecture and orientations match those of Buildings B and E, Josef Wegner has convincingly identified these buildings as belonging to the Middle Kingdom town of Wah-sut (Wegner 2001, 304–05).5 Consequently, the excavated portions of Wah-sut measure approximately 285m in a roughly east–west axis.

5

6

The Dynasty 18 pottery and objects demonstrate that the town was inhabited at that time, despite the buildings themselves dating to the late Middle Kingdom. In Moeller’s estimation, Lahun and Wah-sut served different purposes, and are therefore not comparable. However, her conclusions are based upon the assumption that Wah-sut was only built to serve the funerary cult of Senwosret III. Given its longevity and importance in the area, this does not seem to be

Spatially and functionally, Wah-sut is comparable to the slightly earlier town of Lahun, itself contributing to the functioning of Senwosret II’s funerary complex (contra Moeller 2016, 296).6 Wah-sut and Lahun are both state-founded, orthogonally arranged towns of the Middle Kingdom (Wegner 2007, 25, fig. 10). They both consist of regular blocks of houses whose ground

the case. Therefore, we believe Lahun and Wah-sut are eminently comparable in both scale and purpose, and though they both supported the funerary establishments of the two kings, they also served other purposes. In other words, neither Lahun nor Wah-sut should be seen only as part of the funerary establishment, or only as an independent town. There was significant overlap in the functioning of both towns, and hence they are comparable.

96

K. M. CAHAIL

Fig. 2: Plan of the excavated portions of Wah-sut. After Wegner, 2001, fig. 2.

plans follow internally consistent layouts (Quirke 2005, 43). Following his excavation in the late 19th century, Petrie believed Lahun had a square footprint, with an area of 105,000m2. More recently, based upon satellite images and other evidence, Nadine Moeller has argued that the entire settlement of Lahun had a slightly smaller rectangular footprint, covering an area of 95,000m2 (Moeller 2016, 273–76). The larger section of Lahun, perhaps to be identified as Hetep-Senwosret, contained the higher-status housing, and measured roughly 290m by 246m, or 71,340m2 (Quirke 1990, 158, 178 fn. 10; Luft 1998, 1–41; Horváth 2009, 171– 203).7 Since the only houses thus far excavated at

7

The Western addition may, therefore, correspond to SekhemSenwosret.

Wah-sut are of the larger, high-status type, it seems prudent to compare this portion of Lahun with Wah-sut, and theorize that Wah-sut may have a similar rectangular footprint, extending to the north under the modern cultivation. Interestingly, magnetic survey undertaken in 2002 in the modern fields to the north of Wah-sut recorded a 4m- to 5m-wide anomaly, running parallel to the width of the town, some 230m north of the back of the Mayor’s house (Wegner 2007, 293 and fig. 133). Though the meaning of this anomaly must remain speculative for now, it is interesting to note that a comparable anomaly along the back wall of the town was found to be a pottery dump. If the anomaly outside the

LAYING THE ANCESTORS TO REST

north wall of Wah-sut also represents such a feature, then the town would have originally measured roughly 285m wide by 230m deep, or 65,550m2 in area (Wegner 2001, 287; Cahail 2014a, 175–79).8 Based upon this circumstantial evidence, Wah-sut was of virtually the same size as the core portion of Lahun (Hetep-Senwosret), excluding the so-called Western addition (Sekhem-Senwosret).9 Following information in the Petrie Papyri, and the original square layout of Lahun, Kemp reconstructed a rough population figure for the town at about 3,000 people (Kemp 1993, 153–58).10 Though it is not clear which part of the town it references, the document in question (Petrie Papyrus I.3–I.6) records that eight people were living in one house, that belonging to a man named Hori, at two different dates. The area of a medium-sized house in Lahun is from 135m2 to 168m2, or an average of 151m2 (Quirke 2005, 75–76). Assuming eight individuals lived in a house of this size yields a population density of 0.05 persons per square metre.11 Multiplying this density by the area of Lahun occupied by lower-status housing (c. 25,000m2 in the Western addition, and c. 23,650m2 in the core town) yields a population of about 2,400 persons, to which must be added those individuals living in the higherstatus areas of the town.12 According to Wegner’s calculations, the percentage of high- and low-status dwellings within Wah-sut was probably the same as at Lahun, at about fifty/fifty (Wegner 2001, 287).13 Assuming the total area of Wah-sut was around 65,550m2, the portion occupied by lower-status housing would have been close to 32,700m2. Multiplying this figure by the Lahun population density of the same-status housing (0.05 persons per m2), yields a population figure for this part of

8

9

10

11

Both Wegner and the present author originally arrived at a larger figure, by comparison to Petrie’s square layout of Lahun. By these measurements, Wah-sut is only 5,790m2 smaller than Hetep-Senwosret. Kemp seems to favour the lower number of about 3,000 people, which he arrived at through examination of the Petrie Papyri, thus casting some doubt on the value of his estimate of 10,000 persons, which he arrived at through grain silo size estimation. This population density figure is corroborated by multiplying Kemp’s assumed 440 houses by 8 residents (= 3,520 persons), divided by the area of the portion of Lahun containing only small and middle-sized houses (69,000m2), yielding a population density of 0.05 persons per square metre. In other words, the population density figure is exactly the same when

97

Wah-sut of roughly 1,600 people. As with Lahun, these figures do not take into account the individuals living within the high-status housing, but it seems possible to propose a population of about 1,500 to 2,000 inhabitants in Wah-sut at any given time during the late Middle Kingdom. Having arrived at a theoretical population size for Wah-sut, the next question is the longevity of the town’s habitation. Material culture discovered by Charles Currelly within the three ‘mansions’ he discovered led him to date the settlement to Dynasty 18 (Ayrton, Currelly and Weigall 1904, 37), and since only one room had signs of a secondary floor surface, he concluded that the town was inhabited only during a single phase. However, he states that the secondary floor surface was an impressive 20 inches (more than half a metre) above the original surface. Such a large amount of material argues for the room being reoccupied at a much later time. In places, the town’s architecture is not preserved much higher than this level, leading to the conclusion that much of the New Kingdom strata have simply eroded away, leaving their artefacts deflated into the Middle Kingdom architectural layers. Finding no other signs of reuse in the lowest strata of the town, Currelly concluded that there was only a short occupation phase which coincided with the construction of Ahmose’s cult complex (Ayrton, Currelly and Weigall 1904, 37). This conclusion has led some scholars to theorize the existence of a secondary ‘Ahmose Town’ (Harvey 1998, 110–20). Based upon the longevity of Wah-sut, however, coupled with the fact that Currelly’s ‘mansions’ belong to Wah-sut, it is clear that there was no secondary ‘Ahmose Town’. Instead, the town of Wah-sut was inhabited by people

12

13

calculated using the assumed size of the entire town, as it is when calculated within only one house. These figures do not take into consideration the area along the southern wall of Lahun, which is currently below modern cultivation. Moeller (2016, 276) theorized that this location may have contained another row of high-status housing. Multiplying the overall area of Lahun (95,000m2) by the population density of 0.05 yields 4,750 persons. The higher-status houses, however, take up much more area with lower population density, thus skewing the overall figures. Wegner adds a caveat that these conclusions are based upon the assumption that the two towns served the same purposes, which does indeed seem to be the case.

98

K. M. CAHAIL

who served the funerary cult of the founder of Dynasty 18. Indeed, during the course of Josef Wegner’s more recent investigation of Wah-sut, chronologically diagnostic objects belonging to the period from Dynasty 12 through at least Dynasty 18 have been uncovered, leading him to conclude that Wah-sut’s artifact assemblage actually argues for a period of long-term use (Wegner 2001, 306; Justl 2016). Textual references bolster the argument for a long lifespan of the town, given that the toponym Wah-sut appears in a handful of documents postdating Dynasty 12. Chronologically, the first of these references appears in pBrooklyn 35.1446 (Hayes 1955). Internal dating of this document assigns it to the years 10 to 31 of Amenemhat III. Already by this time, the name of the Abydene town appears in its shortened form as simply Wah-sut, omitting its basiliphoric element. The text itself lists individuals who had been caught attempting to avoid state corvée labour. Two entries in the list give the name of the same individual: ‘Intefankh’s son Khnumnakht, (belonging to) the Scribe of the Fields of the Sacred Orchard of Wah-sut’ (Hayes 1955, 20–21, 26–27, pl. III recto 28, pl. V recto 62).14 In both entries, Khnumnakht seems to have fled from agricultural work in the fields of Wah-sut, under the supervision of the Scribe of the Fields. Slightly later in time is another reference to Wah-sut from the Ramesseum Onomasticon, dated to Dynasty 13 (Gardiner 1947, 12–13, pl. II and IIA line 211). The portion of the document in question lists a selection of fortresses and towns of Upper Egypt. As with pBrooklyn 13.1446, the author of the list arranged the sites from south to north, following river directions, and WꜢḥ-sw.t 𐅁ḫꜢ-kꜢ.w-Rꜥ 𐅀 mꜢꜥ-ḫrw appears between the ‘Shena of Amenemhat, Justified’,15 and the town of Abydos itself. Its position on the list indicates that the as-yet undiscovered production-area of Amenemhat should lie to the southeast of Wah-sut, with the town of Abydos to the northwest near the Osiris complex.

By Dynasty 18, the name of Wah-sut appeared in a scene of tax collection on the walls of the Theban tomb of Rekhmire, again shortened by omission of its basiliphoric element (Wegner 2007, 26–32; Fig. 3). As with the Ramesseum Onomasticon, the town names in the Rekhmire scene are arranged geographically from south to north, with Wah-sut appearing in between Abydos to the north, and the ḥw.t-wr.t-𐅁jmn-m-ḥꜢ.t𐅀 to the south (Wegner 2007, 31 fn 80).16 Since other parts of the decoration in the tomb of Rekhmire draw heavily on Middle Kingdom sources, it is possible that this reference to Wah-sut is an unreliable dating criterion (Wegner 2007, 31–32; Cahail 2014a, 340). Yet, given that the final textual reference to Wah-sut discussed below comes from Dynasty 22, coupled with diagnostic Dynasty 18 pottery and objects from inside the town, it would appear likely that the Rekhmire reference does indeed prove that the town was active and thriving during Dynasty 18.17 Assuming that Rekhmire’s reference is reliable, then Wah-sut was seen as its own establishment on a par with the main town of Abydos and other royal establishments in the area during the New Kingdom, supporting a significant population. Finally, and perhaps most importantly to the discussion of the longevity of Wah-sut, is the Dynasty 22 Abydene donation stela of the Great Chief Sheshonq for his father Nimlot (Cairo JdE 66285) (Ritner 2009, 166–72). The text refers to “50 auroras of field that are in the high district south of Abydos, known as” WꜢḥ-ny.t-sw.t (Ritner 2009, 169).18 Ritner translated the toponym WꜢḥ-sw.t as “Enduring of Kingship”, but the similarity of the place name to the earlier name Wah-sut at South Abydos cannot be a coincidence. This text is strong evidence that the area occupied by the Middle Kingdom town of Wah-sut retained not only a continuity of use and habitation, but also of name, well into Dynasty 22. By the reign of Sheshonq I, the town of Wah-sut may have been reduced to a small farming community, having lost the importance it held

14

16

15

The second attestation in recto 62 does not include the compound wꜥb-ḫt, ‘sacred orchard’. For this compound, see: Andreu and Cauville 1977, 7; Meeks 1977, entry 0864. Gardiner transcribed this line as bꜢ(?) 𐅁jmn-m-ḥꜢ.t𐅀, which yields little sense. Hayes transcribed the same toponym appearing twice in pBrooklyn 35.1446 recto as ẖn.w(?) 𐅁jmn-m-ḥꜢ.t𐅀. The sign is not a bird, but rather the plough sign (Gardiner U13), giving the translation ‘The Production-area of 𐅁Amenemhat𐅀.’ For a full discussion of these texts and the potential location of this establishment, see Cahail 2014a, 77–81.

17

18

This toponym may be an undiscovered mortuary temple of Amenemhat III, southeast of Wah-sut, connected with the Shena of Amenemhat mentioned in the Ramesseum Onomasticon and pBrooklyn 35.1446. The existence of the New Kingdom Temple Cemetery also highlights the distinct probability that the cemetery served the Dynasty 18 and 19 population living within Wah-sut (Cahail 2014a, 349). As Ritner outlines, the donor is the future Sheshonq I.

LAYING THE ANCESTORS TO REST

99

Fig. 3: Tax collection scene from the tomb of Rekhmire, showing the name of Wah-sut at the left. After Wegner 2001, fig. 13.

in previous ages, but regardless of its size, the Libyan stela demonstrates that the settlement ‘Enduring are the Places of Khakaure’ still existed in one form or another some 900 years after its original foundation by Senwosret III.19 The great longevity of Wah-sut now poses a significant problem to archaeology—namely, where are all the tombs associated with the population of this vibrant city? Even if the population waned from its late Middle Kingdom height of 2,000, the unavoidable conclusion of the line of reasoning argued above is that a significant number of tombs should exist in the area around Wah-sut, dating from the late Middle Kingdom and later. If they do exist, where might they be located? Late Middle Kingdom funerary archaeology at South Abydos In analysing the problem of late Middle Kingdom tombs associated with Wah-sut, two options present themselves: first, that the citizens of Wah-sut all buried their dead at North Abydos, and therefore no tombs exist near the town; or second, that tombs do exist in the area of South Abydos, which remain undiscovered. Given the importance of North Abydos, it is inconceivable to think that none of the residents

19

This continuity of name again corroborates the idea that, even if Ahmose used the town to house the workforce needed to build and maintain his mortuary complex, its name of Wah-sut was retained. As such, the notion of there being a separate ‘Ahmose Town’ is incorrect. Ahmose simply reinvigorated the

of Wah-sut were buried there, but this does not mean that all of the town’s inhabitants chose to create tombs at North Abydos. A handful of non-royal sepulchres dating to the New Kingdom are well known at South Abydos, so at least during that period, North Abydos was not the only local burial ground, begging the question of where the Middle Kingdom tombs might be. Attempts to correlate named seal impressions and other documents found within Wah-sut with named funerary monuments from North Abydos have yielded only one possible connection – that of Khuinutef (Cahail 2014b, 36–37). In this case, the stela from North Abydos seems to have belonged to a mahat, rather than a functioning tomb chapel, so on the one hand it shows active interest in funerary commemoration at North Abydos, but on the other hand it says little about tomb construction in the area. Hence, the working hypothesis is that tombs belonging to some inhabitants of Wah-sut certainly did exist at North Abydos, but such a severe lack of information leads to the possibility that an unknown proportion of these people may have been buried closer to the town. The first step our project took in answering this question was to collect the artifactual material recovered during previous seasons in the area near Wah-sut

town which was still in existence, and which outlived even his monuments. By the reign of Sheshonq I, the architecture of the Middle Kingdom town was no longer inhabited, but wherever the settlement was, it was still referred to with the town’s original name.

100

K. M. CAHAIL

in order to ascertain if enough funerary material existed to corroborate Middle Kingdom burials situated at South Abydos or not. Penn Museum excavations have uncovered a range of objects which fit well into the material culture of late Middle Kingdom funerary practice, but much of this material seems to belong to a complex practice of domestic funerary cult, practised within the homes of Wah-sut’s residents (Cahail 2014a, 237–89). Excluding these objects from our analysis leaves a small handful of significant fragments, which we will discuss below. Though these objects are not de facto proof for the existence of a cemetery, they do lend credence to the theory that at least a modest burial ground should exist in the area. Middle Kingdom funerary objects found at South Abydos The small group of funerary objects which may or may not have derived from tombs of the Middle Kingdom belong to seven categories: limestone stelae, limestone offering tables, faience hippopotamus figures, ivory apotropaia, nude female figures, mirrors and makeup vessels, and objects possibly associated with courttype burials (Grajetzki 2003, 54–61). We shall examine fragments from these categories in order below. Commemorative stelae were required elements of a tomb, which allowed the name of the deceased buried below to live forever. Fragments of late Middle Kingdom stelae derive from excavations at South Abydos; however, the majority of these monuments were actually found within the town of Wah-sut, and almost certainly belong to the practice of domestic funerary cult (Cahail 2014a, 237–89). In at least two cases, stela fragments from the Senwosret III temple date to the New Kingdom (SA.2991 and SA.3993), and therefore derive from the adjacent Temple Cemetery. However, one Middle Kingdom stela fragment and one contemporary offering table fragment were found just south of the Senwosret III mortuary temple, and owing to their great distance from the town, cannot easily be interpreted as belonging to domestic cult. The small fragment of a limestone stela, SA.1034 (Fig. 4), follows the layout of similar late Middle Kingdom stelae.20 There are two registers of kneeling

20

For instance, Simpson 1974, ANOC 1.6; 15.2; 17.1, et al.

Fig. 4: Stela fragment SA.1034 from South Abydos. After Wegner 2001, fig. 130.

individuals facing left, who rest their right arms across their chests, and their left arms on their raised knees. One of the two preserved figures in the lower register retains the epigraph ‘So[b]ek, son of Betj’ (Wegner 2007, 283). No filiation statement is preserved to link Sobek to the owner of the stela, who was probably pictured at the left. Given that only one late Middle Kingdom stela fragment has been recovered from outside of Wah-sut, two possibilities may explain its origin. The first is that non-royal stelae may have been set up inside or near the Senwosret III mortuary temple (Wegner 2007, 283). Like the mortuary chapels at North Abydos, the donors of these stelae may have wanted to partake in the festivals and offerings dedicated to the Osirized Senwosret III within his cult building. The second possibility is that stelae were originally set up in tomb chapels associated with a late Middle Kingdom cemetery, situated in the desert directly to the south of the Senwosret III mortuary temple, and to the west of Wah-sut (Wegner 2007, 283–85). Limestone offering tables are often found linked with commemorative stelae. A fragment of an inscribed limestone table of late Middle Kingdom date (SA.7487; Fig. 5) was found in the area to the east of the Senwosret III mortuary temple, and therefore may have had a tomb origin (Wegner 2007, 283–85). This table preserves the names and titles of a handful of individuals. The back edge of the monument has the beginning of a standard ḥtp-dj-nsw offering formula, reading from right to left, which invokes the god Osiris. Extending

LAYING THE ANCESTORS TO REST

101

downward from this text at the table’s right hand edge is the dedicatory portion of the formula, showing that it was meant ‘for the ka of Itsenu, born of ...’ (Ranke 1935, 51.4).21 Two further inscriptions seem to have been added later in the depressed space of the offering table on either side of the Hes vase. The text on the left seems to read ‘[/// born] of Ity; her son Hotep, born of ...’, with the feminine pronoun probably referring to Ity. Finally on the right is the name of ‘The Interior Overseer Sehetepib, b[orn of ...]’ (Ward 1982, 14–15 title 72; Quirke 2004). Most of these names are common in the late Middle Kingdom, making identification with other monuments extremely difficult. The decoration of this table is oriented in such a way that the objects face the back edge, while the text faces the front. This layout was presumably done so that the deceased, probably depicted on a stela behind the table, could view the offerings the right way up. The texts naming the deceased recipients were written in such a way that the living visitors making the offerings to the deceased could read them. A table now in Cairo (CG 23081, ANOC 20.3) has the same orientation.

Additionally, a Middle Kingdom offering table now in Turin (Turin 22024) also displays the same textual layout, with the offering spell beginning in the upper right corner of the table and running along its top, resumed on the right side with the phrase n kꜢ followed by the name of the deceased (Habachi 1977, 29). Though not decisive, both of these comparanda help corroborate the Middle Kingdom date of the South Abydos table fragment. Moving away from these stone funerary monuments, Penn excavations have also uncovered a handful of small objects which may also derive from tomb contexts. Pieces of two faience hippopotamus figures have been discovered near the town of Wah-sut, and though figurines of this type do not de facto confirm the existence of a cemetery, objects of this kind do appear in funerary contexts (Miniaci 2017, 119–21). The first, SA.15087, was badly damaged but appears to represent the head and upper back of a standing hippo figure (Fig. 6). Two motifs are still visible in its surface decoration: an open water lily and a circle with seven dots surrounding it. Both of these patterns also appear on a standing faience hippopotamus figure now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (MMA 17.9.1, more commonly known as ‘William’) (Hayes 1953, 226–27, fig. 142) from the Middle Kingdom tomb of Senbi at Meir. They also appear on a seated hippopotamus of the early Middle Kingdom from Abydos now in the G. Oritz collection (Friedman 1998, 148 and 238, cat. #143). The second of the two animal figures from Wah-sut (SA.30121) is more fragmentary than the first. This piece was discovered in the western half of the ꜥrr.wt directly to the south of the Mayor’s house (Building A). This figure is also of the standing type, but its legs, head and upper back are all missing (Fig. 7). Only one decorative motif still remains on the animal’s right rear flank. The image is shaped like a four-pointed star within a circle. An identical image also appears on the right rear flank of the G. Oritz hippopotamus mentioned above, and there is a New Kingdom ostracon with the same image which Wilkinson understands as a lotus seed pod (Wilkinson 1992, 60, fig. 3).22

21

22

Fig. 5: Fragment of an offering table from the Senwosret III mortuary temple area. After original drawing by Jennifer Wegner.

Ranke transcribed the name as ỉtf-śn(.j?). It is fairly rare, occurring on three Abydene stelae in Cairo (CG 20085, 20555, and 20602), and on Berlin 1188 (ANOC 8.2).

This is the same position in which a lily-pad appears on other examples.

102

K. M. CAHAIL

Fig. 6: Faience hippopotamus figure. After original drawing by Stardust Atkeson.

Fig. 7: Fragment of a faience hippopotamus from South Abydos. After original drawing by Stardust Atkeson.

LAYING THE ANCESTORS TO REST

103

More than sixty of these hippopotamus statuettes are known to exist, about half of which are currently in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Hayes 1953, 226; Hornung and Staehelin 1976, 127–28). As William Hayes indicates, ‘the thirty-three examples in the Metropolitan Museum are, for the most part, from well-dated burials of the Eleventh and Twelfth Dynasties at Thebes, Meir, and el Lisht’ (Hayes 1953, 226). Though Florence Friedman theorized that the statues may have been ‘enjoyed as household objects before assuming a funerary function’ (Friedman 1998, 238), the majority of excavated examples derive from tomb, rather than domestic, contexts. Miniaci has recently discussed the issue of archaeological context in reference to these figures, and while conceding that most were indeed found in or near tombs, he reiterates that their association with domestic contexts cannot be overlooked (Miniaci 2017, 119–21). As essentially surface finds, the faience hippopotami from South Abydos are equally well suited to either domestic, or possible funerary contexts. The precise meaning of these figures is still shrouded in uncertainty. The hippopotamus represents both Taweret, a positive apotropaic goddess (Weingarten 1991, 4–6), as well as the chaotic strength of Seth (te Velde 1967). Scholars tend to highlight one or the other of these aspects in discussing hippopotamus figures, yet none of the faience statuettes yet discovered bear any markings unequivocally linking them with either theoretical meaning. More recently, Miniaci linked them with birth magic in both living and funerary realms, and made the important observation that they do not appear in court-type burials (Grajetzki 2014, 17–93), thus illustrating a difference in funerary ideology among contemporary tombs (Miniaci 2017, 129–30). Their connection to birth magic also suits their domestic contexts equally as well as their funerary ones, since transitioning into the afterlife was seen as a rebirth akin to human births.23 The same interplay between birth magic and funerary ritual has been discussed in reference to the so-called apotropaia. Consequently, a fragmentary

apotropaion discovered in two widely separated South Abydene contexts may represent related apotropaic ideology of a funerary nature (Fig. 8).24 The top portion of an apotropaion came to light in the surface layers of the Senwosret III mortuary temple. The lower fragment, which joins perfectly with the upper, was discovered in the upper strata of the Mayor’s house in Wah-sut. Since the two locations are separated by almost 375m, and both pieces derived from loci near the surface, it is possible that they both originally belonged to a single burial lying somewhere between the two find-spots, and robbery brought the fragments to the surface (Arnold 1992, 69–70; Quirke 2016).25 SA.394a-b bears a single depiction of a horned animal resting upon a hatched area with two lines projecting from its back. A similar bovine entity appears on at least eight other apotropaia (Berlin 6710; Mus. Royaux E.293; Mus. Royaux E.7664; Cairo 9439; UCL ODU 36/8 [Petrie 1927, 36.8]; UCL 16382; Ashmolean E3953; and Philadelphia UMP E 2914). The figure on

23

25

24

The meaning of these objects is beyond the scope of the present discussion, but the existence of these tomb goods at South Abydos does, at the very least, point to tombs in the area of Wah-sut. The majority of these implements were fabricated from hippopotamus ivory, deriving from the curved lower teeth of the animal. By their very material, they connect to hippopotami.

Fig. 8: Fragments of an ivory apotropaion from South Abydos. After original drawing by Jennifer Wegner.

Thus far the vast majority of excavated examples, especially those from Lisht now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, were associated with tomb contexts, but were often found in the shaft fill material.

104

K. M. CAHAIL

the Berlin, UCL 16382, and Ashmolean examples has plain horns like the South Abydos apotropaion. On the two Mus. Royaux, Cairo, and UCL ODU 36/8 pieces, a sun-disc exists between the cow’s horns, and the Philadelphia example seems unique in having a doubleplume crown between the horns. All attestations of the entity include a flail extending from the animal’s back. The vignettes to Book of the Dead Spell 17 have images similar to this creature. In the papyrus of Ani, an identical image of a cow resting upon a shrine, wrapped in a garment and wearing a sun-disc and menat-collar, bears the caption mḥy.t-wr.t jr.t Rꜥ ‘The Great Flood, Eye of Re’ (Faulkner 1994, pl. 8). The Great Flood, Mehet-weret, is a reference to the ocean of creation, who by the New Kingdom had been reinterpreted as a manifestation of Hathor, the Eye of Re, wearing the menat-collar (Piankoff 1955, 28; Aldred 1971, 45). According to the Pyramid Texts, Mehet-weret was the celestial waters from which Re was born, identified with both Nut and Hathor (Altenmüller 1965, 82, 171). The bovine personification of these celestial waters, as the birthplace and medium of the sun-god’s creation, is in perfect accord with the concept that the apotropaia invoked entities who protected the sun-god at his birth to protect human babies, as well as the deceased upon their rebirth into the afterlife (Altenmüller 1965, 82, 171). The wands, therefore, had a very important role within tomb assemblages, and the majority of excavated examples derive from tomb burials. However, given the discovery of a decorated birth brick within the Mayor’s house, it is also possible that this apotropaion may derive from a deposit of birth-related equipment from within Wah-sut (Wegner 2009, 480–85). On the other hand, Quirke’s recently published interpretation of the image on the apotropaion from Wah-sut connections this goddess concretely with Abydos. While the wrapped cow motive appears later as Mehet-weret, the two partial hieroglyphs in front of the cow on the Wah-sut example can be read ḥs[Ꜣt] (Quirke 2016, 396). A similar name appears as part of an Abydene funerary offering spell on a stela now in Copenhagen (Aad 13, ANOC 2.4, Simpson 1974, Pl. 7). Here the text reads ḥsꜢ.t ḥr.j(t)-jb Ꜣbḏ.w “Hesat, the one who is within Abydos.” Additionally, even though Simpson and Grajetzki date the ANOC 2 group to Dynasty 12, reign of Amenemhat II, numerous elements of the Copenhagen stela militate against this date, including the style of the human figures, and the use of a mr sign with two cross-braces. This minor

orthographic point places the stela within the Thirteenth Dynasty, since similar hieroglyph forms appear on Thirteenth Dynasty black-ground sarcophagi, as well as Thirteenth Dynasty and Second Intermediate Period stelae (Marée 2016, pl. 77, stela X). Both the stela and the apotropaion are almost certainly products of the Late Middle Kingdom, and while the apotropaion may have had a function in living birth rituals, the mention of this goddess on the stela has funerary connotations. Another item from South Abydos with possible funerary connections is a fragmentary limestone nude female figure, which was discovered near the south wall of the Senwosret III mortuary temple (SA.7453; Fig. 9). Figures of this type have been called variously ‘female figures’ (Hayes 1978, 220–21), ‘concubine figures’ (Ritner 1997, 225), and ‘fecundity’ (Friedman 1998, 104, 206) and ‘fertility figures’ (Pinch 2006, 125–27). Recently, Ellen Morris has demonstrated quite convincingly that a connection exists among female figures in stone, wood and faience, with troupes of khener dancers (Morris 2011). These dance troupes are especially connected with the cult of Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II, but she also concluded that: These figurines are more frequently found in graves and houses at sites with royal mortuary temples or temples closely identified with the cult of the dead king (Lisht, Kahun, Hawara, Heliopolis, Abydos, Abusir = forty four dolls) than at sites without such structures (Kubban, Deir el-Bersha, el-Matarya, and Esna = six dolls total). (Morris 2011, 102)

Since these figures have been discovered within domestic, as well as royal funerary cult, buildings it is difficult to state unequivocally that the South Abydos example originally derived from a tomb context. Though, since it appeared almost 400m away from the town, a funerary origin of the object remains viable. A small number of other items which could easily have been part of tomb assemblages also come from disturbed contexts at South Abydos. A bone mirror handle (SA.13929, Fig. 10) from Wah-sut is of the same lotus-stalk form as two which John Garstang discovered in Tombs E.1 and E.259 of his Middle Kingdom Cemetery E at North Abydos (Garstang 1901, 44–45, pl. XIV). Though mirrors were a staple of burial goods, especially at North Abydos, they were also used by the living. The same can be said for a corpus of stone vessels from the area around Wah-sut. Kohl-jars and flaring beakers predominate within the group, both

LAYING THE ANCESTORS TO REST

Fig. 9: Limestone ‘concubine’ figure from South Abydos. After original drawing by Jennifer Wegner.

Fig. 10: Bone mirror handle from Wah-sut. After original drawing by Stardust Atkeson.

105

106

K. M. CAHAIL

of which are well documented in Middle Kingdom tomb contexts.26 A stone cosmetic grinder from Wahsut (SA.11355) was similarly an item required in life as well as death. Given that death was an extension of life, it is impossible to assign objects of daily life convincingly to either a living or funerary context. A smattering of other objects were perhaps less useful to the living, and more suitable to solely funerary contexts. A conical stone flail-bead (SA.3585) similar to those discovered at Lahun may indicate the presence of court-type burials in the area, which include objects meant to help in the ‘Osirification’ of the deceased (Mace and Winlock 1916, pl. XXX; Grajetzki 2014, 17–93). Perhaps corroborating this conclusion, a stone mace-head was also recovered (SA.3033) from within the town (Mace and Winlock 1916, pl. XXXII.B). Though these two objects are hardly enough to conclude definitively that court-type burials exist at the site,27 they do demonstrate the possibility that northern burial styles began appearing in the south with the creation of a royal mortuary complex at South Abydos. Though some of these objects could derive from domestic contexts within Wah-sut, they all potentially belong to late Middle Kingdom non-royal burial assemblages. The faience hippopotamus figures and the apotropaion fragment are the strongest evidence of tombs at South Abydos, since objects of these types predominate in tomb assemblages of the late Middle Kingdom. Based upon this probability, the project moved forward with some preliminary excavations in an attempt to refine our understanding of non-royal funerary archaeology at South Abydos.

To date, we have conducted preliminary surface survey and cursory excavation in a number of areas around South Abydos. In 2012–13 we investigated a small area directly to the south of Wah-sut’s enclosure wall, and sampled the Western Ridge area to the west of the

Senwosret III tomb. Later that year we also opened units in the desert south of Wah-sut, which provided no finds, as well as operations at the foot of the gebel. Concurrently, we carried out full-scale excavations in the New Kingdom Temple Cemetery, lying between Wah-sut and the Senwosret III mortuary temple. The results of these excavations have been illuminating. While a late Middle Kingdom cemetery still remains elusive, we have positively identified cemetery sites both at the base of the gebel, and also likely in the Western Ridge (Fig. 11, Area D). Additionally, we have discovered that the Temple Cemetery, originally thought from magnetometric survey to be a Middle Kingdom cemetery, in actuality dates to the period between early Dynasty 18 and early Dynasty 19. Excavations in the desert directly behind Wah-sut (see Fig. 11, Area A) began in the winter of 2012–13. We opened a 5m by 20m excavation unit, extending perpendicularly from the south wall of Wah-sut up to the base of the embankment of a modern desert field. The defining feature of this unit was the discovery of a late Middle Kingdom pottery dump, lying parallel to the town’s east–west enclosure wall. Diagnostic late Dynasty 12 pottery forms prevailed, including hemispherical cups, and large water jug fragments (Wegner 2007, 231–52). Near the bottom of this pottery dump we found the smashed remains of a purple quartzite seated statue of a late Middle Kingdom official. This statue may have derived from a tomb, but given its purposeful destruction within Dynasty 12, a domestic cult origin is much more likely. No other significant funerary objects were recovered, but the area has potential for future study. The winter 2013–14 season saw a focus on the base of the gebel (see Fig. 11, Area C). We began investigating inconspicuous, low piles of rocks, which turned out to be the remains of tumulus graves (Fig. 12). All the tumuli we investigated that season had evidence of very minor ancient looting. Despite our discovery of virtually undisturbed articulated human remains, including those of children, no objects or pottery were

26

27

Recent archaeological work

Twelve of the seventeen vessel fragments from South Abydos belong to these two types. The corpus consists of SA.14205; SA.12222; SA.4017; SA.11355; SA.11441; SA.3595; SA.11503; SA.11601; SA.11934; SA.11499; SA.3008; SA.3561; SA.3593; SA.2701; SA.2813; SA.3596; and SA.3581.

There also exists a handful of stone model axe-heads which seem to have no other purpose than models of tools and implements meant for a tomb context; however, identical objects have been recovered from Qasr el-Sagha (Śliwa 1992, 191 Abb. 11).

LAYING THE ANCESTORS TO REST

Fig. 11: Overview of the Senwosret III mortuary complex at South Abydos, with possible cemetery locations highlighted.

107

108

K. M. CAHAIL

discovered associated with the burials.28 Lacking artefactual material, the date of these structures is currently problematic. One distinct possibility, given the architectural form of these tombs, is that they represent Nubian burials of either the late Middle Kingdom or New Kingdom. These tombs possibly belong to a local Medjay culture group, whose pottery is attested archaeologically within the town of Wah-sut.29 If this is the case, then some of these tombs may be contemporary with the late Middle Kingdom population at Wah-sut. Yet, they would represent a small minority group, and would not be representative of the main Egyptian population of the town. Further work on these tumuli will hopefully elucidate their date, and the way in which they fit into the story of South Abydos. On the opposite side of the Senwosret III tomb enclosure is an area dubbed the Western Ridge (Area D). Following magnetometric remote sensing, targeted excavation was undertaken on one anomaly. The structure we discovered was a modest mud-brick tomb of a similar style to those in the New Kingdom Temple Cemetery (Tomb CS15). Though the structure was entirely empty,30 a series of stamps with the throne name of Ahmose I impressed into the mud over the door blocking fix the date of the tomb in early Dynasty 18 (Fig. 13). It is hoped that further work in the area will confirm the existence of an early Dynasty 18 cemetery in this area. In summary, despite success in expanding our knowledge of non-royal funerary archaeology at South Abydos, these excavations have not yet uncovered tombs which can be dated unequivocally to the late Middle Kingdom. Hence we are still faced with the question of whether or not tombs may exist in the area. Looking outward from Abydos, we will examine tomb placement at a handful of contemporary settlement sites, before concluding with a brief discussion of possibilities for future excavation at South Abydos.

28

29

30

The best preserved of these bodies appears to have had its head removed, possibly by tomb robbers attempting to steal jewellery. No animal skins or reed matting were observed inside the graves, though small scraps of linen were recovered near the bodies. It is equally possible that they represent Nubian graves of the New Kingdom akin to those at the site of Amara West (Spencer 2002, 5–6, pl. 6). The tomb is almost certainly that which Weigall excavated during his brief time at South Abydos, though he failed to mention

Tomb placement at contemporary Middle Kingdom town sites In the realm of Egyptian archaeology, well-preserved town sites are something of a rarity. Owing in part to the proximity in which towns and cities were placed to the cultivation, many ancient metropolises have been lost beneath modern fields and cities. However, Middle Kingdom archaeology does possess a handful of preserved settlements. In the following sections, we will compare cemetery placement at a selection of these sites, in order to create a background against which to evaluate the town of Wah-sut. Lahun Arguably one of the more famous town sites in Egyptian archaeology, the site of Lahun (or Kahun)31 was excavated by Petrie and his team beginning in 1889 (Petrie 1890; Horváth 2009, 171). Though a portion of the site lies beneath the modern cultivation, the bulk of its structures were well preserved and accessible to the excavators. Petrie’s work focused on the Middle Kingdom town and its surrounding cemeteries (Petrie 1890; Petrie 1891; Brunton 1920; Petrie, Brunton and Murray 1923). Numerous important finds hail from the area, including the Kahun Papyrus Archive (Griffith 1898; Luft 2006), but perhaps more importantly, the town gave modern scholarship a glimpse into daily life during Dynasty 12. Since Lahun is a well-preserved Middle Kingdom town on a similar scale to Wah-sut, cemetery placement at Lahun is of great interest (Fig. 14). While Petrie was working in the town, Guy Brunton excavated around 150 tombs dating from the Old Kingdom to the Late Period in the surrounding area (Petrie, Brunton and Murray 1923, pls XLVIII–XLVIIIa). Middle Kingdom tombs clustered in three main areas— Cemetery 900, the Central Rock-Cut Tombs (Petrie, Brunton and Murray 1923, 24),32 and the Western

31

32

the brick stamps upon the door blocking (Ayrton, Currelly and Weigall 1904, 16). Weigall called this tomb S16, but it has been renamed CS15, following the nomenclature of the nearby Abydos Dynasty tombs. Petrie called the town Kahun, though this seems to have been a misunderstanding of the modern town name. The ancient town is called Lahun in the present work. Sadly the Central Rock-Cut Tombs were all utterly destroyed by groundwater before the excavators arrived at the site.

LAYING THE ANCESTORS TO REST

Fig. 12: Two views of South Abydos Tumulus 11. The rock ring around the central burial indicates the original size of the tumulus, which was removed during excavation. In the centre is the single burial, which in this case was that of a child. The lower portion of the body was articulated in situ, but the upper portion of the body was missing. Over the head was a large rock. Many of these tumuli incorporated stones such as this. No artefacts were recovered from this burial. Photo by K. Cahail.

Fig. 13: Small mud-brick tomb (CS15) discovered in the Western Ridge Cemetery. Four cartouche-shaped brick stamps on the door provide the throne name of Ahmose I, dating the tomb to very early Dynasty 18. Photo by K. Cahail.

109

110

K. M. CAHAIL

Fig. 14: Sketch map of Lahun. After Petrie, Brunton and Murray 1923, pl. II.

Ridge Cemetery (Petrie, Brunton and Murray 1923).33 In addition, the small natural hill which Brunton called ‘the Dome’ contained a number of Middle Kingdom tomb shafts, one chamber of which was discovered intact. In all cases, these cemetery sites lie to the west of the town, in accordance with religious ideology. The cemeteries at Lahun all lie out in the desert, away from the town. They are located in areas of favourable geology which facilitated the cutting of tomb shafts. Additionally, the cemetery areas insinuate themselves into the royal complex. This is clearest with the Central Rock Tombs, which straddle the notional axis between the pyramid and valley temple. In all cases, however, these tombs are due west of the town, indicating that there are three considerations at play:

33

Brunton’s excavations also included the cemetery of Bashkatib, containing tombs from Dynasties 1 to 3.

geology, western location, and connection with the royal funerary establishment. Qasr el-Sagha Just to the north of the Birket Qarun, in the Fayum region of Egypt, are two small state-planned settlements which date to Dynasty 12 (Senwosret II to Senwosret III) (Śliwa 1986, 167–79; Śliwa 1992, 177– 91; Moeller 2016, 262). The eastern and western settlements lie on opposing sides of a shallow wadi, with a temple situated on an outcropping to the north (Fig. 15). Within the better-preserved western settlement, excavators found a state-planned town of thirty identical blocks of houses, each consisting of five

LAYING THE ANCESTORS TO REST

111

Fig. 15: Schematic plan of Qasr el-Sagha showing the cemetery situated due west of the western, main settlement. After Śliwa 1986.

long, barrack-style rooms, with an open courtyard at the front, set transverse to the axes of the barracks. Streets ran between these blocks of houses, and a large enclosure wall defined the limits of the settlement. The total area of the western settlement was about one hectare (113m by 81m). The site’s excavator, Joachim Śliwa, theorized that eight people could sleep comfortably in each barrack room, totalling forty people per house, and giving a total settlement population of about 1,200. However, using standardized population density, Moeller places the number at 450 to 600 people (Moeller 2016,

265–67). Though there was little evidence for longterm habitation of the site, at least two occupation phases, dating to Dynasties 12 and 13 respectively, were observed. Existing as it did out in the desert, the western settlement at Qasr el-Sagha also must have had a local cemetery to house the dead. Indeed, such a cemetery was found directly outside the walls of the settlement, some 150m directly to the west. Though heavily looted, the tombs were of a rockcut style. Seemingly, the location of tombs at Qasr elSagha was chosen based upon two criteria: first, the cemetery was to the west of the settlement in

112

K. M. CAHAIL

accordance with religious ideology;34 and second, the stone in the higher ground to the west of the settlement was suitable for the cutting of tombs. Though the specifics of who was buried in these sepulchres, and what their burial assemblages were like, are lost to us, the location of the tombs in the high ground to the west of the western and eastern settlements is instructive. Buhen The last two sites we will examine are both fortress towns. Like Lahun or Wah-sut, fortresses were laid out by the state, and usually followed an orthogonal design. The site of Buhen was situated on the west bank of the Nile within the area known as the Second Cataract. The area was first explored for the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology by David Randall-MacIver and Charles Woolley in 1909 and 1910 (Randall-MacIver and Woolley 1911). After a hiatus, the Egypt Exploration Society took up renewed excavations at the site under the direction of Walter Emery, who published his memoir in 1979 (Emery, Smith and Millard 1979). In 1964 the site was lost to the advancing waters of Lake Nasser. Randall-MacIver and Woolley cleared three cemetery areas at Buhen, which they designated with the letters H, J and K. Of these, Cemetery K (late Middle Kingdom into Second Intermediate Period), which was situated between the inner fort and outer enclosure wall (Fig. 16), is of the greatest interest to the present discussion (Randall-MacIver and Woolley 1911, 185–216). Cemetery placement within the fortification is somewhat unorthodox, but it is reasonable to assume that this site was chosen because it was due west from the town (by both compass and local directions). Secondarily, it affords the tombs some protection from possible vandalism at the hands of the local population. This was especially important, since many of the tombs were used as family vaults, requiring continual reopening. These tombs must have been highly visible on the

34

35

This is not to say that all cemeteries were located to the west of settlements, since at Beni Hasan they are to the east. The locations of cemeteries at contemporary Middle Kingdom settlements merely shows that numerous factors were at play in choosing the best site. In his study on scarab typology, David O’Connor pointed out that Cemetery K at Buhen, which the excavators originally

surface, and easily entered, making them very attractive to would-be tomb robbers. In discussing cemetery placement at Buhen, RandallMacIver and Woolley foreshadow the Wah-sut tomb problem at South Abydos most succinctly: The XIIth Dynasty graves were situated in a quite unexpected part of the site. We had been prepared to find them somewhere on the plateau near the New Empire cemeteries or else further back in the western hills. But, when all this space had been explored without result, it seemed as though the burials of the Middle Empire colonists must have been wholly obliterated by their successors, who reoccupied the site and who erected new buildings upon the ruins of the earlier houses and temples. This theory, however, proved to be unfounded, for on digging between the inner city and the New Empire fortifications we found several rows of graves hewn in the rock-edge of the plateau just outside the western girdle-wall of the older settlement. (Randall-MacIver and Woolley 1911, 185)

The very low rock-edge into which the Cemetery K tombs were dug necessitated a long sloping approach in order to achieve enough depth for a tomb structure. Geologically speaking, the site was less than ideal, leading to the conclusion that the safety of the location was a greater factor than stone quality to the population of Buhen during Dynasty 13.35 As time progressed into the New Kingdom, however, tombs were placed outside the outer enclosure wall (Cemeteries J and H). Both of these later cemeteries targeted higher bedrock, allowing for the construction of both shaft (Cemetery H) and rock-cut (Cemetery J) type tombs. In contrast to the Middle Kingdom, it seems that favourable geology was a more significant factor in cemetery placement during the New Kingdom at Buhen. Mirgissa In contrast to Buhen, cemetery placement at another fortress, Mirgissa, appears to have favoured geological or geographic features over safety. The fortress of

thought dated to late Dynasty 12, in actuality dates to early Dynasty 13 and later (O’Connor 1985b, 14–15). With no burials of the earlier period, it seems probable that the military garrisons of Dynasty 12 were rotating, with no need of a permanent cemetery to serve the community.

LAYING THE ANCESTORS TO REST

113

Fig. 16: Cemetery placement at Buhen. After Randall-MacIver and Woolley 1911, Plan G.

Mirgissa stood on the west bank of the Nile at the Second Cataract in Nubia some 15km south of Buhen (Baines and Málek 1980, 178, 186). Like the other cataract forts, Mirgissa was composed of an inner fortified town, surrounded by an exterior wall (Fig. 17) (Vercoutter 1970). Jean Vercoutter excavated the fort and town of Mirgissa during the 1960s (Vercoutter 1970; 1975; 1976). Of the three large cemeteries he uncovered, that designated Mx-Tc is datable to a period from the terminal phase of Dynasty 12, into Dynasty 13 (Vercoutter 1976, 272).

36

Despite both types existing at the site, the simple pit-type tomb predominates.

Cemetery Mx-Tc was situated in a low desert wadi to the northwest of the fort by compass directions, or directly west by river directions (see Fig. 17). Unlike at Buhen, the residents of Mirgissa founded their burial ground in a location well outside the fortification walls. The group comprises 119 tombs, consisting of simple rectangular pits, as well as shaft- and chamber-type tombs.36 Unlike Buhen, most of these tombs were constructed for only one interment, and while they may have had commemorative features on the surface, they would have been more difficult to rob. On the whole,

114

K. M. CAHAIL

Fig. 17: Plan of Mirgissa. The fort itself lies on the east bank of the river, to the southeast of cemetery Mx-Tc. After Vercoutter 1975, 10, fig. 1.

burial goods included in these tombs consisted of humble pottery, vessels and beads. Bodies were placed in rectangular wooden coffins, most of which had totally disintegrated by the time of excavation. Cartonnage mummy masks also adorned many individuals, which often extended down the body (Vercoutter 1976; Rigault-Déon 2012). Unlike the people of Buhen, the residents of Mirgissa seem to have valued religious ideology and geological suitability above the safety of their cemetery location. Like the royal cemetery of Umm el-Qa‘ab at Abydos, situated just outside the mouth of a large desert wadi, the Mx-Tc cemetery at Mirgissa was located due west of the fortress, in the mouth of just such a wadi.

Summary In all the cases cited above, cemeteries were located vis-à-vis their associated settlement, in accordance with three main factors. Religious ideology dictated that the burial grounds ought to be to the west of the town. From the point of view of the living, the west was the entrance to the underworld. The second factor which seems to have had the largest impact on cemetery location is geology. At Lahun, Qasr el-Sagha and Mirgissa, rock tombs were carved into easily-accessed bedrock limestone. Finally, at Buhen, protection of the tombs within the fortress’s exterior wall superseded the desire to locate tombs in suitable geology, leading to an altered form of rock tomb which was entered via a ramp or stairway, as opposed to a deep shaft. Even at Buhen, however, the late Middle Kingdom tombs lie to the west of the town, and were cut into bedrock. With these criteria in mind, we will compare these towns to Wah-sut in the final section below.

LAYING THE ANCESTORS TO REST

Where are the lost Middle Kingdom tombs of South Abydos? One of the key issues involved in identifying funerary architecture is the potential placement of non-royal tombs and related structures within the geography of South Abydos. Unlike the sites discussed above, the low desert at South Abydos is almost totally devoid of visible bedrock.37 The obvious exception to this rule is, of course, the base of the gebel, but despite numerous surveys, no rock-cut tombs have been discovered in the mountain.38 The landscape of North Abydos was similar, and although typical Middle Kingdom rock-cut shaft tombs were difficult to build in sandy tafla (desert clay), they do exist in great numbers near the Osiris complex. Since the geology of North Abydos makes tomb building just as difficult as does that of South Abydos, geology alone does not seem to be a valid reason for preferring North Abydos over South, in terms of tomb placement. Though Wah-sut is a rare domestic site, it is not wholly unique, as the discussion above has highlighted. Of all the towns discussed, however, Lahun is the closest match to Wah-sut in terms of population and size, and has the most diverse cemetery locations. Assuming that at least some of the citizens of Wah-sut chose to be buried near the town as opposed to at North Abydos, the Lahun model is the logical starting point for theorizing cemetery placement at Wah-sut. Placing maps of the two Dynasty 12 royal mortuary complexes side by side reveals the striking similarities between the two sites. The rectangular towns straddle the modern transition between the cultivation and desert edge, meaning that during the Middle Kingdom, the towns would have sat in the dry low desert, close enough to the cultivation to allow easy access to resources and transportation, but removed enough to keep the town safe from the yearly flood. Appended to the towns are the mortuary temples of the pharaohs Senwosret II and Senwosret III, themselves in turn linked notionally with the royal tombs placed out in the desert. As discussed above, Petrie and his team discovered three main

37

38

The gebel spur (Area C) is the largest area of visible bedrock in the low desert, but to date the only tombs identified here are the tumuli discussed above. Being part of a royal mortuary complex, the mountain – identified as the Mountain of Anubis in sphragistic sources – may have been off-limits to non-royal tomb building. There is one

115

non-royal cemetery sites at Lahun: Cemetery 900 lying just outside the town’s enclosure wall; the Central Rock-Cut Tombs, which were placed midway between the mortuary temple and tomb of the pharaoh; and finally the Western Ridge Cemetery, located on an outcropping of the gebel to the north of the king’s pyramid. Overlaying these locations at Lahun onto the geography of Wah-sut points to possible cemetery locations at South Abydos. Two sites at South Abydos correspond particularly well with known tomb placement at Lahun. The first lies directly to the south of Wah-sut, in an area comparable to that of Cemetery 900 at Lahun (Fig. 18, area A). This is an area whose higher surface topography reveals the possibility of higher bedrock beneath the surface sands, increasing the location’s suitability for shaft tomb construction. At Lahun, Cemetery 900 contained seventeen shaft tombs, and the remains of one surface mastaba. Only one of these tombs, L.906, contained a partial stela naming the deceased Khenemes-khered, who bore no titles (Petrie, Brunton and Murray 1923, 31).39 Lying closer to the town than to the royal pyramid, and containing at least one burial of a non-titled young man, it is possible that this burial ground was a lower-status non-royal cemetery serving the town of Lahun, but whose occupants may have had little connection with the court of Senwosret II. Unfortunately, at South Abydos most of this potential cemetery area lies beneath an illegal modern field (Area A), which has delayed attempts to survey or excavate. In the early 1990s, before the levelling and grading of this area, the Egyptian Antiquities Organization opened a series of cursory 1m by 1m excavation units. Though no significant architecture was discovered, disturbed human remains were observed, indicating that further excavation in this area may prove fruitful. Additionally, magnetometric survey undertaken by Tomasz Herbich and Josef Wegner displays a number of anomalous features in the land directly south of Wah-sut, again highlighting this area’s potential as a

39

small grotto which has the hallmarks of a Coptic period monastic cell, and is too small to have been a reused tomb. His mother, who presumably had two names, was a nb.t-pr. No father is listed.

116

K. M. CAHAIL

Fig. 18: Scaled comparison of Wah-sut to Lahun, showing possible cemetery locations at South Abydos. After Cahail 2014a, fig. 9.1.

LAYING THE ANCESTORS TO REST

117

cemetery location. Further and more systematic examination of this location is planned for the near future, both to confirm the existence of a cemetery, and subsequently to date it either to the Middle or New Kingdom.40 Another large group of tombs exists at Lahun directly along the central axis between the king’s proposed valley temple near the town and his pyramid (Cemetery 900). Though groundwater had utterly destroyed these tombs by the time Petrie and his team examined them (Petrie, Brunton and Murray 1923, 24), they may represent a portion of the Senwosret II court cemetery, based upon their position and proximity to the royal monument. Interestingly, a comparable area at South Abydos, near the notional axis between the Senwosret III mortuary temple and tomb, displays anomalous surface features which may indicate subsurface activity (see Fig. 18, area B). As with Area A, this location of South Abydos has a modern desert road cutting directly through it from west to east. Not only has the construction of this road altered the ancient topography, but increased dumping activity along it has further occluded surface features, making surface and subsurface survey virtually impossible.41 Looking back at Lahun, other Middle Kingdom tombs exist both on the Western Ridge (Petrie, Brunton and Murray 1923, 24), and on a small hill southwest of the pyramid (the tomb of Anpy), which may be comparable to areas at South Abydos (see Fig. 18, Areas C and D) (Petrie, Brunton and Murray 1923, 26–27). As discussed above, however, both of these areas have been examined cursorily. Both areas do have tombs, but in neither case do those tombs appear to date convincingly to the Middle Kingdom. In Area C, tumuli of a possible Nubian type may be contemporary, but their dating is confounded by a lack of artifactual or ceramic evidence.42 On the Western Ridge, Tomb CS15’s brick stamps date it securely to Dynasty 18. Finally, if the citizens of Wah-sut desired to keep their tombs close to the town, as at Buhen for instance, then the cemetery may have once existed directly to

The town of Wah-sut existed for a significant period of time. During the late Middle Kingdom (Dynasties 12 and 13), thousands of people lived and died within the mud-brick walls of the town. During the New Kingdom, these inhabitants buried their dead in the desert directly to the south of the town, which by local or river directions is west. With such a large late Middle Kingdom population, coupled with the fact that their New Kingdom counterparts buried their dead locally, the question remains where the Dynasty 12 and 13 inhabitants built their tombs. Scant artifactual evidence points to the distinct possibility that late Middle Kingdom tombs did once exist in the area near Wah-sut. Tomb goods which do not serve an obvious function in domestic settings, such as faience hippo statues, argue for a funerary origin. Offering tables and stelae found well outside town contexts also point to this conclusion. Comparison to other contemporary late Middle Kingdom domestic and cemetery sites has targeted a number of possible cemetery locations at Wah-sut. At sites such as Lahun and Qasr el-Sagha, favourable geology and a location directly to the west of the town seem to have been the primary driving criteria for cemetery placement. At South Abydos, the geology is unfavourable to the creation of deep shaft tombs, which were the norm during the late Middle Kingdom. Despite this setback, numerous late Middle Kingdom tombs at North Abydos overcame the poor subsurface geology by building mud-brick collars around the shaft tombs to hold back surface sand. There is no reason to think

40

42

41

Given that funerary activity took place in both the Temple Cemetery to the west of Wah-sut, as well as the Ahmose Cemetery to the east of the town, the area directly south of the settlement may represent a connection between these two New Kingdom burial grounds. Magnetometry in this area is also hampered by the existence of high-tension power lines, whose magnetic fields interfere with the sensitive instrumentation.

the east or west of the town by compass directions (see Fig. 18, Area E). This area is today below the cultivated fields and modern buildings, but during the late Middle Kingdom, it would have been part of the low desert. Future geophysical survey may reveal features in this area possibly connected with tomb architecture. Conclusion

Carbon 14 testing of the human remains will probably be the only avenue left open. Unfortunately, due to the geology of the area, these human remains are saturated with salt upon excavation, which may or may not affect such testing.

118

K. M. CAHAIL

that the residents of South Abydos could not have employed the same construction techniques in creating local shaft tombs near Wah-sut. Removing favourable geology from the list leaves a western location as the primary driving factor in cemetery placement. As far as we can tell, the desert to the local west of Wah-sut was completely unencumbered during the late Middle Kingdom. The Senwosret III mortuary complex was hundreds of metres to the local northwest, so the land would have been wide open for non-royal funerary exploitation. Since this area is currently below a modern field, with artificial grading and surface obliteration, it will be some time before survey or excavation can take place. Of all the locations at South Abydos for the tombs of the late Middle Kingdom, this is perhaps the most likely, based purely on a location to the local west of the town. Yet, there are other factors which must be considered in this discussion. All the other sites which we have examined above existed, essentially, by themselves. Qasr el-Sagha, Buhen and Mirgissa, while serving as governmental institutions linked in a chain across the country, were single points unto themselves, with no other locally important focus. As a result, cemetery placement at such sites was dictated by no other factors than the practicality of the location (geology and safety), linked with a western location which accorded with religious ideology. Lahun represents a slightly different case. Unlike the other three sites mentioned above, Lahun was a part of a greater royal tomb complex. As a result, in addition to choosing a western location with suitable geology, the non-royal residents of the city seem to have reacted to the existence of this royal establishment by placing their tombs in the area surrounding Senwosret II’s pyramid. In this case, connecting non-royal tombs with the regenerative power of the royal pyramid was the overarching driving goal for Lahun’s population. The pyramid was already due west of the town, making suitable geology the last concern in this case, superseded in most cases by proximity to the royal establishment. The town of Wah-sut was also part of a larger royal funerary establishment. Connecting a non-royal tomb to the royal funerary complex, as at Lahun, would

43

There is no sign of reuse in any of these tombs, and the Ahmose I door stamps belonging to the mud-brick tomb on the Western Ridge serves to date the tomb quite closely. Hence, it is not

probably have been the overarching driving goal of cemetery placement here as well. We have already examined the gebel and Western Ridge near the Senwosret III tomb enclosure, and while tombs do exist, they appear to date to the New Kingdom, and not the late Middle Kingdom.43 This leaves the central area of the desert plain, on the notional axis between the Senwosret III mortuary temple and the entrance to the tomb enclosure. This precise location was also exploited by the residents of Lahun for their central burial ground. Finally, another question must be posed based upon the fact that South Abydos is a unique case. The town of Wah-sut was virtually identical in purpose and layout with Lahun, and both cities existed in the shadow of an important royal funerary establishment. This certainly influenced cemetery placement at Lahun, and probably did at Wah-sut as well. Yet, at Abydos, the Senwosret III mortuary complex itself existed in the shadow of the much larger, and religiously more important, Osiris cult complex at North Abydos. The residents of Wah-sut were therefore faced with a question: which of the two complexes was more important, and therefore more desirable to link one’s non-royal tomb with? While scant funerary remains discovered at South Abydos indicate that at least a few tombs probably exist locally, it may be the case that the vast majority of individuals who lived at Wah-sut chose to place their tombs roughly 3km to the local north of the town, in the late Middle Kingdom burial grounds situated between the temple of Osiris, and his notional burial place or mahat at Umm el-Qa‘ab. In essence, the location of the late Middle Kingdom cemeteries between the temple and tomb of the god mirrors perfectly the location of the main cemeteries of Lahun. Thus it would appear that the information we can glean from Lahun’s cemetery placement holds true for the contemporary site of Abydos. This conclusion opens up new and far deeper-reaching questions about the relative importance of royal versus divine cult locations, especially in this particular case, since the god in question is the ruler of the underworld, Osiris. It is hoped that time, and further excavation at South Abydos, will lead to a better understanding of these problems, and their eventual answers.

likely that any of these tombs were reused Middle Kingdom structures.

LAYING THE ANCESTORS TO REST

Bibliography Aldred, C. 1971. Jewels of the pharaohs. New York. Altenmüller, H. 1965. Die Apotropaia und die Götter mittelägyptens. Unpublished PhD dissertation. LudwigMaximillians-Universität Munich. Andreu, G., and S. Cauville. 1977. Vocabulaire absent du Wörterbuch (I). Revue d’égyptologie 29: 5–13. Arnold, D. 1992. The pyramid complex of Senwosret I. New York. Ayrton, E., C. Currelly and A. Weigall. 1904. Abydos, Vol. III. London. Baines, J., and J. Málek. 1980. Atlas of ancient Egypt. New York. Bourriau, J. 1991. Patterns of change in burial customs during the Middle Kingdom. In Middle Kingdom Studies, S. Quirke (ed.), 3–20. New Malden. Brunton, G. 1920. Lahun, Vol. I, The treasure. British School of Archaeology in Egypt 27. London. Cahail, K. 2014a. In the shadow of Osiris: Non-royal mortuary landscapes at South Abydos during the late Middle and New Kingdoms. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. ———. 2014b. Their Memory Lives On: Domestic Funerary Commemoration at Wah-Sut. Expedition Vol. 56 (1): 36–38. Emery, W. B., H. S. Smith and A. Millard. 1979. The fortress of Buhen: The archaeological report. London. Faulkner, R. O. 1994. The Egyptian Book of the Dead. San Francisco. Friedman, F. 1998. Gifts of the Nile: Ancient Egyptian faience. New York. Gardiner, A. 1947. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica. Oxford. Garstang, J. 1901. El Arabah. London. Grajetzki, W. 2003. Burial customs in ancient Egypt: Life and death for rich and poor. London. ———. 2014. Tomb treasures of the late Middle Kingdom. Philadelphia. Griffith, F. Ll. 1898. Hieratic papyri from Kahun and Gurob. London. Habachi, L. 1977. Tavole d’Offerta Are e Bacili da Libagione n. 22001–22067. Turin. Harvey, S. 1998. The Cults of King Ahmose at Abydos. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Hayes, W. C. 1953. The scepter of Egypt, Vol. I. New York. ———. 1955. A papyrus of the late Middle Kingdom in the Brooklyn Museum. Brooklyn. ———. 1978. The scepter of Egypt, Vol. II. New York. Hornung, E., and E. Staehelin. 1976. Skarabäen und andere Siegelamulette aus Basler Sammlungen. Mainz. Horváth, Z. 2009. Temple(s) and town at El-Lahun: A study of ancient toponyms in the el-Lahun Papyri. In Archaism and innovation: Studies in the culture of Middle

119

Kingdom Egypt, D. Silverman et al. (eds), 171–203. New Haven and Philadelphia. Justl, S. 2016. Special delivery to Wah-sut: An Eighteenth Dynasty ostracon’s inventory of precious materials. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 52: 255–68. Kemp, B. 1993. Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a civilization. London. Luft, U. 1998. The ancient town of El-Lahun. In Lahun Studies, S. Quirke (ed.), 1–41. New Malden. ———. 2006. Urkunden zur Chronologie der späten 12. Dynastie. Vienna. Mace, A., and H. Winlock. 1916. The tomb of Senebtisi at Lisht. New York. McCormack, D. 2008. Dynasty XIII kingship in ancient Egypt. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Meeks, D. 1977. Année Lexicographique I. Paris. Miniaci, G. 2017. The collapse of faience figurine production at the end of the Middle Kingdom: Reading the history of an epoch between postmodernism and grand narrative. Journal of Egyptian History 7 (1): 109–42. Moeller, N. 2016. The archaeology of urbanism in ancient Egypt. Cambridge. Morris, E. 2011. Paddle dolls and performance. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 47: 71–103. O’Connor, D. 1985a. The ‘cenotaphs’ of the Middle Kingdom at Abydos. In Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar 2, P. Posener-Kriéger (ed.), 161–77. Cairo. ———. 1985b. The chronology of scarabs of the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period. Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 14 (1): 1–41. Petrie, W. M. F. 1890. Kahun, Gurob, and Hawara. London. ———. 1891. Illahun, Kahun, and Gurob. London. ———. 1927. Objects of daily use. London. Petrie, W. M. F., G. Brunton and M. Murray. 1923. Lahun, Vol. II. London. Piankoff, A. 1955. The shrines of Tutankhamun. New York. Pinch, G. 2006. Magic in ancient Egypt. London. Quirke, S. 1990. The administration of Egypt in the late Middle Kingdom. New Malden. ———. 2004. Titles and bureaux of Egypt 1850–1700 BC. London. ———. 2005. Lahun: A town in Egypt 1800 BC, and the history of its landscape. London. ———. 2016. Birth tusks: The armoury of health in context—Egypt 1800 BC. Middle Kingdom Studies 3. London. Randall-MacIver, D., and C. L. Woolley. 1911. Buhen, Vols 1 and 2. Philadelphia. Ranke, H. 1935. Die Ägyptischen Personennamen. Glückstadt.

120

K. M. CAHAIL

Rigault-Déon, P. 2012. Masques de momies du Moyen Empire Égyptien: Les découverts de Mirgissa. Paris. Ritner, R. K. 1997. The mechanics of ancient Egyptian magical practice. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilisation 54. 3rd printing. Chicago. ———. 2009. The Libyan anarchy: Inscriptions from Egypt’s Third Intermediate Period. Atlanta. Ryholt, K. 1997. The political situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, c. 1800–1550 BC. Copenhagen. Simpson, W. K. 1974. Terrace of the Great God at Abydos. New Haven and Philadelphia. Śliwa, J. 1986. Die Siedlung des Mittleren Reiches bei Qasr el-Sagha. Grabungsbericht 1983 und 1985. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 42: 167–79. ———. 1992. Die Siedlung des Mittleren Reiches bei Qasr el-Sagha, Grabungsbericht 1987 und 1988. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 48: 177–91. Spencer, P. 2002. Amara West II: The cemetery and the pottery corpus. London. te Velde, H. 1967. Seth: God of confusion. Leiden. Vercoutter, J. 1970. Mirgissa I. Paris. ———. 1975. Mirgissa II. Paris. ———. 1976. Mirgissa III. Paris. Ward, W. 1982. Index of Egyptian administrative and religious titles of the Middle Kingdom. Beirut.

Wegner, J. 1998. Excavations at the town of ‘Enduring-arethe-places-of-Khakaure-Maa-Kheru-in-Abydos’. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 35: 1–44. ———. 2001. The town of Wah-sut at South Abydos: 1999 excavations. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 57: 281–308. ———. 2007. The mortuary temple of Senwosret III at Abydos. New Haven and Philadelphia. ———. 2009. A decorated birth-brick from South Abydos. In Archaism and innovation: Studies in the culture of Middle Kingdom Egypt, D. Silverman, W. K. Simpson and J. Wegner (eds), 447–96. New Haven and Philadelphia. ———. 2010. External connections to the community of Wah-sut during the late Middle Kingdom. In Perspectives on ancient Egypt: Studies in honor of Edward Brovarski, Z. Hawass, P. der Manuelian and R. Hussein (eds), 437–58. Cairo. ———. 2015. A royal necropolis at South Abydos: New light on Egypt’s Second Intermediate Period. Near Eastern Archaeology 78 (2): 68–78. Wegner, J., and K. Cahail. 2015. Royal funerary equipment of a king Sobekhotep at South Abydos: Evidence for the tombs of Sobekhotep IV and Neferhotep I? Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 51: 123–64. Weingarten, J. 1991. The transformation of Egyptian Taweret into the Minoan Genius. Partille. Wilkinson, R. 1992. Reading Egyptian art. New York.

THE mꜥḥꜥ.t -CHAPEL OF NEBHEPETRE AT ABYDOS Ayman M. DAMARANY, Yasser ABDEL-RAZIK and Ashraf OKASH

Abstract Most scholars would probably assume that, since the site of Abydos has been so thoroughly investigated, little remains to be discovered. However, as the find of the mahat-chapel of Nebhepetre shows, the low desert—and perhaps particularly the area now covered by modern settlement—still holds spectacular finds waiting to be discovered. Introduction Abydos (ancient Egyptian Abdju, Coptic Ebot, modern Arabah el-Madfuna) is one of the oldest cities of ancient Egypt. In ancient times, it was the capital city of the 8th nome of Upper Egypt, and today it is one of the most important archaeological sites in the country. The site is located in the low desert west of the Nile, approximately 480km south of Cairo. The nearest modern city is Al-Balyana, about 16km closer to the Nile valley. Abydos is probably best known as the main cult centre of Osiris, the king of the netherworld, and is home to archaeological remains from all periods of ancient Egyptian history. The site is notable for the Early Dynastic royal cemetery of Umm el-Qa‘ab, located at the mouth of the main wadi in Abydos. This cemetery contains the tombs of the first kings of Egypt. With the rise of the Osiris cult at the end of the Old Kingdom, the cemetery, specifically the tomb of Djer, was reinterpreted as Osiris’ burial place. In this capacity, the site became an important pilgrimage destination, and it remained so throughout the rest of the pharaonic period. When visitors arrive at Abydos, the first monument they see is the New Kingdom temple built by king Seti I. The temple is famous for its King List, which names seventy-six kings from Dynasty 1 to Dynasty 19, not including Seti himself. The temple, mainly built as a memorial to the king, was further dedicated to Osiris and Isis along with Ptah, Ptah-Sokar, Nefertem, Re-Horakhty, Amun and Horus. Mariette first excavated it in 1869, followed by Calverley (Mariette 1869–80; Calverley and Broome 1933–58). In more recent years, explorations have mainly focused on

epigraphy (Baines 1984; 1990), the theology and graffiti of the temple (Rutherford 2003; Stadelmann 2015), in addition to smaller archaeological excavations (ElSawy 2003; Abuel-Yazid 2013). A series of mortuary temples and chapels extended from Kom el-Sultan along the flood plain edge to the southeast: many already discovered, but more still hidden beneath the modern houses of the village. During the summer of 2014 a unique opportunity arose for investigation because of illegal excavation within houses in an area midway between the Seti and Ramses II temples, about 1km local south of the temple precinct of Osiris at Kom el-Sultan (Figs 1 and 2). As part of an investigation of attempted looting, the Ministry of Antiquities granted permission for a salvage excavation. Surprisingly, the work revealed well-preserved standing ruins of a limestone cult building of the Dynasty 11 king Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II. This building, identified by its dedication inscription as a royal mahat-chapel, offers important new insights into the landscape and religious rituals of Abydos at the beginning of the Middle Kingdom. Discovery On 23 April 2014, inspectors of Abydos received a hint about an illegal dig taking place inside a house, causing a depression and eventually a hole in front of the house (Fig. 3). The Ministry of Antiquities granted permission for a salvage excavation; hence plans were instituted to explore the area more carefully. A pit of 5 × 3m was dug surrounding the hole (Fig. 4). The pit contained extensive modern material, mostly belonging to house foundations. The presence of a septic tank made the work particularly difficult. After removing 1.5m of (recent) fill, the team discovered the top of ancient walls consisting of limestone blocks. As soon as the structure became clearer, it could be identified as the well-preserved ruins of a limestone cult building of the Dynasty 11 king Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II. Unfortunately, the red bricks of the house foundation and the tank were built immediately on top of the limestone structure.

122

A. M. DAMARANY, Y. ABDEL-RAZIK AND A. OKASH

Fig. 1: Map showing the location of the mahat-chapel in respect to the temples of Seti I and Ramses II. Map by Josef Wegner.

Fig. 2: View of the Seti temple and the location of the village where the chapel was found. Photo: Ayman Damarany.

THE

mꜥḥꜥ.t -CHAPEL OF

NEBHEPETRE AT ABYDOS

123

Fig. 3: The initial depression in the street as a result of illegal digging. Photo: Ayman Damarany.

The floor of the limestone building is located 4.5m below the modern surface. An initial examination of the structure has exposed the inner part of a chamber with a width of 2.6m (or five royal cubits) (Fig. 5). The walls, which were exposed on their outer sides, are 0.5m in thickness (or a royal cubit) and still stand to a maximum height of 2.5m. The inner surface is decorated with scenes and texts in bas-relief. The frontal part and the outer surface of the walls of the chamber

Fig. 4: View of the depression leading to the chapel before the start of the excavation. Photo: Ayman Damarany.

Fig. 5: View inside the chapel. Photo: Ayman Damarany.

124

A. M. DAMARANY, Y. ABDEL-RAZIK AND A. OKASH

are still buried beneath modern houses, as it was technically not (yet) possible to excavate below 2.6m. It is hoped that an expansion of the excavation may reveal the full structure. Both of the lateral walls (the local north and south) are partially cleared but in poor condition because they were partly incorporated into the septic tank. Conservators were closely involved in the excavation, cleaning and preserving the scenes and texts as the archaeological work went on. Decoration The walls are decorated in bas-relief. Few remains indicate that the scenes were coloured, but any surviving paint would have suffered from the recent reuse of the chapel. The decoration on each wall consisted originally of two horizontal registers, one above the other. The lower register is 2m high and depicts royal and divine figures measuring 1m in height. Although the upper register is mostly destroyed, the partially preserved north wall shows that figures in the upper register were similarly proportioned to those in the lower register. Therefore, the overall height of the chamber would have been approximately 4m. The wall scenes depict Nebhepetre in the company of a series of deities including, most prominently, Osiris. The lower register on the south wall (east according to magnetic north)1 has an offering scene showing the living king Nebhepetre standing with the white crown on his head, holding a necklace and a baton consecrating the offering presented to the deified king as the god Osiris (Figs 6–7). In front of the living king is his name: Nb-ḥp.t-Rꜥ The king holds the wr.t-baton ‘the great’ in front of his face. On top of the three rows of offerings, we read: ḥtp.wt ḏfꜢ.w, ‘offerings provisions’ The upper and middle rows of the offering are mostly occupied by slaughtered oxen. The label reads: rnn ỉwꜢ, ‘ox’ The two registers on the north wall (west according to magnetic north) are equally significant. The upper

1

It is an archaeological convention within the Abydos region to indicate directions according to the local (southeast to northwest) course of the Nile.

register shows (the feet of) Osiris facing outwards while the rest of the scene is hidden. The lower register is missing its right side, which is buried beneath the debris. The exposed part represents two goddesses who are labelled Neshmet and Menit (Figs 8–9). Here we see goddesses who personify ritual equipment used in the divine barque processions of Abydos. The related text is composed of several columns. The (likely) first one from the right includes the end of a speech of another god or goddess:

[…]k […] ꜥnḫ ḏt, ‘[…] you […] live forever’ The text associated with Neshmet consists of four columns; the last one is longer and extended behind the goddess:

(1) ḏd mdw ỉn Nšmt (2) dỉ.n(=ỉ) n=k ꜥnḫ wꜢs nb śnb (3) […] nb Ꜣwt-ỉb nb śmꜢ.n(=ỉ) n=k (4) [… dšrt] ḥḏ.t n ỉt=k […]-Rꜥ ḫꜥ.t ś.t Ḥr n […] ‘Words spoken by Neshmet: It is to you that I have given all life and dominion, all health, all happiness. It is for you that I have united the […Red Crown and?] the White Crown (?) of your father […]-Re, (you) having risen upon the throne of Horus ...’ Behind Neshmet stands Menit, the goddess of the mooring post, and above her:

(1) ḏd mdw ỉn Mnỉ.t dỉ.n(=ỉ) n (2) =k ꜥnḫ wꜢs nb śnb (3) nb Ꜣwt-ỉb nb ḫꜥ.t ś.t (4) Ḥr ꜥnḫ mỉ Rꜥ ḏ.t. ‘Words spoken by Menit(-Weret?): It is to you that I have given all life and dominion, all health, all happiness, (you) having arisen (upon) the throne of Horus the Living, like Re, forever.’

THE

mꜥḥꜥ.t -CHAPEL OF

NEBHEPETRE AT ABYDOS

Fig. 6: Decorated block depicting Nebhepetre holding a baton while presenting offerings to Osiris. Photo: Ayman Damarany. Drawing by Kevin Cahail and Jennifer Wegner.

Fig. 7: View of the south wall after excavation. Photo: Ayman Damarany.

125

126

A. M. DAMARANY, Y. ABDEL-RAZIK AND A. OKASH

Fig. 8: The north wall with Neshmet standing to the right and Menit, the mooring post, on the left. Photo: Ayman Damarany.

The width of the inner (west) wall (south according to magnetic north) was completely revealed. Its lower register contains the best-preserved scenes exposed so far (Figs 10–12). It shows on the left side Nebhepetre, and behind him a standing female figure holding a was sceptre. Her name is damaged, but she could be a goddess, or the king’s mother or queen. The text in relation to the pharaoh reads (see Fig. 10): Nsw.t bỉt.y nṯr nfr nb tꜢ.wy 𐅁Nb-ḥp.t-Rꜥ𐅀 mr.y nb Ꜣbḏw dỉ ꜥnḫ mỉ Rꜥ ḏ.t ‘The king of Upper and Lower Egypt, good god, lord of the two lands, Nebhepetre, beloved of the Lord of Abydos given life like Ra forever.’

Nebhepetre faces a male figure representing three deities; behind him are the remains of a vertical column: [...] ỉr mrr.t dỉ ꜥnḫ mỉ Rꜥ ḏ.t ‘... that he may live like Ra forever.’ Above the deity a series of texts introducing speeches of Osiris, Khentiamentiu and Wepwawet is visible:

(1) ḏd mdw ỉn Wsỉr (2) ḏd mdw ỉn Ḫnt.j-Ἰmn.tjw (3) ḏd mdw ỉn WpwꜢwt ‘(1) words spoken by Osiris, (2) words spoken by Khentiamentiu, (3) words spoken by (3) Wepwawet’

THE

mꜥḥꜥ.t -CHAPEL OF

NEBHEPETRE AT ABYDOS

Fig. 9: Drawing of the north wall depicting Neshmet on the right and Menit, the mooring post, on the left. Drawing by Kevin Cahail and Jennifer Wegner.

127

128

A. M. DAMARANY, Y. ABDEL-RAZIK AND A. OKASH

Fig. 10: Detail of Nebhepetre on the west wall. Photo: Ayman Damarany.

Fig. 11: The west wall: Nebhepetre standing on left facing the dedication text, which discusses the construction of the mahat-chapel and a canal for water processions. Photo: Ayman Damarany.

THE

mꜥḥꜥ.t -CHAPEL OF

NEBHEPETRE AT ABYDOS

129

Fig. 12: The west wall with the building dedication text. Drawing by Kevin Cahail and Jennifer Wegner.

Notably, Osiris and Khentiamentiu are listed as separate entities, rather than in the combined form OsirisKhentiamentiu, which becomes typical from Dynasty 11 onwards (Damarany et al. 2015). Most importantly, between Nebhepetre and the male deity is the building’s dedication text in four columns (see Figs 11–12):

(1) Nsw.t bỉ.ty sꜢ Rꜥ 𐅁Mnṯw-ḥtp𐅀 ỉr.n=f m mn.w=f n Wsỉr- Ḫnt.j-Ἰmn.tjw WpwꜢwt n (2) nṯr.w ỉmy.w Ꜣbḏw

ỉr.n n=śn mꜥḥꜥ.t m ỉnr-ḥḏ ỉsṯ gm n ḥm=f m (3) wꜢ.t. ỉr.n ḥm.f mỉn mꜢ.wj dỉ ḥm.f ỉr(j) n=śn mr r ỉr.t ẖn.t ỉm.f (4) ỉr.n ḥm.f mrwt wnn rn.f ḥr smn rwḏ n ḏ.t ‘The King of Upper and Lower Egypt, son of Re, Mentuhotep. It was for Osiris, Khentiamentiu, Wepwawet, and the gods who are in Abydos, that he made his monument. I made for them a mahat-chapel of white limestone, his majesty having found it at distance. His majesty made it anew. His majesty caused there be made for them a canal for making conveyance by boat upon it. His majesty acted through the desire that his name exist upon it, being made firm and strong for eternity.’

130

A. M. DAMARANY, Y. ABDEL-RAZIK AND A. OKASH

Finds An exciting discovery was made close to the floor of the chamber: the base and feet of a life-size calcite statue depicting a mummiform Osiris (Fig. 13). The narrow (2.6m) decorated chamber itself is unlikely to have contained standing stone statuary of this type. It is, therefore, probable that the Osiris statue base was displaced from somewhere else in the vicinity; perhaps from a statue courtyard fronting the building. If this interpretation is correct, the court must lie beneath modern housing (Damarany et al. 2015). Like the later Ramses I chapel (Winlock 1937, 11–13, figs 2–4), the mahat of Nebhepetre is almost certainly part of a larger walled precinct that includes an entrance gate and other architectural features. The chapel is thus providing tantalizing hints for what else may be preserved in the landscape around it. The discovery of a limestone sarcophagus with a ram’s head carved on top of its lid indicates later reuse of the mahat-chapel (Fig. 14). The sarcophagus contained a decayed human skeleton. Interpretation The chapel and the political context of the king The dedicatory text of the mahat-chapel contains an interesting statement regarding the masonry used in the building; the raw material is specified as a fine-grained white limestone. Nebhepetre chose to highlight the great distance the stone travelled, and even the king’s own role in its selection. The emphasis on the quality of the white limestone suggests it was taken from a source much further north, perhaps the Tura quarries opposite Memphis. This statement may form an oblique reference to the post-reunification era of Nebhepetre’s reign, when fine stone formerly in territory controlled by the Herakleopolitans was now (again) available to Nebhepetre. The sacred significance and the geographical position of Abydos made it a key point during the king’s struggles against the Herakleopolitans (Winlock 1947, 30). Thus, the founder of the Middle Kingdom paid more attention to Abydos and, of course, its patron deity. In fact, the mahat-chapel is not the only cult building Nebhepetre constructed at Abydos. In 1901– 1902, Flinders Petrie excavated relief fragments of a red sandstone mortuary chapel of Nebhepetre in Kom el-Sultan (Petrie 1903, 14–16, pls XXIV, XXV). The blocks had been reused in later New Kingdom

foundations but the six fragments recovered originally derive from a building that served as a royal ka-chapel for the mortuary cult of Nebhepetre (Wegner 1997, 74–81). One of the blocks shows offerings designated for the statue of Nebhepetre. From the decoration in the newly discovered building we can see that, unlike the previously known ka-chapel, Nebhepetre’s mahat is a different type of cult structure. It is a building specifically concerned with the king’s veneration of the gods of Abydos. The decorative programme shows Nebhepetre offering to and venerating Osiris and other Abydene gods, which relates intimately to the building’s location on the desert edge facing directly towards Umm el-Qa‘ab. Nebhepetre might have built a third chapel at Umm el-Qa‘ab itself, as an offering table dedicated to his son Sankhkare Mentuhotep was recovered there, indicating cult activities at this time (O’Connor 2009, 89). Location The mahat-chapel is located at about 1km (local) south of the temple precinct of Osiris at Kom el-Sultan (Fig. 15). Today, the area is visually dominated by the temples of Seti I and Ramses II. Archaeologists argue that it was once densely developed with royal commemorative buildings over a long time frame (Kemp 1975, 38; O’Connor 2009, 203). However, the presence of the modern towns of Arabah el-Madfuna and Beni Mansour has prevented systematic work to investigate these largely unexplored temple ruins. The mahat-chapel of Nebhepetre lies just beyond the northwest corner of the temple temenos of Seti I. In fact, the newly discovered building is extremely close to the location of the chapel of Ramses I, now (partly) in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Remains of the entrance gateway of this temple are still standing in situ just to the northwest of the Nebhepetre building (Winlock 1937, 9, fig. 1). Another cult building known to have been located in this vicinity was a Dynasty 13 chapel of Diankhre Sobekhotep I, elements of which had been discovered and removed in the earlier 19th century (Bresciani 1979, 11–20; Wegner 1997, 133, 348). The Nebhepetre chapel is now the earliest identified cult building in an area of Abydos that evidently witnessed significant building activity during the Middle and New Kingdoms. Although quite far south of the Osiris temple, Nebhepetre’s mahat-chapel sits on the desert escarpment facing towards the Early Dynastic royal necropolis at

THE

mꜥḥꜥ.t -CHAPEL OF

NEBHEPETRE AT ABYDOS

Fig. 13: Life-size Osiris calcite statue base. Photo: Ayman Damarany.

Fig. 14: Limestone sarcophagus with a ram’s head carved on top of its lid. Photo: Ayman Damarany.

131

132

A. M. DAMARANY, Y. ABDEL-RAZIK AND A. OKASH

Umm el-Qa‘ab. Significantly, the building is oriented towards the tomb of Djer—the symbolic tomb of Osiris—at the centre of Umm el-Qa‘ab. It appears that while the great wadi that linked the Osiris temple and Umm el-Qa‘ab formed the main ceremonial connection in the religious life of Abydos, the desert edge physically closest to and directly facing Umm el-Qa‘ab developed as a desired location for situating royal cult buildings dedicated to the veneration of Osiris. Temples in this southern area were not isolated, but rather were integrated in specific ways into the religious life of Abydos. The Nebhepetre chapel provides some tantalizing new evidence on this issue through its fascinating decorative programme and associated texts. The canal and the festival procession of Osiris One of the most intriguing elements of the chapel’s dedication text is Nebhepetre’s statement that, along with the building itself, the king undertook the creation of a canal for conveying the gods of Abydos on boats. This statement is the earliest-known reference to statesponsored construction of artificial water features at Abydos. Later stelae dating to Dynasty 12 mention the construction of one or more sacred lakes associated with the temples of Abydos (Lange and Shäfer 1908, 150–58; Wegner 1997, 113). Probably, Nebhepetre’s canal was the same Nif-wer canal which connected the temple of Seti I to the Nile (Griffith 1927, 198; Omm Sety and el-Zeini 1981, 46). The statement suggests that Nebhepetre’s chapel, as well as later temples built in this zone of Abydos, were linked to the main Osiris temple by a series of interconnected water features. The ceremonial transport of the gods’ statues by means of boats would have tied these satellite temples to the main sanctuaries of the Abydene deities in the area of the Kom el-Sultan (Damarany et al. 2015) (Fig. 15). Here, however, Nebhepetre talks specifically about building a canal for moving the god’s divine barque processions across the landscape of Abydos. The emphasis placed on this new canal is undoubtedly closely associated with the scenes on the north wall (west according to magnetic north) where we see two goddesses who personify ritual equipment used in such divine barque processions: Neshmet and Menit. Neshmet can be identified as a personification of the sacred

2

I thank M. Abuel-Yazid for discussion on this matter.

barque of Osiris, while Menit (probably Menit-weret, as known from the Pyramid and Coffin Texts; Leitz 2002, 296) is a personification of the mooring post used in boat journeys and an important symbolic element in divine barque processions. It appears likely that this chapel was integrated into the periodic barque processions and itself was physically connected to the canal mentioned in the dedication text. The chapel itself probably stood on the desert edge above the height normally reached by the Nile inundation. It is probable that a ramp or causeway led down from its entrance, terminating in a landing platform at the bank of the canal. In this regard it is striking that two of the later Ramesside cult buildings in this immediate area, the Ramses I chapel and the Ramses II temple, follow the orientation established centuries before by the Nebhepetre chapel. Aside from the importance of orientation towards Umm el-Qa‘ab, quite possibly all these temples were constructed with respect to longlived water features that lay within the flood plain (Damarany et al. 2015). The canal of Nebhepetre supports the theory that the sacred landscape of Abydos was, from early on, arranged around two linked processional ways, which meet at the Osiris temple at Kom el-Sultan (Eaton 2007, 231, fig. 1) (see Fig. 15). One waterborne procession progressed from the mahat-chapel or even further south, going northward as far as the Osiris temple, where began the other, more famous, procession—but on the land—towards the Osiris tomb at Umm el-Qa‘ab, crossing the votive zone and approaching the great wadi. The great wadi itself was sacred to Wepwawet (Kemp 1975, 36), who used to precede other gods in the annual festival procession of Osiris, so the canal too might have been sacred to Wepwawet, whose boat may have also preceded the procession in its marine section towards Kom el-Sultan.2 Such a role corresponds to the god’s representation with Osiris and Khentiamentiu on the west wall (south according to magnetic north) of Nebhepetre’s mahat-chapel. The significance of the Nebhepetre mahat-chapel Most importantly, the dedicatory text mentions that the building is a mahat: a commemorative cult building erected by the king specifically for Osiris,

THE

mꜥḥꜥ.t -CHAPEL OF

NEBHEPETRE AT ABYDOS

133

Fig. 15: Map of Abydos with the location of the Nebhepetre chapel and possible canals for riverine conveyance of the Abydene gods. Plan by Josef Wegner.

Khentiamentiu, Wepwawet and other gods of Abydos. Mahat-chapels are a familiar element in the sacred landscape of Abydos, but none of them are royal and all are built with bricks (Simpson 1974, 10–13). Royal mahat-chapels are expected to be found in Abydos, however, because the stela of Tetisheri from south Abydos states that she had a mahat at Abydos (Ayrton, Currelly and Weigall 1904, 45, pl. LII). The chapel is not yet identified, but is probably located in the vicinity of the royal mahat-chapel of Nebhepetre or the votive zone. Previously known examples of mahat-chapels at Abydos were small brick buildings containing stelae (Kemp 1975, 32), and were located in North Abydos in the so-called votive zone abutting the outer face of the western enclosure wall of the Osiris temenos (Simpson 1974, 10).

Identifying the function of the mahat led to much discussion on account of its ambiguity (Smith 2006, 88). Its literal meaning is simply ‘an erected building’, although the same term mahat or mꜥḥꜥ.t is also used for the stelae placed in them (Simpson 1980, 389). The building has also been interpreted as a memorial chapel (O’Connor 2009, 95), an offering chapel (Simpson 1974, 10), a cenotaph (O’Connor 1985, 166), and an abode for transfigured dead (Lichtheim 1988, 92); its name has been interpreted as a predecessor of the Arabic word Maqam (‘mausoleum’ in Arabic) (Simpson 1974, 11). The main tomb of Osiris at Umm el-Qa‘ab has also been considered a mahat (Lichtheim 1988, 92; see Végh in this volume). According to O’Connor (2009, 95), each individual erected a specific mahat, near the

134

A. M. DAMARANY, Y. ABDEL-RAZIK AND A. OKASH

Osiris temple, but all shared that of Osiris at Umm elQa‘ab. Here, the owners of chapels experienced regeneration in his mysterious tomb. This could explain the abundant number of mahat-chapels at Abydos. The position of mahat-chapels is connected to the festival of Osiris procession towards Umm el-Qa‘ab (Smith 2006, 389). This view can be supported by many sentences in its stelae, as the owner of a mahat usually asks to receive offerings from the great altar on the Feasts of the Necropolis, or wishes to be powerful and effective in the company of the great god (Simpson 1974, 10–13). Such an interpretation can also be supported by studying the locations of each known mahat in Abydos. The majority are located near the Osiris temple in the votive zone at the mouth of the great wadi, but they are also attested outside of this area; Garstang discovered another mahat facing the wadi at Cemetery E (Snape 1986, 24). In fact, the newly discovered mahat of Nebhepetre confirms the location of such chapels along the great procession of the annual Osiris festival towards the god’s temple and then onwards to the god’s tomb and the main Osiris mahat itself at the end of the procession. How did Nebhepetre’s mahat and the king’s new canal function in the context of the gods’ ceremonies at Abydos? One possibility is that barque transport of the images of Osiris and Wepwawet described here was part of the annual Osiris procession. We know that this annual ceremony was initiated by a waterborne component in which the sacred Neshmet barque was placed on a body of water, probably a sacred lake, prior to the journey of the god aboard two different barques to the area of Peqer at Umm el-Qa‘ab. What occurred following the ceremonies at Umm el-Qa‘ab itself is less clear, but we suggest the return journey of the procession may have led directly back to the desert edge in the vicinity of the Nebhepetre mahat. From there, the god’s statue may have continued by boat back to the Osiris temple, thereby forming a circuit that linked the main Osiris temple and tomb with the royal cult buildings that stood along the desert margin facing Peqer. The annual Osiris procession was the most important of a series of periodic religious festivals that would have made use of the Abydene landscape. However, it was not the only one. We can envision Nebhepetre’s canal functioning in other boat processions in which the gods of Abydos progressed by canal to visit outlying temples and sanctuaries.

A barque shrine? The fact that the building type, a mahat, is explicitly mentioned in the dedication text opens a unique possibility for investigating the design and functions of this particular temple type. The thematic focus on the sacred barques of Abydos suggests that additional decorated parts of the building, particularly the exterior walls, could well have scenes of barque processions. The building may in fact have functioned as a barque shrine and perhaps preserves architectural elements connected to the processions (Damarany et al. 2015). Accordingly, it can be suggested that each of the royal barque shrines situated along the great processional way used for the annual Osiris festival towards Umm el-Qa‘ab (i.e. the portal temple of Ramses II [Silverman 1985, 272, fig. 1], the temple of Tuthmosis III [Pouls 2001, 356] and the small temple of the west [Mariette 1869–80, 36–37; Porter and Moss 1962, 70–71]), can also act as a mahat. Future work Having excavated the inner end of the decorated chamber, a key question now to be answered is what else is preserved of the Nebhepetre mahat? Is this a one-room structure like the later chapel of Ramses I, or is the exposed chamber part of a more complex multi-room cult building? It is crucial to conduct salvage work and continue the excavation beneath the modern houses, which will need to be removed prior to any expanded excavation, in order to define the wider format and reveal the complete remains of the mahat of Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II at Abydos. Acknowledgements For the success of the work, we are grateful to Dr. Khalid El-Enany, the current Minister of Antiquities, Dr. Mamduh el-Damati, past Minister of Antiquities, Mr Ali Asfar, past Head of the Egyptian Antiquities Sector and Dr. Mohamed Ismail, Head of the Permanent Committee. In Sohag we are deeply indebted to Mr. Gamal Abd el-Nasser, General Director of Sohag Antiquities. The work would not have been possible without the great help and support from Dr. Janet Richards, Dr. Joe Wegner, Kevin Cahail, and Jenifer Wegner. The team is also grateful to Mr. Mohamed Yazid. We would like to thank also Ahmed Abul-Tabl, Ahmed Hassaan, Talaat El-Sayed, Dahshur Abul-Ela and Ghazal M. Abdel-Hady.

THE

mꜥḥꜥ.t -CHAPEL OF

NEBHEPETRE AT ABYDOS

135

Bibliography Ayrton, E. R, M. A. Currelly, and A .E. P. Weigall. 1904. Cemeteries of Abydos III. Memoirs of the Egypt Exploration Fund 25. London. Abuel-Yazid, M. 2013. Slaughterhouse of the Sety I temple at Abydos, and its adjacent rooms. MA thesis, Ain Shams University. Cairo. [in Arabic, unpublished] Baines, J. 1984. Abydos, temple of Sethos 1: Preliminary report. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 70: 13–22. ———. 1990. Recording the temple of Sethos I at Abydos in Egypt. Bulletin of the Ancient Orient Museum 11: 65–95. Bresciani, E. 1979. Un edificio di Kha-anekh-Ra Sobekhotep ad Abido. MSS Acerbi, Biblioteca comunale di Mantova. Egitto e Vicino Oriente 2: 1–20. Calverley, A. M., and M. F. Broome. 1933–58. The temple of king Sethos I at Abydos. 4 vols. London; Chicago. Damarany, A., Y. Abd el-Raziq, A. Okasha, J. Wegner, K. Cahail, and Je. Wegner. 2015. A new temple: the Mahat of Nebheptre at Abydos. Egyptian Archaeology 46: 3–7. Daressy, G. 1899. Les temples d’Abydos: Supplément à la publication de Mariette. Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes 21: 1–8. Eaton, K. 2007. Memorial temples in the sacred landscape of nineteenth dynasty Abydos: An overview of processional routes and equipment. In The archaeology and art of ancient Egypt: Essays in honor of David B. O’Connor, Vol. 1, Z. A. Hawass and J. E. Richards (eds), 231–50. Cairo. Griffith, F. Ll. 1927. The Abydos decree of Nauri. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 13: 193–208. Iskander, S., and G. Ogden. 2015. The temple of Ramesses II in Abydos. Vol. 1: Wall scenes. 2 vols. Atlanta. Kemp, B. J. 1975. Abydos. In Lexikon der Ägyptologie I, W. Helck and E. Otto (eds), 28–41. Wiesbaden. Lange, H. O. and H. Shäfer. 1908. Grab und Denksteine des Mittleren Reiches im Museum von Kairo (nos 20400– 20780), Vol. II. Berlin. Leitz, Ch. 2002. Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Vol. III. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 112. Leuven. Lichtheim, M. 1988. Ancient Egyptian autobiographies chiefly of the Middle Kingdom: A study and an anthology. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 84. Freiburg; Göttingen. Mariette, A. 1869–80. Abydos: Description des fouilles exécutées sur l’emplacement de cette ville. 2 vols. Paris. O’Connor, D. 1985. The ‘cenotaphs’ of the Middle Kingdom at Abydos. In Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar 2, P. Posener-Kriéger (ed.), 161–77. Cairo. ———. 2009. Abydos. Egypt’s first pharaohs and the cult of Osiris. New York.

Petrie, W. M. F. 1903. Abydos II. Egypt Exploration Fund 24. London. Porter, B. and L. R. Moss. 1962. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Texts, Reliefs and Paintings V: Upper Egypt: Sites (Deir el Rife to Aswan, Excluding Thebes and the Temples of Abydos, Esna, Edfu, Kom Ombo and Philae). 2nd ed. Oxford. Pouls Wegner, M. A. 2001. The chapel of Thutmose III: New Kingdom pilgrims and patrons at Abydos. Archaeology 54 (4): 58–59. Omm Sety, and H. el-Zeini. 1981. Abydos: Holy city of ancient Egypt. Los Angeles. Rutherford, I. C. 2003. Pilgrimage in Greco-Roman Egypt: New perspectives on graffiti from the Memnonion at Abydos. In Ancient perspectives on Egypt, M. Roger and C. Roemer (eds), 171–90. London. Sawy, A. el-. 2003. A new discovery at the Sety I temple in Abydos. In Egyptology at the dawn of the twenty-first century: Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists, Z. Hawass and L. Pinch Brock (eds), 424–31. Cairo. Silverman, D. P. 1985. The so-called portal temple of Ramesses II at Abydos. In Akten des vierten Internationalen Ägyptologen Kongresses München 1985. Band 2: Archäologie, Feldforschung, Prähistorie, S. Schoske (ed.), 269–77. Hamburg. Simpson, W. K. 1974. The terrace of the great god at Abydos: The offering chapels of Dynasties 12 and 13. Publications of the Pennsylvania–Yale expedition to Egypt 5. New Haven. ———. 1980. Kenotaph. In Lexikon der Ägyptologie III, W. Helck and E. Otto (eds), 389–91. Wiesbaden. Smith, M. 2006. How to build places with words: The narrative construction of sacred Abydos, Delos and Mecca. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Emory University. Snape, S. R. 1986. Mortuary assemblages from Abydos. 2 vols. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Liverpool. Stadelmann, R. 2015. The Temple of Millions of Years of Seti I at Qurna / El Templo de Millones de Años de Seti I en Qurna. In Los templos de millones de años en Tebas/The temples of millions of years in Thebes, M. Seco Álvarez and A. Jódar Miñarro (eds), 167–93. Granada. Wegner, J. W. 1997. The mortuary complex of Senwosret III: A study of Middle Kingdom state activity and the cult of Osiris at Abydos. Ann Arbor. Winlock, H. E. 1937. The temple of Ramesses I at Abydos. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Papers 5. New York. ———. 1947. The rise and fall of the Middle Kingdom in Thebes. New York.

SERVING THE DEAD: SOME THOUGHTS ON CHANGES IN CULTIC DEPOSITS AT ABYDOS FROM THE LATE OLD KINGDOM TO THE EARLY MIDDLE KINGDOM Christian KNOBLAUCH1

Abstract The University of Michigan Abydos Middle Cemetery Project has excavated a wealth of data that sheds light on private offering cults from the late Old Kingdom to the early Middle Kingdom. This paper presents preliminary insights into the study of pottery assemblages resulting from the performance of such cults and examines how the data may be used to reconstruct rituals which are otherwise principally known from their architectural setting and textual sources. Key questions that the paper will address are whether the performance of offering cults changed over time, and if so, in what ways? The paper also considers how we might understand these changes in the light of social and religious processes at a local and supra-regional level. Introduction Egyptian tombs were the focal point for a variety of different rituals. From a textual and iconographic perspective they can be classified temporally as rituals performed in the context of the burial (funerary rituals), and rituals performed post-burial (mortuary rituals). Identifying these different ritual stages in the archaeological record, however, is notoriously difficult. The case of burial equipment in a closed tomb chamber or a back-filled shaft is relatively (but not always) straightforward, while material found in accessible areas of the tomb, for example a tomb-chapel or an adjacent courtyard, is less easily classified for the obvious reasons that both funerary and mortuary rituals were performed in these same parts of the tomb and cannot be distinguished from one another reliably on the basis of their material remains. This is especially problematic as many aspects of their performance overlapped. For this reason archaeologists working in Egypt often employ a simplified, spatially based dichotomy between

1

‘Beyond Politics, Material Culture in Second Intermediate Period Egypt and Nubia’ (FWF-Y754-G19), OREA, Austrian

so-called ‘burial goods’ (that is, objects placed in the burial chamber with the deceased) and ‘cult’ objects (found associated with the superstructures of the tomb [i.e. Seiler 1995, Bárta 2003]). While such a dichotomy is obviously artificial, it is one that can be dispensed with only in exceptional circumstances, and thus it is employed here. In spite of this clear distinction in theory, there are a number of practical difficulties in dealing with such deposits. Firstly, it must be acknowledged that cult objects found in context rarely, if ever, represent the entirety of evidence for ritual activities in a cult structure, but rather a conscious selection of waste generated by the cult for deposition at the tomb by those performing rituals. In every case it should be assumed that these waste deposits provide only an incomplete and biased (as opposed to representative) picture of cult activity. Furthermore, as cult structures were ‘open’, not everything found in association with them need be ‘cultic’. Egyptian cemeteries, after all, were busy workplaces where craftsmen and labourers ate, drank, were paid with rations (Roth 1994) and, presumably, dumped their trash. Post-depositional processes such as tidying, robbing, recycling and modern excavation can also be expected to have altered the original composition of assemblages and resulted in secondary and tertiary deposits of material in ‘open’ structures, and thus the commingling of different deposits that may have once been spatially, functionally and chronologically unrelated. Finally, decomposition will, in most cases, have led to the disappearance of any organic items that were once part of waste deposits. For these reasons, when we talk of ‘cult deposits’ in Egyptian archaeology, more often than not we really mean utilitarian or coarse ceramic vessels lying in disorderly heaps around a tomb superstructure, or in rare cases, in a clear primary context.

Academy of Sciences/Associate Director, University of Michigan Abydos Middle Cemetery Project.

138

C. KNOBLAUCH

This paper gives a first insight into the problems and possibilities of working with material of this type, drawing on the results of excavations by the University of Michigan in the Abydos Middle Cemetery (AMC) (see Richards this volume).2 The chronological focus is on the late Old Kingdom to the early Middle Kingdom, a pivotal period in local history during which Abydos was transformed from a provincial centre to a cult place of national and royal significance, chiefly because of its association with the emergent cult of Osiris (O’Connor 2009; Bussmann 2010). But although thousands of tombs of this date have been excavated at Abydos since the mid-19th century (Snape 1986; Seidlmayer 1990, 352–53; Richards 2003; 2005; Yamamoto 2009–10), the number of assemblages published from cult chapels and tomb superstructures can be counted on a single hand (Yamamoto 2011). The attention paid to such assemblages, therefore, is in an inverse proportion to the importance usually ascribed to tomb-cult structures at Abydos (Simpson 1974; O’Connor 1985; Richards 2010). Such structures were not only the site of localized cults of dead relations, and in rare case distant ancestors who were revered as ‘saints’ (Richards this volume), but were also increasingly bound into the Abydene festive cycle of the Osiris cult during the course of the First Intermediate Period and early Middle Kingdom. This was, in part, because of the desire to be close to the god and share

2

3

Special thanks are due to Lucia Hulková and Marilys Horgue for their work on the ceramics during the 2014 season, and to Geoff Compton, Korri Turner, Peter Lacovara and Janet Richards. Setting the relative and chronological parameters of this phase is made difficult by the absence of well-published and dated assemblages at Abydos with which the Abydos Middle Cemetery (AMC) may be compared. Moreover, excavations in the AMC have yet to provide any evidence that anchors this phase to Egyptian dynastic chronology, other than it must postdate Phase I (Merenre to early in the reign of Pepi II) (Knoblauch 2010, 245, 250). Given that the changes visible in the ceramic corpus in relation to Phase I are of an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary nature, there is no reason to suggest that Abydos Phase II is separated from Phase I by any great length of time. One assumes that there would have been sufficient time for the development of this corpus during either the long reign of Pepi II, irrespective of whether a shorter (min. 34 years) or longer reign (min. 62/63 years) is assumed (e.g. Baud 2006, 156), or in the succeeding short Dynasty 8. Broadly similar material occurs in Phase ID in the Kom el-Sultan at Abydos (Adams 2005, 372, 376 fig. 3.5 Levels IC, ID, 412–14, 416 fig. 3.25) and at a supraregional level in Phase I at Dendera (Marchand 2004, 214–15), Qau Phase IB (Seidlmayer 1990, 148–53), and the late Old Kingdom level in the cemetery at Elephantine (Seidlmayer 2005, 282–86, Abb. 1). While it is conceivable that Phase II

in the offerings of the temple festivals, but no doubt also by the identification of the private person with the dead god and the importance of Osirian rituals for the rebirth of the deceased in the afterlife. Objects found in connection with superstructures of this date are, therefore, an almost entirely untapped resource for exploring the continuities and changes in ritual behaviour and the engagement of the living with the dead at Abydos during a period of intense political, religious and social change. In order to make some preliminary observations on this type of material at Abydos and the types of interpretations it allows, the paper compares two major deposits of pottery from cult buildings that date to the beginning and the end of this time period: a deposit from the so-called Central Mastaba tomb built in the narrow space between the northeastern corner of the tomb of Weni the Elder and the southwestern corner of the tomb of Iuu (Fig. 1), which belongs to the local Phase II (late Old Kingdom–early First Intermediate Period);3 and a deposit found on the floor of a small mud-brick chapel built adjacent to the Weni mastaba (Fig. 4). This chapel apparently served as the focal point for funerary and mortuary rituals for individuals buried in an adjacent burial shaft complex during Phase III (late First Intermediate Pottery–early Middle Kingdom).4 These two phases are separated by at least half a century (if not longer), which broadly

4

overlaps with the earliest years of the First Intermediate Period that directly followed the founding of the Herakleopolitan kingdom (Dynasties 9 and 10) before the founding of the Theban Dynasty 11 (Seidlmayer 2006, 165–67), circumstance speaks against this: the pottery of early Dynasty 11 in Thebes represents a new pottery tradition (Di. Arnold 1968; Do. Arnold 1972) that appears at Abydos in roughly contemporary contexts—our Phase III. As there are almost no points of contact in terms of style and morphology between the pottery of Phases II and III, it is reasonable to propose that they are separated by a longer, rather than shorter, period of time. Thus an earlier date for our Phase II fully within the Late Old Kingdom (second half of the reign of Pepi II–Dynasty 8) is to be preferred. According to ceramic evidence as well as inscriptional data, Phase III was broadly coeval with the later FIP–early MK horizon in the Abydos settlement at Kom el-Sultan (Adams 2005, 392–403) and in dynastic terms it probably encompasses much of Dynasty 11 and very early Dynasty 12. Local Phase III is a period of intense building, burial and offering activity in the AMC. Not only were older tombs appropriated but the cults of local ‘saints’ reached a new scale (Richards this volume). At the same time, the older elite tombs of Phase I and II became the nucleus for new burial complexes and associated offering chapels (Richards 2010).

139

SERVING THE DEAD

Chapel (Phase I)

Iuu Mastaba (Phase I)

Main Shaft (Phase I)

Central Mastaba (Phase II)

0m

5m

Weni (Phase I)

10m

Primary Courtyard

disturbance

Hearth

Mud Floor Secondary Courtyard

Hearth

0m

1m

2m

3m

Unit 11 Central Mastaba (inset)

Fig. 1: The Central Mastaba. Schematic diagram by author, after G. Compton.

140

C. KNOBLAUCH

corresponds to a hiatus or period of less intense activity in the AMC. The identity of the chapel-owner(s) is unknown, but given the level of expenditure for the construction of the tomb structures and their placement in a politically and religiously charged area of the AMC, they were likely to have been of a considerably high status. It follows that the description of funerary and mortuary rituals given below cannot be assumed to typify the complete range of this type of activity at Abydos. The late Old Kingdom–early First Intermediate Period horizon (local Phase II) The pottery ‘deposit’ from the Central Mastaba is in fact a pottery-rich layer that directly abutted the ‘local’ southern exterior wall of the primary courtyard and sealed the floor of a secondary courtyard of the Central Mastaba. In total, the layer contained over 246kg of sherds that could be subdivided into two major groups on the basis of technology and ware, which in turn relate to a profound functional dichotomy within the assemblage. Around 95% of the assemblage comprises sherds that come from vessels that were roughly handmade of a poorly sorted, coarse alluvial silt fabric. Of these, sherds belonging to cylindrical jars (Fig. 2d–g) used for the short-term storage and distribution of beer are the most common (beer jars, 625 diagnostic sherds) (Faltings 1998). The next most frequent pottery type are sherds belonging to moulds used for the baking of small conical loaves of bread (bread moulds, 160 diagnostics) (Fig. 2a–c). Fragments belonging to coarse ‘trays’ are less common. Presumably such trays were also bread moulds and were used to bake flattish oval or round-shaped loaves (Bárta 1995, 22–23; Wodzińska 2009, 218, figs 18–19). The pottery assemblage from the Central Mastaba, therefore, consists almost entirely of vessels intended to be used in the primary production of food and the storage and distribution of drink, in particular the main staples of the Egyptian diet—bread and beer. Whether the vessels in question had actually been used to produce/store and distribute these items is unknown, but they are certainly technologically identical to vessels from contemporary settlements which had been used for these tasks. Presumably, the vessels were used as containers to deliver bread and beer to the cemetery from bakeries and breweries in the settlement on the desert edge. While the logic of this for the beer is straightforward, why the heavy moulds for bread were

used is less clear, as it would have been far easier to remove the loaves from the moulds and carry a number of them together in a sack to the cemetery. For this reason, it is worth considering whether the moulds themselves had a symbolic or iconographic character of their own independent of their (supposed) contents (see below). The remaining c. 5% of the assemblage belongs to a separate ware group and represents a separate sphere of activity. It consists of well-made, red-slipped and polished bowls and plates of a medium fine silt fabric (Fig. 3). Particularly characteristic are shallow bowls with a carination below the rim—so-called Meidum Bowls (Fig. 3c–e). This type of bowl is ubiquitous at all Old Kingdom Egyptian settlements (e.g. at Abydos, Adams 2005, 410–16; or at Giza, Wodzińska 2009, 217) and is considered to have been intended as ‘tableware’ as it could be utilized as both a drinking cup and as a dish for serving food (Hendrickx et al. 2002, 277–79). In addition to these last there were shallow bowls with modelled (Fig. 3a–b) and direct rims (Fig. 3f) of an identical ware to the Meidum Bowls that accordingly should also be considered regular tableware. During the sorting of the sherds, it became clear that the two main groups of pottery could be differentiated not only by ware, but also by their state of preservation, which suggests that although they were found in the same context, they may have had different depositional histories. The sherds belonging to tableware vessels usually represented only a small percentage (on average less than 7%) of a complete vessel. In comparison, the sherd material from the vessels used for drink and food production consisted of relatively large pieces that could be reconstructed to near-complete vessels. Given this difference, it may be proposed that the tableware vessels were used and broken elsewhere, and then only secondarily deposited in the courtyard of the Central Mastaba as sherds. The generally excellent state of preservation of the food production vessels, in comparison, indicates that their primary deposition probably occurred in or close to the courtyard where they were subsequently found. As such, the deposit represents two spatially and functionally distinct activities. An important question is whether the different depositional processes that formed this layer were contemporary or not. Unusually for the AMC, where heavy mixing of material is normal, there is no material from the deposit in question that is obviously of an earlier or later date. This would rather suggest that the layer was

141

SERVING THE DEAD

(a)

(d)

(f)

(e) (b) (g)

(c)

0

5

10

cm Fig. 2: Coarse wares from the Central Mastaba. Drawings by author and L. Hulková.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

0

5

10

cm Fig. 3: Fine red-slipped wares from the Central Mastaba. Drawings by author and L. Hulková.

142

C. KNOBLAUCH

chronologically homogeneous and formed during a single phase of deposition. Moreover, it has been noticed that precisely the same combination of types occurs in other sealed deposits elsewhere in the AMC and comprises a coherent archaeological horizon or phase across the whole cemetery. This does not make it certain, a priori, that the primary activities in which the different groups of pottery were utilized were contemporaneous, but the pottery types and their chronological ranges make this a strong possibility. Turning now to the interpretation of this deposit, both the great quantity of the pottery and the very limited number of different types indicate that the layer was primarily formed by the deliberate deposition of waste resulting from a specialized, intense and repetitive activity revolving around the supply of bread and, in particular, beer, or the supply of empty vessels routinely used for the production and delivery of these items. A non-ritual interpretation for the activities, for example the payment of craftsmen responsible for the construction of the tomb with rations of bread and beer for their labour (e.g. Roth 1994), can never be excluded. However, the fact that the pottery vessels were deposited in the secondary forecourt of the tomb and not in the fill of the tomb superstructure—where ‘workmen’s waste’ in the form of beer jars and bread moulds is usually thought to be deposited—makes it reasonable to propose that they related to the intended use of the cult chapel and courtyards (specifically their role as a focal point of funerary and mortuary rituals), not to the construction of the tomb. This major depositional activity was augmented by a less intensive re-deposition of waste created by a different type of activity utilizing tableware close by. Taking these factors into consideration, we can propose that the presence of the beer jars and bread moulds attests to the supply of items (real or symbolic) for ritual meals that were to be offered to the deceased during the course of one or more of the various funerary and mortuary rituals (for example the ‘offering ritual’ and the ‘ritual of the opening of the mouth’) that were to be performed at the tomb. According to Old Kingdom offering lists that stipulated what was to be presented to the deceased during these meals (Barta 1968, 72–73; 1982; Lapp 1986), bread and beer were the most commonly listed items of food and drink, composing a kind of dietary basis for the dead. The connection of these two items with the concept of food offerings is so close, in fact, that the signs for bread and beer were used as determinatives for the

words that denoted the ‘supplies’ of the mortuary cult as well as the ‘offerings’ presented to the deceased (Lapp 1986, 96 Abb. 14, 15, 133). The supply of bread and beer for the deceased, of course, could be achieved through various magical and symbolic means, but the choice to use large quantities of actual bread and beer (or at the least the containers for these products) indicates that the priests employed to organize the mortuary cult in the Central Mastaba interpreted the offering ritual in a relatively direct—or ‘non-abstract’— way. This, of course, is not a new phenomenon, and represents the continuation of an ancient approach to the offering meal that was first attested in Dynasty 2 (Köhler 2003) and that continued uninterrupted throughout the entirety of the Old Kingdom. Similar concentrations of beer jars and bread moulds have been discovered outside contemporary tomb-chapels at Saqqara West and appear to represent the same phenomenon (Rzeuska 2003, 125), which is further evidence for similarities in some aspects of mortuary and funerary–mortuary rituals at the two sites in the late Old Kingdom (Knoblauch 2010; forthcoming). While the beer jars and bread moulds were intimately blended with the concept of offerings (Rzeuska 2011), it should not be uncritically assumed that they were ‘offering vessels’ in the sense that they alone were employed to physically present offering meals and the other items recorded in the offering lists to the deceased. Rather, given the requirements for ritual purity of both people and objects entering ritual spaces in ancient Egypt (Grieshammer 1984), it is conceivable that some (or perhaps all) offerings were transferred to more appropriate, purified, cult utensils before they were brought into the chapel. As such, the location of the deposits of beer jars and bread moulds could be an indication that these vessels, and the servants who carried them, came this far, but no further. The decision to leave the vessels where they were probably emptied, and not take them back to the settlement, may be typical for objects used in rituals, which were afterwards deemed unsuitable for further profane or ritual use. But it is worth considering whether these discarded pottery vessels were not simply passive, but collectively ‘functional’ in the same way that two-dimensional representations of offerings on an offering stone or in offering lists on the walls of tomb-chapels were. By depositing the vessels connected to the production of bread and beer within the tomb courtyard, the intention may have been to secure the continuous supply of these vital items for the deceased in the afterlife.

SERVING THE DEAD

It is highly unfortunate that no pottery was found inside the Central Mastaba that would enable an investigation of whether, and in what ways, the pottery assemblage from inside the cult chapel differs from the assemblage outside the mastaba. Certainly, textual and iconographic evidence suggest that there should be a difference, as the performance of the cult required an array of vessels: for example, ewers, basins and jars (Arnold 1984), incense burners and bowls (ꜥ(ỉ) in Egyptian) (e.g. Barta 1968, 85, Wb 1, 158.13–18). An insight into what a pottery assemblage from a late Old Kingdom tomb-chapel could look like is offered by some well-preserved chapels at Saqqara West (Rzeuska 2001; 2003, 125; 2006, 474–78). The pottery assemblages there consisted almost exclusively of wellmade, red-slipped and polished bowls and stands that evidently formed the permanent inventory of the cult chapel. It is interesting to note that we can observe precisely the same types of vessels (Rzeuska 2001, pls 28–29; 2003) represented by the sherds of redslipped pottery that were recovered from the forecourt of the Central Mastaba. As such, it is a possibility that the latter fragmentary vessels were also cult utensils that had been originally used in the interior of the chapel, removed from the chapel after they had been broken, then secondarily deposited in the courtyard. If this identification were to be correct, it suggests that our terms ‘cultic utensils’ and ‘cult vessels’ do not denote items produced only for use in rituals, but rather designate ordinary, everyday vessels that were ‘ritualized’ by their use in a ritual context. Thus, amongst the pottery waste of the cult in the Central Mastaba, we cannot identify a specific ‘ritual’ class of vessel. Finally, whether the vessels were broken accidentally or perhaps deliberately—in the closing rite of the offering ritual, which included breaking red-coloured pottery (Barta 1968, 75; Seiler 2005, 170–72, 178)— must remain the object of speculation. Although the pottery remains from the Central Mastaba do not give a complete account of the ritual activity that took place at the Central Mastaba, they nonetheless allow us insights into the nature of the performance and supply of a late Old Kingdom offering cult at Abydos, as well as how the waste produced by a cult was treated. In the first place, the pottery indicates that one of the main aims of the cult was to provide the deceased with a ‘continuous’ supply of offerings of real food and real drink (or perhaps magically through the vessels used to produce or distribute these items, presumably filled with a symbolic

143

substance). Of these items, beer was the most important, followed by bread. Secondly, the ways food and liquid were presented to the deceased probably reflected the way in which food and drink were presented and consumed in a living household, namely with regular tableware (rather than the coarse pots used to prepare the meal). Significantly, there do not appear to be any items produced specifically for the funerary–mortuary sphere; rather the waste created by the offering cult would not be out of place in any settlement. These points all suggest a close correlation between the dietary and the table habits of the living and the dead at Abydos during the late Old Kingdom. These findings are largely in line with the other studies of different types of evidence for ritual engagement with the dead during the late Old Kingdom. An analysis of objects placed with burials of this period, for example, showed that these items were largely (but not exclusively) objects of ‘daily life’, as opposed to objects specifically produced for the burial (Seidlmayer 1990, 427–29). In a similar vein, the process of mummification was focused on preserving the physical appearance of the deceased through wrapping, plastering and dressing the deceased in clothes of the living (Lacovara et al. 2015), and the corpse was placed in the grave on its side in a semi-contracted pose that evokes the image of the deceased as a sleeper (Seidlmayer 2001) and ultimately death as a relatively ‘natural’ and ‘lifelike’ state. In this regard, the evidence from the Central Mastaba, which indirectly documents the (ongoing) interaction of the living with the dead, is in agreement: if the requirements of the dead were the same as those of the living, this rather indicates that there was a conceptual equivalence of death with life. The late First Intermediate Period–early Middle Kingdom horizon (local Phase III) The uniqueness of this approach towards the engagement of the living with the dead in the late Old Kingdom is striking when compared with the ceramic assemblage found in association with an offering chapel from Phase III that paints a different image of cult activity during this phase. The assemblage of complete vessels—201 individual pieces—was found placed on the mud pavement of the chapel ‘forecourt’ between the front wall of the chapel and the wall of the Weni mastaba, and on, or close to, the floor of the interior of the chapel in front of the offering niche (Fig. 4; Pls 1, 2).

C. KNOBLAUCH

144

Phase III Chapel and Shafts

Weni Mastaba (Phase I)

Main Shaft (Phase I)

0m

5m

10m

South Shaft (Phase I)

Shaft

Excavation not completed

Excavation not completed

Hearth Mud floor Niche

Unit 26 Feature 3 Phase III

Chapel 0m

1m

2m

3m

Unit 26 Feature 3 (inset)

Fig. 4: Chapel in Unit 26 (Feature 3). Schematic diagram by author, after G. Compton.

The assemblage is largely characterized by new features relative to Phase II that extend far beyond stylistic and morphological change (which, given the interval between the two phases, is to be expected anyway). Significantly, vessels used for the production of actual food and drink now play only a very minor role in the overall composition of the assemblage. Bread moulds, for example, do occur but in very small numbers (less than 1%), whereas vessels probably used for the production of beer (or models of such vessels) are represented by four examples (Fig. 5c; Pl. 2 left). From this perspective, the practice of offering actual food and drink to the deceased during ritual meals gives way to new impulses and traditions.

Central to this new tradition are medium-sized dropshaped jars which are also common in settlements and tomb assemblages at Abydos and that comprise c. 35% (70 examples) of the assemblage (Pl. 2, Pl. 3 bottom row). Given the shape and size of the vessels, they were particularly well suited for carrying small quantities of liquids (e.g. Seidlmayer 1990), and it is presumably for this purpose that they were brought to the cemetery, although at least one was partially filled with mud. Curiously, nearly all the examples of this vessel type from the vicinity of the small chapel had a very carelessly applied pale slip around the rim and neck, or in rare cases the entire body (i.e. Pl. 3 left). According to Christiana Köhler (pers. comm.) drop-shaped vessels

SERVING THE DEAD

Plate 1: Chapel in Unit 26 (Feature 3), interior view. Photograph K. Turner.

Plate 2: Pottery from chapel in Unit 26 (Feature 3). Photograph K. Turner, G. Compton.

145

146

C. KNOBLAUCH

in the contemporary Abydos settlement at Kom elSultan (see also Adams 2005, 392–403) did not exhibit the distinctive surface treatment of the vessels from the AMC. Thus, while the vessel form fulfilled a function in ‘daily life’ that may have included holding beer, the examples of this vessel type from the surrounds of the offering chapel were produced specifically for use and deposition in the cemetery. The creation of a distinctive repertoire of ‘cemetery pottery’—pottery made specifically for deposition in the cemetery—at Abydos at this time can also be observed in the small broad-shaped conical vessels with a wavy or crenellated rim (Fig. 5e; Pl. 2, Pl. 3 top right) and pointed base that comprised c. 56% of the assemblage (113 examples). Such vessels, while common in contemporary cemeteries in Upper Egypt, were not common in the First Intermediate Period settlement at Kom el-Sultan (Christiana Köhler, pers. comm.). Thus, vessels made specifically for their employment in the cemetery comprise around 90% of this assemblage (in other assemblages from the AMC it is close to 100%). Regarding the function of these conical vessels, it can be noted that they were extremely coarsely made and many were found filled with fine mud, indicating that the vessels were perhaps ‘symbolic’ or ‘model’ vessels (i.e. non-utilitarian), filled with ‘symbolic’ contents. The use of symbolic offerings of this type at Abydos is not a new invention, but can be traced back to AMC Phase I (early Dynasty 6, not discussed here), when some of the many beer jars buried in the Weni mastaba superstructure were filled to the rim with solid mud (Knoblauch forthcoming). It feels significant that the conical vessels from the chapel in Unit 26 filled with mud were made of the same coarse fabric and by exactly the same rough coiling and pinching method as these ‘beer jars’ of Phases I (and II). In fact the final products were so similar that body sherds and bases from these types can be easily confused for each other during processing. By the late First Intermediate Period, when nearly all pottery was made on the wheel, such vessels were anachronisms that may have tapped into a deeply held cultural aesthetic about how vessels traditionally associated with cult-places

5

The author, therefore, does not follow the suggestions put forward by Yamamoto in his excellent article that the vessel form is based on prehistoric vessel forms (Yamamoto 2011). Rather, according to the author they are the next-to-last manifestation of

Plate 3: Pottery from chapel in Unit 26 (Feature 3). Photograph K. Turner.

should feel and look.5 The vessels and their contents may have simply symbolized the supply of generic ‘offerings’ to the cult, or a more specific item such as beer. It is obvious that such vessels filled with mud represented the possibility of acquiring and depositing large quantities of offerings at little expense. The remaining 6% of the assemblage consists of vessels that were common in settlement contexts at Kom el-Sultan. But it is significant that many of these ‘everyday vessels’ either show traces that indicate that their use in this context was unlikely to have been identical with their intended use in daily life, or they evince modifications for their use in a ritual context. A group of drop-shaped vessels, for example, that does not appear to have been specifically made for use in a ritual context had been painted with white decoration post-firing (Fig. 5d; Pl. 4), perhaps re-creating the pale slip of the ovoid vessels produced specifically for use in the cemetery mentioned above. The ‘redecoration’ of these vessels was presumably closely linked to their use in this specific context: a bowl used as a

the late Old Kingdom ‘beer jar’, reduced to a symbolic, model form. The final manifestation is the classic ‘Abydos Middle Kingdom offering cone’. The author also does not agree with Yamamoto’s suggestion that the mud-fillings are mud lids.

147

SERVING THE DEAD

(a)

(c)

(b)

(d)

0

(e)

5

10

cm Fig. 5: Pottery from chapel in Unit 26 (Feature 3). Drawings by author and L. Hulková.

palette for white paint was found deposited in the chapel along with the other vessels (Pl. 2 at left). The use of white paint to decorate pottery used in a cultic context appears to be a tradition originating in the Memphite region during the late Old Kingdom (Rzeuska 2003), but this is so far the earliest attested case for this practice at Abydos. The colour white symbolized the purity of objects during rituals in which purity was required (Seiler 2005, 115–17) and it might be suggested that the white paint was intended to purify or rededicate profane objects for use in the rituals at the chapel, or alternatively to signify that the vessels contained a substance, for example water, that was used in libations and rituals of purification. The other common household vessels from the cult chapel are small red-slipped bowls (Fig. 5a–b; Pl. 5). Such vessels were precursors of the classic Middle Kingdom ‘drinking cups’ (e.g. Seidlmayer 2005, 286– 91), and they are ubiquitous in the contemporary settlement at Kom el-Sultan. However, nearly all of the vessels of this type from the chapel have very characteristic traces of burning on their interior that make it likely that they were used as incense burners, and one

Plate 4: Red-slipped jar with white-painted decoration from chapel in Unit 26 (Feature 3). Photograph: L. Hulková.

148

C. KNOBLAUCH

Plate 5: Cup from chapel in Unit 26 (Feature 3) with traces of burning. Photograph: L. Hulková.

vessel was found with the charcoal still intact (Pl. 3 centre). Such vessels constituted 3% of the assemblage (7 examples). In summary, the pottery waste of cult activity of Phase III differs considerably from Phase II. Firstly, there is the development of a clear class of ‘cemetery pottery’ which accounts for nearly all pottery used in this context. Related to this phenomenon is the observation that those vessels that were (apparently) not specifically produced for use in this context were either adapted using white paint, or had a very specific function that differed from their use in daily life. The waste of the funerary–mortuary sphere in the late First Intermediate Period, therefore, is very unlikely to be confused with settlement waste, which was certainly not the case in the late Old Kingdom. The second major difference to Phase II has already been implied. The adoption of a specific corpus of ‘cemetery pottery’ went hand in hand with the almost complete disappearance of vessels clearly linked to the production and primary distribution of food and drink. This, it must be surmised, attests to the decreasing importance of actual food and drink as the basis of offering meals (or at least the ceramic vessels used to produce and distribute these items), and an end to the concept of the offering cult as an institution that provided an endless supply of food and drink for the deceased in the afterlife. Rather, the

dead were now reliant on generic ‘offering jars’ and generic ‘offerings’ whose importance derived from their production for the cultic context and not their association with any particular product in daily life. This may remind us of a trend in the burial customs of the same period for an increase in objects produced specifically for their inclusion in burials and a growing tendency to replace real objects and offerings with models and symbolic offerings (Seidlmayer 1990, 427–28). If, as suggested above, the use of daily life vessels and real food and drink during Phase II can be tied to a correlation between the living and the dead and between the states of death and life, what do the changes just mentioned suggest about the relationship of the living and the dead in the late First Intermediate Period at Abydos? At a most basic level, it suggests that mediation between the living and the dead, as expressed through the material culture employed in funerary and mortuary rituals (and left behind as waste), had shifted. The transactions with the dead had become less direct—or more ‘abstract’—as though the dead had become an even more special category of being, further removed from the world of the living than was previously the case. The needs of the dead were no longer equated directly with the needs of the living, and contact with the dead was no longer closely modelled on the commonest transactions of daily life. Such a proposal, speculative as it is, is consistent with the interpretation of other evidence of interactions between the living and the dead during the late First Intermediate Period and early Middle Kingdom. This is most obviously the case with changes in the nature of burial customs, whereby categories of objects and actions that had previously stressed the continuum of the physical and social self after death during the late Old Kingdom were augmented by an array of objects and processes that are understood as attesting to the transformational nature of death and the altered state of the deceased in the early Middle Kingdom (Seidlmayer 1990, 428–29; Seidlmayer 2001, 230). These included a new level of expenditure and techniques in the preparation of the corpse which went far beyond the cosmetic procedures of the Old Kingdom (Knoblauch 2016, 345–52); the placement of the deceased in a stretched, rigid pose that was no longer based on the Old Kingdom naturalistic pose (Seidlmayer 2001, 230); and the iconography of the burial mask, which now included gender-neutral or non-gender-specific elements and features that were not, strictly speaking,

SERVING THE DEAD

149

attributes of the deceased when they were alive (Seidlmayer 2001, 230). The development of a new repertoire of cultic vessels and practices at Abydos during the late First Intermediate Period was, however, unlikely to have been a strictly religious phenomenon and it would be folly to argue that it was. Many of the practices (white paint, symbolic offerings, model jars) are not entirely new, although some of their particular manifestations at Abydos might be. All these elements are present in one form or another in the funerary and mortuary culture of the late Old Kingdom elite in the Memphite cemeteries and in a restricted way (mud fillings) at Abydos in the tomb of Weni (Phase I) and perhaps in the Central Mastaba (empty or symbolically filled pottery?). From this perspective, the adoption and then proliferation of these practices at Abydos in the course of the First Intermediate Period represents another case of the assimilation, reinterpretation and further development

at a local level of practices during this period that were previously restricted to a small minority of elites in Old Kingdom society. On a final note, it can be observed that the changes noticed were not restricted to Abydos. A similar shift in ritual practice is discernible across a number of other nearby Upper Egyptian centres such as at Hawawish (Hope 2006), Dendera (Petrie et al. 1900; Slater 1974) and Thebes (Petrie 1909; Arnold 1972; Seiler in Polz et al. 1999; Seiler 2012) including the royal necropolis of Dynasty 11 at el-Tarif. This begs the question to what extent the cultural and political independence of southern Egypt during the First Intermediate Period was a contributing factor to the development, dissemination and popularity of new ritual traditions. More comparative material from Middle and Lower Egypt is sorely needed, and better data from Upper Egypt might sharpen this picture considerably.

Bibliography

———. 1982. Opferliste. In Lexikon der Ägyptologie IV, W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds), 586–89. Wiesbaden. Baud, M. 2006. The relative chronology of Dynasties 6 and 8. In Ancient Egyptian chronology, E. Hornung, R. Krauss and D. Warburton (eds), 144–58. Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section One: The Near and Middle East 83. Leiden; Boston. Bussmann, R. 2010. Die Provinztempel Ägyptens von der 0. bis zur 11. Dynastie: Archäologie und Geschichte einer gesselschaftlichen Institution zwischen Residenz und Provinz. Probleme der Ägyptologie 30. Leiden; Boston. Faltings, D. 1998. Die Keramik des Lebenmittelproduktion im Alten Reich. Archäologie und Gebrauch eines Gebrauchartikels. Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 14. Heidelberg. Grieshammer, R. 1984. Reinheit, kultische. In Lexikon der Ägyptologie V, W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds), 212–13. Wiesbaden. Hendrickx, S., D. Faltings, L. Op de Beeck, D. Raue, and C. Michiels. 2002. Milk, beer and bread technology during the Early Dynastic period. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 58: 277–304. Hope, C. 2006. I. The pottery. In Akhmim in the Old Kingdom. Part II: The pottery, decoration techniques and colour conventions, C. Hope and A. McFarlane (eds), 11–155. The Australian Centre for Egyptology Studies 7. Oxford.

Adams, M. D. 2005. Community and society in Egypt in the First Intermediate Period: An archaeological investigation of the Abydos settlement site. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Pennsylvania. Arnold, Di. 1968. Bemerkungen zu den Königsgräbern der frühen 11. Dynastie von el-Târif. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 23: 26–37. Arnold, Do. 1972. Weiteres zur Keramik von el-Târif. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 28: 33–46. ———. 1984. Reinigungsgefäße. In Lexikon der Ägyptologie V, W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds), 213–20. Wiesbaden. Bárta, M. 1995. Archaeology and iconography: bḏꜥ and ꜥprt bread moulds and ‘Speisetischszene’ development in the Old Kingdom. Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 22: 21–35. ———. 2003. Funerary rites and cults at Abusir South. In Es werde niederlegt als Schriftstück. Festschrift für Hartwig Altenmüller zum 65. Geburtstag, N. Kloth, K. Martin and E. Pardey (eds), 17–30. Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur Beiheft 9. Hamburg. Barta, W. 1968. Die altägyptische Opferliste von der Frühzeit bis zur griechisch-römischen Epoche. Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 3. Berlin.

150

C. KNOBLAUCH

Knoblauch, C. M. 2010. Preliminary report on the Early Bronze Age III pottery from contexts of the 6th Dynasty in the Abydos Middle Cemetery. Egypt and the Levant 20: 243–61. ———. 2016. A new group of Middle Kingdom embalming deposits? Another look at pottery dumps and repositories for building materials in Middle Kingdom cemeteries. Egypt and the Levant 26: 329–56. ———. Forthcoming. Pottery from the tomb of Weni the Elder at Abydos. In Old Kingdom pottery studies II, T. Rzeuska and A. Wodzińska (eds). Köhler, E. C. 2003. Ursprung einer langen Tradition: Grab und Totenkult in der Frühzeit. In Grab und Totenkult im Alten Ägypten, H. Guksch, E. Hofmann, and M. Bommas (eds), 11–26. Munich. Lacovara, P., S. Ikram, B. Brier, M. Leveque, and R. Stein. 2015. An Egyptian mummy of the Late Old Kingdom in the Michael C. Carlos Museum, Emory University. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 51: 65–74. Lapp, G. 1986. Die Opferformel des Alten Reiches. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Abteilung Kairo Sonderschrift 21. Mainz am Rhein. Marchand, S. 2004. Fouilles récentes dans la zone urbaine de Dendara: La céramique de la fin de l’Ancien Empire au début de la XIIe dynastie. Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 7: 211–38. O’Connor, D. 1985. The ‘cenotaphs’ of the Middle Kingdom at Abydos. In Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar II, P. Posener-Krieger (ed.), 161–77. Bibliothèque d’étude 97. Cairo. ———. 2009. Abydos: Egypt’s first pharaohs and the cult of Osiris. New Aspects of Antiquity. London. Petrie, W. M. F. 1909. Qurneh. British School of Archaeology in Egypt 16. London. Petrie, W. M. F., F. L. Griffith, J. H. Gladstone, and O. Thomas. 1900. Dendereh. Memoir of the Egyptian Exploration Fund 17. London. Polz, D., W. Gordon, A. Nerlich, A. Piccato, U. Rummel, A. Seiler, and S. Voß. 1999. Bericht über die 6., 7., und 8. Grabungskampagne in der Nekropole von Dra’Abu el-Naga/Theben-West. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 55: 343–410. Richards, J. 2003. The Abydos cemeteries in the Late Old Kingdom. In Egyptology at the dawn of the twenty-first century: Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists, Z. Hawass (ed.), 400–07. Cairo. ———. 2005. Society and death in the Middle Kingdom. Mortuary landscapes of the Middle Kingdom. Cambridge. ———. 2010. Honoring the ancestors at Abydos: The Middle Kingdom in the Middle Cemetery. In Millions of jubilees: Studies in honor of David P. Silverman 2, Z. Hawass and J. Houser-Wegner (eds), 137–66. Cairo.

Roth, A. M. 1994. The practical economics of tomb-building in the Old Kingdom: A visit to the necropolis in a carrying chair. In For his ka: Essays offered in memory of Klaus Baer, D. Silverman (ed.), 227–40. Chicago. Rzeuska, T. 2001. The pottery from the funerary complex of Vizier Merefnebef (West Saqqara). Evidence of a burial and cult of the dead in the Old Kingdom. In Proceedings of the First Central European Conference of Young Egyptologists. Egypt 1999: Perspectives of research. Warsaw 7–9 June 1999, J. Popielska-Grzybowska (ed.), 157–68. Warsaw. ———. 2003. Some remarks on the Old Kingdom white painted funerary cult pottery from West Saqqara. In Proceedings of the Second Central European Conference of Young Egyptologists, Egypt 2001: Perspectives of research, J. Popielska-Grzybowska (ed.), 125–34. Warsaw. ———. 2006. Saqqara II. Pottery of the late Old Kingdom: Funerary pottery and burial customs. Warsaw. ———. 2011. An offering of a beer jar or a beer jar as an offering. In Under the potter’s tree. Studies on ancient Egypt presented to Janine Bourriau on the occasion of her 70th birthday, D. A. Aston, B. Bader, C. Gallorini, P. Nicholson, and S. Buckingham (eds), 829–41. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 204. Leuven. Seidlmayer, S. 1990. Gräberfelder aus dem Übergang vom Alten zum Mittleren Reich. Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 1. Heidelberg. ———. 2001. Die Ikonographie des Todes. In Social aspects of funerary culture in the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms, H. Willems (ed.), 205–52. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 103. Leuven. ———. 2005. Regionale und chronologische Charakteristika der Beigabenkeramik des Friedhofs von Elephantine. In Des Néferkare aux Montouhotep. Travaux archéologiques en cours sur la fin de la VIe dynastie et la Première Période Intermédiaire, L. Pantalacci and C. Berger-el-Naggar (eds), 279–99. Lyon. ———. 2006. The relative chronology of the First Intermediate Period. In Ancient Egyptian chronology, E. Hornung, R. Krauss, and D. Warburton (eds), 159–67. Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section One: The Near and Middle East 83. Leiden; Boston. Seiler, A. 1995. Archäologisch faßbare Kultpraktiken in Grabkontexten der frühen 18. Dynastie in Dra’Abu el-Naga/Theben. In Thebanische Beamtennekropolen. J. Assmann, E. Dziobek, H. Guksch and F. Kampp (eds), 185–203. Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 12. Heidelberg. ———. 2005. Tradition & Wandel. Die Keramik als Spiegel der Kulturentwicklung Thebens in der Zweiten Zwischenzeit. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Abteilung Kairo Sonderschrift 32. Mainz am Rhein.

SERVING THE DEAD

———. 2012. Middle Kingdom pottery in the Theban necropolis. In Handbook of pottery of the Middle Kingdom. Volume II: The regional volume, R. Schiestl and A. Seiler (eds), 299–320. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 31. Vienna. Simpson, W. K. 1974. The terrace of the great god at Abydos: The offering chapels of Dynasties 12 and 13. Publications of the Pennsylvania–Yale Expedition to Egypt 5. New Haven; Philadelphia. Slater, R. A. 1974. The archaeology of Dendereh in the First Intermediate Period. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Pennsylvania.

151

Snape, S. R. 1986. Mortuary assemblages from Abydos. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Liverpool. Wodzińska, A. 2009. Domestic and funerary/sacral pottery from Fourth Dynasty Giza. In Studies on Old Kingdom pottery, T. Rzeuska and A. Wodzińska (eds), 209–24. Warsaw. Yamamoto, K. 2009–10. Digging in the archives: An unpublished cemetery in Abydos. Newsletter of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 2 (3): 12–13. ———. 2011. Offering cones from Middle Kingdom North Abydos. Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 9: 555– 66.

FLUCTUATING LANDSCAPES: CROSS-CULTURAL INTERACTION, MORTUARY PRACTICE AND RITUAL AT PTOLEMAIC-ROMAN ABYDOS1 Thomas LANDVATTER

Most scholarly work at Abydos since the 19th century has focused on material from the dynastic period; because of this, the post-New Kingdom phases of the site’s use as an active ritual and mortuary landscape

have remained elusive, in particular during the periods of Macedonian–Ptolemaic (330–30 BC) and Roman (30 BC–AD 395) rule.2 Many other major, traditional Egyptian mortuary and ritual centres are similarly ill understood during these periods, at least archaeologically.3 The reason is in part disciplinary: classicists and classical archaeologists have tended to focus on the most overtly ‘classical’ material from Egypt at this time—in particular Greek-language papyri and material culture originating from Alexandria—while many Egyptologists have long seen the so-called ‘GraecoRoman’ period as beyond their purview.4 The ‘bifurcated’ nature of the study of Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, which persisted for much of the 20th century, extended to the interpretation of society and culture in Egypt at this time, with Greeks and Egyptians conceived of as two societies coexisting but with little meaningful impact on one another.5 As a place of Egyptian tradition and power with few overt traces of Greek and Roman culture, Abydos during the Ptolemaic and Roman periods thus attracted little attention. In recent years the ‘bifurcation’ in the study of Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt has broken down: the Ptolemaic dynasty has been argued to be an integral part of ‘pharaonic’ Egyptian history (Manning 2010), while there has been increased collaboration between Egyptologists (particularly demoticists), papyrologists and classically trained historians and archaeologists. The breaking down of disciplinary barriers has led to a re-evaluation of Greek–Egyptian relations, replacing the notion of a necessary cultural antagonism and separation with a more nuanced understanding that the ways in which ‘both cultures viewed, interpreted, and engaged with each other … is the real story’ (Manning

1

4

Abstract The Ptolemaic and Roman periods at Abydos are ill understood, in part owing to disciplinary history; however, understanding sites such as Abydos is crucial for exploring the nature of cultural interaction at this time. This paper argues that both indigenous Egyptians and Greek-speaking groups were intensely interested in Abydos during the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, and that the interest of that Greek-speaking population ultimately caused a significant shift in the landscape. During the Ptolemaic period, the old ritual landscape of Abydos, focused on the processional route associated with Osiris’ annual festival, continued largely unaltered. Mortuary activity was organized around this ritual landscape as well. However, the New Kingdom temple complex of Seti I grew in importance as a healing and oracular centre that was frequented by Greekspeakers. By the Roman period, the landscape had reoriented around the Seti I temple complex and the old processional route shut down, indicated by the opening up of the processional wadi to burials. This was accompanied by the increased prominence of a different processional route that fulfilled a role that was at least similar to, if not the same as, the previous one. Cultural interaction produced a ‘new’ landscape that still adhered to local conventions. Introduction

2 3

I thank Ilona Regulski for inviting me to contribute this article even though I was unable to attend the 2015 colloquium. All regnal dates and periods are from Shaw (2002). Thebes during the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, for example, is relatively well studied (see e.g. Bataille 1952, Vleeming 1995), but archaeological evidence is poorly preserved owing to the excavation practices of early archaeologists, which tended to at best ignore post-pharaonic material and at worst destroy it.

5

Ritner (1992) polemically links this with an interest in cultural purity, and is highly critical of both Egyptologists and classicists. Scholars such as Bingen (2007), Préaux (1978) and Samuel (1989) are examples of this school of thought. Samuel states clearly that ‘we now understand that native culture and literature flourished alongside the Greek, and that the two had very little influence over each other’ (Samuel 1989, 9).

154

T. LANDVATTER

2010, 33). This new focus on cultural interaction and interpretation can extend to approaches to material culture and practice, with recognition that interaction between Greeks and Egyptians produced outcomes beyond wholesale acculturation or separation. In this vein, the study of old Egyptian ritual and mortuary centres such as Abydos can prove to be critical: how did Greeks engage with Egyptian landscapes of deepseated tradition, and how did locals respond to this engagement? Abydos and sites like it provide culturally Egyptian counterpoints to areas of intense Greek settlement such as Alexandria and the Fayum, which are so often the focus in the study of cross-cultural interaction during the Ptolemaic and Roman periods. The sheer antiquity of the Abydos landscape and the density of material in it meant that there was no possibility for the complete imposition of a foreign meaning on the site without any reference to Egyptian tradition in some way. But Abydos, though by any measure provincial, was not isolated from the effects of Greek settlement, as Greekspeakers visited the site and it is located just over 40km from the site of Ptolemais Hermiou (modern al-Minshah), the Ptolemies’ main administrative centre in Upper Egypt and a city accorded the rights of a Greek polis.6 Abydos was even occasionally at the centre of political events: the Ptolemies besieged Abydos during the revolt of 206–186 BC (Préaux 1936; Kemp 1975).7 The potential dynamics of cultural interaction are intriguing, since Abydos had little political importance but was located near an important centre, and since it possessed a certain ritual cachet that, as it turns out, was attractive to Greeks and other non-Egyptians resident in Egypt. Abydos is precisely a place where we should expect cultural encounters to be complex, rather than a straightforward case of either a statically maintained Egyptian tradition or a complete rejection of that same tradition in favour of an imposed ‘Greek’ interpretation of the site and its significance.

6

7

It is important to note that, though a polis, Ptolemais’ multicultural character has recently been emphasized (Manning 2010, 112). Abydos appears to have been at one point under the control of the rebel pharaoh Haronnophris (Hurgonaphor), attested by a graffito in the Seti I temple complex (discussed extensively below) written in Egyptian but in Greek characters (Perdrizet

I argue that Abydos was a site of intense interest for both indigenous Egyptians and the Greek settler population during the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, and that the interest of that settler population ultimately caused a significant shift in the landscape. During the Ptolemaic period, the mortuary and ritual landscape of Abydos was maintained much as it had been in the Late Period. Crucially the old ritual landscape of Abydos, which dated back to at least the Middle Kingdom, was largely unaltered and continued to focus on the processional route associated with Osiris’ annual festival. The major development in the Abydos landscape was the growing importance of the New Kingdom temple complex of Seti I. This temple first was a site of pilgrimage in the Late Period, but became the location of a popular healing cult and oracle frequented in the Ptolemaic period by Greek-speakers and non-Egyptians. By the Roman period, however, the landscape had changed significantly, with the Seti I temple complex becoming the new focal point of the ritual landscape, and the old processional route shutting down. However, this does not indicate a fundamental conflict between Greeks and Egyptians, with the Greek interpretation ‘winning’: though the importance accorded to the Seti I temple by the Greek-speaking population caused a shift in the landscape, this was apparently accompanied by the increased prominence of a different processional route that fulfilled a role that was at least similar to, if not the same as, the previous one. Cultural interaction produced a ‘new’ landscape that still adhered to local conventions of what the site as whole meant. Osiris and Abydos in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods The vast and complicated Abydos ritual and mortuary landscape is conventionally divided into two main sections, South and North Abydos. This paper concentrates entirely on areas and structures in North Abydos

and Lefebvre 1919, 13, no. 74; Pestman 1995, text q). That Abydos was besieged is attested by another graffito dated to 199 BC in the same structure (Perdrizet and Lefebvre 1919, 7, no. 32; Pestman 1995, text t) that attests to a certain Philokles making obesisance to Serapis ‘at the time of the siege of Abydos’ (ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀβύδου πολιορκίας).

155

FLUCTUATING LANDSCAPES

Deir Sitt Damyana

Kom es-Sultan

Ramses II ‘Portal Temple’

Osiris Temple Votive Zone

Shunet el-Zebib (Khasekhemwy Enclosure)

North Cemetery

Middle Cemetery

Ramses II Temple Seti I Temple

‘Osireion’

Processional Wadi

Second Processional Axis

Tomb of Djer / Osiris Cenotaph

Umm el-Qa’ab

South Hill

N Fig. 1: Labelled satellite view of North Abydos. Labelled and edited by T. Landvatter. Satellite image courtesy of DigitalGlobe © 2016.

156

T. LANDVATTER

(the most important features in this area are labelled in Fig. 1). By the Ptolemaic period, Abydos had long been considered one of the supposed burial places of Osiris himself: in the Middle Kingdom, the tomb of the Dynasty 1 pharaoh Djer at Umm el-Qa‘ab—the Early Dynastic necropolis located in the low desert near a bay in the western desert cliffs—had been identified as the god’s tomb, referred to as Peqer,8 and had become the focus of a vast ritual and processional landscape. Numerous Middle Kingdom and later votive artefacts and structures found in and around Djer’s tomb (Dreyer et al. 2000, 118; U. Effland 2006), as well as epigraphic evidence, attest to elaborate yearly processions and rituals which eventually encompassed a large part of the Abydos funerary landscape. Processions appear to have proceeded from the temple of Osiris at Kom el-Sultan up a wadi that divides the Middle and North Cemeteries. The wadi itself was considered to be sacred space from at least Dynasty 13 onward, with tomb construction prohibited within according to the Neferhotep stela (Leahy 1989). The centrality of the Osiris cult and the Osiris cenotaph at Umm el-Qa‘ab was persistent: recent excavations by the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (DAI) around the tomb of Djer have demonstrated a continuation of votive pottery deposits at Umm el-Qa‘ab through the Ptolemaic period, along with small finds dating through the 6th century AD (U. Effland 2006; Budka 2010, 58; U. Effland, Budka and Effland 2010; A. Effland 2014). The importance of Abydos to the cult of Osiris was widely known, and appears in non-Egyptian sources. Plutarch, writing in the late 1st century AD, named Abydos in De Iside et Osiride as one of the claimed burial places of Osiris, and noted that ‘the wealthy and powerful among the Egyptians are buried mostly in Abydos, deeming it an honour to be buried near the body of Osiris’9 (Plutarch De Iside 359 B). Plutarch’s comments about the desires of the Egyptian elite need not be taken literally; it is certain that Abydos was not where the highest Egyptian elites were buried during this period.10 However, the catchment area for the

Abydos cemetery in the Ptolemaic and Roman eras is still in question: though it was probably not a cemetery of Egypt-wide importance, there is some evidence for non-local elites being buried at Abydos during the very end of the dynastic period.11 This would be in line with earlier periods, such as the late Old Kingdom, when non-local elites chose to be buried at Abydos (Richards 2002; 2007; Richards and Herbich 2005). Rather than necessarily reflecting a reality ‘on the ground’, Plutarch’s assertion about Abydos demonstates an understanding of the site’s importance in Egyptian funerary rhetoric and in the Osiris cult. The metaphorical ‘Journey to Abydos’ (Abydosfahrt) was common in tomb reliefs and texts from the Middle Kingdom onwards (Altenmüller 1975), while Egyptian funerary texts contemporary to Plutarch continued to feature Abydos prominently, including the Book of the Dead, which remained popular in the Ptolemaic period, and the specifically Roman period (1st century AD) ‘Embalming Ritual’ (Smith 2009, 215–44, Text 11; Töpfer 2015) and ‘Liturgy of the Opening of the Mouth for Breathing’ (Smith 2009, 349–66, Text 16). For example, the ‘Embalming Ritual’ states for the deceased that ‘he [Osiris] will hearken to your words in Abydos … he will grant you … a perfect mummification in Abydos … Your sepulchre will be equipped in the necropolis of the nome of Abydos’ (Smith 2009, 232). Egyptian inscriptions on funerary equipment also continued to feature Abydos prominently, as on the Roman period mummy mask of Hierax son of Sarapion from Meir in Middle Egypt: ‘May you sail downstream to Busiris, and may you sail upstream to the nome of Abydos, when its resident (i.e. Osiris) celebrates the festival of Sokar.’12 The association of Abydos and Osiris was not limited to Egyptian-language funerary objects and literature: a 2nd- or 3rd-century AD bilingual Greek-demotic mummy tag (T.Mom. Louvre 245) for a certain Pachoumis son of Pelilis from Thmounkrekis Nea states that his ‘soul will serve the great god Osiris of Abydos’.13

8

11

9

10

Pqr, as identified by Schäfer 1904, 26–29. See also, generally, O’Connor 2009. Translation from Griffiths 1970, 149. Greek: ἔν τ’ Ἀβύδῳ τοὺς εὐδαίμονας τῶν Αἰγυπτίων καὶ δυνατοὺς μάλιστα θάπτεσθαι φιλοτιμουμένους ὁμοτάφους εἶναι τοῦ σώματος Ὀσίριδος. Griffiths (1970, 362–63) thinks that Plutarch’s source on Abydos is early, given the ‘much diminished’ importance of the site by the Roman period. On Plutarch’s sources in general, see Griffiths 1970, 75–100.

12

13

Leahy (2009, 280 n. 22) argues that Khentikhetihotep, buried in tomb D.7 (Randall-MacIver and Mace 1902, 81), was from Akhmim. Cairo Museum, JE 42951. Translation from Riggs 2005, 273– 74, object no. 56. Translation after Baratte and Boyaval 1974, 251.

FLUCTUATING LANDSCAPES

157

For certain Greek and Latin authors, Abydos was also associated with Memnon, a mythical Ethiopian king and an important figure in the Trojan War cycle. The Greek geographer Strabo (17.42–44) and the Roman polymath Pliny the Elder (5.11), writing about a century apart, mention Abydos in connection with both Osiris and Memnon. Pliny’s mention of the site is brief but notes both associations, describing Abydos as ‘famous for the royal residence of Memnon (Memnonis regia) and for a temple of Osiris’.14 Writing earlier, Strabo goes into more detail, remarking that Abydos seems to have once been a ‘great city’ that was ‘second to Thebes’, but was now only a ‘small settlement’.15 Strabo also discusses Osiris, remarking (17.44) that ‘at Abydos they honour Osiris’ (Ἐν δὲ τῇ Ἀβυδῳ τιμῶσι τὸν Ὂσιριν), and noting some peculiarities in ritual at his Abydos temple.16 Strabo, however, reserves most of his attention for what he terms the Memnonion (τὸ Μεμνόνιον). This structure is called a ‘royal building’ or ‘palace’ (βασίλειον), the same Memnonis regia that Pliny would later mention. Strabo gives some detail of the construction. The building is described as ‘wondrously constructed of solid stone’, and possessed a deep ‘fountain’ (κρήνη) approached via monolithic vaults ‘excessive in size and construction’. Strabo’s Memnonion has always been identified with the temple of Seti I, and the ‘fountain’ with the so-called Osireion (Gardiner 1961, 93). A Hellenistic graffito (Perdrizet and Lefebvre 1919, 101 no. 563) in the Seti I temple affirms this identification, attesting to the visit of a certain Menelaus son of Dikaios to the Memnonion (εἰς τὸ Μεμνόνιον). Strabo connected the Memnonion of Abydos with other ‘Memnonia’ in Egypt, speculating a connection between the Seti I temple, the ‘Memnonia’ of Thebes (i.e. the mortuary temple of Amenhotep III) and the labyrinth at Hawara (the mortuary temple of Amenemhat III), all of which he speculates might be ‘a work of the same man’ (τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἔργον) (17.42).

The connection between the temple of Seti I and that of Amenhotep III was plausibly argued by Gardiner (1961) to be due to the similarity (to Greek ears) of the throne names of Seti I and Amenhotep III—Mn-mꜢꜥt-Rꜥ and Nb-mꜢꜥt-Rꜥ, respectively—to the Greek ‘Memnon’. The connection with the Hawara labyrinth is similar: Strabo relies on a supposed Egyptian identification of the Greek ‘Memnon’ with a certain ‘Ismandes’ (Strabo 17.42) or ‘Imandes’ (17.37), whom Strabo identifies as the builder of the labyrinth (17.37). ‘Ismandes’/ ‘Imandes’ is a Greek rendering of the throne name of Amenemhet III, Ny-mꜢꜥt-Rꜥ, which could also plausibly be reinterpreted as Memnon.17 The potential importance of this interpretatio graeca of the Seti I temple complex will be addressed later, but it is clear that, despite the association of Abydos and the Seti I temple complex with Memnon, Osiris was the most important figure associated with Abydos. Plutarch rightly emphasized the importance of Abydos as the burial place of Osiris, which must reflect the continued importance of the Osiris cenotaph at Umm el-Qa‘ab. Though Plutarch was perhaps wrong in his assessment of who exactly was being buried at Abydos, the connection he drew between Abydos as the burial place of Osiris and Abydos as a cemetery was on some level correct: the archaeological evidence seems to indicate that funerary behaviour throughout the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, at least with respect to the spatial organization of the Abydos mortuary landscape, was primarily shaped by the ritual landscape associated with the Osiris cenotaph.

14

17

15 16

Translation is after Rackham 1942, 264–67. All translations from Strabo are after Jones 1932, 110–17. Strabo states that no singers, flutists, or lyre players may begin the rites in honour of Osiris. This echoes regulations in two decrees inscribed on the so-called ‘Gate of Hadrian’ at Philae related to rites at the ‘abaton’ on Biga which, like Abydos, was one of Osiris’ burial places. See Yoyotte and Charvet 1997, 164 n. 414; 260.

The mortuary landscape of Ptolemaic and Roman Abydos The funerary and ritual landscape of Abydos is divided into two main sections: North and South Abydos, with the former encompassing all the major cemeteries under discussion here (see Fig. 1). The

On Seti I, Amenhotep III, and Amenemhet III as ‘Memnon’, see Yoyotte and Charvet 1997, 160 n. 397. See also Widmer 2002, 278 for Ismandes as a corruption of the throne name of Amenemhet III. The second and third elements of Amenemhat’s throne name, mꜢꜥt-Rꜥ, are common to the throne names of all of Strabo’s ‘Memnons’, perhaps underlying his own identification. On Ismandes as a corruption of the throne name of Rameses II, see Yoyotte and Charvet 1997, 160 n. 396.

158

T. LANDVATTER

funerary landscape of Abydos is extraordinarily dense, as human burial at Abydos is attested from the Predynastic period onward, and the areas favoured for burial shifted over time. The Middle Cemetery served as a burial ground for local residents during the Predynastic period, with activity falling off during the Early Dynastic, only to resume in the late Old Kingdom as a centre of burial for the elite. Umm el-Qa‘ab, as mentioned above, is the location of the royal burials of the Early Dynastic period. The North Cemetery includes the funerary enclosures associated with the Early Dynastic burials at Umm el-Qa‘ab, and also served as the principal burial ground for the local population from the Predynastic period through to the end of the Middle Kingdom. The principal burials of the New Kingdom were in an area south of the major New Kingdom temples, the Seti I complex and the smaller temple of Rameses II. The Third Intermediate Period marks the beginning of serious intrusive burials throughout the site that disturbed prior burials, which continue through the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, entailing both tomb reuse and new constructions.18 It is difficult to develop a precise sense of Abydos’ funerary landscape during the later phases of the site’s use. Nearly all of the major 19th- and early 20thcentury excavations revealed Ptolemaic and Roman material, much of which was dated incorrectly and none of which was ever published in great detail. These excavations include the initial work by Mariette and his successor at the site, Amélineau; Mariette’s excavations began in 1858, with the final publication of Amélineau’s work in 1905 (Mariette 1869, 1880a, 1880b; Amélineau 1899–1905). Both are mostly responsible for the ravaged state of the site today. Petrie began working at Abydos in 1899 (Petrie 1902a, 1903) and brought more systematic archaeological techniques and recording to the site. He was followed by Garstang (Garstang 1900, 1909; see also Abdalla 1992), Randall-MacIver and Mace (Randall-MacIver and Mace 1902), Naville (Naville 1914), Peet (Peet and Loat 1913; Peet 1914) and Frankfort (Frankfort 1930). None of these early missions included a detailed map locating their work within the wider Abydos landscape. Kemp and Merrilees (1980) and Snape (1986) have

18

For a brief overview of the development of the Abydos cemetery landscape, see Richards 2005, 130–31. See also O’Connor 2009.

reconstructed the locations of these early excavations with some success, but they are necessarily imprecise. The ongoing American and German missions at Abydos have also revealed significant Ptolemaic period and later remains, in particular the Brown University Abydos Project (BUAP) (Bestock 2012) and the University of Michigan Abydos Middle Cemetery Project (AMC) (Landvatter 2013). Three ‘cemeteries’ (i.e. excavation areas) from the 19th- and 20th-century projects seem to have been particularly rich in Ptolemaic period and later material, all in the general area of the Middle Cemetery: Petrie’s Cemetery ‘G’; Peet’s Cemetery ‘E’; and the unpublished cemetery excavated by Garstang in the first half of his 1907 season. The precise dating of each of these areas is problematic. Given both the lack of comparable material at the time of excavation and the relative lack of interest in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, early excavators had a tendency to be very general in their dating, with the distinction between Dynasty 30 and the early Ptolemaic being particularly obscure. Excavators such as Petrie were following a paradigm in which the stranger and more ‘degenerate’ the material, the later the object. For instance, Petrie remarks on a class of tombs in Cemetery G that was ‘evidently derived from the form of G.50, but [was] later than that as the sarcophagi [were] debased’ (Petrie 1902a, 34). Nevertheless, it is at least possible to establish the presence of Ptolemaic period and later material in each of these cemeteries. Petrie’s description of Cemetery G in the original publication (Petrie 1902a) is vague in terms of both the cemetery’s location and date, but recent fieldwork and more modern studies of material from the cemetery have helped establish the area’s location. In his 1902 publication, Petrie did not publish a map of Cemetery G, only giving a location relative to the dig house, saying that the area was ‘close behind our huts’ (Petrie 1902a, 1). Petrie’s dig house was identified in a magnetometer survey of the Middle Cemetery conducted by the AMC (Fig. 2), which places Cemetery G where the wadi meets the edge of the Middle Cemetery. Though Cemetery G was apparently in use for nearly the entirety of the cemetery’s history, Petrie thought

FLUCTUATING LANDSCAPES

159

Fig. 2: Results of AMC magnetometer survey, 2002–09. Petrie’s dig house and the AMC tomb excavated in 2011–12 are labelled. Map courtesy of the Abydos Middle Cemetery Project; map produced by T. Herbich, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences; labels are author’s own.

that the ‘principal use of this region [Cemetery G] was from the XXVIth Dynasty to the Ptolemaic age’ (Petrie 1902a, 34). However, in his full descriptions of the tombs Petrie is vague, stating that most of the tombs are dated to ‘about the XXXth Dynasty’ (Petrie 1902a, 37). It is unclear what Petrie’s basis was for this attribution, as he only says ‘attribution of them to earlier ages is impossible’ (Petrie 1902a, 37). Many of the tombs were large, mud-brick vaults with some kind of superstructure; later excavators also dated this type of structure as generally ‘late’, and especially late dynastic and early Ptolemaic (as with Peet 1914, 18). Recent work has established that material currently accessible from Tombs G.50, G.57 (dated by Petrie to Dynasty 26), and G.61 all seem to date to, at the very least, the 4th century BC and into the Ptolemaic period. Aston (2000, 171) notes that the canopic boxes from G.50 are stylistically at home in the 4th century BC, but also that they share a particular feature with canopic boxes that can be dated to the 3rd century BC. Buhl dates the sarcophagus of Hapimen from G.61 to the 3rd or 2nd centuries BC (Buhl 1959, 137–39, 201, 215), which is the latest date assigned to any of the material. Leahy (2009, 280), in a discussion of material from all three

of these tombs, remarks that G.57 is of a similar date to both G.50 and G.61. Petrie’s attribution to Dynasty 30 for much of this cemetery is thus not necessarily incorrect, but the line between funerary material of Dynasty 30 and the early Ptolemaic period is difficult to discern, and it seems clear that some portion of Cemetery G must have still been in use into the Ptolemaic period. As with Petrie’s Cemetery G, the location and date of Peet’s Cemetery E can only be imprecisely determined via the original publication. Peet describes the cemetery as lying ‘on the low mounds immediately to the south of the dry watercourse which divides the site into two halves’ (Peet 1914, 17): that is, the processional wadi on the edge of the Middle Cemetery. Though there is a plan for Cemetery E, showing the results of the excavations of 1911–12 (Peet 1914, fig. 7; there is no plan for the area cleared from the excavations in 1909–10), there is also no published map placing the cemetery in the wider Abydos landscape. One grave was intact, E422 (Fig. 3), which contained seven adults and five children, all in coffins and all with cartonnage mummy decoration; only one contained any associated grave goods (Peet 1914, 92).

160

T. LANDVATTER

Fig. 3: View of Tomb E422 from Peet’s excavations. Copyright of the Egypt Exploration Society.

One of the child mummies was donated to the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh (Peet 1914, 127), and has been dated to Dynasty 30 or the early Ptolemaic period. E422 is a large, mud-brick vaulted structure of a type that Peet dates overall to ‘late dynastic and Ptolemaic times’ (Peet 1914, 18), similar to the types identified by Petrie in Cemetery G. Peet also stated that there were a number of extended burials just below the surface, termed ‘Type III, b’, which dated from the New Kingdom to the Roman period (Peet 1914, 18), but he failed to indicate dates for specific tombs. Garstang’s excavations of 1907 resulted in the clearest evidence of Ptolemaic and Roman activity at Abydos. The location of Garstang’s work is almost certain: in his monthly report of 8 February he remarks that they were working on ‘a Ptolemaic site found in the clean sand of the valley … about 50 yards from where the workers now live [Petrie’s old dig house]’ (quoted in Abdalla 1992, 3). However, no formal reports were ever published, and the majority of Garstang’s notes have been lost. Particularly damaging has been the loss of the ‘tomb cards’, which recorded the contents of some 280 excavated tombs. Thankfully, some records have survived, and some reconstruction has been possible, largely due to the work of Snape (1986) and in particular Abdalla (1992). The most tangible results of

Garstang’s excavation were 144 stelae dating to the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, published by Abdalla (1992). Among these 144 stelae, twenty-eight have only a Greek inscription, four have a Greek and demotic or Greek and hieroglyphic inscription, thirty-four have a demotic inscription only, and three have a hieroglyphic inscription only; seventy-five stelae are uninscribed. Use of this area continued until at least until the 1st century AD: the only dated stela found in the course of Garstang’s excavations has a date of August, AD 75 (Abdalla 1992, 68, cat. no. 163). The recent excavations of the BUAP and the Michigan AMC project have each revealed multiple-interment tomb complexes that appear to have been used at least through the Ptolemaic period, and may date to the Ptolemaic period with respect to construction as well. These structures provide material for comparison with Petrie, Peet and Garstang. The BUAP excavated a Ptolemaic period multiple-interment tomb near the current village of Deir Sitt Damiana and the modern Coptic cemetery (Bestock 2012, 48–57; this volume). The structure, consisting of three subterranean mudbrick vaults built in two phases and surrounded by an enclosure wall, was badly robbed, with one vault being extensively modified in the late Roman period (Bestock 2012, 49–50). The tomb excavated by Michigan’s

FLUCTUATING LANDSCAPES

AMC project in 2011–12 is located in the Middle Cemetery at the edge of the wadi, north of Petrie’s old dig house (see Fig. 2). This structure, consisting of three parallel mud-brick vaults with a forecourt, superstructure platform and wall, was built as a family tomb (Fig. 4 and Pls 1 and 2). The first two burials in the central chamber belonged to two priests, a certain Harsiese (Ḥr-sꜢ-Ꜣs.t) and his son Nesqaishuty (Ns-ḳꜢjšwty), as attested by two fragmentary inscribed sarcophagi that await reconstruction; their exact titles are still uncertain (Landvatter 2013). The AMC tomb had been robbed in antiquity, but still contained fragmentary elements of multiple funerary assemblages. Since the tomb contained more than twenty-five burials, it is difficult to associate any particular object with a single burial, but the funerary objects are similar to Ptolemaic period assemblages elsewhere (Landvatter 2013). The ceramic evidence from both the BUAP complex and the AMC tomb was largely Ptolemaic, indicating that these structures were used predominantly in this period and were perhaps built then as well, though a late dynastic or Dynasty 30 date cannot also be ruled out for at least the initial construction of these tombs (Bestock 2012, 57; Landvatter 2013). Petrie’s Cemetery G, Peet’s Cemetery E, and the AMC area excavated in 2011–12 indicate that the areas nearest the wadi in the Middle Cemetery were a locus of activity in the Ptolemaic period (Fig. 5). This is corroborated by both surface and geophysical survey in the Middle Cemetery. In 1996 the AMC project conducted an intensive surface collection of ceramic materials in an area of the Middle Cemetery previously excavated by Mariette.19 The survey revealed a sharp chronological break in ceramic types: nearly all finds could be grouped into either late Old Kingdom or Ptolemaic-Roman wares. Later excavation confirmed the break, but with a slightly shorter timespan: the AMC identified First Intermediate Period and early Middle Kingdom activity, with activity resuming in the Late Period. Spatially, the material recovered in the survey revealed an increase in Ptolemaic-Roman material in opposition to late Old Kingdom wares as one proceeded outward from the central core of the survey area, suggesting that the core area of the survey was in heavy use during the late Old Kingdom;

19

I thank J. Richards for making this report available to me.

161

Fig. 4: Plan view of the main Ptolemaic period tomb complex excavated by the AMC project in 2011–12. Coffin F.17 in Vault B belonged to Harsiese, and F.16 to his son Nesqaishuty. GIS by Geoff Compton, with additions by T. Landvatter.

excavations later bore this out. As one proceeds towards the wadi, the percentage of Ptolemaic-Roman wares increases dramatically, composing up to 60% of the assemblage in places. Geophysical survey of the AMC concession conducted between 2002 and 2009 (see Fig. 2) provided further evidence of Ptolemaic and later period activity, as it revealed dense agglomerations of mud-brick architecture clustering against the wadi that appeared similar in plan to those tombs described by Peet and Petrie. The interest in tomb construction near the wadi during the Ptolemaic period perhaps indicates that elites were attempting to project status by affiliating themselves with the Osiris cult and procession, which was centred on the wadi leading out to Umm el-Qa‘ab. The majority of structures revealed by the geophysical survey do not violate the wadi, indicating that the wadi was still considered sacred space at this time. The location of the BUAP tomb perhaps bears this out: the tomb is located near the Osiris temple enclosure at

T. LANDVATTER

162

Deir Sitt Damyana

Kom el-Sultan Ramses II ‘Portal Temple’ Osiris Temple Votive Zone

Shunet el-Zebib (Khasekhemwy Enclosure)

5

1 North Cemetery

2

Middle Cemetery

Ramses II Temple

3 4 Seti I Temple

Processional Wadi

Osireion

N Fig. 5: Labelled satellite overview of North Abydos. Black boxes indicate excavation areas of the Michigan Abydos Middle Cemetery (AMC) project, 1999–2012. 1. Garstang’s unpublished 1907 cemetery. 2. The AMC 2011–12 excavation area. 3. Possible location of Petrie’s Cemetery G. 4. possible location of Peet’s Cemetery E. 5. AMC excavation area 1999–2009, centred on the Old Kingdom mastabas of Iuu and Weni. Labelled and edited by T. Landvatter. Satellite image courtesy of DigitalGlobe © 2016.

Kom el-Sultan and the ‘votive zone’ that extends between the enclosure and the North Cemetery. Other ritual activity was concentrated in this area as well, as the BUAP discovered near the tomb a monumental Ptolemaic period ibis hypogeum and, associated with the hypogeum, a probable votive deposit of bronze statues and coins, dating to the 3rd century BC (Bestock 2012, 58–73; this volume). In addition, a Ptolemaic to early Roman period votive deposit of several ceramic vessels was excavated by the Penn-Yale-IFA project in 1996–97 in the cult structure of Thutmosis III (Pouls Wegner 2011). In the Ptolemaic period, the area of the ‘votive zone’ appears to still have maintained some

importance for the Osiris cult, with burial in proximity to it perhaps considered desirable. The apparent respect given to the processional route and the desire to be buried near it makes the cemetery excavated by Garstang quite a shocking development. This cemetery is located in the wadi itself, which would have blocked the processional route and would have disrupted the spatial significance of the Middle Cemetery tombs built explicitly in proximity to it. The dating of this cemetery is extremely difficult given the lack of documentation, but it also has, demonstrably, the latest material currently under consideration, with definitively Roman period stelae. The northern extreme

163

FLUCTUATING LANDSCAPES

SUPERSTRUCTURE WALL

PLATFORM

VAULT A VAULT B FORECOURT

VAULT C

Plate 1: Labelled view of the Ptolemaic period tomb excavated by the AMC project in 2011–12. Photo by the author.

Plate 2: View of the rear of the central vault (Vault B) of the AMC tomb, with the coffins of Harsiese (right, labelled as Feature 17) and his son Nesqaishuty (left). Photo by the author.

164

T. LANDVATTER

of the AMC geophysical survey area shows structures spilling into the wadi (see Fig. 2) but the excavated Middle Cemetery tombs—at least the more monumental of them—appear to be mostly Ptolemaic in date, and are clearly adhering to the taboo against construction in the processional way. The blocking of the wadi by Garstang’s cemetery is likely to have occurred during the late Ptolemaic and early Roman periods, and was probably part of a wider realignment of the ritual landscape: the Thutmosis III cult structure, for instance, stopped receiving votive offerings and was dismantled in the Roman period (Pouls Wegner 2011, 424). The importance of Garstang’s cemetery thus cannot be overstated: the opening of the wadi to tomb construction would have put an end to some 1,800 years of ritual procession up the wadi to the tomb of Djer at Umm el-Qa‘ab. Osiris, Memnon and the Seti I temple at Abydos The reason for this shift lies at least in part with a reinterpretation of the Seti I temple complex—including the Seti I temple itself and the Osireion—that began in the Late Period. Starting in the 6th century BC, visitors and pilgrims to the Seti I temple complex left behind hundreds of graffiti attesting to their presence, mostly in Greek (including in the Cypriot syllabary), but also in Carian, Aramaic, Phoenician and demotic (Rutherford 2003, 177–78). The graffiti attest to the importance of the temple first as a site for pilgrimage and of a healing cult, and then as an oracle. When a god is mentioned, Osiris and Serapis predominate through the Hellenistic period, while in the Roman period the structure was associated with an oracle of the Egyptian god Bes that persisted officially until at least the 4th century AD, as attested by Ammianus Marcellinus (19.12.3); archaeological evidence attests for activity up through the 6th century (A. Effland 2014). The catchment area for the Seti I temple, based on the Greek-language graffiti, is complex. When an Egyptian origin is indicated, the toponyms indicate generally an origin in Middle and Upper Egypt: only three graffiti attest to visitors from the Delta, with two from Alexandria and one from Pelusium (Rutherford 2003, 181). Some visitors also give their origin as from cities and regions in Greece, Thrace and Asia Minor. However, it is possible that these individuals were immigrants who represented their place of origin but were at the time of the pilgrimage resident in Egypt itself (Rutherford 2003, 181–82). Visitors to the Bes

oracle even included, in the Roman period, victorious athletes who had participated in the Olympic and Pythian games (Rutherford 2003, 180; see Effland 2013). Egyptian-speakers also visited the complex, but they appear to have concentrated on a different area: documented Egyptian-language graffiti in hieroglyphic, hieratic and demotic, dating from the Third Intermediate Period into the Roman period, is concentrated in a particular passage of the so-called ‘Osireion’, the cenotaph that is part of the Seti I complex behind the temple proper towards the cliffs (Frankfort 1933, 87–96; Rutherford 2003, 186). Groups that spoke different languages appear to have had different spatial priorities (Pouls Wegner 2011, 427). But why did the Seti I temple complex increase in popularity, particularly among Greek-speakers? The importance of the above noted association with ‘Memnon’ is questionable. Certainly for Strabo the perceived connection of Abydos with Memnon was considered to be of great importance, to the point that he describes an imagined landscape of other ‘Memnonia’ across Egypt. The Ptolemaic and Roman administration recognized some of these associations: the west bank of Thebes was known in official documents of the period as the Memnoneia (τὰ Μεμνόνεια), as in the case of legal dispute between Hermias and the Choachytes (UPZ II 162). However, the importance of Memnon to Abydos in particular appears to have been largely a concern of certain literary Greeks, such as Strabo, who were not resident in Egypt. At the site itself, mentions of Memnon are hardly anywhere to be found, with only one graffito (already mentioned above, Perdrizet and Lefebvre 1919, 101, no. 563) in the Seti I temple referring to the structure as the ‘Memnonion’ (Rutherford 2003, 177). The prominence accorded to the Seti I temple during the Ptolemaic and Roman periods was not inevitable, given the importance of the older Osiris temple at Kom el-Sultan and the long history of ritual and votive dedications there. Why, then, did the Seti I temple receive so much attention? Certainly some Greek-speaking visitors must have had the ‘Memnon’ association in mind, and perhaps a desire to view the works of Memnon spurred some of the initial attention paid to the structure by Greek-speaking tourists. But on a local level, the Abydos temple was important not as a ‘Memnonion’ but rather as a centre for what one can call popular religion: healing cults, incubation and oracles associated with Egyptian deities. Such popular religious practices were quite common in Egypt during

FLUCTUATING LANDSCAPES

the Ptolemaic and Roman periods and served as means for private individuals to interact with a sacred space— the temple—that was usually restricted to the priestly elite (Frankfurter 1997, 46–47). Indeed, Rutherford argues that the Seti I temple may have increased in prominence because it was less restrictive than the older Osiris temple in terms of access (2003, 187).20 However, there is no need to think of the identification with Memnon and these local popular cults as being in conflict. Rather, the two associations perhaps fed off each other: a ‘Memnonion’, with its connotations of a Greek mythic landscape, combined with the healing and oracular cults of Osiris, Serapis and Bes would have been a powerful draw, making the Seti I temple both a place of religious pilgrimage and touristic curiosity (Rutherford 2003, 177). The increased importance of the Seti I temple was recognized by the Ptolemaic government as well. An architrave fragment of the socalled ‘desert pylon’ which faced westward towards the desert cliffs bears traces of a dedicatory inscription of Ptolemy IV (r. 221–205 BC), while an associated foundation deposit inscription seems to indicate that the pylon was rebuilt at this time (Caulfeild 1902, 19; Petrie 1902b).21 Given the preponderance of Greek-language graffiti in the temple, one might conclude that the attention paid to the Seti I temple is a Greek phenomenon. By and large, this does seem to be the case linguistically, though Greek is not the only language represented, and there is no obvious direct correlation between the ethnicity of the visitor and the language of a given graffito. The lack of a systematic survey of demotic inscriptions in the complex likely skews our picture, but the apparent predominance of Greek-language graffiti in the Seti I temple proper is telling: visitors, whatever their ethnic identity, were engaging in what had become in some sense a Greek-language milieu, or at least a

20

21

For an argument against this interpretation, see Pouls Wegner 2011, 426 n. 40. She argues that there is no reason to suppose that the Seti I temple was less restrictive in access, and that the distribution of graffiti (with concentrations of inscriptions to Bes on the exterior of the complex) argues against such a conclusion. A inscription was incised on five sides of a small limestone block with traces of gilding. The text reads: Σαράπιδι Ὀσείριδι Μεγίστωι Σωτῆρι / Διόσκορος ἐγλογιστὴς τοῦ νομοῦ ᾠκοδόμησεν ἐπ᾽ἀγαθ(ῶι), ‘To Sarapis Osiris greatest saviour / Dioskoros eklogistes (accountant) of the nome built (this) for a blessing’. The text appears to be a little rough, and includes

165

space in which Greek played an important role alongside Egyptian. However, the practices attested at the Seti I temple are not uniquely Greek. Though healing cults and incubation oracles have direct parallels in the Greek world, most notably with the cult of Asklepios,22 dream oracles have a long pedigree in Egyptian religion, and similar sorts of healing practices had developed in Egypt during the Late Period, with the cult of the deified architect Imhotep at Memphis as a particularly prominent example (Wildung 1977a and 1977b, 31–81; Lang 2012, 83–87). These similarities did not escape the notice of the immigrant Greek population: during the Ptolemaic period, Imhotep (Greek: Imouthes) was explicitly identified with the Greek Asklepios, and the Egyptian-language stelae from Memphis attesting to the god’s works are similar to practices attested at the great Asklepieion at Epidaurus (Thompson 2012, 195). The Seti I temple received a similar treatment: a probably pre-existing importance ascribed to the site for healing cult and incubation oracles was adopted by the Greek-speaking population, who thus augmented and altered an indigenous Egyptian tradition while not imposing something wholly foreign. Indeed, according to one potential reading, the author of a demotic graffito in the Osireion dating to the Persian period asks that sickness not take hold of him.23 Immigrant curiosity thus merged with and was transformed into local religious belief and practice. But it is also important to emphasize that the original function of the temple, dedicated in part to the cult of Seti I, may not have completely fallen away. The coffin of Ḥwnw, found at Abydos by Randall-MacIver and Mace (1902, 96) and dated to the reign of Ptolemy IV (r. 221–205 BC) or Ptolemy V (205–180 BC) by Buhl (1959, 74, 200–01), identifies him as a priest of Rameses II, indicating that royal cult still continued in some form at the small temple of Rameses II nearby. It is possible that a

22

23

a misspelling of Dioskoros’ office, ἐγλογιστής instead of ἐκλογιστής. For an explicit comparison between Egyptian temples and Greek Asklepieia, see Lang 2012, 54–58. Frankfort 1933, 91, no. 39. This is one of only a few demotic graffiti attested by Frankfort, and it was in poor condition. The reading belongs to Spiegelberg who was unsure whether to read ‘Unheil’ (mischief) or ‘Krankheit’ (sickness). The rarity of demotic in Frankfort’s graffiti corpus does not necessarily indicate a dearth of demotic inscriptions in the Seti complex, however, since no systematic survey of extant demotic inscriptions has been done.

166

T. LANDVATTER

similar situation persisted with the Seti I temple; multiple meanings of the space could easily coexist.24 Fluctuating landscapes The increased importance given to the Seti I temple is important in and of itself, since it signals the development of a new locus for popular religion in the area aside from the ‘votive zone’ outside the main Osiris temple. However, the increased importance of the popular healing and oracular cults favoured by Greekspeakers at the Seti I temple ultimately caused, I would argue, a major reorientation of the overall ritual and mortuary landscape, placing the Seti I temple at the centre. Since the mortuary and ritual landscapes of Abydos were closely intertwined, a change in ritual focus would naturally cause a shift in the use of mortuary space, as people continued to define themselves in relation to the ritual landscape. Both mortuary and ritual evidence attest to the fact that the old processional route up the wadi separating the North and Middle Cemeteries was shut down. As noted before, the presence in the wadi of the cemetery excavated by Garstang in 1907 indicates that the longstanding prohibition on tomb construction in the wadi ended; this implies that the procession from the Osiris temple, whose progress this cemetery would impede, ended as well. The ceramic evidence from Umm elQa‘ab supports this: votive pottery deposits continued in large quantities until the Ptolemaic period (Budka 2010, 51; U. Effland, J. Budka, and A. Effland 2010) while Roman period activity seems to be of a different character (A. Effland 2014). That such an old processional route continued in operation well into the Ptolemaic period is not surprising. The Ptolemaic administration had a vested interest in perpetuating indigenous traditions and hierarchies in order to bolster their claims

24

25

26

Cult focused on dynastic period pharaohs is known in the Ptolemaic period elsewhere in Egypt. Amenemhet III (i.e. Strabo’s ‘Ismandes’/‘Imandes’/‘Memnon’) was the focus of a popular cult at Hawara, worshipped as Pr-ꜥꜢ mꜢꜥ-Rꜥ, ‘Pharaoh Maa-re,’ derived from Amenemhat’s throne name Ny-mꜢꜥt-Rꜥ. See Widmer 2002. Perdrizet and Lefebvre 1919, nos 32, 74; Pestman 1995, texts q and t. See note 7 above. I am hesitant to ascribe the closing off of the wadi to a direct punitive action on the part of the Ptolemaic government, given

to be ruling as the legitimate pharaoh. Ptolemaic rapprochement with the priestly elites was central to this strategy. The priests themselves rested their own authority in part on the maintenance of indigenous Egyptian traditions. It is thus telling that there is in fact an increase in depositions at Umm el-Qa‘ab during the 4th and 3rd centuries (Budka 2010, 58), perhaps indicating a renewed interest in Osiris’ ancient cult. The political instability leading up to, and the changes following, the Roman conquest in 30 BC may, then, be associated in a tangential way with the end of the processional way: once the priests lost influence as a unified political block, there was less impetus to strictly maintain specific ritual and, indeed, mortuary practices. None of the monumental, mud-brick vaulted tombs at Abydos appear to date in construction later than the Ptolemaic period, though more excavation may alter this picture. There is also the possibility that the cause of the change was more direct. Abydos was besieged as part of the revolt of 206–186 BC, as attested both by graffiti25 and numerous finds of Ptolemaic period arrowheads around the ‘portal temple’ of Rameses II (O’Connor 2009, 206). The latter finds indicate that that the old Osiris temple itself may have been besieged (Effland and Effland 2013, 116). A. Effland (2014, 195) suggests that the wadi was potentially closed off as punishment for the role of a group of priests in the revolt, though if the Osiris temple itself was besieged it is also possible that the area of the procession had been so considerably damaged and disturbed that processions were impossible, whether the Ptolemaic government specifically halted processions or not.26 Attention became centred on the already popular Seti I temple, while regulations concerning burial along the old route became more lax as the local priesthood’s authority diminished. However, even in the wake of

the Ptolemies’ interest in mollifying the priesthood during and after the revolt. However, U. Effland and A. Effland (2013, 118–19) identified clear evidence of at least some priests at Abydos taking part in the rebellion with the priest Peteharpokrates (stela Louvre C 232, dated c. 200–180 BC). The Haronnophris graffito (Perdrizet and Lefebvre 1919, 13, no. 74; Pestman 1995, text q) also indicates that supporters of the revolt had access to the Seti I temple. For an overview of Abydos during the revolt, see Effland and Effland 2013, 110–19.

FLUCTUATING LANDSCAPES

the siege, the old Osiris temple was by no means abandoned: a demotic inscription (CG 50027) found by Mariette at Abydos (1880a, pl. 37) and published by Spiegelberg (1932, 3–4) attests to restoration work at the temple in year 17 of the reign of Tiberius. The Seti I temple complex was central to a reoriented landscape, though what that landscape looked like is of some question. Pouls Wegner (2011, 426–28) suggests that a new processional route developed leading from the old Osiris temple to the Seti I temple as it attracted Greek-speaking pilgrims, with the Osireion or some other part of the temple taking on the role formerly held by the tomb of Djer as the Osiris cenotaph. This is not out of the question given the attested Roman period restoration work on the Osiris temple and the prominent placement of Garstang’s wadi cemetery along this hypothetical route. However, there also seems to have been an increased importance accorded to a second processional axis, running from the ‘desert pylon’ of the Seti I temple to the ‘South Hill’ (see Fig. 1) near Umm el-Qa‘ab (U. Effland and A. Effland 2010; U. Effland, J. Budka, and A. Effland 2010, 78–91). The importance of the ‘desert pylon’ goes back to the New Kingdom, while a large deposit of Late Period pottery against this structure and the aforementioned Ptolemaic period foundation inscription indicate its continued significance (Budka 2010; this volume; U. Effland, J. Budka, and A. Effland 2010). The remains of two possible structures flanking the route out to the South Hill have been identified, along with the remains of largely Roman period and Late Antique pottery (U. Effland, J. Budka, and A. Effland 2010, 84). This may indicate that this processional route increased in prominence by the Roman period, eventually eclipsing the old one that led up the wadi. Umm el-Qa‘ab and the Osiris cenotaph itself may have been the centre of an oracle into late antiquity (U. Effland, J. Budka, and A. Effland 2010; A. Effland 2014), explicitly linking the functions of Umm el-Qa‘ab and

27

A. Effland (2014, 198) notes that Osiris in the Papyri Graecae Magicae corpus is described as ‘giving answer in Abydos’ (PGM IV, 11; Betz 1992, 36) with particular terminology

167

the Seti I temple complex.27 It is entirely feasible that these two processional routes existed in tandem for some time: one along the low desert, and one from the Seti I temple out to the South Hill and Umm el-Qa‘ab. But, in the case of the South Hill processional route, it is important again to emphasize that this was not something wholly new. The interest of Greek-speakers in this pre-existing part of the landscape caused it to grow in prominence, but it was not a wholesale imposition of an intepretatio graeca on the site. Conclusion Our knowledge of the ritual and mortuary landscape of Abydos in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods is still incomplete. In particular, our knowledge of the Roman period mortuary landscape of Abydos is deficient, even in comparison to the Ptolemaic period. Further excavation will be necessary to better understand the ways in which the shifting ritual landscape changed mortuary practice. But even with the scant information we do have, it is possible to see how cross-cultural interaction altered Abydos, but in a subtle way. Greeks did not wholly invent new practices and beliefs, but rather latched on to existing parts of the landscape and particular Egyptian practices and emphasized them. Greekspeakers did not impose their own vision on the Abydos landscape: the altered landscape of the Roman period seems still to be aligned with a local, Egyptian understanding of Abydos and its significance to the cult of Osiris. But the foreign imprint on the site is unmistakable, with the increased prominence of more ‘popular’ healing and oracular cults to the detriment of temple-based religion, and the opening up of the long-sacred area of the wadi to tomb construction. Abydos in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods was thus in flux: it was not a staid bastion of Egyptian religious culture, but a place where multiple meanings and interpretations of the landscape coexisted and interacted.

referring to the Osiris cenotaph (Oupōke, i.e. Peqer, in PGM IV, 123; Betz 1992, 39).

168

T. LANDVATTER

Bibliography Abdalla, A. 1992. Graeco-Roman funerary stelae from Upper Egypt. Liverpool Monographs in Archaeology and Oriental Studies. Liverpool. Altenmüller, H. 1975. Abydosfahrt. In Lexikon der Ägyptologie, Vol. 1, W. Heck and E. Otto (eds), 42–47. Wiesbaden. Amélineau, E. C. 1899–1905. Les Nouvelles fouilles d’Abydos. 4 vols. Paris. Ammianus Marcellinus. 1935. Roman History. Translated by J. Rolfe. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA. Aston, D. 2000. Canopic chests from the Twenty-first Dynasty to the Ptolemaic period. Ägypten und Levante 10: 159–78. Baratte, F., and B. Boyaval. 1974. Catalogue des étiquettes de momies du Musée du Louvre (C.E.M.L.) – textes grecs. Cahier de recherches de lʼInstitut de papyrologie et égyptologie de Lille 2: 155–264. Bataille, A. 1952. Les Memnonia: Recherches de papyrologie et d’épigraphie grecques sur la nécropole de la Thèbes d’Égypte aux époques hellénistique et romaine. Recherches d’archéologie, de philologie et d’histoire 23. Cairo. Bestock, L. 2012. Brown University Abydos Project: Preliminary report on the first two seasons. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 48: 35–80. Betz, H. D. 1992. The Greek Magical Papyri in translation. 2nd edition. Chicago. Bingen, J. 2007. Hellenistic Egypt: Monarch, society, economy, culture. Edited by R. S. Bagnall. Edinburgh. Budka, J. 2010. The use of pottery in funerary contexts during the Libyan and Late Period: A view from Thebes and Abydos. In Egypt in transition: Social and religious development of Egypt in the first millennium BCE, L. Bareš, F. Coppens and K. Smoláriková (eds), 22–72. Prague. Buhl, M.-L. 1959. The late Egyptian anthropoid stone sarcophagi. Copenhagen. Caulfeild, A. 1902. The temple of the kings at Abydos (Sety I). London. Dreyer, G., A. von den Driesch, E.-M. Engel, R. Hartmann, U. Hartung, T. Hikade, V. Müller, and J. Peters. 2000. Umm el-Qaab: Nachtuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 11./12. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 56: 43–130. Effland, A. 2013. Der Besuch erfolgreicher Athleten beim Orakel des Bes in Abydos. In Der gymnische Agon in der Spätantike, A. Gutsfeld and S. Lehmann (eds), 121–42. Pietas 6. Gutenberg. ———. 2014. ‘You will open the ways in the underworld of the god’: Aspects of Roman and Late Antique Abydos. In Egypt in the first millennium AD: Perspectives from

new fieldwork, E. R. O’Connell (ed.), 193–206. British Museum Publications on Egypt and Sudan 2. Leuven. Effland, U. 2006. Funde aus dem Mittleren Reich bis zur Mamlukenzeit aus Umm el-Qaab. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 62: 131–50. Effland, U., J. Budka and A. Effland. 2010. Studien zum Osiriskult in Umm el-Qaab/Abydos: Ein Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 66: 19–91. Effland, U., and A. Effland. 2010. ‘Ritual landscape’ und ‘sacred space’—Überlegungen zu Kultausrichtung und Prozessionsachsen in Abydos. MOSAIKjournal 1: 127–58. ———. 2013. Abydos: Tor zur ägyptischen Unterwelt. Mainz. Frankfort, H. 1930. The cemeteries of Abydos: Work of the season 1925–26. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 16: 213–19. ———. 1933. The cenotaph of Seti I at Abydos. Memoirs of the Egypt Exploration Society 33. London. Frankfurter, D. 1997. Religion in Roman Egypt. Princeton. Gardiner, A. 1961. The Egyptian Memnon. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 47: 91–99. Garstang, J. 1900. Al Arabeh. London. ———. 1909. Excavations at Abydos. Liverpool Annals 2: 125. Griffiths, J. G. 1970. Plutarch’s De Iside et Osiride: Edited with an introduction, translation and commentary. University of Wales. Herbich, T. and J. E. Richards. 2005. The loss and rediscovery of the Vizier Iuu at Abydos: Magnetic survey in the Middle Cemetery. In Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman and A. Schwab (eds), Vol. I, 141–49. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149. Leuven. Kemp, B. J. 1975. Abydos. In Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Vol. 1, W. Heck and E. Otto (eds), 28–42. Wiesbaden. Kemp, B. J., and R. S. Merrillees. 1980. Minoan pottery in second millennium Egypt. Mainz. Landvatter, T. 2013. Burial practices and ritual landscapes at Ptolemaic Abydos: The 2011 and 2012 seasons of the Abydos Middle Cemetery Project. Near Eastern Archaeology 76 (4): 235–45. Lang, P. 2012. Medicine and society in Ptolemaic Egypt. Studies in Ancient Medicine. Leiden. Leahy, A. 1989. A Protective Measure at Abydos in the Thirteenth Dynasty. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 75: 41–60. ———. 2009. A priest of Mut of Megeb at Abydos. In Sitting beside Lepsius: Studies in honour of Jaromir Malek at the Griffith Institute, D. Magee, J. Bourriau, and S. Quirke (eds), 273–88. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 185. Leuven.

FLUCTUATING LANDSCAPES

Manning, J. 2010. The last pharaohs: Egypt under the Ptolemies, 305–30 BC. Princeton. Marriette, A. 1869. Abydos I. Description des fouilles exécutées sur l’emplacement de cette ville. Paris. ———. 1880a. Abydos II. Description des fouilles exécutées sur l’emplacement de cette ville. Paris. ———. 1880b. Abydos III. Catalogue générale des monuments d’Abydos découverts pendant les fouilles de cette ville. Paris. Naville, E. 1914. The cemeteries of Abydos I. Egypt Exploration Fund 33. London. O’Connor, D. 2009. Abydos: Egypt’s first pharaohs and the cult of Osiris. London. Peet, T. E. 1914. The cemeteries of Abydos II. Egypt Exploration Fund 34. London. Peet, T. E., and W. L. S. Loat. 1913. The cemeteries of Abydos III. Egypt Exploration Fund 35. London. Perdrizet, P., and G. Lefebvre. 1919. Les Graffites grecs du Memnonion d’Abydos. Paris. Pestman, P. W. 1995. Harronophris and Chaonnophris: Two indigenous pharaohs in Ptolemaic Egypt (205–186 B.C.). In Hundred-gated Thebes: Acts of a colloquium on Thebes and the Theban area in the Graeco-Roman period, S. P. Vleeming (ed.), 101–37. Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 27. Leiden. Petrie, W. M. F. 1902a. Abydos I. Egypt Exploration Fund 22. London. ———. 1902b. A foundation-deposit inscription from Abydos. Journal of Hellenic Studies 22: 377. ———. 1903. Abydos II. Egypt Exploration Fund 24. London. Pliny the Elder. 1942. Natural history. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA. Pouls Wegner, M.-A. 2011. Votive deposits of the Ptolemaic-Period in North Abydos. Cahiers de la céramique egyptienne 9: 415–36. Préaux, C. 1936. Esquisse d’une histoire des révolutions égyptiennes sous les Lagides. Chronique d’Égypte 11: 522–52. ———. 1978. Le monde hellénistique, Vol. 2. Paris. Randall-MacIver, D., and A. Mace. 1902. El Amrah and Abydos. Memoirs of the Egypt Exploration Fund 23. London. Richards, J. E. 2002. Text and context in late Old Kingdom Egypt: The archaeology and historiography of Weni the Elder. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 39: 75–102. ———. 2005. Society and death in ancient Egypt: Mortuary landscapes of the Middle Kingdom. New York.

169

———. 2007. The archaeology of excavations and the role of context. In The archaeology and art of ancient Egypt: Essays in honor of David B. O’Connor, Z. Hawass and J. Richards (eds), 313–19. Cairo. Riggs, C. 2005. The beautiful burial in Roman Egypt. Oxford. Ritner, R. K. 1992. Implicit models of cross-cultural interaction: A question of noses, soap, and prejudice. In Life in a multi-cultural society: Egypt from Cambyses to Constantine and beyond, J. H. Johnson (ed.), 283–90. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilisation 51. Chicago. Rutherford, I. 2003. Pilgrimage in Greco-Roman Egypt: New perspectives on gaffiti from the Memnonion of Abydos. In Ancient perspectives on Egypt, R. Matthews and C. Roemer (eds), 171–89. London. Samuel, A. E. 1989. The shifting sands of history: Interpretations of Ptolemaic Egypt. Publications of the Association of Ancient Historians. Lanham. Schäfer, H. 1904 [1964]. Die Mysterien des Osiris in Abydos unter König Sesostris III. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens 4. Leipzig. Shaw, I. 2002. The Oxford illustrated history of ancient Egypt. Oxford. Smith, M. 2009. Traversing eternity: Texts for the afterlife from Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. Oxford. Snape, S. 1986. Mortuary assemblages from Abydos. Dissertation, University of Liverpool. Strabo. 1932. Geography. Translated by H. L. Jones. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA. Thompson, D. J. 2012. Memphis under the Ptolemies. 2nd edition. Princeton. Töpfer, S. 2015. Das Balsamierungsritual. Wiesbaden. Vleeming, S. P. (ed.) 1995. Hundred-gated Thebes: Acts of a colloquium on Thebes and the Theban area in the Graeco-Roman period. Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 27. Leiden. Widmer, G. 2002. Pharaoh Maâ-Rê, pharaoh Amenemhat and Sesostris: Three figures from Egypt’s past as seen in sources of the Graeco-Roman period. In Acts of the Seventh International Conference of Demotic Studies, K. Ryholt (ed.), 377–93. Copenhagen. Wildung, D. 1977a. Imhotep und Amenhotep: Gottwerdung im alten Ägypten. Munich. ———. 1977b. Egyptian saints: Deification in pharaonic Egypt. New York. Yoyotte, J., and P. Charvet. 1997. Strabon, Le voyage en Égypte: Un regard romain. Paris.

THE LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM TOMB G62 (CEMETERY G) AT ABYDOS Gianluca MINIACI1

Abstract The Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan of the British Museum preserves thirty-six finds (BM EA 37286–37320) registered as coming from tomb 62 in Cemetery G at Abydos, excavated on behalf of the Egypt Exploration Fund by W. M. Flinders Petrie in 1902. The tomb finds include several artefacts of archaeological and chronological importance: six faience figurines (including examples of the rare threedimensional representations of both Aha/Bes and Ipi/ Taweret); a wooden fish; three pairs of ivory clappers; two wavy neck pottery jars; seven toilet vessels; a copper bowl; a bronze mirror; a wooden spacer-bar; a silver torque; eight cowrie shells; and many beads assembled as seven necklaces (made of faience, carnelian, garnet, feldspar, lapis lazuli, turquoise, and green jasper). Unfortunately, a detailed archaeological report about the discovery of this group of objects is lacking at present. This paper aims to provide records for each of the objects found in G62: a concise description (including material, dimensions, and bibliographic references) followed by a ‘close parallels’ section, where the primary objective is to identify similar find groups; and a summary on the date range provided. The detailed analysis of find groups showed with a fair degree of certainty that most of the G62 objects belong to a broad—but defined—time-frame, which extends from the Middle Kingdom to the Second Intermediate Period. Finally, the entire range of objects from G62 finds a close echo in other funerary equipment included in multiple burials of the late Middle Kingdom (1800–1700 BC).

The Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan of the British Museum holds thirty-six finds registered as coming from tomb 62 in Cemetery G at Abydos, excavated on behalf of the Egypt Exploration Fund by W. M. Flinders Petrie at the beginning of the 20th century (preliminary accounts in Miniaci 2015, 18; Miniaci 2016a, 42). No further archaeological information is recorded in the British Museum archives, which is unfortunate since this group is significant for containing a remarkable cross section of objects typical of late Middle Kingdom culture, a period for which it is rare to find such a large number of artefacts preserved from a single context (cf. Kemp and Merrillees 1980, 105–75; Grajetzki 2014, 17–93). Abydos: Cemetery G In his second expedition to Abydos, in 1901–02, Petrie labelled an extended area located near the dig house of that season (‘lying close behind our huts’; Petrie 1902, 1) as Cemetery G (Porter, Moss 1939, 38), following a rather confusing system used by early excavators at Abydos to refer to their concessions within the cemetery fields with alphabetic letters. Unfortunately, Petrie did not mark the position of Cemetery G on a map and only vaguely described its location in the published report. The area labelled ‘G’ was located ‘on the south side of the great valley which leads up to the Royal Tombs, a spur of the desert runs forward between the temenos of Osiris and the great temples of the XIXth Dynasty […] opposite the old fort (the Shunet-ez-Zebib), and further back…’ (Petrie 1902, 34). In the only overall map of Abydos area

* * *

1

The results published here are part of my research at the British Museum as a post-doctoral fellow at the Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan in 2014. I am grateful to Marcel Marée, Neal Spencer and all the AES staff, who strongly supported me. I am grateful to Ilona Regulski for inviting me to the conference in London to present the G62 group and for all her hard work in assembling the volume. I am especially grateful for comments and information shared by Paul Whelan, Wolfram Grajetzki,

Janet Richards, and Robert Bianchi. I am indebted to Alice Stevens and Campbell Price for permission to publish the museum images/documents of the Petrie and the Machester museums; to Christian Knoblauch for the additional information about the pottery from G62; to Angela Tooley for the photos of tomb E 1.

172

G. MINIACI

provided by Petrie (Petrie 1900, pl. 3), Cemetery G is not marked. However, Kemp and Merrillees were able to approximately place Cemetery G in a general map of Abydos, identifying the dig house of the 1901–02 expedition through photographs, notes, and sketches left by Petrie (Kemp and Merrillees 1980, 288, fig. 36). Therefore, Cemetery G should have been located on the hill just above the southern slopes of the great natural wadi, towards the northern edge of the so-called Middle Cemetery—corresponding to the ‘Nécropole du Centre’ of Mariette (1880, 40) and to the ‘South Cemetery’ of Peet—and probably adjacent to Peet’s Cemetery E (Peet 1914, fig. 1; Snape 1986, 12–13). Unfortunately, the actual location and extent of Cemetery G are at the moment unknown (Fig. 1; for an overview of Abydos cemetery locations see Richards 2005, 125–56). Petrie published the results of his 1901–02 excavations at Abydos soon after, in 1902 (Abydos I);

nonetheless the information about Cemetery G was very scant, as explicitly admitted by Petrie himself: Cemetery G was only worked as proved desirable in intervals of other work, and to give employment to workmen between other enterprises […] and with scarcely any small objects of value casually found in it, such a place was an ideal resort whenever men could not be kept elsewhere. I should hardly have worked it for its own sake alone. (Petrie 1902, 1)

Moreover, in this published report, Petrie focused primarily on finds of Dynasty 19 and later periods, stating that ‘the contents of the tombs of the XI–XVIIIth Dynasties, not having yet been drawn, will be described when they are published next year’ (Petrie 1902, 35), but this never happened. The only brief information that Petrie gives about the Middle Kingdom burials concerns their architectural structure: ‘several tombpits of the XIIth Dynasty have been opened; they are

Fig. 1: Map of Abydos. © Courtesy of Paul Whelan.

THE LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM TOMB G62 (CEMETERY G) AT ABYDOS

usually placed in pairs, one leading to the chamber, the other, about half of the depth, probably for offerings’ (Petrie 1902, 34). Only in 1904, in the Abydos III volume, was there a short note written by Currelly about Middle Kingdom tomb G60 from Cemetery G,2 dated to the Middle Kingdom (see Ayrton, Currelly and Weigall 1904, 47, no. 12, pl. 11). Given the proximity of the tomb’s number it is reasonable to suppose that tomb G62 was fairly close to G60, and both could belong to a Middle Kingdom sector of the cemetery. Nevertheless, it must be borne in mind that the excavation sequence followed in Cemetery G is unclear, and Petrie may have jumped from one spot to another. Abydos: tomb G62 The only information concerning tomb G62 comes from the archives of the Petrie Museum, where, according to the Distribution List of 1902, most of the objects from G62 were assigned to the British Museum (Petrie Museum, Distribution List 1902, p. 5). A few pages later in the same list, among Abydos objects donated to the British Museum from season 1901–02, G62 is mentioned again: ‘Tomb G62 XII Dyn. ivory wands etc.’. (Petrie Museum, Distribution List 1902, p. 7; Fig. 2). Two pottery vessels from G62 are preserved in other collections: the Petrie Museum, London, and the National Museum of Ireland, Dublin. Unfortunately, there is no other information at the present time concerning the archaeological context and the contents of tomb G62. All that can be said comes from the actual artefacts preserved in these museums, mainly in the British Museum.

173

However, the main concern of the present study is to assess whether all the objects are consistent with such a definite time span or if some are later intrusions. Due to the lack of any archaeological information, objects have been grouped in typological categories (nos 1–7) in order to explore their chronological potential. Nonetheless, some of these categories (such as body adornment and amulets) can sometimes completely escape dating criteria on typological grounds. Therefore, the G62 objects will be assessed not in their typological isolation, but in association with other types of objects: the combination of various elements in the same context will create a chronological anchor for those objects lacking diagnostic chronological values per se. A short introduction has been included for each category, giving a historical background; the entry for each object provides a concise description (including material, dimensions,3 and bibliographic references) followed by a ‘close parallels’ section, in which the primary objective is to identify any analogous relationship networks between similar categories of objects; finally, after the evaluation of comparable material, a summary of the date range will be proposed. • Category 1: Figurines (nos 1.1–7) • Category 2: Musical instruments (nos 2.1–4) • Category 3: Vessels (no. 3.1–3) • Category 4: Toilet equipment (nos 4.1–10) • Category 5: Amulets (no. 5.1) • Category 6: Body adornments (nos 6.1–4), including beads (nos 6.5–12) • Category 8: Undetermined category (no. 7.1) Category 1: Figurines

The objects from G62

5 faience figurines (nos 1.1–6) + 1 figurine in other material (no. 1.7)

Thirty-six finds in the British Museum can be attributed with certainty to tomb G62, since this is given as the provenance for each one in the archival records (‘Abydos, Tomb G62’). Due to the presence of some diagnostic items (such as faience figurines, ivory clappers, a silver torque), G62 potentially represents a key tomb group for late Middle Kingdom archaeology.

Figurines made in faience representing humans, animals (including composite beings), animate and inanimate objects appeared in the 3rd millennium BC in the Near East (Wengrow 2003, 139–60; Caubet and Pierrat-Bonnefois 2005, 31–35), and in Egypt by the end of the 3rd millennium BC (‘Early Dynastic’, see Bussmann 2010, 211–430; 2011, 747–62; 2013,

2

3

According to the Petrie Museum Distribution List 1902, p. 5, the contents of tomb G60 were shipped to Boston.

Some entries do not have complete sets of measurements (when they were not available or could not be taken).

174

G. MINIACI

Fig. 2: Petrie Museum, Distribution List 1902, p. 7. © Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology.

THE LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM TOMB G62 (CEMETERY G) AT ABYDOS

21–34). These types of figurines continued in use throughout the 2nd and 1st millennia BC (Pinch 2003; Stevens 2006, 79–120). However, there is a peculiar type evident only during a narrow chronological period, mainly spanning from c. 1900 BC to 1650 BC (Miniaci 2014, 109–42; 2017; forthcoming a). This type can be distinguished from all the faience figurines produced during other periods of Egyptian history for two main reasons: first, the mode of production, from the raw material selected to the type of manufacture (Nicholson 1998, 58; Tite et al. 2008, 58); and second, the range of iconographic motifs selected. Middle Kingdom faience figurines include a wide repertoire of images, some of which were previously unknown (Patch 2012, 163–79; see discussion in Miniaci 2017) and did not continue afterwards (e.g. Waraksa 2009). In addition, they also display an unparalleled lustrous and intensely blue faience made by a thin, finer surface layer of glossy bi-chrome glaze, perfectly and skilfully manufactured, finely modelled by hand and not mechanically produced in moulds, as in earlier (Tite et al. 2008, 58–59) and later (Quirke and Tajeddin 2010, 341–61) periods. Unfortunately, within the time span of Middle Kingdom faience figurines, it is difficult to provide a precise chronological sequence. Although a few isolated cases could be dated to the early/mid-Middle Kingdom (Beni Hasan: tombs 65 and 655 [Garstang 1907, 141–42, fig. 140; 142, fig. 140], tomb 51 [Garstang 1907, 213]; Meir: tomb B no. 3 [Kamal 1911, 17; Oppenheim et al. 2015, 216–17, cat. no. 156]; Lisht: tomb of Hepi, Pit 3 [Lansing and Hayes 1934, 27–41]), almost the entire corpus of archaeologically documented faience figurines can be related to the late Middle Kingdom (Kemp and Merrillees 1980, 162–74; Miniaci 2017). They rather abruptly stopped during the Second Intermediate Period, and from Dynasty 17 onwards they were not included in burials or even produced any more (Miniaci 2014, 130–32). 1.1. Miniature drop-shaped vessel (BM EA 37294); Pl. 1 Concise description: Miniature vessel, with flat base, drop-shaped body and everted rim. Material: blue-green faience Dimensions: h. 3.48cm; diam. 3.46cm (max.) Bibliography: unpublished Summary of the date range proposed: late Middle Kingdom

175

Close parallels: No faience model vessels of a similar shape are known to the present author. For a vaguely comparable vessel model in faience: MMA 44.4.1, found west of the pyramid of Amenemhat I at Lisht North inside a basket, deposited by itself and without a body, called by the excavators ‘Toilet Basket I’. Other objects found inside this basket include a toilet vessel in calcite of exactly the same shape as nos 4.1–3 (see below); on a comparative basis, the group can be dated to late Dynasty 12–early Dynasty 13 (see Patch 1998, 207; Vink 2016, 275, fig. 17). See also the miniature vessels with flat base, convex sides and everted rim: BM EA 59849, donated by Lady Maxwell (Miniaci, forthcoming a), and BM EA 63125, found at Mostagedda during Guy Brunton’s excavations (Brunton 1937, tomb 1913, pl. 56.9). 1.2. Miniature hemispherical bowl (BM EA 37295); Pl. 2 Concise description: Miniature hemispherical bowl. Material: blue-green faience Dimensions: h. 1.60cm (max.); diam. 3.30cm (max.) Bibliography: unpublished Summary of the date range proposed: late Middle Kingdom

Close parallels: MMA 15.3.129 from Lisht North, tomb 453 (south cemetery, south of Nakht tomb no. 493, MMA excavations 1913–14), found together with several other faience figurines (Miniaci 2017); UC 17513 from Tarkhan, tomb 1895 (Petrie 1914, pl. 71); no. 416.A.07.64 from Abydos, tomb 416 (Kemp and Merrillees 1980, 133, fig. 43, no. 64; see Fig. 11), slightly bigger in size and decorated with alternating spotted and plain water-lily petals. All the tombs listed above date to the late Middle Kingdom. 1.3. Hippopotamus-lion figure (prototype of Ipi/Taweret figure) (BM EA 37296); Pl. 3 Concise description: Fragment from the torso of a hippopotamus-lion with a prominent belly, lion paws, pendulous breasts, part of the mane and dorsal ridge. The lower part of the body and head are broken off. The creature represented by the model figurine is a hybrid figure, often called Ipi (and later identified with the goddess Taweret), whose form has a hippopotamus’ body and head, with the legs and mane of a lion, and dorsal ridge sometimes in the form of a crocodile. In some instances a version with a leonine

176

G. MINIACI

face is also attested (UC 7059 from Lahun [Miniaci, forthcoming a]). Material: faience Dimensions: h. 5.77cm; w. 4.77cm Bibliography: Morris 2017 (only sketch drawing) Summary of the date range proposed: early–mid (?) to late Middle Kingdom

Close parallels: Despite the fact that representations of the hippopotamus-lion figure are common on ivory tusks of the late Middle Kingdom (Quirke 2016a, 327– 34; Ceruti 2017), three-dimensional representations of this creature are very rare. Only a few hippopotamuslion hybrid figurines are known in faience, and most of them come from outside Egypt (Miniaci 2017): MMA 34.1.127 from Lisht South, burial of Hepi (Lansing and Hayes 1934, 27–41; Fig. 10); MMA expedition photograph L20-21: 535 from Lisht North, tomb 885 (Fig. 3.v; Quirke 2016a, 174; see below under no. 6.2); nos 15153–60 from Byblos, eight figurines from the votive deposit at the Obelisk Temple (Dunand 1950–58, 745–46; Weingarten 1991, 5–6, 8, pl. 16a–c). To these should be added a limestone figure from the late Middle Kingdom palace at Bubastis (el-Sawi 1979, 76–77, figs 177–79; Weingarten 1991, 6, n. 17; Quirke 2016a, 330; Bakr and Brandl 2014) and a roughly worked limestone figurine from the Lisht North excavations of 1906–07 (MMA 15.3.599: Quirke 2016a, 330). Apart from the figurine found in the tomb of Hepi, all the other examples are clearly dated to the late Middle Kingdom (Miniaci 2017). The pottery and the coffin type found inside the burial chamber of Hepi can be dated to early to mid- (at the latest) Dynasty 12. The hippopotamus-lion figurine did not lie inside the burial chamber of Hepi, but on a ledge in front of her sealed chamber (see Fig. 10). If this deposit was strictly connected with the burial of Hepi, the hippopotamuslion figurine cannot be dated later than mid-Dynasty 12 (Quirke 2016a, 135–36).

1.4. Standing lion on hind legs/frontal lion-maned/eared figure (prototype of Aha/Bes figure?) (BM EA 37297); Pl. 4 Concise description: Figure of a standing creature with leonine mane, paws and ears. Breasts and face fluctuate between human and feline features. The legs are lost; the junction of the tail on the back is not clearly recognizable.

Material: faience Dimensions: h. 5.7cm (max.); l. 4.50cm (max.); w. 3.20cm Bibliography: Marée 2014, 223; Miniaci 2016a, 42; Morris 2017 (only sketch drawing) Summary of the date range proposed: late Middle Kingdom

Close parallels: Two types of iconography in use during the late Middle Kingdom can be compared to the creature modelled in faience from tomb G62: (a) the standing lion on hind legs (Altenmüller 1965, 40–43; Quirke 2016a, 335–39); (b) the frontal lionmaned/-eared figure (Quirke 2016a, 358), sometimes called Aha in contemporary Middle Kingdom sources; this is one of the most probable ancestors of the god Bes. Although figurine 1.4 is represented from a frontal perspective, which is reminiscent of the very typical characteristic of iconography (b), the use of lion paws instead of human hands hanging down the body, the absence of clearly visible human anatomical details, and the human position of arms (and legs)—not bent outwards—suggest that the craftsman intended here to represent style (a). Despite the fact that on ivory tusks of the late Middle Kingdom the hybrid iconography of Aha, the human-lion figure—or alternatively the standing lion on hind legs—is commonly found (see Quirke 2016a, 316–21), only two other faience figurines can be closely paralleled to item 1.4: Liverpool World Museum 1977.110.2 from Esna, tomb 275 (Downes 1974, 52, 275, fig. 90; Bourriau 1988, 112–13, cat. no. 99); and Baltimore Walters Art Museum 48.420, stated as coming from Dra Abu el-Naga (Steindorff 1946, 143, no. 624, pl. 94; Dasen 1993, 58, pl. 3.3). The attitude of these two figurines seems to recall the position of Aha on ivory tusks more than the posture of 1.4. Other Middle Kingdom models of standing lions can be dated to the late Middle Kingdom; see faience figurines UC 2424 from Lahun and MMA 22.1.178 from Lisht North, pit 885 (see Fig. 3.t); two ivory figurines from Abydos D84 (Randall-MacIver and Mace 1902, pl. 43.54) and Lisht North pit 884 (Quirke 2016a, 338, fig. 4.25). 1.5. Pregnant female(?) grotesque human figure (BM EA 37298); Pl. 5 Concise description: Figure of a squatting female(?) grotesque human figure, probably a dwarf, holding a circular protrusion in her hands, which is probably

THE LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM TOMB G62 (CEMETERY G) AT ABYDOS

Fig. 3: Selection of objects from Lisht pit 885: a. MMA 22.1.143; b.–d. after MMA expedition photograph L20-21: 361; e. MMA 22.1.148; f. MMA 22.1.152; g. MMA 22.1.142; h.–i. after MMA expedition photograph L20-21: 361; j. MMA 22.1.146; k. after MMA expedition photograph L20-21: 361; l.–m. recorded on MMA tomb card; o.–p. after MMA expedition photograph: L20-21: 535; q. MMA 22.1.180; r. after MMA expedition photograph L20-21: 535; s. MMA 22.1.154a, b; t. MMA 22.1.178; u. MMA 22.1.153; v. after MMA expedition photograph: L20-21: 535; w. MMA 22.1.1637; x. MMA 22.1.175; y. after MMA expedition photograph L20-21: 535; z. MMA 22.1.177; aa. MMA 22.1.179. Courtesy © Ellen Morris (2017).

177

178

G. MINIACI

intended to emphasize her pregnant status (possibly holding a tambourine? Cf. MMA 22.1.1140 from Lisht North, surface find: Dasen 1993, 280, cat. no. 132, pl. 33.1). The figurine stands on a rectangular base. However, male dwarf figurines in faience are also frequently represented with an exaggerated, swollen belly (Dunand 1950–58, 759–60, pl. 97). Material: faience Dimensions: h. 6.04cm (max.); l. 2.34cm (max.); w. 2.47cm (max.) Bibliography: Miniaci 2016a, 42; Morris 2017 (only sketch drawing) Summary of the date range proposed: late Middle Kingdom

Close parallels: Dwarfs are represented quite frequently in the faience figurines of the late Middle Kingdom (Dasen 1993, 279–85), including female types (MMA 22.1.1163 from Lisht North, surface find: Dasen 1993, 280, cat. no. 133, pl. 32.4). Some dwarfs are represented holding a child (cf. MMA 15.3.887 from Lisht North, surface find: Hornemann 1951–69, vol. V, no. 1430). However, pregnant dwarfs are rarer, see for instance no. 15330 from Byblos, votive deposit at the Obelisk Temple (Dunand 1950–58, 761). 1.6. A squatting caprid (goat or antelope) (BM EA 37299); Pl. 6 Concise description: Squatting figure of a quadruped probably belonging to the caprid family (goat? or antelope?) with black spots, standing on a rectangular base. Material: faience Dimensions: h. 3.31cm (max.); l. 4.86cm (max.); w. 2.13cm (max.) Bibliography: Morris 2017 (only sketch drawing) Summary of the date range proposed: late Middle Kingdom

Close parallels: Domestic or harmless animals are frequently attested in faience figurines of the late Middle Kingdom (Miniaci, forthcoming a); however, no caprids are known to the present author. Closer parallels can be given by no. 15260 from Byblos (Dunand 1950–58, 754, pl. 106), which has been classified as belonging to the bovine category; and nos 15269–71 from Byblos (Dunand 1950–58, 755, pl. 105), which

4

Other than fishes, figurines of animals made of wood and not resting on a base were commonly in use during the Middle

have been identified as rams. In the late Middle Kingdom/Second Intermediate Period Cemetery S at Rifa, Petrie found a box decorated with animals, hybrid figures and geometric patterns (Fitzwilliam E.15.1907: Petrie 1907, 20–21, pl. 24; Quirke 2016a, 413). In these scenes, a female caprid is depicted in close association with two motifs; a lion-hippopotamus (cf. item no. 1.3) and a standing lion on hind legs/frontal lionmaned/-eared (cf. item no. 1.4). Although it is uncertain whether the box was found in an intact context, its geometric decoration has parallels with Middle Kingdom coffins. 1.7. Wooden fish (BM EA 37300); Pl. 7 Concise description: Wooden figurine in the form of a fish; a pierced hole represents the eyes; traces of blue and red paint remain. Material: painted wood Dimensions: h. 2.29cm; l. 8.87cm; w. 1.01cm Bibliography: Hornemann 1951–69, vol. VI, no. 1662 Summary of the date range proposed: late Middle Kingdom

Close parallels: The dimensions of the item seem to exclude it from the category of string amulets widely attested during the First Intermediate Period–early Middle Kingdom (cf. Dubiel 2008, 29–85; Grajetzki 2017). Likewise, the dimensions (4.6 × 1.8 × 1.3cm) of a piece of wood shaped in the form of a fish found at Amarna, to the south of the workmen’s village, is again too small to be compared with no. 1.7 (Stevens 2006, 103). The only example of fish figurines made of wood known to the present author comes from tomb 247, at Hagar Esna, where eight wooden fish models were found (Liv. M.16.11.06.164–66), in addition to three other models made in stone from the same tomb (Downes 1974, 109).4 Dorothy Downes, who studied the material from Garstang’s 1905–06 excavations at the site, gave the tomb a preliminary Second Intermediate Period date. However, the inclusion among the finds of a hippopotamus faience figurine and a blackened limestone kohl container with incised representations of hybrid creatures (Downes 1974, 100)

Kingdom: e.g. a crocodile (UC 16741: Petrie 1891, pl. 8.2) and a lion (UC 16647: Petrie 1890, pl. 8), both from Lahun.

THE LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM TOMB G62 (CEMETERY G) AT ABYDOS

corroborates the impression that the burial equipment belongs to a much wider chronological range. The faience figurine of the hippopotamus seems to indicate a late Middle Kingdom date (cf. Miniaci forthcoming a), while this particular category of kohl-pot is generally well dated to mid-Dynasty 18 (Sparks 2006). There are a number of free-standing fish figurines attested during the Middle Kingdom which, although made in different materials, can be compared with no. 1.7 from Abydos. At Abydos, in tomb 859 A’09 a model fish of green slate (Liverpool E.7823) was found together with other material dated to the Middle Kingdom (Snape 1986, 341, 562).5 The fish lies on a base, as in the case of other faience figurines of that time representing other types of animals (cf. Bourriau 1988, 116–18, cat. nos 106, 108, 110). In the Ashmolean Museum (E 1962.697), an unpublished and unprovenanced faience fish (probably resting on a base?) could be paralleled. Another fish, partly made in wood with the addition of semi-precious stones (Ashmolean Museum E 1925.426), comes from the site of Qasr es-Sagha, tomb

179

12, and can be dated to Dynasty 12 (Caton-Thompson and Gardner 1934, 138, pl. 84.4). However, this is not a proper figurine but a pendant. This raises a question as to the function of object no. 1.7; should it be classified under figurines or amulets/body adornment? Although a suspension loop is lacking from no. 1.7, it should be noted that scanty traces of damage are visible around the mouth of the fish and that an original ring in wood could have broken off from it. Therefore, it must be taken into consideration that no. 1.7 could originally have been a pendant. Fish pendants of the mid- to late Middle Kingdom show a range of dimensions similar to that of no. 1.7.6 However, no fish pendants known to the present author are made of wood. Several Middle Kingdom fish pendants are made in precious materials, such as: gold (e.g. Abydos, tomb E 30: Garstang 1901, 4, 25, pl. 1); electrum (unprovenanced, Bourriau 1988, cat. 160b); stone, such as carnelian (Harageh: Engelbach 1923, pl. 50.19; Rifa: Petrie 1907, 13), anhydrite (Rifa, tomb 68: Petrie 1907, 13; Bourriau 1988, 151, cat. no. 165b).

Fig. 4: Burial equipment coming from tomb 72 of Harageh Cemetery A, assembled from plates in Engelbach 1923.

5

859 A’09 is a large rectangular tomb probably belonging to the Early Dynastic period and later reused in the Middle Kingdom. Unfortunately, the context was not intact.

6

For a detailed list of fish-pendant finds, see Bourriau 1988, 148–51 and Quirke 2016a, 419–20.

180

G. MINIACI

In tomb 72 of Cemetery A at Harageh, a group of three gold fish pendants were found in the coffin of a child7 (Fig. 4; Engelbach 1923, 14–15, pls 10, 22; Bourriau 1988, 148–49, cat. no. 159; Grajetzki 2014, 105; Oppenheim et al. 2015, 203–04, cat. no. 137). Notably, also found in the child’s burial were some silver cowrie shells that presumably formed part of a girdle; these can be paralleled—in a less rich context— with the G62 cowrie shells (no. 6.5). The statuette BM EA 2572 offers a close parallel for the combination of cowrie shells and fish pendant: a kneeling girl offers

Fig. 5: BM 2572. Steatite figurine of a girl holding a cosmetic kohl-jar; note, on the back, the fish pendant and, around her hips, a girdle formed from cowrie shells. © The Trustees of the British Museum.

7

This can be compared with a fish-pendant found in the hair of a child in tomb 521, see Brunton 1948, 55, pl. 43.

a pot before her and wears a skirt and a cowrie-shell girdle around her hips; at the end of a long braid, a fish pendant hangs on her back (Fig. 5; Oppenheim et al. 2015, 203–04, cat. no. 136 with bibliography). From the late Middle Kingdom tomb 487 at Beni Hasan (Garstang 1907, 113, fig. 104), two fish pendants made of silver and electrum were found together with a scarab (with a zigzag pattern) ring mounted in gold (cf. item no. 6.2). Category 2: Musical instruments 3 pairs of ivory clappers (nos 2.1–3) + 1 fragment (no. 2.4) Ivory hand-shaped clappers first appear in burials at the end of the Old Kingdom; the earliest example comes from the Dynasty 6 tomb 1008 at Mostagedda (Brunton 1937, pl. 64). They were in use throughout the Middle and New Kingdoms, and possibly also into the Third Intermediate Period (cf. Hickmann 1949, 18–29). During the first phase, from the Old Kingdom to Dynasty 13, ivory clappers consisted simply of stylized forearms (straight or arched), variably carved with bracelets of different types and sizes, decorated with drilled circle-dot designs, delineated nails and knuckles, often pierced at the butt end, and all completely devoid of inscriptions (Morris 2017). Very few examples from this phase show any significant variation in design (Lahun: Petrie 1890, pl. 8.13). In a second phase, from the Second Intermediate Period onwards, ivory clappers became more elaborate in design and started bearing inscriptions (cf. BM EA 30866 from Hu inscribed for Sit-Hathor: Petrie 1901, 51 [77], 53 [83, 84], pl. 27). The clappers from G62 (nos 2.1–4) seem to fall into the category of items belonging to the earlier phase. However, from a list of excavated contexts for the first phase clappers drawn up by Ellen Morris (2017), it might be noted that during the late Middle Kingdom, clappers frequently occurred in combination with faience figurines: Abydos 498 A’08; Harageh A 55; Harageh B 399; Thebes, TT 315; Thebes, Ramesseum tomb no. 5; Lisht North, pits 475 (Quirke 2016a, 149–52), 752, 884, and 885 (see Fig. 3; Quirke 2016a, 172–76).

THE LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM TOMB G62 (CEMETERY G) AT ABYDOS

Among the ivory clappers from G62, two decorations seem to be more distinctive (nos 2.2–3, see below under ‘Close parallels’ sections). Similar types of clappers have been found in contexts which contained material ranging from the early Middle Kingdom to the Second Intermediate Period.

181

Close parallels: ivory clappers MMA 31.2.34a–b from tomb 815 at Asasif; the tomb is located just south of Mentuhotep II’s temple-tomb causeway and apparently contained early Middle Kingdom material (Morris 2011, 94; 2017, 296–97). Pair of clappers in the British Museum (BM EA 20859–60), acquired in 1888 at Akhmim (Sourdive 1984, 182–83, fig. b).

2.1. Pair of curved clappers (BM EA 37301); Pl. 8 Concise description: Pair of clappers in the form of left and right hands with forearm; the elongated fingers and thumb have the nails carved and there is a depression between each of the digits. Six incised lines on the wrist represent a bracelet. The curved forearm is rounded at the end. Material: ivory Dimensions: Left hand: l. 19.10cm; w. 3.10cm; th. 0.80cm; weight 0.048kg Right hand: l. 19.20cm; w. 2.90cm; th. 0.90cm; weight 0.05kg Bibliography: Anderson 1976, 10, fig. 14, no. 2; Morris 2017 (only sketch drawing) Summary of the date range proposed: from mid–late Middle Kingdom to Second Intermediate Period

Close parallels: ivory clappers from tomb E 356 at Abydos, dated by excavator to Dynasty 12 (Garstang 1901, 10, pl. 14). 2.2. Pair of straight clappers decorated with dotted circles (BM EA 37302); Pl. 9 Concise description: Pair of straight clappers in the form of right and left hands with forearms; the joints of the fingers and thumbs have been marked with three incised lines on the right hand and two on the left; there is a depression between each of the digits, and the ends of the thumbs are separated from the fingers. Eight incised lines on the right wrist and seven on the left represent bracelets. On the right-hand clapper there are three roundel ornaments (as dotted circles) above the bracelet and twenty-seven on the forearm, while on the left there are two above the bracelet and twenty-one on the forearm. The clappers are straight-ended and pierced with a hole. Material: ivory Dimensions: Left hand: l. 17.40cm; w. 2.42cm; weight 0.034kg Right hand: l. 17.30cm; w. 2.41cm; weight 0.034kg Bibliography: Anderson 1976, 11, fig. 15, no. 3; Miniaci 2016a, 42; Morris 2017 (only sketch drawing) Summary of the date range proposed: from early Middle Kingdom to Second Intermediate Period

2.3. Pair of straight clappers decorated with criss-cross pattern on the wrists (BM EA 37303); Pl. 10 Concise description: Pair of straight clappers, right and left hands with forearms: there is a depression between each of the elongated digits and the ends of the thumbs are well separated from the fingers (right thumb is broken off). An incised criss-cross pattern between two groups of three lines on each wrist represents a bracelet. The forearms are rounded at the end and pierced with a hole. Material: ivory Dimensions: Left hand: l. 15.30cm; w. 2.50cm; th. 0.70cm; weight 0.028kg Right hand: l. 15.50cm; w. 2.50cm; th. 0.70cm; weight 0.028kg Bibliography: Anderson 1976, 12, fig. 16, no. 4; Morris 2017 (only sketch drawing) Summary of the date range proposed: from late Middle Kingdom to Second Intermediate Period

Close parallels: ivory clappers from tomb 404 A’07 at Abydos (Snape 1986, 237–38, 473). From the same tomb comes a pottery vessel (CG 45365: Snape 1986, 473, no. 5) whose shape seems to belong to the Second Intermediate Period (cf. Brunton 1927, pl. XVI.59); also from the same tomb is an alabaster vessel (CG 45363: Snape 1986, 473, no. 3) whose shape closely parallels no. 4.7 and is suggestive of a late Middle Kingdom date (cf. Engelbach 1923, tomb 124, pl. 46, no. 24). Abydos, tomb 641 A’08 (Snape 1986, 298, 538); a fragmentary statuette (Liverpool Garstang Museum E.7813: Snape 1986, no. 2) found inside this tomb depicts a male figure with its arms at its sides and wearing a plain belt and tripartite striated short kilt, leaning against a back pillar. This type of figure represents a particular style of private sculpture evident during the Second Intermediate Period (Snape 1994, 310–13).

182

G. MINIACI

2.4. Butt end of an ivory clapper (BM EA 37304); Pl. 11 Concise description: Butt end of an ivory clapper (?), spatulate form, with incised dotted circle pattern. There is no hole. Material: ivory Dimensions: l. 4.20cm; w. 3.30cm; th. 0.80cm; weight 0.008kg Bibliography: Morris 2017 (only sketch drawing)

Category 3: Vessels 1 copper bowl (no. 3.1); 2 pottery jars (nos. 3.2-3) Only two pottery vessels have been identified for the large assemblage of tomb G62. Nonetheless, the low number might be due to the choices made by the excavator or to the policy of a museum at the time of acquisition, which led to the discarding of less attractive pottery elements, as they might have survived in fragments. Vessels made of metal were much rarer and therefore considered more valuable. 3.1. Copper bowl (BM EA 37311); Pl. 12 Concise description: The bowl is a shallow vessel formed from a sheet of copper. Material: copper Dimensions: h. 6.50cm; diam. 18.90cm Bibliography: Radwan 1983, 87, no. 227, pls 46.227, D.227 Summary of the date range proposed: from the Early Dynastic period to Dynasty 18, with particular circulation of this vessel type in the late Second Intermediate Period and early Dynasty 18

Close parallels: Copper bowls of a similar shape were already in use during the Early Dynastic period, as attested for instance at Abydos in satellite grave no. 80 associated with the tomb of king Djer (two bowls of diameters of c. 15.5 and 17.5cm; date: Dynasty 1; see Radwan 1983, 8, no. 16.A–B, pl. 1.16A–B; Amélineau 1897–98, 121, pl. 26.14–15). They probably remained in fashion throughout the Old Kingdom, although their use is rather sporadic: there is only one similar example dated to the late Old Kingdom from the mastaba of Ankhhaf at Giza (13cm diameter; date, second half of

8

It should be noted that the shape is different from item no. 3.1, yet is similar to the drinking cups of that time, e.g. Fitzwilliam

Dynasty 5; see Radwan 1983, 52, no. 133A, pl. 25.133A). Although the shape for no. 3.1 is well attested for pottery bowls during the Middle Kingdom (see Petrie 1890, pl. 20.8; Schiestl 2009, 141; Schiestl and Seiler 2012, 198–202), this type remains the only known example in metal for the period (cf. Radwan 1983, nos 200–30). Copper bowls were regularly produced during the late Middle Kingdom, as attested at Lahun (town), where, in a corner of a room, Petrie found inside a basket (no. 200) a hammered copper bowl with a carinated profile and a footed base (Radwan 1983, 87, no. 224, pl. 46.224),8 together with several copper chisels and hatchets; their deposition context can be dated to the late Middle Kingdom (Amenemhat III to mid-Dynasty 13; Petrie 1890, 26, pl. XVII.7; Bourriau 1988, 160, cat. no. 184). In contrast, during the late Second Intermediate Period and early Dynasty 18 similarly shaped metal bowls were more widespread across the country (Radwan 1983, pls 47–49). A closer parallel, although in bronze, comes from a bowl (MFA Boston, 29.1203) found at Semna below the temple of Taharqa and dated, together with other material associated with it, to Dynasty 18 (Dunham and Janssen 1960, 54, 28-1-366, pl. 130.D; Radwan 1983, 96, no. 238, pl. 47.238). 3.2. Wavy neck pottery jar with flat base (National Museum of Ireland 1902.484); Pl. 13 Concise description: Fine Nile clay (Nile B2) jar with a wavy contour, consisting of four bulging sections, with a plain treatment of the surface and a handtrimmed base (Schiestl, Seiler 2012, 697, no. 9). The jar is now in the National Museum of Ireland, Dublin. Material: Nile clay (type B2) Dimensions: h. 17.4cm; diam. 11.4cm (max.) Bibliography: Schiestl and Seiler 2012, 2: 697, no. 9 Summary of the date range proposed: Middle Kingdom, esp. late Middle Kingdom

Close parallels: incomplete jars from the external refuse deposits of the Senwosret III temple at Abydos (southern external area and east block rear doorway), Wegner 2007, fig. 125.106–107. See also Wegner 2000, fig. 17.31.

Museum E.45.1910, from Abydos tomb B13 belonging to Renseneb (Bourriau 1988, 135–36, cat. no. 135).

THE LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM TOMB G62 (CEMETERY G) AT ABYDOS

According to Schiestl and Seiler the temporal distribution of this type of jar varies greatly, spanning through the whole Middle Kingdom, from 2050 BC to 1700 BC. Nonetheless, they observe that jars with four segments, as NMI 1902.484, seem not to continue after Dynasty 11/early 12 (Schiestl and Seiler 2012, 694), but this requires further testing. Similar wavynecked jars (albeit incomplete, with an unknown number of bulges) have been documented in the external refuse deposits of Senwosret III’s temple at Abydos (southern external area and east block rear doorway); although this deposit may cover an extended time span, the nature of its artefact composition seems to mainly belong to the final phase of the Middle Kingdom, mid- to late Dynasty 13, see Wegner 2007, 255, 269– 83, 282 fig. 125.106–107. 3.3. Wavy neck pottery jar (Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology UC 19026); Pl. 14 Concise description: Pottery jar with wavy neck and a flat base with a red coating. On the neck, written in pencil, G62 is still visible, although in the online database the artefact is wrongly reposted as coming from ‘Harageh’. Material: Nile clay Dimensions: h. 12.5cm Bibliography: unpublished Summary of the date range proposed: Middle Kingdom

Close parallels: see the corpus of wavy neck pottery jars assembled in Schiestl and Seiler 2012, 2: 692–97. Category 4: Toilet equipment 5 small calcite cosmetic vessels (nos 4.1–5) + 1 calcite vessel lid (no. 4.6) + 2 anhydrite vases (nos 4.7–8) + 1 green porphyry lid (no. 4.9) + 1 bronze mirror (no. 4.10) The set of toilet vessels preserved in tomb G62 (nos 4.1–9) looks rather incomplete or irregular, since divergent objects of different materials and shapes are

9

The toilet set found in the tomb of Renseneb at the Asasif, see under MMA 26.7.1438, appears more homogeneous in its combination of materials (calcite lids for calcite vessels): Oppenheim et al. 2015, 141–42, no. 75A, B. For a set of seven cylinder

183

grouped together.9 There are three small calcite cylinder vessels (nos 4.1–3), a small globular calcite vessel (no. 4.4), and a small calcite kohl-pot (no. 4.5); only one circular calcite lid is preserved (no. 4.6). To this approximately coherent set must be added two other small cosmetic jars in anhydrite (nos 4.7–8) and one green porphyry lid (no. 4.9). The typology of stone vessels is more conservative, since it shows fewer shape transformations across time when compared to pottery and other categories of objects. Most of the preserved toilet stone vessels do not come from (well-) documented archaeological contexts; therefore, it is difficult to provide a precise dating for them. However, the shape of all G62 vessels is compatible with a broad Middle Kingdom date (cf. the slightly more elongated cylindrical vessels from both the cosmetic box of Kemeni, MMA 26.7.1438 [Carnarvon and Carter 1912, 54–56, pls 48–49, 51; Oppenheim et al. 2015, 141–42, no. 75A, B] and from the burial equipment of princess Nubheteptikhered, at Dahshur [De Morgan 1895, 110, fig. 261]) but unfortunately, due to the lack of systematic study, none can be dated with greater precision. A similar range of stone vessel shapes—grouped together—occurs in Abydos tomb 574 A’08, where two small cylindrical vessels were found coupled with a small shouldered jar and a squat kohl-pot (Snape 1986, 525). Unfortunately, there are no other objects recorded from this tomb which can anchor this group to a more precise dating. Owing to the nature of the part of the cemetery excavated by Garstang, a general Middle Kingdom date can be proposed. The combination of the different types of shapes (cylindrical vessels 4.1–3 and shouldered jar 4.7) has been found on numerous occasions, as in tomb no. 124 from Cemetery A at Harageh (Fig. 6), which can be firmly dated to the late Middle Kingdom (Engelbach 1923, pl. 16; Miniaci 2013–14, 57), or in tomb no. 153 from Esna (Downes 1974, 98–99, fig. 75), where a faience figurine of a frog was found. The late Middle Kingdom group no. 9 from Lahun also has cylindrical vessels associated with a shouldered jar, with a mirror and silver torque in addition (Fig. 7; for archaeological context and bibliography of this group, see under no. 4.10).

vessels plus an eighth vessel found in a box see von Bissing 1904–07, vol. I, 136–39 (CG 18642–18659), 153–55 (CG 18721–18728).

184

G. MINIACI

Fig. 6: Burial equipment coming from tomb 124 of Harageh Cemetery A, assembled from plates in Engelbach 1923.

THE LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM TOMB G62 (CEMETERY G) AT ABYDOS

4.1. Cylinder vessel (BM EA 37286); Pl. 15 Concise description: Small cylinder vase with flat base, flaring sides and ledge-rim, chipped in a number of places. Written in black ink on the body of the vase is ‘1902 10-11 24’. Material: calcite Dimensions: h. 3.48cm; diam. 2.92cm (max.) Bibliography: unpublished Summary of the date range proposed: this type of vessel can be generally assigned a broad Middle Kingdom dating, with a special focus during the late Middle Kingdom

Close parallels: fifteen cylindrical vessels in alabaster from Harageh tomb 124 (see Fig. 6; Engelbach 1923, pl. 16; Bagh 2011, 142, fig. 8.9; Bianchi 2013, 24, no. 14003). Similarly shaped vessels during the Middle Kingdom can also be found in faience: see UC 45064–66 (unprovenanced: see Miniaci, forthcoming a) and also from Beni Hasan tomb 487, dated to the late Middle Kingdom (from the same tomb also come two silver fish pendants and a scarab ring mounted in gold: Garstang 1907, 113–14, fig. 107). See also the introductory paragraph of ‘Category 4: Toilet equipment’ above and discussion under item no. 1.1. 4.2. Cylinder vessel (BM EA 37287); Pl. 16 Concise description: Small calcite cylinder vase with flat base, flaring sides and ledge-rim. Written in black ink on the body of the vase is ‘1902 10-11 25’. Material: calcite Dimensions: h. 3.27cm; diam. 2.98cm (max.) Bibliography: unpublished Summary of the date range proposed: this type of vessel can be generally assigned a broad Middle Kingdom dating, with a special focus during the late Middle Kingdom

Close parallels: See above, under item no. 4.1. 4.3. Cylinder vessel (BM EA 37288); Pl. 17 Concise description: Small cylinder vase with flat base, flaring sides and ledge-rim, which is slightly worn. A few traces of ancient pigment preserved on the inside of the vase. Written in black ink on the body of the vase is ‘1902 10-11 26’. Material: calcite Dimensions: h. 3.34cm; diam. 3.12cm (max.) Bibliography: unpublished

185

Summary of the date range proposed: this type of vessel can be generally assigned a broad Middle Kingdom dating, with a special focus during the late Middle Kingdom

Close parallels: See above, under item no. 4.1. 4.4. Globular vessel (BM EA 37289); Pl. 18 Concise description: Small vase with flat base, globular body and ledge-rim. A few traces of ancient pigment preserved on the inside of the vase. ‘1902 10-11 27’ is written in black ink on the body of the vessel. Material: calcite Dimensions: h. 3.14cm; diam. 2.94cm (max.) Bibliography: unpublished Summary of the date range proposed: late Middle Kingdom

Close parallels: With a slightly more slender body: MMA 22.1.160, pit 885 from Lisht North, cemetery south of pyramid below House A1:1. From the same shaft were found several faience figurines (Miniaci 2017). The dating of the group of objects from this shaft is problematic, since it seems to fluctuate between the early and late Middle Kingdom. The vast majority of elements from this tomb, however, seem to indicate a late Middle Kingdom date (Quirke 2016a, 176–77). 4.5. Kohl-pot (BM EA 37290); Pl. 19 Concise description: The interior walls of the vase are completely covered by ancient pigment. ‘1902 10-11 28’ is written in black ink on the body of the vessel. The object bears the same inventory number as the green porphyry lid (no. 4.9; see below for discussion). Material: calcite Dimensions: h. 3.00cm; diam. 2.50cm; weight 22.00g Bibliography: unpublished Summary of the date range proposed: late Middle Kingdom

Close parallels: Cosmetic kohl-pots show a limited range of forms and a much slower rate of transformation than other object types, which makes their dating difficult. The shape of no. 4.5, a broad, squat kohl-pot, is widely attested in the Middle Kingdom (cf. Hu Y316, Y 513, Y 910: Petrie 1901, pl. 30), and remained in use during the Second Intermediate Period and into early Dynasty 18 (Aston 1994, 146, no. 159; cf. Hu tomb X74: Petrie 1901, pl. XL.74). In tomb E 182 at Abydos,

186

G. MINIACI

excavated by Garstang, a similar kohl-pot was found together with a late Middle Kingdom scarab (Fitzwilliam museum, E.168.1900, see Bourriau 1988, 142–43, cat. no. 145c). A similar kohl-pot comes from a late Middle Kingdom burial (F/I-m/18-Grab 3, level d/1) at Tell el-Dab‘a (Schiestl 2009, 121–23, fig. 54, no. 2; 375, 378, fig. 336, no. 7, pl. 21.b, associated with a finger-ring composed of an amethyst scarab mounted in gold wire, pls 15.c, 16.b); from the radim in the outer court west 2 of the pyramid complex of Senwosret I at Lisht another similar kohl-pot dates to the late Middle Kingdom (Arnold 1992, 75, no. 205, pl. 91). A full list of references for other sites where similar kohl-pots have been recorded can be found in Schiestl 2009, 121– 23, nn. 1122–32. 4.6. Calcite lid (BM EA 37291); Pl. 20 Concise description: Circular calcite lid of a toilet vessel. ‘1902 10-11 29’ is written in black ink on top of the lid. Material: calcite Dimensions: h. 0.40cm; diam. 3.50cm; weight 8.00g Bibliography: unpublished Summary of the date range proposed: –

4.7. Shouldered jar (BM EA 37292); Pl. 21 Concise description: Small shouldered jar of anhydrite with flat base, convex body, short neck and ledgerim. ‘1902 10-11 30’ is written in black ink on the body of the vessel. Material: anhydrite Dimensions: h. 2.20cm; diam. 3.80cm; weight 27.00g Bibliography: unpublished Summary of the date range proposed: Middle Kingdom

Close parallels: shouldered jars in Aston 1994, 138, no. 135; cf. jars from tomb Y361 at Hu (Petrie 1901, pl. 30) and from tomb no. 9 at Lahun (Petrie 1890, pl. 13.3). 4.8. Kohl-pot (BM EA 37293); Pl. 22 Concise description: Part of the ledge-rim is broken; worn at the base. ‘1902 10-11 31’ is written in black ink on the body of the vessel. Material: anhydrite Dimensions: h. 3.50cm; diam. 2.70cm; weight 34.00g Bibliography: unpublished Summary of the date range proposed: Middle Kingdom, perhaps extending into early Dynasty 18 (?)

Close parallels: A slightly taller version of no. 4.8 is attested at Gurob in group 27 dated to the time of Amenhotep I (Brunton and Engelbach 1927, pl. 22.43, in serpentine). However, during the Middle Kingdom both types of kohl vessel were in use (shapes similar to nos 4.5 and 4.8 are attested together in tomb Y 316 at Hu: Petrie 1901, pl. 30). See also above under no. 4.5. 4.9. Green porphyry lid (BM EA 37290); Pl. 23 Concise description: Green porphyry lid; it bears the same inventory number as the calcite vessel (no. 4.5, see above). No information confirms that the lid and the vessel were originally associated but, even though it is of different material, the lid fits perfectly on the top of the vessel and they both show the same finishing traces along the edges (the rim of the vessel and the side of the lid). Material: green porphyry Dimensions: h. 3.00cm; diam. 2.50cm; weight 22.00g Bibliography: unpublished Summary of the date range proposed: –

4.10. Bronze mirror (BM EA 37307); Pl. 24 Concise description: Elliptical bronze mirror with a short tang, tapering towards the end for insertion into the handle. Unfortunately, the handle is missing. Material: bronze Dimensions: l. 13.90cm (max.); w. 12.80cm; th. 0.34cm Bibliography: Lilyquist 1979, 46, n. 454 (quoted only); Morris 2017 (only sketch drawing) Summary of the date range proposed: late Middle Kingdom (?)

Close parallels: Mirrors are generally widespread in Egypt since the Old Kingdom and attested with the same frequency in both the early and late Middle Kingdom (Lilyquist 1979, 14–48), with the frequency probably slightly decreasing by the end of the Second Intermediate Period (Smith 1992, 207; Miniaci 2011, 165–76). In the absence of any inscription it is rather difficult to provide close parallels for the mirror and this is further compounded by the fact that the handle is also lacking. According to Lilyquist, the slightly tapering shape of the tang might be indicative of a late Middle Kingdom date, where ‘there is more of a tendency to narrow and shorten the tang’ (Lilyquist 1979, 55). One mirror from Lahun represents a close parallel for no. 4.10, given not only its similar elliptical shape and short, tapered tang, but also the group of objects

THE LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM TOMB G62 (CEMETERY G) AT ABYDOS

187

Fig. 7: Group no. 9 found by Petrie at Lahun, from Petrie 1891, pl. 13.

with which it was associated. The mirror was found in one of the houses in the ‘workmen’s quarter’ of the town together with a group of objects, recorded by Petrie as group no. 9 (see Fig. 7), including a torque and a set of toilet vessels similar to those from G62 (cf. nos 6.4, 4.1–3, 4.7; Petrie 1891, 12, pl. 13). The group of objects appears to date to the late Middle Kingdom (Lilyquist 1979, 35). Other mirrors of the late Middle Kingdom have been found coupled with a torque: Kom el-Hisn D10; Abydos, Garstang E 1; Abydos, Garstang E 230; Abydos, Garstang 416 (see Fig. 11); Abydos, Frankfort 1008; Buhen K 45 (full bibliographic references can be found in Lilyquist 1979, 35). Category 5: Amulets 1 wedjat-eye amulet (no. 5.1) Eye amulets are quite common from as early as the Old Kingdom (Dubiel 2008, p. I, Typ 5), and their production

continued throughout the New Kingdom (Pinch 1993, 253–56; Stevens 2006, 72) and into the Roman period (Andrews 1994, 43–44); numerous examples are equally well attested for the Middle Kingdom (Engelbach 1923, pl. 50.38A). They are usually made in materials other than wood (Andrews 1994, 44, quotes glass and glazed composition, feldspar, lapis lazuli, amethyst, sard, carnelian, chalcedony, obsidian, porphyry, hematite, agate, diorite, steatite, serpentine and gold, but not wood). 5.1. Gilded wooden amulet in the shape of a wedjat-eye (BM EA 37305); Pl. 25 Concise description: Gilded wooden amulet in the shape of a right wedjat-eye; suspension ring (damaged) at the top. Not pierced. Material: wood, gold foil Dimensions: l. 2.55cm; w. 2.45cm; th. 0.50cm Bibliography: unpublished Summary of the date range proposed: –

188

G. MINIACI

Close parallels: Wedjat-eye amulets of similar size, but not in wood, are attested in Middle Kingdom burials at Abydos (tomb 492 A’08, in dark stone: Snape 1986, 260, 496; tomb 520 A’08, blue-green faience: Snape 1986, 269, 508; tomb 905 A’09, green faience, recorded as found together with a ‘Bes [?] figure’, without any further detail: Snape 1986, 350, 566). Category 6: Body adornment 1 wooden spacer-bar (no. 6.1) + 2 finger-rings (nos 6.2–3) + silver torque (no. 6.4) + beads (nos 6.5–12) The category of body adornment is attested with great regularity in burials from the Predynastic period onwards (Quirke 2015, 206). Among the many items grouped in the category of ‘body adornments’, beads represent the most problematic because their continuous use throughout ancient Egyptian history moved them—as a ‘category’—outside time and thus they are not diagnostic for any specific epoch. Therefore, without detailed comparative analysis, the potential of beads remains unexplored (cf. Xia 2014). However, among the G62 group there are a few items which can provide some chronological information; especially 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5 (see discussions below). 6.1. Wooden spacer-bar (BM EA 37306); Pl. 26 Concise description: Wooden spacer-bar pierced by seven perforations. It was possibly once part of a bracelet (see below, the high number of beads reassembled as necklaces). The surface of the wood is corrugated on one side in imitation of tubular beads. Material: wood Dimensions: l. 2.40cm; w. 0.50cm; th. 0.30cm Bibliography: qtd. Budge 1922, 291, nos 26–57; Andrews 1981, 76, no. 560, pl. 9 Summary of the date range proposed: –

Close parallels: A single carnelian spacer-bar of exactly the same size (2.4 × 0.5cm), though pierced with ten holes and joined with blue-green glazed beads,

10

The pit was located north of the so-called ‘glaze factory’ (F. Arnold 1996, 15; Quirke 2016a, 160), adjacent to a higher room which might have served as a chapel.

comes from tomb G60 at Abydos (Fig. 8; Ayrton, Currelly and Weigall 1904, 47, pl. 11). Although the material is different, it must be noted that the spacerbar from G60 is also combined with a carnelian wedjateye amulet (cf. no. 5.1). According to the excavators, tomb G60 dates to Dynasty 12; also belonging to the same equipment is an ivory spoon (Ayrton, Currelly and Weigall 1904, pl. 11.18), which might belong to the category of ivory cosmetic dishes imitating a shell, with a shorter shell-shaped bowl and handle, dated to the late Middle Kingdom (Quirke 2016b, 185–87). Finger-rings Rings with undecorated scarabs provide little detailed information for dating, since only a few come from datable contexts and a classification based on the style of the beetle itself has not yet been attempted (cf. Ben-Tor 2007, just for decorated scarabs). 6.2. Finger-ring: obsidian scarab mounted in gold wire (BM EA 37308); Pl. 27 Concise description: Obsidian scarab in a sheet gold mount made in two parts: rim and base-plate, the latter uninscribed. The shank is made of a tube of gold joined along the inside. The ends are beaten out into fine wire which passes through the scarab and then is wound around the shank on both sides. The scarab itself is carved with details of the head and division of the wing-cases, and scratches on the sides indicate the legs. Material: obsidian, gold Dimensions: l. 1.10cm (scarab); diam. 2.20cm (shank) Bibliography: Budge 1922, 291, nos 26–57; Anderson 1976, 212–13, no. 344a; Andrews 1981, 75, no. 548, pl. 42; Andrews 1990, 146g; Andrews 1994, fig. 45d Summary of the date range proposed: late Middle Kingdom (?)

Close parallels: green feldspar scarab mounted in gold wire with an undecorated gold plate, MMA 22.1.165, found in the cemetery south of Amenemhat I’s pyramid at Lisht North, below House A1:1, in pit 885.10 Also from the same context: eight faience

THE LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM TOMB G62 (CEMETERY G) AT ABYDOS

189

Fig. 8: Contents of tomb G60 at Abydos, from Ayrton, Currelly and Weigall 1904, pl. 11.

figurines (MMA 22.1.178–181, + three without MMA inv. numbers, see Quirke 2016a, 174), including a hippopotamus-lion (Ipi-type) figurine (MMA 22.1.181), see above under no. 1.3; fifteen ivory clappers (MMA 22.1.142–48; MMA 22.1.150–52, see Quirke 2016a, 175; Morris 2017); see Fig. 3. A precise dating of the pit 885 is difficult to assess, owing to the fact that the finds were recovered from a non-intact context; therefore, items found in this shaft could have been either part of the original burial equipment or intrusive

elements from the rooms above at the surface level. According to Quirke, in his preliminary analysis of its archaeological context, the tomb seems to have undergone two phases of use, one in mid-Dynasty 12 (only a few elements point to such an early dating: an ellipsoid jar and the presence of what may be wooden models) and another in Dynasty 13 (besides the characteristically rectangular shaft, the vast majority of objects also suggest a late Middle Kingdom date: hemispherical and carinated cups; elements from a mummy mask; a

190

G. MINIACI

gold-capped copper cylinder; names and titles on scarabs; a shen-pendant [Quirke 2016a, 173–77]). Unfortunately, owing to the absence of any record of human remains, it is difficult to assess if the structure was used for several individuals and/or for a prolonged time span (cf. Miniaci, forthcoming b). In conclusion, intrusive elements of much earlier or later periods seem to be absent and the tomb’s period of use can be assessed as being between the mid- and late Middle Kingdom. 6.3. Finger-ring: lapis lazuli scarab bezel mounted in silver wire (BM EA 37309); Pl. 28 Concise description: Silver wire finger-ring with a lapis lazuli scarab bezel. The wire shank narrows towards the point where it passes through the scarab; on either side a finer wire is wound around at the top of the shank. Details of the head, wing-case divisions and legs of the scarab are roughly carved. The baseplate is uninscribed. Material: lapis lazuli, silver Dimensions: l. 1.40cm (scarab); diam. 2.30cm (shank) Bibliography: Budge 1922, 291, nos 26–57; Andrews 1981, 75, no. 549; Andrews 1994, fig. 45 Summary of the date range proposed: late Middle Kingdom (?)

Close parallels: In Middle Kingdom tomb E 108 at Abydos, Garstang found a group of objects including— among other items—ten electrum beads shaped like cowrie shells (cf. no. 6.5), two small green feldspar fishes set in gold (cf. no. 1.7), garnet beads (cf. nos 6.7 and 6.9), and a lapis lazuli scarab mounted in a gold ring (Garstang 1901, 4, pl. frontispiece). The combination of objects is reminiscent of the G62 burial assemblage. The additional presence, in tomb E 108, of a large gold pendant in the shape of an oyster shell, as well as a gold cylinder pendant, places this group within the late Middle Kingdom. 6.4. Silver torque (BM EA 37310); Pl. 29 Concise description: Torque consisting of a flat piece of silver rolled into a tube. The two ends have been flattened out and curled up. One of the ends is twisted into an open loop, probably to form a hook for closure. It is broken in two places: in the middle and close to one end (where it has been restored). Material: silver Dimensions: diam. (torque) 10.00cm; diam. (tube) 0.20cm

Bibliography: Budge 1922, 291, nos 26–57; Andrews 1981, 77, no. 565, pl. 39; Andrews 1994, fig. 45 Summary of the date range proposed: late Middle Kingdom–Second Intermediate Period

Close parallels: Torques are not frequently attested in Egyptian burial equipment, and it has been debated whether this type of ornament was of foreign origin/ influence (Grajetzki 2014, 112). For Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period Egypt (and adjacent areas, Nubia and Levant) only twenty-two examples are known: (1) Kom el-Hisn D10; (2) Northern Fayum area (Qasr es-Sagha, Gebel L); (3) Lahun, house group no. 9; (4) Mostagedda 3120; (5) Mostagedda 3170; (6) Abydos, Peet D 167; (7) Abydos, Garstang E 1 (Tooley 2015, 345); (8) Abydos, Garstang E 230; (9) Abydos, Garstang 342 A’07; (10) Abydos, Garstang 345 A’07 (Snape 1986, 216, 437); (11) Garstang 416, see Fig. 11; (12) Abydos, Frankfort 1008; (13) Ballas Q 188; (14) Thebes, Asasif 840 (Capel and Markoe 1997, 84–85, cat. no. 25); (15) Kubanieh 15.l.1; (16) Toshka C 147; (17) Buhen H 96; (18) Buhen K 13; (19) Buhen K 45; (20) Kerma K 1061; (21) Gaza (Petrie 1934, 11, pl. 34); (22) Byblos (Montet 1928–29, pl. 70, no. 595). Where not included here in round brackets, bibliographic references for the above examples can be found in Lilyquist 1979, 35, n. 397; Kemp and Merrillees 1980, 156. Notably, torques seem to be attested with a certain consistency in burials containing a range of objects similar to those of tomb G62, including faience figurines and ivory clappers (Abydos tomb E 1: Tooley 2015, 339–55; Fig. 9; Abydos, tomb 416: Kemp and Merrillees 1980, 105–60, see Fig. 11; Abydos tomb 347 A’07: Snape 1986, 216, pl. 20). In Abydos tomb 345 A’07 the type of objects associated together is remarkably similar to those in G62; besides the silver torque, the objects include a bronze mirror (Lilyquist 1979, 40, n. 454); a faience figurine of a crocodile (Liv. Neg. A.163); four shells; and two kohl-pots (one in alabaster and another in grey stone: Snape 1986, 216, 437). A similar group of objects was also found in tomb 15.l.1 at Kubanieh north (Aswan), containing the burial of a young girl deposited in a rectangular shaft: ÄS 7113, an obsidian (?) scarab (cf. no. 6.2), ÄS 7112, a bracelet in blue faience beads (cf. beads below), ÄS 7114–15, two necklaces (cf. esp. no. 6.9), ÄS 7110, a kohl-pot with lid in blue-grey chalcedony (cf. no. 4.5) + bone stick for the eye, ÄS 7116, copper (?) torque (cf. no. 6.4), and ÄS 7109–11, two small calcite vessels (cf. no. 4.7) (Junker 1920, 129–30, 159; Hölzl 2015,

THE LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM TOMB G62 (CEMETERY G) AT ABYDOS

191

Fig. 9: Burial equipment from tomb Abydos E 1 © The Manchester Museum. Photos: Angela Tooley.

60–61, cat. no. 18). The tomb was found in a sector (15.l) of the cemetery typical of Dynasty 12 and where Nubian burials interweave with local depositions (Junker 1920, 129). In addition, a wooden box fitted with strips of bone decorated with concentric circles

(ÄS 7108) indicates a late Middle Kingdom date. Also, tomb 840 in Asasif contains, besides a silver torque, other elements in common with the G62 burial equipment (cowrie-shell girdle; lapis lazuli scarab; spacerbar; beads in the shape of acacia seed-pod, cf. nos 6.8

192

G. MINIACI

and 6.9) (Capel and Markoe 1997, 84–85). The Horus pendant MMA 13.180.2 indicates a late Middle Kingdom date for Asasif tomb 840. Beads The G62 necklace corpus is formed by strings of beads assembled either by excavators (according to an original distribution?) or by museum logic (of display or conservation): it includes the following materials: faience (of different colours), carnelian, garnet, feldspar, lapis lazuli, turquoise and green jasper. According to Nai Xia, who studied the entire corpus of the Petrie Museum collection, hard stones, which became rarer after the Early Dynastic period, were reintroduced in the Middle Kingdom on a larger scale. Carnelian is one of the commonest materials for beads, accounting for c. 61.7% of the beads made from hard stones during the Middle Kingdom (Xia 2014, 103), 88.1% during the New Kingdom (Xia 2014, 118), and 41% during the Late Period (Xia 2014, 127). Although garnet was in use from the Badarian period to the end of the New Kingdom, its most popular phase of use appears to have been the Middle Kingdom (Aston, Harrell and Shaw 2000, 32; Xia 2014, 103). Similarly also feldspar, although rarely attested, had a peak of use in the jewellery of the Middle Kingdom (Aston, Harrell and Shaw 2000, 46; cf. Bourriau 1988, 152). Green jasper was used for beads from the Badarian period onwards; it is frequently used during the Middle Kingdom, while from the New Kingdom onwards red jasper became more popular (Aston, Harrell and Shaw 2000, 29–30). Faience beads of the Middle Kingdom are mostly of blue-green colour (85.8%), followed by black (13%), white and red (cf. Reisner 1923, 109). The presence of yellow faience beads seems to point to the New Kingdom (after the reign of Tuthmosis III), when a variety of colours were introduced in faience bead production (Xia 2014, 117). It should be remarked that obsidian and amethyst beads, which were very popular during the Middle Kingdom (Xia 2014, 103), are completely absent from the G62 finds. One of the strings (no. 6.6) has some beads apparently made of glass. The identification is not confirmed by laboratory analysis (which was not possible during the present author’s fellowship at the British Museum). Glass production in Egypt did not start before Dynasty 17 (Lilyquist and Brill 1993, 23). Nonetheless, in some rare cases ‘glass’ items have been identified by excavators in Middle Kingdom

contexts (Nicholson, Shaw 200, 195; Xia 2014, 104). Lilyquist and Brill have shown how most of these early occurrences can be the result of misinterpretation due to the appearance of a particularly glassy-looking faience (Lilyquist and Brill 1993, 8–12). In pit 466 at Lisht North, a small blue ‘glass’ drop bead was recorded inside a context where all the diagnostic objects seem to date to between late Dynasty 12 and Dynasty 13. Also among the tomb equipment are two arm-shaped ivory clappers (MMA 15.3.168–69) decorated with dots and circles (cf. no. 2.2). However, the context of tomb 466 is not closed and the material of the bead has not been verified through scientific analysis (Quirke 2016a, 157–59). Similarly, a number of faience beads discovered in tomb 244 at Harageh (Cemetery B), in a late Middle Kingdom context, includes one glass drop bead (Engelbach 1923, pls 20.50 [scarab], 59.244; Bourriau 1988, 150–51, cat. no. 164). Unfortunately also in this case the context is disturbed, which raises the possibility that there could be New Kingdom intrusions. Nonetheless, apart from the difficulties distinguishing faience from glass in a large quantity of glazed material, sporadic glass production before the New Kingdom might have happened in a ‘preadaptive stage characterized by the very infrequent and irregular use of glass’ (Peltenburg 1987, 18). Lucas listed several scattered glass beads of the Middle Kingdom as a possible outcome of the glazing process for steatite and quartz (‘imperfect glass’, Lucas and Harris 1962, 181). In the Near East, occasional glass production is securely attested earlier than its introduction in Egypt, as attested by a squarish lump found beneath the paving of a hall in House 2 at Abu Sharhrein (c. 2050 BC; for a summary of the early presence of glass see Shortland 2012, 44–46).

6.5. Beads: eight cowrie shells (BM EA 37319); Pl. 30 Concise description: Eight cowrie shells strung as beads. The backs of some have been cut off. Material: shell Dimensions: l. 2.40cm (largest shell) Bibliography: Budge 1922, 291, nos 26–57; Andrews 1981, 559; Andrews 1994, fig. 45 Summary of the date range proposed: late Middle Kingdom (?)

Close parallels: Natural shell-beads are commonly attested in ancient Egyptian burials of all epochs (for

THE LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM TOMB G62 (CEMETERY G) AT ABYDOS

193

Fig. 10: Selection of objects found in front of the closing wall of Hepi’s tomb (pit no. 3, Lisht South); from the top left corner: ivory dwarf MMA 34.1.130; faience figurine of a truncated-legged lady MMA 34.1.125; faience model of toilet vessel MMA 34.1.128a, b; string of beads MMA 34.1.147; carnelian beads MMA 34.1.132; razor MMA 34.1.131; string of cowrie shells MMA 34.1.142; detail of an amethyst wedjat-eye amulet stung on a necklace MMA 34.1.146; string of periwinkle shells MMA 34.1.143. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

example, tomb 453b from Nag ed-Deir, First Intermediate Period, where 600 shell-beads were found; see D’Auria, Lacovara and Roehrig 1988, 117–18, cat. no. 44). Nonetheless, cowrie-shell beads11 seem to have been particularly fashionable during the Middle Kingdom (Andrews 1981, 61). The eight cowrie shells may be interpreted as spacers in a girdle, as for instance in the richer equipment of princess Sithathoryunet: in her tomb (no. 8) at Lahun eight hollow gold beads in the form of cowrie shells formed a girdle around the hips of the woman (MMA 16.1.5; Brunton 1920, 30–31, pls 3, 7; Oppenheim et al. 2015, 117–18, cat. no. 56). Other women of the royal house had similar girdles; see for instance

11

Not to be confused with wallet-shaped beads, as pointed out by Lilyquist 2003, 175.

the eight gold cowrie shells belonging to queen Mereret and the cowrie shells belonging to Sithathor (Aldred 1971, 190, no. 33, 196, no. 45; Wilkinson 1971, 80–81). A string of marine cowrie shells (MMA 34.1.142) was found scattered in front of the blocking wall of the funerary room of Hepi, at Lisht South (pit no. 3, see Lansing and Hayes 1934, 27–41; Quirke 2016a, 134– 36). In the same place also lay one of the earliest Middle Kingdom faience figurines: a rare image of Ipi/ Taweret (MMA 34.1.127, cf. Ceruti 2017; Miniaci 2017; see above under no. 1.3); an amethyst wedjateye amulet (cf. no. 5.1); a miniature faience vessel (cf. nos 1.1–2); Fig. 10. Also in the burial chamber of

194

G. MINIACI

Hepi was a gold and lapis lazuli girdle featuring cowrie-shell beads (MMA 34.1.154). The dating of the burial is much debated: while some of the items found outside the door find close parallels in the late Middle Kingdom material culture, the coffin type and inscriptions, located inside the burial chamber, clearly date to the early Middle Kingdom (Miniaci 2017; pending further research carried out by Dorothea Arnold). Cowrie shells used as beads come also from other late Middle Kingdom contexts: MMA 15.3.10: pit 307, tomb enclosure of Nakht, at Lisht North (no. 493, Arnold 2008, 72–77, pl. 114; Quirke 2016a, 146); MMA 15.3.372: pit 518, cemetery south of Senwosret (758), at Lisht North. Often, cowrie beads were associated with faience truncated female figurines of the late Middle Kingdom (from Wilkinson 1971, 81; Morris 2011, 79–80; Tooley 2017).

at the centre of the string, although it is not known if this was the original arrangement. A few of the beads have a silver deposit on them, probably the remains of a clasp or some other silver object which has corroded away completely. It is most unlikely that the silver is the remains of an intentional coating. Material: garnet (+ carnelian [6], lapis lazuli [1], and traces of silver) Dimensions: l. 45.50cm (string) Bibliography: Budge 1922, 291, nos 26–57; Andrews 1981, 69, no. 472

Close parallels: for parallels of standard convex and truncated convex bicone beads made of garnet in Middle Kingdom contexts see Schiestl 2009, 97, nn. 686–90. 6.8. Beads (BM EA 37314); Pl. 33

6.6. Beads (BM EA 37312); Pl. 31 Concise description: Long string of small beads of various shapes and materials. There are numerous small disc beads of dark and light blue, black, green, yellow and red faience, and ones of bright blue glass; standard cylinders of black and light green faience, oblate beads and one tiny thin cylinder of light green glazed steatite with incised decoration; standard and long convex bicones of carnelian and garnet; short convex bicones of garnet; segmented beads of light and dark blue and black faience; a few tiny turquoise discs. A glass eyebead has two black and white ‘eyes’ on a dark blue ground. Material: blue, black, green, yellow, and red faience, bright blue glass, light green steatite, carnelian, garnet, turquoise + glass eye-bead Dimensions: l. 124.20cm (string) Bibliography: Budge 1922, 291, nos 26–57; Andrews 1981, 69, no. 471

Close parallels: for parallels of faience small disc beads in Middle Kingdom contexts see Schiestl 2009, 98, nn. 777–80.

6.7. Beads (BM EA 37313); Pl. 32 Concise description: A string composed of very small standard convex and truncated convex bicone beads, spherical beads and some barrel-beads. Most of the beads are garnet, with six carnelian and one lapis lazuli. The beads are graded in size with the larger ones

Concise description: A string composed of many long cylindrical beads of feldspar, carnelian and white faience, short truncated convex bicone beads of garnet and carnelian, one long convex bicone bead of feldspar and two of turquoise, one short cylinder of carnelian and twelve long pear-shaped pendants of very dark carnelian, each with a small green faience disc bead at the lower end. The string is completed by a green faience amulet of a bearded man (?). Material: feldspar, carnelian, white and green faience, garnet, turquoise + amulet of a bearded man Dimensions: l. 45.10cm (string) Bibliography: Budge 1922, 291, nos 26–57; Andrews 1981, 64, no. 416, pl. 33

Close parallels: The long pear-shaped pendants made of carnelian find close parallels in Middle Kingdom contexts (see Engelbach 1923, pl. 52, type 70). For a full list of parallels see Schiestl 2009, 98, nn. 756–65. 6.9. Beads (BM EA 37315); Pl. 34 Concise description: A string comprising beads of various shapes, dimensions and materials: twenty-four spherical, truncated bicone or small short cylinder beads of carnelian, forty-six elongated convex bicone or barrel-beads of garnet, eight tiny short cylinder beads of blue-green faience, two tiny short cylinder beads of gold. There are also a few tiny disc beads of turquoise, carnelian and green jasper, and a few disc beads of gold.

THE LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM TOMB G62 (CEMETERY G) AT ABYDOS

Material: garnet [46], carnelian [24] (+ blue-green faience [8], gold [2], turquoise, green jasper) Dimensions: l. 25.20cm (string) Bibliography: Budge 1922, 291, nos 26–57; Andrews 1981, 69, no. 473, pl. 36

Close parallels: for parallels of barrel-beads made of garnet in Middle Kingdom contexts see Schiestl 2009, 97, nn. 716–24.

195

once formed a single string with 6.10 and 6.11 (information taken from the British Museum accession catalogue entry). Material: green, black, blue and white faience Dimensions: l. 41.80cm (string) Bibliography: Andrews 1981, 69, no. 476

Close parallels: for parallels of faience small disc beads in Middle Kingdom contexts see Schiestl 2009, 98, nn. 777–80.

6.10. Beads (BM EA 37316); Pl. 35 Concise description: String of many small disc beads of green, black, blue faience and two of white faience; it could have once formed a single string with 6.11 and 6.12 (information taken from the British Museum accession catalogue entry). Material: green, black, blue and white faience Dimensions: l. 46.70cm (string) Bibliography: Budge 1922, 291, nos 26–57; Andrews 1981, 69, no. 474

Close parallels: for parallels of faience small disc beads in Middle Kingdom contexts see Schiestl 2009, 98, nn. 777–80. 6.11. Beads (BM EA 37317); Pl. 36 Concise description: String of small disc beads: of green, black, blue and white faience; it could have once formed a single string with 6.10 and 6.12 (information taken from the British Museum accession catalogue entry).

Category 7: Undetermined category

7.1. Rectangular piece of wood (BM EA 37320) Concise description: Unfortunately, during my research fellowship at the British Museum, I was not able to locate the object and the museum database does not contain any image of the item; no further information other than ‘rectangular piece of wood’ can be provided here. Material: wood (only wood?) Dimensions: h. 6.10cm; w. 1.25cm; th. 0.36cm Bibliography: unpublished

Conclusion

Concise description: String of small disc beads: of green, black, blue and white faience; it could have

From the objects preserved in the British Museum, G62 cannot be considered an intact context, since some elements are clearly missing: the handle of the mirror (cf. no. 4.10);12 other wooden spacer-bars (cf. no. 6.1);13 the lids of some toilet vessels. Also the number and the different shapes/materials of toilet vessels do not point to a complete, homogeneous set. In addition, the meagre quantity of pottery containers preserved in the tomb (only two, 3.2–3) is suspicious: this may have been the result of a selection of objects made either by the excavator or the ‘customer’ who acquired the artefacts. If so, this action may have fragmented and altered the original assemblage even more severely. However, the above analysis makes it possible to show with a fair degree of certainty that most of the G62 objects belong to a broad—but defined—timeframe, which extends from the Middle Kingdom to the

12

13

Material: green, black, blue and white faience Dimensions: l. 49.70cm (string) Bibliography: Budge 1922, 291, nos 26–57; Andrews 1981, 69, no. 475

Close parallels: for parallels of faience small disc beads in Middle Kingdom contexts see Schiestl 2009, 98, nn. 777–80. 6.12. Beads (BM EA 37318); Pl. 37

The fragility of materials used for handles, such as ivory, cannot be considered conclusive, since other ivory items have been found preserved, cf. nos 4.1-4.

Also in this case, such organic material as wood has been found in a perfect state of conservation, cf. item no. 1.7.

196

G. MINIACI

Second Intermediate Period. Within this broad range it should be noted that a significant number of objects are diagnostic for the late Middle Kingdom (nos 1.1–7; 4.1–5; 6.5). Also, for those objects whose type extends beyond/before the Middle Kingdom, the comparative analysis carried out using a combination of closely associated categories also suggests a homogeneous late Middle Kingdom date. The silver torque (no. 6.4) and the copper bowl (no. 3.1), which find close echoes in the Second Intermediate Period, are also—frequently— attested in the late Middle Kingdom. Ivory clappers (nos 2.1–4), in use since the end of the Old Kingdom, are often found in late Middle Kingdom burials. Actually, only two elements might allow for an extension of the dating into the early New Kingdom: the presence of glass beads and yellow faience beads (no. 6.6). However, it remains unknown from which sector of G62’s excavation the beads were recovered—they could easily belong to layers of debris formed later (especially owing to the nature of the beads and the fact that they were not found in large quantities). Finally, parallels for the entire range of objects from G62 can be found in other funerary equipment included in the multiple burials of the late Middle Kingdom, as can be noticed especially in Abydos 416 (Fig. 11; cf. also other late Middle Kingdom tombs quoted above); Abydos E 1 (see Fig. 9), Harageh tomb 124; Lisht pit 466; possibly Lisht pit 885 (see Fig. 3; Quirke 2016a, 176; note that no human remains are recorded for this structure). In conclusion, the absence of objects dating to earlier (Old Kingdom/First Intermediate Period) or later (mid–late New Kingdom to Late Period) periods seems to indicate that the builders of G62 did not reuse an earlier context and the tomb did not suffer from later intrusions/reuse.14 The incoherence between the presence of a uniform but incomplete and reshuffled group of objects, and the absence of later (or modern) intrusion can be explained by a consistent change that late Middle Kingdom burials underwent. Around the time of Senwosret III, multiple burials on a larger scale started to be introduced at all social levels, not only in rural or peripheral areas

(Grajetzki 2007, 24–29). Sequential multiple burials15 imply a continuous and prolonged use of the tomb over time, one generation following the other (see Miniaci 2016b, 228–33; Miniaci forthcoming b). When faced with multiple burials, the atomic individuality of burial equipment—as perceived by modern scholars—tends to fade out; types of objects grouped together no longer correspond to a definite point in time, to a homogeneous segment of society and to a uniform culture. The act of separating the material culture of different individuals deposited together in different yet also closely connected time-spots becomes more difficult. Due to the sequential use of a structure by multiple individuals and for a prolonged—but limited—time span, archaeological artefacts (if collected without an accurate method) are not clearly respondent to a single space, to a single identity, and to a precise time, as they have not all been deposited at the same point in the past. Therefore, in the face of multiple burials, tampering, misappropriation, and the reshuffling of artefacts, it should be no surprise to find that the interference of living people entering the tomb (not including the activities of plunderers) might alter quite substantially the ‘ideal’ burial equipment expected for a certain epoch. In addition, multiple burials, when prolonged for a significant time span, will inevitably show objects which cross different epochs, as with G62 from the (late) Middle Kingdom to the Second Intermediate Period. The range of artefacts in G62 cannot be classified as equipment belonging to royalty and the most elite levels of society. Osirification regalia and other signs of the ideology of royalty and power, including hieroglyphic inscriptions and royal names, seem to be missing. Nevertheless, the fact that G62 contained valuable and sought-after materials, such as ivory, metals and hard stones, allows us to suppose that it was connected to a wealthy social class. All the parallel contexts (Abydos 416, Harageh 124, Lisht pits, etc.) belong to similar social milieus: a group which can afford a certain visibility in death (thus excluding the lower levels of society), but which is not among the very wealthiest and most powerful.

14

15

However, this is not sufficient to indicate that G62 was a closed context.

For the distinction between different types of multiple burials, see Crawford 2007.

THE LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM TOMB G62 (CEMETERY G) AT ABYDOS

Fig. 11: Selection of objects from Abydos tomb 416, from Kemp and Merrillees 1980.

197

198

G. MINIACI

Bibliography Aldred, C. 1971. Jewels of the pharaohs: Egyptian jewellery of the Dynastic period. London. Altenmüller, H. 1965. Die Apotropaia und die Götter Mittelägyptens. Eine typologische und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der sogenannten ‘Zaubermesser’ des Mittleren Reichs. Vols I–II. PhD dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich. Amélineau, É. 1897–98. Les nouvelles fouilles d’Abydos. Paris. Anderson, R. D. 1976. Catalogue of Egyptian antiquities in the British Museum III: Musical instruments. London. Andrews, C. A. R. 1981. Catalogue of Egyptian antiquities in the British Museum VI: Jewellery I. From the earliest times to the Seventeenth Dynasty. London. ———. 1990. Ancient Egyptian jewellery. London. ———. 1994. Amulets of ancient Egypt. London. Arnold, Di. 1992. The pyramid complex of Senwosret I. Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 25. New York. ———. 2008. Middle Kingdom tomb architecture at Lisht. Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 28. New York; London. Arnold, F. 1996. Settlement remains at Lisht-North. In Haus und Palast im Alten Ägypten / House and palace in ancient Egypt, M. Bietak (ed.), 13–21. Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 14; Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften 14. Vienna. Aston, B. G. 1994. Ancient Egyptian stone vessels: Materials and forms. Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 5. Heidelberg. Aston, B. G., J. Harrell and I. Shaw. 2000. Stone. In Ancient Egyptian materials and technology, P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw (eds), 5–77. Cambridge. Ayrton, E. R., C. T. Currelly and E. P. Weigall. 1904. Abydos. Part III, 1904. Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund 25. London. Bagh, T. 2011. Finds from W. M. F. Petrie’s excavations in Egypt in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Copenhagen. Bakr, M. I., and H. Brandl. 2014. Egyptian sculpture of the Middle Kingdom from the palace at Bubastis. In Egyptian antiquities: From the eastern Nile Delta, M. I. Bakr, H. Brandl and F. Kalloniatis (eds), 6–33. Museums in the Nile Delta 2. Berlin. Ben-Tor, D. 2007. Scarabs, chronology, and interconnections: Egypt and Palestine in the Second Intermediate Period. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeologica 27. Fribourg; Göttingen. Bissing, F. W. von. 1904–07. Steingefässe (CG 18065– 18793). Vienna. Bianchi, R. S. 2013. The treasure of Harageh. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 49: 19–31.

Bourriau, J. 1988. Pharaohs and mortals: Egyptian art in the Middle Kingdom: Exhibition organised by the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, 19 April to 26 June, Liverpool 18 July to 4 September 1988. Cambridge. Brunton, G. 1920. Lahun I: The treasure. British School of Archaeology in Egypt 27. London. ———. 1927. Qau and Badari. Vol. I. British School of Archaeology in Egypt 44. London. ———. 1937. Mostagedda and the Tasian culture. London. ———. 1948. Matmar. London. Brunton, G., and R. Engelbach. 1927. Gurob. British School of Archaeology in Egypt 41. London. Budge, W. E. A. 1922. A guide to the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Egyptian Rooms, and the Coptic Room. London. Bussmann, R. 2010. Die Provinztempel Ägyptens von der 0. bis zur 11. Dynastie: Archäologie und Geschichtliches einer gesellschaftlichen Institution zwischen Residenz und Provinz. Probleme der Ägyptologie 30. Leiden. ———. 2011. Local traditions in early Egyptian temples. In Egypt at its origins 3: Proceedings of the Third International Conference ‘Origin of the state. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt’, London, 27th July–1st August 2008, R. F. Friedman and P. N. Fiske (eds), 747–62. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 205. Leuven. ———. 2013. The social setting of the temple of Satet in the third millennium BC. In The First Cataract of the Nile: One region – diverse perspectives, D. Raue, S. J. Seidlmayer and P. Speiser (eds), 21–34. Sonderschrift des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 36. Berlin; Boston. Capel A. K., and G. E. Markoe (eds). 1997. Mistress of the House, Mistress of Heaven: Women in ancient Egypt. [Exhibition catalogue] Cincinnati Art Museum (Ohio) Oct. 20, 1996–Jan. 5, 1997, Brooklyn Museum, New York, Feb. 21–May 18, 1997. Cincinnati. Carnarvon, Earl of, and H. Carter. 1912. Five years’ explorations at Thebes: A record of work done 1907–1911. London. Caton-Thompson, G., and E. W. Gardner. 1934. The desert Fayum. London. Caubet, A., and G. Pierrat-Bonnefois. 2005. Faïences de l’antiquité de l’Égypte au Iran. Paris. Ceruti, S. 2017. The hippopotamus goddess carrying a crocodile on her back: An iconographical motif distinctive of the late Middle Kingdom. In Company of images: Modelling the ancient imaginary world of the Middle Kingdom. Proceedings of the international conference held on 18th–20th September in London, UCL, G. Miniaci, M. Betrò and S. Quirke (eds), 93–123. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 262. Leuven. Crawford, S. 2007. Companions, co-incidences or chattels? Children in the early Anglo-Saxon multiple burial ritual. In Children, childhood and society, S. Crawford and

THE LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM TOMB G62 (CEMETERY G) AT ABYDOS

G. Shepherd (eds), 83–92. BAR International Series 1696. Oxford. Dasen, V. 1993. Dwarfs in ancient Egypt and Greece. Oxford. D’Auria, S., P. Lacovara, and C. H. Roehrig (eds). 1988. Mummies and magic: The funerary arts of ancient Egypt: Exhibition of a long-term loan of Egyptian art from the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston to the Dallas Museum of Art, from September 1990 to September 2000. London. Downes, D. 1974. The excavations at Esna, 1905–1906. Warminster. Dubiel, U. 2008. Amulette, Siegel und Perlen: Studien zu Typologie und Tragesitte im Alten und Mittleren Reich. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 229. Fribourg; Göttingen. Dunand, M. 1950–58. Fouilles de Byblos. Tome II: 1933– 1938. Atlas; texte, Vols I–II. Paris. Dunham, D., and J. M. A. Janssen. 1960. Second Cataract forts. Vol. I: Semna, Kumma: excavated by George Andrew Reisner. Boston. Engelbach, R. 1923. Harageh. British School of Archaeology in Egypt 28. London. Garstang, J. 1901. El Arábah: A cemetery of the Middle Kingdom; Survey of the Old Kingdom temenos; Graffiti from the temple of Sety. London. ———. 1907. The burial customs of ancient Egypt as illustrated by tombs of the Middle Kingdom: Being a report of excavations made in the necropolis of Beni Hassan during 1902–3–4. London. Grajetzki, W. 2007. Multiple burials in ancient Egypt to the end of the Middle Kingdom. In Life and afterlife in ancient Egypt during the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period, S. Grallert and W. Grajetzki (eds), 16–34. Golden House Publications Egyptology 7. London. ———. 2014. Tomb treasures of the late Middle Kingdom: The archaeology of female burials. Philadelphia. ———. 2017. A zoo en-miniature; the impact of the central government on the rise and fall of animal/zoomorphic amulets’ production during the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom. In Company of images: Modelling the ancient imaginary world of the Middle Kingdom. Proceedings of the international conference held on 18th–20th September in London, UCL, G. Miniaci, M. Betrò and S. Quirke (eds), 193–212. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 262. Leuven. Hickmann, H. 1949. Instruments de musique: Nos 69201– 69852. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire 101. Cairo. Hölzl, R. 2015. Masterpieces of the Egyptian and Near East collection. A brief guide to the Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna 6. Vienna. Hornemann, B. 1951–69. Types of Egyptian statuary. Vols I–VII. Copenhagen.

199

Junker, H. 1920. Bericht über die Grabungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wein auf den Friedhöfen von el-Kubanieh-Nord. Winter 1910–11. Vienna. Kamal, A. 1911. Rapport sur les fouilles exécutées dans la zone comprise entre Déîrout, au nord, et Déîr-el-Ganadlah, au sud. Annales du Service des antiquités de l’Égypte 11: 3–39. Kemp, B. J., and R. S. Merrillees 1980. Minoan pottery in second millennium Egypt. Mainz am Rhein. Lansing, A., and W. C. Hayes. 1934. The Egyptian expedition: The excavations at Lisht 1933–1934. Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 29 (11): 4–41. Lilyquist, C. 1979. Ancient Egyptian mirrors: From the earliest times through the Middle Kingdom. Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 27. Munich. ———. 2003. The tomb of three foreign wives of Tuthmosis III. New Haven; London. Lilyquist C., and R. H. Brill. 1993. Studies in early Egyptian glass. New York. Lucas, A., and J. R. Harris. 1962. Ancient Egyptian materials and industries. London. Marée, M. 2014. Figurine de Aha. In Sésostris III: Pharaon de légende, F. Morfoisse and G. Andreu-Lanoë (eds), 223. Les Dossiers d’Archéologie Hors-série 27. Dijon. Mariette, A. 1880. Abydos: Description des fouilles exécutées sur l’emplacement de cette ville. Vol. II: Temple de Séti (supplément), Temple de Ramsès, Temple d’Osiris, Petit Temple de l’Ouest, Nécropole. Paris. Miniaci, G. 2011. Rishi coffins and the funerary culture of Second Intermediate Period Egypt. Golden House Publications Egyptology 17. London. ———. 2013–14. Collecting groups: Visualizing the archaeological context of the late Middle Kingdom cemetery A at Harageh. In Forming material Egypt, S. Quirke, P. Piacentini and C. Orsenigo (eds), 115–34. Egyptian & Egyptological Documents, Archives, Libraries 4, Milan. ———. 2014. The collapse of faience figurine production at the end of the Middle Kingdom: Reading the history of an epoch between Postmodernism and Grand Narrative. Journal of Egyptian History 7 (1): 109–42. ———. 2015. Faience figurines from Middle Kingdom Egypt. British Museum Newsletter 2: 18. ———. 2016a. Lion-faced man Aha/Bes and the group of objects from Abydos G62. British Museum Newsletter 3: 42–43. ———. 2016b. Note on the archaeological context of Tomb C 37, Asasif. In G. Rosati, ‘Writing-board stelae’ with Sokar-formula: Preliminary account. In The World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000–1550 BC): Contributions on archaeology, art, religion and written texts, Vol. II, G. Miniaci and W. Grajetzki (eds), 228–33. Middle Kingdom Studies 2. London.

200

G. MINIACI

———. 2017. Unbroken stories: Middle Kingdom faience figurines in their archaeological context. In Company of images: Modelling the ancient imaginary world of the Middle Kingdom. Proceedings of the international conference held on 18th–20th September in London, UCL, G. Miniaci, M. Betrò and S. Quirke (eds), 235– 84. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 262. Leuven. ———. forthcoming a. Miniature forms as transformative thresholds: Faience figurines in Middle Bronze Age Egypt (1800 BC–1650 BC). British Museum Publications on Egypt and Sudan 7. Leuven. ———. forthcoming b. Burial demography in the late Middle Kingdom: A social perspective. In Concepts in Middle Kingdom funerary culture, R. Nyord (ed.). Cambridge. Montet, P. 1928–29. Byblos et l’Egypte: Quatre campagnes de fouilles à Gebeil: 1921–1922–1923–1924. Paris. Morfoisse, F., and G. Andreu-Lanoë (eds). 2014. Sésostris III: Pharaon de légende. Les Dossiers d’Archéologie Hors-série 27. Dijon. De Morgan, J. 1895. Fouilles à Dahchour (mars–juin 1894). Paris. Morris, E. F. 2011. Paddle dolls and performance. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 47: 71–103. ———. 2017. Middle Kingdom clappers, dancers, birth magic, and the reinvention of ritual. In Company of images: Modelling the ancient imaginary world of the Middle Kingdom. Proceedings of the international conference held on 18th–20th September in London, UCL, G. Miniaci, M. Betrò and S. Quirke (eds), 285– 335. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 262. Leuven. Nicholson, P. T. 1998. Materials and technology. In Gifts of the Nile: Ancient Egyptian faience, F. D. Friedman, G. Borromeo and M. Leveque (eds), 50–64. London; New York. Nicholson, P. T. and I. Shaw (eds). 2000. Ancient Egyptian materials and technology. Cambridge. Oppenheim, A., Do. Arnold, Di. Arnold, and K. Yamamoto (eds). 2015. Ancient Egypt transformed: The Middle Kingdom. New York. Patch, D. C. 1998. Baby’s feeding cup. In Gifts of the Nile: Ancient Egyptian faience, F. D. Friedman, G. Borromeo and M. Leveque (eds), 207. London; New York. ———. 2012. Dawn of Egyptian art. New York. Peet, T. E. 1914. The cemeteries of Abydos. Part II, 1911– 1912. Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund 34. London. Peltenburg, E. J. 1987. Early faience: Recent studies, origins and relations with glass. In Early vitreous materials, M. Bimson and I. C. Freestone (eds). London. Petrie, W. M. F. 1890. Kahun, Gurob, and Hawara. London. ———. 1891. Illahun, Kahun and Gurob, 1889–1890. London. ———. 1900. The royal tombs of the First Dynasty. 1900, Part I. Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund 18. London.

———. 1901. Diospolis Parva: The cemeteries of Abadiyeh and Hu, 1898–9. Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund 20. London. ———. 1902. Abydos. Part I. Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund 22. London. ———. 1907. Gizeh and Rifeh. British School of Archaeology in Egypt 13. London. ———. 1914. Tarkhan II. British School of Archaeology in Egypt 26. London. ———. 1934. Ancient Gaza. IV, Tell el Ajjul. British School of Archaeology in Egypt 56. London. Pinch, G. 1993. Votive offerings to Hathor. Oxford. ———. 2003. Magic in ancient Egypt. London. Porter, B., and R. L. B. Moss. 1939. Topographical bibliography of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic texts, reliefs and paintings. Vol. V: Upper Egypt: Sites. Oxford. Quirke, S. 2015. Exploring religion in ancient Egypt. Chichester. ———. 2016a. Birth tusks: The armoury of health in context – Egypt 1800 BC: Including publication of Petrie Museum examples photographed by Gianluca Miniaci, and drawn from the photographs by Andrew Boyce. Middle Kingdom Studies 3. London. ———. 2016b. Diachronic questions of form and function: Falcon-head utensils in Middle Kingdom contexts. In The world of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000–1550 BC): Contributions on archaeology, art, religion, and written sources, Vol. II, G. Miniaci and W. Grajetzki (eds), 181–202. Middle Kingdom Studies 2. London. Quirke, S., and Z. Tajeddin. 2010. Mechanical reproduction in the age of the artwork? Faience and 5000 moulds from 14th-century BC Egypt. Visual Communication 9 (3): 341–61. Radwan, A. 1983. Die Kupfer- und Bronzegefässe Ägyptens (von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn der Spätzeit). Prähistorische Bronzefunde. Munich. Randall-MacIver, D., and A. C. Mace. 1902. El Amrah and Abydos, 1899–1901. London. Reisner, G. 1923. Excavations at Kerma. Part IV: The arts and crafts of the Egyptian colony at Kerma. Harvard African Studies 6. Cambridge. Richards, J. 2005. Society and death in ancient Egypt: Mortuary landscapes of the Middle Kingdom. Cambridge. el-Sawi, A. 1979. Excavations at Tell Basta: Report of seasons 1967–1971 and catalogue of finds. Prague. Schiestl, R. 2009. Tell el-Dab‘a XVIII: die Palastnekropole von Tell el-Dab‘a. Die Gräber des Areals F/I der Straten d/2 und d/1. Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 30; Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften 47. Vienna. Schiestl, R., and A. Seiler 2012. Handbook of pottery of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom. Vol. I: The corpus volume. Vol. II: The regional volume. Contributions to the

THE LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM TOMB G62 (CEMETERY G) AT ABYDOS

Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 31; Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften 72. Vienna. Shortland, A. 2012. Lapis lazuli from the kiln: Glass and glassmaking in the late Bronze Age. Studies in Archaeological Science 2. Leuven. Smith, S. T. 1992. Intact tombs of the 17th and 18th dynasties from Thebes and the New Kingdom burial system. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 48: 193–231. Snape, S. R. 1986. Mortuary assemblages from Abydos. PhD dissertation, University of Liverpool. ———. 1994. Statues and soldiers at Abydos in the Second Intermediate Period. In The unbroken reed: Studies in the culture and heritage of ancient Egypt in honour of A. F. Shore, C. Eyre, A. Leahy and L. Montagno Leahy (eds), 304–14. London. Sourdive, C. 1984. La main dans l’Égypte pharaonique: Recherches de morphologie structurale sur les objets égyptiens comportant une main. Berne. Sparks, R. T. 2006. The Taweret workshop: Nicholson Museum 00.17 and related vessels. In Egyptian art in the Nicholson Museum, Sydney, K. N. Sowada and B. G. Ockinga (eds), 241–61. Sydney. Steindorff, G. 1946. Catalogue of Egyptian sculpture in the Walters Art Gallery. Baltimore. Stevens, A. 2006. Private religion at Amarna: The material evidence. BAR International Series 1587. Oxford. Tite, M. S., A. J. Shortland, A. Kaczmarczyk, and P. B. Vandiver. 2008. Faience production in Egypt. In Production technology of faience and related early vitreous materials, M. S. Tite and A. J. Shortland (eds), 57–90. Oxford. Tooley, A. M. J. 2015. Garstang’s El Arabah Tomb E.1. In The world of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000–1550 BC): Contributions on archaeology, art, religion, and written sources, Vol. I, G. Miniaci and W. Grajetzki (eds), 339–55. Middle Kingdom Studies 1. London.

201

———. 2017. Notes on Type 1 truncated figurines: The Ramesseum ladies. In Company of images: Modelling the ancient imaginary world of the Middle Kingdom. Proceedings of the international conference held on 18th–20th September in London, UCL, G. Miniaci, M. Betrò and S. Quirke (eds), 421–56. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 262. Leuven. Vink, F. 2016. Boundaries of protection: Function and significance of the framing (lines) on Middle Kingdom apotropaia, in particular magic wands. In The world of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000–1550 BC): Contributions on archaeology, art, religion, and written sources, Vol. II, G. Miniaci and W. Grajetzki (eds), 257–84. Middle Kingdom Studies 2, London. Waraksa, E. A. 2009. Female figurines from the Mut precinct: Context and ritual function. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 240. Fribourg; Göttingen. Wegner, J. 2000. The organisation of the temple Nfr-kꜢ of Senwosret III at Abydos. Ägypten und Levante 10: 85–125. Wegner, J. 2007. The mortuary temple of Senwosret III at Abydos. Publications of the Pennsylvania-Yale-Institute of Fine Arts/NYU Expedition to Egypt 8. New Haven, PA. Weingarten, J. 1991. The transformation of Egyptian Taweret into the Minoan genius: A study in cultural transmission in the Middle Bronze Age. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 88: 3–24. Wengrow, D. 2003. Interpreting animal art in the prehistoric Near East. In Culture through objects: Ancient Near Eastern studies in honour of P. R. S.Moorey, T. Potts, M. Roaf and D. Stein (eds), 139–60. Oxford. Wilkinson, A. 1971. Ancient Egyptian jewellery. London. Xia, N. 2014. Ancient Egyptian beads. Heidelberg.

G. MINIACI

202

Pl. 1: Miniature drop-shaped vessel (BM EA 37294, see no. 1.1). © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photo: Gianluca Miniaci.

Pl. 2: Miniature hemispherical bowl (BM EA 37295, see no. 1.2). © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photo: Gianluca Miniaci.

Pl. 3: Hippopotamus-lion figure (prototype of Ipi/Taweret figure?) (BM EA 37296, see no. 1.3): different views. © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photos: Gianluca Miniaci.

Pl. 4: Standing lion on hind legs/frontal lion-maned/-eared figure (prototype of Aha/Bes figure?) (BM EA 37297, see no. 1.4): different views. © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photos: Gianluca Miniaci.

THE LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM TOMB G62 (CEMETERY G) AT ABYDOS

203

Pl. 5: Pregnant female (?) grotesque human figure, probably a dwarf (BM EA 37298, see no. 1.5): different views. © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photos: Gianluca Miniaci.

Pl. 6: A squatting caprid (goat or antelope) (BM EA 37299, see no. 1.6): different views. © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photos: Gianluca Miniaci.

Pl. 7: Wooden fish (BM EA 37300, see no. 1.7): different views. © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photos: Gianluca Miniaci.

204

G. MINIACI

Pl. 8: Pair of curved clappers (EA 37301, see no. 2.1): front and back. © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photos: Gianluca Miniaci.

Pl. 9: Pair of straight clappers decorated with dotted circles (EA 37302, see no. 2.2): front and back. © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photos: Gianluca Miniaci.

THE LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM TOMB G62 (CEMETERY G) AT ABYDOS

Pl. 10: Pair of straight clappers decorated with criss-cross pattern on the wrists (EA 37303, see no. 2.3): front and back. © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photos: Gianluca Miniaci.

Pl. 11: Butt end of an ivory clapper (EA 37304, see no. 2.4): front and back. © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photos: Gianluca Miniaci.

205

206

G. MINIACI

Pl. 12: Copper bowl (BM EA 37311, see no. 3.1): two views © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photos: Gianluca Miniaci.

THE LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM TOMB G62 (CEMETERY G) AT ABYDOS

207

Pl. 13: Wavy neck pottery jar with flat base in the National Museum of Ireland, NMI 1902.484. From Schiestl and Seiler 2012, 697, no. 9.

Pl. 14: Wavy neck pottery jar in the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, UC 19026. © The Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology.

Pl. 15: Cylinder vessel (EA 37286, see no. 4.1). © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photo: Gianluca Miniaci.

Pl. 16: Cylinder vessel (EA 37287, see no. 4.2). © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photo: Gianluca Miniaci.

208

G. MINIACI

Pl. 17: Cylinder vessel (EA 37288, see no. 4.3). © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photo: Gianluca Miniaci.

Pl. 18: Globular vessel (EA 37289, see no. 4.4). © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photo: Gianluca Miniaci.

Pl. 19: Kohl-pot (EA 37290, see no. 4.5). © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photo: Gianluca Miniaci.

Pl. 20: Calcite lid (BM EA 37291, see no. 4.6): front and back views. © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photos: Gianluca Miniaci.

Pl. 21: Shouldered jar (BM EA 37292, see no. 4.7). © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photos: Gianluca Miniaci.

Pl. 22: Kohl-pot (BM EA 37293, see no. 4.8). © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photo: Gianluca Miniaci.

THE LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM TOMB G62 (CEMETERY G) AT ABYDOS

Pl. 23: Green porphyry lid (BM EA 37290, see no. 4.9): different views. © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photo: Gianluca Miniaci.

209

Pl. 25: Gilded wooden amulet in the shape of a wedjat-eye (BM EA 37305, see no. 5.1): both sides. © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photos: Gianluca Miniaci.

Pl. 24: Bronze mirror (BM EA 37307, see no. 4.10): different views. © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photos: Gianluca Miniaci.

210

G. MINIACI

Pl. 26: Wooden spacer-bar (BM EA 37306, see no. 6.1): different views. © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photos: Gianluca Miniaci.

Pl. 27: Finger-ring: obsidian scarab mounted in gold wire (BM EA 37308, see no. 6.2): different views. © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photos: Gianluca Miniaci.

Pl. 28: Finger-ring: lapis lazuli scarab bezel mounted in silver wire (BM EA 37309, see no. 6.3): different views. © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photos: Gianluca Miniaci.

THE LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM TOMB G62 (CEMETERY G) AT ABYDOS

Pl. 29: Silver torque (BM EA 37310, see no. 6.4). © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photo: Gianluca Miniaci.

211

Pl. 30: Beads: eight cowrie shells (BM EA 37319, see no. 6.5). © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photo: Gianluca Miniaci.

Pl. 31: Beads (BM EA 37312, see no. 6.6). © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photo: Gianluca Miniaci.

212

G. MINIACI

Pl. 32: Beads (BM EA 37313, see no. 6.7). © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photo: Gianluca Miniaci.

Pl. 33: Beads (BM EA 37314, see no. 6.8). © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photo: Gianluca Miniaci.

THE LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM TOMB G62 (CEMETERY G) AT ABYDOS

Pl. 34: Beads (BM EA 37315, see no. 6.9). © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photo: Gianluca Miniaci.

Pl. 35: Beads (BM EA 37316, see no. 6.10). © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photo: Gianluca Miniaci.

213

214

G. MINIACI

Pl. 36: Beads (BM EA 37317, see no. 6.11). © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photo: Gianluca Miniaci.

Pl. 37: Beads (BM EA 37318, see no. 6.12). © The Trustees of the British Museum. Photo: Gianluca Miniaci.

A HISTORY OF MILLENNIA: THE CONFIGURATION OF A CULTIC LANDSCAPE AROUND THE TOMB OF KING DEN AT UMM EL-QA‘AB, ABYDOS Vera MÜLLER

Abstract This paper focuses upon the orientation and layout of the royal tomb complexes at Umm el-Qaʽab. It is conspicuous that the tombs are not as regularly oriented as the enclosures, and that areas were left vacant for no evident reason; this holds true particularly for the space to the east of Den’s tomb. It seems that much larger parts of the landscape were taken into account than hitherto surmised. Thus, for instance, the wadi entrance was not the only point of orientation; a spot to the north of the tombs and another to the east are emphasized by the layout of the tombs. Interestingly, the tombs are not aligned towards the enclosures that are conspicuously situated on the opposite side of the wadi entrance. Introduction As is well known, more than 1,000 years of funeral activity in the cemetery of Umm el-Qa‘ab at Abydos had already passed when king Den erected his tomb in the middle of Dynasty 1 (Dreyer 1990; 1993; Dreyer et al. 1996; 1998; 2000; Hartung 2002; Dreyer et al. 2003; Hartmann and Hartung 2005; Dreyer et al. 2006; Hartung 2007; Hartung 2010; Hartmann 2011a; Hartmann 2011b). While it introduced some novelties, such as the staircase into the royal chamber, the use of granite slabs as flooring, or the so-called annexe in the southwestern corner, in other respects the tomb followed traditions already well established at this time at Abydos (Wilkinson 1999, 231–38; Engel 2008). In short, the combination of tradition and innovation was already an instituted paradigm at the time that the early royal tombs were erected. Tradition and the attachment to elite ancestors were definitely triggering and very important factors accounting for the continued use of this cemetery well into the historic period (Patch 1991, 47; Wilkinson 1999, 231–34; Dreyer 2007a; 2007b; Engel 2008, 32, 34; O’Connor 2009, 147–50; Hartung 2016, 190). Diana Craig Patch (1991, chapters 2 and 3) also worked out that Abydos (and the Thinite nome)

had a special religious–political role right from its beginnings in the Predynastic period. This was based upon its geographical position in the middle of Upper Egypt (the arrival and starting point of a caravan-route to the Kharga oasis and the Darb el-Arbain) and the unusually large area of cultivable flood plain, probably supplying large resources of cattle and logs. While Janet E. Richards (1999) worked out the importance of the configuration of the cultic elements of the Abydene landscape, Henry G. Fischer (1968, 68–69) considered the Thinite nome as crown land that would have been under direct royal control. These interesting hypotheses would explain several interesting decisions concerning the region of Abydos throughout history and could offer a further explanation for the choice of Abydos as a royal cemetery (Patch 1991, 47–49). In any case, there must have been strong reasons why the royal cemetery continued to be located at Abydos and was not transferred to the vicinity of the capital at Memphis with the beginning of Dynasty 1, especially since the upper echelons of society had their tombs at Saqqara. Although a solution to this question is certainly not to be found in the analysis of this cemetery alone, a closer look at its topographical characteristics might nevertheless give some indications of the peculiarities of this specific locality that might have generated this special tradition. An interesting feature in this respect is the specific way in which the tombs were positioned, not only in respect to the landscape but also in relation to each other, exhibiting an astonishing proximity on the one hand, while leaving vast open spaces on the other. The beginning One important characteristic definitely lies in the remoteness of the burial ground. It was initiated at the very beginning of the Predynastic period about halfway between the mountainous ridge to the west and the river valley to the east (which lie roughly parallel to each other) (Fig. 1). It was designated by T. E. Peet (1914, 14) with the letter ‘U’. We do not know the

216

V. MÜLLER

Fig. 1: Southern embayment of Abydos (Dreyer 1998, pl. 1).

Fig. 2: Map of Abydos in the Early Dynastic Period (Bestock 2008a, fig. 1).

A HISTORY OF MILLENNIA

217

reason why a part of the community in early Naqada I decided to have their tombs situated at a distance of about 1km to the west of the settlement(s) and at least 500m to the west of other contemporary cemeteries (Fig. 2), all of which had been founded within, or at least closer to, the low desert margin (Kaiser and Grossmann 1979, 163 with n. 42; Patch 1991; Anderson 1999; Hartung 2016, 177–78). It is, however, striking that a similar situation can be observed at other places of the Predynastic period, for instance Beit Khalaf, Mahasna, Naqada or Hierakonpolis. Some of these sites became regional centres in the course of this period (Kemp 1989, 31–35; Wilkinson 1999, 36–41)— but not all of them. Although the mechanisms are not yet understood in detail, topographical studies in Upper Egypt have suggested that several small residential areas at the beginning of the Predynastic period developed into three larger settlements by its end, and the later town Abydos was one of them (Kemp 1989, 31–35; Patch 1991; Wilkinson 1999, 44–47)—although the population density in the Abydos region seems to have been lower than in the other Upper Egyptian ‘realms’ (Patch 1991, 43). This development has been attributed to the emergence of an elite in the course of the second half of the 4th millennium BC. Surprisingly, recent studies by Rita Hartmann and Ulrich Hartung revealed that distinct social differences, with an elite, are already reflected in the earliest phase of Naqada Ia in Cemetery U from its foundation (Fig. 3) at Abydos (Hartung 2007; 2010; Hartmann 2011a, 931–34; 2016; Hartung 2016, 181–82). According to their research in the early main phase of the cemetery (Naqada Ia–Naqada IIB1), the elite were buried within several groups of community members, each of which was socially differentiated in separated areas of the cemetery (Hartmann 2016; Hartung 2016, 182–84). Furthermore, Hartmann and Hartung were able to elucidate through comparative studies with other cemeteries that from its beginning Cemetery U also had an outstanding character on a supraregional level, suggesting that in fact Abydos might have to be considered as the main centre of the Naqada culture (Hartmann 2016; Hartung 2016, 188–90).

After a hiatus—the reasons for which are not yet known—the configuration changed with Naqada IID when the cemetery was restricted to the elite. Interestingly, the tombs erected during Naqada IID have been located in the vicinity of older elite tombs in the centre of the cemetery (Hartmann 2011a, 931–34; 2016; Hartung 2016, 179, Abb. 3), suggesting that the elite of this period tried to tie in with the early Naqada elite when they decided to return to Cemetery U as their burial ground, and that they founded a tradition that eventually continued until the Early Dynastic period. Although the exact reasons for the selection of the location of Umm el-Qa‘ab in the middle of the low desert thus remain elusive, it is highly suggestive that a social distance during life should also be emphasized by a topographical separation after death—just as in later periods at Abydos (Richards 1999, 94). A visit to one of the tombs in this distant location would have certainly had a more planned character than would have been the case with tombs situated in cemeteries close to the settlements, at the edge of the cultivated areas. At the same time, the remoteness also created more optimal conditions for tomb robbings or scavenging by jackals, hyenas or wild dogs, which would require the dead to be more carefully secured and protected. Patch (1991, 58) proposed that the southern cliffs of the Abydos embayment possessed a sacred quality, which also invited later kings (Senwosret III, kings of Dynasties 13 and 16, and Ahmose) to erect their funeral monuments in the vicinity (Wegner and Abu el-Yazid 2006; Wegner 2007).

1

2

In Fig. 3, the labelling in lower case refers to Kaiser’s Stufenchronology, which was adapted by R. Hartmann in her studies on the Predynastic Abydos material, whereas the capitals were chosen by S. Hendrickx for his revised view on the chronology; see Hendrickx 1996.

The topography Cemetery U was founded on a natural elevation circumscribed on its southwestern,2 western and northern sides by the wadi running down to the flood plain in the northeast from a cleft in the southwestern bay of the 200m-high mountains (see Figs 1–2). With an elevation of 20m above the current flood plain, the area of Umm el-Qa‘ab definitely lay at a safe distance from the annual Nile inundation even during the more humid climatic phase of the 6th to 3rd millennia BC, i.e. the

The cardinal points are oriented towards the direction of the river valley: NW=N, NE= E (see Dreyer et al. 2013, 18 fn. 2).

Fig. 3: Map of Cemeteries U and B (Hartung 2001, fig. 2).

218 V. MÜLLER

A HISTORY OF MILLENNIA

Holocene wet phase (Butzer 1976, 13; Patch 1991, 78). Nevertheless, during the irregular rainfalls—which may have been more frequent in this early phase— when water flowed down the wadi, the area rose like an island above a broad river. Owing to the greater humidity it has to be surmised that the area, which today is desert, then had ‘an acacia-desert-grasssavanna vegetation … and a considerable and varied fauna’ (Patch 1991, 78). This must also be applied to the wadis in the cliffs, where even today vegetation can be observed after the irregular and short rainfalls. The layout of the cemetery According to the meticulous studies of Hartung and Hartmann the cemetery started in Naqada Ia1 with small pit graves set at some distance from one another (see Fig. 3). Eventually they were surrounded by slightly later graves, leading to five distinct groups of burial grounds (Hartung 2002; 2007; 2010; Hartmann 2011a; 2011b; Hartmann and Hartung 2011; Hartung 2016). It seems that, most probably, kinship or other close relationships were responsible for this arrangement, a system also noticed for other cemeteries of this chronological phase (Hendrickx and Huyge 2014, 248). In the following periods open spaces were used for new burials, so that by the end of Naqada IIB the area was filled to a large extent. The distribution pattern of these later burials, together with the rich furnishings, reveal that at this time kinship probably was not the only (or at least not the main) reason for the choice of this cemetery. Although the topography of the site would have allowed an extension of the cemetery to the southwest or northeast, the ancient inhabitants of Abydos preferred to continue the filling of open spaces between older tombs (Hartmann 2011a, 931–34 with figs 10–11). It was only in the course of Naqada IID that sloping areas were eventually chosen for some of the tombs. This development continued in the following period, when the tomb pits were finally lined with bricks (Kaiser and Grossmann 1979, 162–63; Kaiser and Dreyer 1982, 225–26; Dreyer 1990, 54–62; 1993, 24–38; Dreyer et al. 1996, 14, 22–30). Eventually, in Naqada IIIA2 and IIIB, a depression was used as a burial ground, extending over an area of 40m in width and differing in height by 1m to 2m (Dreyer 1990, 54); this depression was situated to the (local) south of Cemetery U. It is interesting to note that, in contrast to

219

the preceding periods, these tombs were left with a lot of free space around their structures. Fascinatingly, the highest spot of the area was left without any occupation (see Fig. 3; Dreyer et al. 1998, fig. 1)—it was neither the nucleus at the beginning of Naqada I, nor a destination at the end of the Predynastic period. With the last three tombs attributed to Naqada IIIB (B 1/2/0, B 7/9, B 17/18), a clear arrangement of the tombs in a southwestern direction is discernible (see Fig. 3; Dreyer 1999, 124). As was pointed out years ago by Werner Kaiser (Kaiser and Grossmann 1979, 163), and elaborated upon by Günter Dreyer (1999, 121), this tendency was continued—with few exceptions—during Dynasties 1 and 2. This arrangement of tombs is definitely related to the ancient understanding of the wadi entrance. Usually the deceased of all Naqada periods in Cemetery U were buried on their left sides with their heads pointing towards the south, i.e. in a north–south direction; only in a few exceptions did the head point to the north (Hartung 2007, 187). In all cases the heads face west. The tombs’ architecture corresponds with this layout also in cases in which the tomb structures became much larger than the corpse (Dreyer 1998, 17–19). While in some brick-lined tombs chambers have been added to the north, in a few other cases (U-qq, U-k) additional chambers have been attached to the east of the burial chamber, emphasizing a west– east direction. The most prominent construction in this respect is the famous Tomb U-j, for which Dreyer proposed the symbolic representation of a palace (see Fig. 3; Dreyer 1998). Although this tomb remained exceptional in its architectural concept, the idea of the erection of an underground palace or tent continued but was realized in more perishable materials such as wood and mats (see Kaiser 1981, 249–54; Kaiser and Dreyer 1982, 247–50; Dreyer et al. 2013, 20). We will see that the accentuation of the north and the east sides of the tombs remained important in the following periods. In contrast to the architectural orientation, the alignment of the deceased changed in the course of Dynasty 1. This change from the obligatory orientation in the Predynastic period towards the variable orientations in Dynasty 1 had already been observed by Petrie (1913, 5) when evaluating the cemetery of Tarkhan. Despite the development of this variability, the continued importance of the two directions is clearly expressed in the overall concept of the tombs’ architecture.

220

V. MÜLLER

Aha’s tomb and the earliest enclosures In Aha’s tomb complex (see Fig. 3) the chambers were still oriented exclusively in a north–south direction, while the overall plan is in a west–east direction. The fact that the westernmost chamber (B 19) is close to the tomb of Narmer (B 17/18) is explained as a revision of the original tomb plan (Dreyer 2007a, 194). According to the reconstruction of the architectural history of this complex by Kaiser and Dreyer (1982, 212– 20; Dreyer 1990, 63), the tomb was started in the tradition of its predecessors with two chambers oriented north–south (B 13/14), to which a larger west chamber was added at a later stage (B 10). Only in a third phase would the two large chambers further to the west have been erected (B 15/19). Provided that this reconstruction is correct, the connection to the southwest and thus to the wadi (as established for the preceding period) would not have been of prime importance to Aha. With the addition of the thirty-four subsidiary tombs to the east of the complex, Aha not only started a new tradition at Abydos, but also emphasized a connection to the east (just like the owner of Tomb U-j) with the location of these graves. Most probably, Aha was also the founder of another important feature that would become a constituent of the later royal complexes (Adams and O’Connor 2003; Bestock 2008a; 2009; O’Connor 2009: 158–81; Knoblauch and Bestock 2009, 211–24; Bestock 2011; 2012, 38–45): a funerary enclosure for each tomb erected at the desert margin to the north of the great wadi (see Fig. 2). Two early enclosures cannot yet be attributed to a king and it is possible that these date earlier than Aha.3 Already before the discoveries made by the American team in the North Cemetery, Dreyer hypothesized that the tombs following U-j might have had a funerary enclosure (Dreyer 1993, n. 4; 1998, 19). Generally, the enclosures followed a plan from northeast to southwest (Bestock 2012, 41), just like the royal tombs. And without exception each structure was laid out in a north–south direction with a more complex niching on its east side. All of them had two entrances, a larger one in the southeastern corner and a smaller one in the

3

See for the enclosure with donkey burials Bestock 2008b; 2009, 86–87; 2011, 141–42; 2012, 38; and for another enclosure with

northeast; the northern one was blocked with bricks in every early Dynasty 1 example. Interestingly, subsidiary tombs were arranged here in a very regular manner on all four sides of the tomb, leaving gaps at the southeastern corner and sometimes at all four corners (Bestock 2011, 140, fig. 15.3). The erection of the enclosures might give a hint at the west–east connection of the architectural layout. But, interestingly, the two architectural units are not oriented towards each other. First of all, the enclosures seem to have been aligned parallel to the escarpment ridge of the low desert and the flood plain, and not towards the tombs. Secondly, the tombs’ orientations are rather irregular when compared with the enclosures, and none of them is directed towards the enclosures. On the contrary, the east orientation of the tombs points towards the area somewhere between the temples of Ramses II and Seti I (see Fig. 2). This holds true not only for Tomb U-j, but especially for the tombs of Aha and Den (see below). According to Dreyer (1990, 67–71; 2007a, 195–96; 2007c, 225–28) the next tomb complex to be built (see Fig. 3: B 40/50) might be attributed to a king only known from later King Lists, named Itj in the Abydos list and Atothis by Manetho. According to the Turin King List, this king reigned for only ten months, and according to a gap between the entries on the Palermo stone either forty-five days or one year and forty-five days (Dreyer 2007c, 225; Heagy 2014, 81). The short length of this reign could explain the unfinished northern chamber. Anyhow, the tomb owner continued the old tradition with two separate chambers arranged in a local north–south direction, and with the tomb’s location to the southwest of the cemetery. Its subdivision into four chambers is, however, singular. According to Dreyer’s identification this king would have succeeded Aha, albeit the architectural layout corresponds more with the reigns preceding him. Although an earlier date was not excluded altogether, Dreyer (1987, 40–43; 2007a, 195–96) and Kaiser (1987, 115) argued that the dimensions of the chambers resemble those of Aha’s second and third building phases, to which the large chambers B 10/15/19 have to be attributed. On the

ceramics dating to this period Bestock 2012, 39–44; Bestock, this volume.

A HISTORY OF MILLENNIA

basis of only very few finds the attribution before or after Aha will continue to remain open (see also Heagy 2014, 81–82).4 Tomb of Djer Built at an angle oriented more to the west in relation to the burial complexes of his predecessor (and successors), the tomb of Djer displays several aspects that mark a new development (Fig. 4). The royal chamber is reduced to a single but larger and more complex chamber. In addition, the subsidiary tombs are arranged on all four sides around it. With 330 subsidiary chambers (Dreyer et al. 2015, 20–26), the reign of Djer peaks in this respect. These small chambers are, however, not evenly distributed. There is a clear preponderance especially on the northern, and to a lesser degree, on the eastern side—the two sides that had already played a prominent role in some tombs of the past. At the same time, some chambers in the immediate vicinity of the royal chamber are larger than others, suggesting that some sort of hierarchy is now being expressed via the tomb plan—in contrast to the even spread of subsidiary tombs at the contemporaneous funerary enclosure. Most of the subsidiary tombs are again oriented in a north–south direction. In several cases, however, this system was cut through (Dreyer et al. 2015, fig. 1). Although there was no noticeable lack of space, the eastern subsidiary tombs are placed close to tomb complex B40/50. Perhaps that tomb was no longer visible in the time of Djer—either because it was indeed earlier than Aha’s or because it was not actually used by a king and thus swiftly forgotten—and its invisibility would also account for the omission of the owner on the two necropolis seals (see note 5; Dreyer 1987; Kaiser 1987; Dreyer et al. 1996, 72 fig. 26). Conspicuously, Djer’s tomb complex is yet again not located on the highest spot of this part of the area but was erected slightly to the northeast of it (Fig. 5). In fact, the summit was left empty of tomb structures. Instead, the

4

Of no help in this question are the two necropolis seals, one of which designed in the reign of Den and the other in the reign of Qa‘a, both starting with Narmer whose name is succeeded first by Aha and immediately afterwards by Djer, see Dreyer 1987, 36 fig. 3; Dreyer et al. 1996, 72 fig. 26; Wilkinson 1999, 63 fig. 3.1. It seems that the kings mentioned on these seals were still

221

southern and western parts of the tomb complex were sunk into the slopes of the summit, apparently in order to be constructed on a similar level to the rest of the complex (Dreyer et al. 2013, figs. 6–7). It is interesting to note that the southern subsidiary tombs were erected on a slightly higher level than the others and even the royal chamber itself. As the ground consists merely of hardened sand, the work involved in levelling it would not have been very laborious. Perhaps the intention was to accentuate the change in level and thus emphasize the importance of the summit. An emphasis on the summit is also generated by the sharp change in orientation of the whole complex—it seems that the southwestern corner was directed towards this summit. It is obvious that the southern, eastern and western rows of subsidiary tombs were considered the limits of the complex, so when a change of plan led to an increase in the number of subsidiary tombs—as can be clearly seen in the manner in which new tombs have been attached—the additions were only possible in a northern direction. It is conspicuous that not only has the summit been left vacant, but so has the southern part of the tomb complexes of Djer and Aha. It is, of course, possible that the huge amounts of material that had been accumulated in digging out the royal chamber had to be deposited to the south of the tomb to use as a tumulus after the burial; but the area to the southwest could also have been used for this purpose, so there seem to be other reasons why the southern parts of the two tombs were left vacant. From the later use of this area as an offering place (see below), it can be concluded, furthermore, that this area was definitely kept vacant, as the offerings were placed directly on the original desert surface. In Djer’s tomb complex the importance of the southwestern corner was accentuated for the first time by the gap in the rows of subsidiary tombs. In addition, two niches have been built into the walls of the royal chamber (Dreyer et al. 2013, 20), one situated in the southern part of the west wall, the other in the western part of the north wall. It is obvious that the southwestern

honored in the reign of Den and respectively in the reign of Qa‘a meaning that the person buried in B 40/50 was not considered worthy of listing here. If the tomb was erected before Aha’s, the location to the southwest of Narmer’s speaks for a date later than that of, so that the deceased would have been omitted in any event.

222

V. MÜLLER

Fig. 4: Abydos: map of Cemeteries U, B and the royal cemetery of the Early Dynastic period (Hartung 2001, fig. 1).

A HISTORY OF MILLENNIA

223

Fig. 5: Tomb of Djer from local north. Photo: DAI Cairo.

niche is connected to the gap in the subsidiary tombs in the southwestern corner and thus to the orientation of the wadi entrance. Consequently Dreyer (1990, 78; 1991, 100; Dreyer et al. 2013, 20) proposed that the niche and the gap symbolize the possibility of the dead king leaving his tomb. Dreyer (1991, 100) identified the overlap of the upper walls encircling the inner tumulus of the royal chamber of Wadj, as well as the two ridges built on top of the western wall of the royal chamber of Den, as evidence for the idea of an exit for the dead king. For those tombs without niches, it could be claimed that they had once been symbolized in the matting covering their walls. While the niche is hidden within the covered tomb, the gaps are visible to visitors above ground and could thus mark a specific spot for the tomb’s visitor(s) for veneration. O’Connor (2009, 154–55) even proposed that each tomb once had a brick chapel built in this area. Another indication of the primary importance of the wadi entrance to the king might have been expressed by the way the royal chamber interior has been constructed. As first observed by Kaiser (1981, 251), the wooden chamber was erected directly at the west wall with the niche directed towards the entrance of the southwestern wadi. Interestingly, it had a wider space on the east side than on the northern and southern sides,

and all three sides were filled with grave goods (Kaiser 1981, 251; Kaiser and Dreyer 1982, 249; Dreyer et al. 2013, 20). According to Kaiser’s proposition (1981, 251; Kaiser and Dreyer 1982, 249) the architectural setting might have symbolized a house inside its enclosure with its western wall attached to it and with the eastern wall representing the front side of the building. Another interesting feature noticed by Kaiser (Kaiser and Dreyer 1982, 252) is the fact that the wooden construction inside the tomb was not substituted by brickwork during the whole of Dynasty 1, although precursors could already be noticed from Naqada IIC onwards, as for instance in the painted tomb of Hierakonpolis. Next to its southwestern counterpart, the southeastern corner of Djer’s tomb also seems to have been of considerable prominence—when taking a gap as the criterion. This interpretation, however, relies heavily on the assumption that the tumulus covered the royal chamber only and not the whole complex (Dreyer 1991, 102). This surmise is supported by the location of the grave robbers’ holes, which were situated at the edges of the main chamber (Kaiser and Dreyer 1982, 217; Dreyer 1990, 68). With the exception of the tombs of MeretNeith and Qa‘a, admission to the east side of the royal chamber was also given prominence in the other royal

224

V. MÜLLER

tombs of Dynasty 1. One reason for this might be found in the location of the royal stelae at this side of the tomb, as proposed by the find position of some of them (Kaiser and Dreyer 1982, 217).5 Engel (2008, 35) proposed that the stelae might have been part of the superstructure. O’Connor’s suggestion that the stelae were erected close to the chapels surmised by him in the southwestern corners are based on the finds of the two stelae of Peribsen in this area (Petrie 1901, 12). The evidence is, however, very slight, so that it is not clear in which way exactly the positioning of the stelae should be reconstructed. The state of preservation of the stelae—especially the stela made of limestone from the tomb of Wadj—could be taken as an indication that some kind of protection was mounted around them. Otherwise the surfaces of these stelae would show clear indications of the wind erosion that affected so much material excavated during the last decades. When taking the topography into consideration, it is the southeastern corner which has to be taken as the access area to the royal chamber of Djer, as the floor of its southwestern corner immediately rises rather steeply towards the mentioned summit. Whatever activities might have taken place at the tomb after the burial, the topographical situation would have forced visitors and attendants to enter the area of the main burial chamber via the gap in the subsidiaries in the southeastern corner. More difficult to explain is the niche in the north wall (in chamber 2). It is directed more or less to the centre of the subsidiary tombs on this side. Dreyer (Dreyer et al. 2013, 20) proposed that the king might have wanted to have an exit to the subsidiary burials in the hereafter. But there must have been more to it. The conspicuous preponderance of subsidiary tombs on this side of the tomb has already been noted above, especially because it differs so considerably from the design of Aha’s complex. Therefore, I would like to propose that in addition to the general orientation towards the escarpment of the flood plain in the east and more or less towards the mountainous ridge to the west, the direction of the wadi course was of great interest. The depression created by the wadi course was not only the natural limitation of the cemetery, but it also served

as the access route from the enclosures to the tombs (as well as in later periods from the religious centre to the Osiris tomb).

5

6

See, however, Dreyer 1993, 60, where he states that he has found no indication of the location of a stela on the eastern side of Den’s tomb.

Tomb of Wadj In most respects the tomb of Wadj is a smaller copy of his predecessor’s complex (see Fig. 4). In contrast to Djer’s royal chamber, the burial chamber of Wadj could be reached from every side. Interestingly, the space around the royal chamber in the tomb complex of Wadj is conspicuously wider than in the tomb of his predecessor, giving greater access to all four sides. Or, to take another view: the distance from the subsidiary tombs to the royal chamber is rather large, so maybe it was felt that the hierarchy between ruler and subordinates should be expressed more strongly than before. At the same time the wide space around the tomb allowed for a larger group to circulate around the tomb. The ability of visitors to pass right round the main burial chamber seems to have been a prerequisite since the beginning of this cemetery. This could have had practical reasons as well as ritual ones. Having so much space around the burial chamber would have been practical not only for the filling of the tomb with grave goods, but also for the covering of the tomb (if this was not already accomplished for the most part before the burial) and the building of the tumulus after the burial. The performing of rituals at the tomb after the burial also has to be taken into account. The space around the main burial chamber not only allowed a larger group of visitors to gather at the royal chamber, but it also permitted visits to the subsidiary tombs situated in the vicinity of the royal chamber. The tomb of Wadj shows another remarkable change in orientation, which might be due to a wish or need to leave the summit between the two tomb complexes vacant. While there seems to have been no intention to build Wadj’s complex parallel to his predecessor’s, the centre lines of the two complexes, if extended, meet in the wadi (situated here to the [local] north of the royal cemetery), and the meeting-point may mark (more or less) the point at which the accession route from the enclosures turned towards the tombs.6

I would like to thank my colleague Bettina Bader for her suggestion to take the centre lines into consideration.

A HISTORY OF MILLENNIA

Tomb of Meret-Neith The tomb of Meret-Neith is altogether special—in all probability due to the owner’s holding the extraordinary role of female regent (see Fig. 4; Wilkinson 1999, 74–75). The subsidiary tombs are confined to one row on each side; the rows are connected at the corners, with the exception of the southwestern corner, which was left gaping wide open. Interestingly, this corner was the only possible route from which to approach the main burial chamber—there was no opening at the southeastern corner or on any other side. Also, the internal structure differs from the previous ones: the west–east orientation has given way to the old north–south orientation and the southwestern corner is not emphasized in the tomb structure, neither by a niche nor any other means. Furthermore, the chambers used for storing grave goods were separated by a brick wall from the wooden chamber containing the burial. In spite of these changes the tomb of MeretNeith followed the general development of positioning a tomb to the southwest of its predecessor, i.e. towards the wadi entrance, which was initiated in Naqada IIIA. Tomb of Den This unilinear expansion was interrupted by king Den, who decided to place his tomb directly to the south of his presumptive parents, Wadj and MeretNeith (see Fig. 4). There might have been topographical reasons for not proceeding farther to the southwest, owing to the declining of the surface towards the wadi. It is, however, striking that the tomb was built so close to the tombs of his two predecessors on the northern side while at the same time leaving such a large space vacant on the east side of the tomb. This gives the area between the tombs of Aha, Djer, Wadj and Den a great deal of significance, especially when accounting for the overall outline of Den’s tomb complex. As already mentioned, the tomb of Den has many peculiarities, most of which are unique to this tomb (Dreyer 1990, 72–81; 1993, 57–61; Dreyer et al. 1998, 141–46). The tomb of Djer was nearly square; the grave of Wadj was rectangular in a southwest– northeast direction; and the tomb of Meret-Neith was also rectangular, but turned at an angle of 90 degrees to that of Wadj. Den adopted the outline of his father Wadj’s tomb for the royal chamber. The construction of the main burial chamber was, however, a compromise between those of Djer and Wadj and that of

225

Meret-Neith: as in the tomb of his mother, the wooden chamber was not directly attached to the western wall but stood free. The short walls to which the wooden chamber was attached in the tombs of Djer and Wadj were substituted with wooden beams in the tomb of Den (Dreyer et al. 1996, 141–45). The arrangement of the subsidiary graves in a nearly closed circle around the tombs, with an accentuation of the eastern and northern sides, is a clear compromise between the older versions; at the same time the tomb adopts the closed corners of Meret-Neith, leaving a gap only in the southwestern corner of the subsidiaries. New are the oblong storerooms on the southern side and especially the staircase on the east side. While the storerooms of this shape are a unique feature, the staircase was taken over not only by later tombs in the royal cemeteries at Abydos, but also in contemporary and later tombs at other sites in Egypt. In the tomb of Den it was most probably introduced in the course of the manoeuvring of the large granite slabs for the floor in the royal chamber, which could not be hauled over the brick walls but had to be moved in via a ramp. Naturally the granite slabs would have been transported by the shortest and most direct way from the Nile to the tomb: that is, directly from the east. This orientation and the way of access would also have been of great advantage for the transport of other tomb contents into the royal chambers. But was this the only reason for the orientation towards the east? As shown earlier, a connection to the east was already pronounced in the tomb complex of U-j and Aha and can also be traced in the large number of subsidiary tombs on the eastern side of other royal tombs. It was also mentioned above that the orientation is not directed towards the enclosures and the location of the later Osiris shrine (which were situated to the northeast of the royal cemetery and conspicuously across the wadi), but to a place between the temples of Ramses II and Seti I, suggesting the centre of the settlement with a river harbour in this area. This settlement must have been of prime importance; otherwise no tradition with such a clear orientation of so many elite and royal tombs would have developed. No remains of the Early Dynastic period have yet been detected in this area, which is densely covered by the modern village, but remains of a Predynastic settlement were discovered here at the beginning of the 20th century (Patch 1991, 437–38, site number S83-61 ‘Peet’s predynastic settlement’). Additionally, an elite cemetery of the Early Dynastic period was discovered c. 400m to the south

226

V. MÜLLER

of the temple of Seti I (Hossein 2011). This cemetery also suggests a settlement in the vicinity. And it is definitely no accident that Mentuhotep II (Wegner 2015), Seti I and Ramses II chose this area for the building of their sanctuaries and temples. The surmise of whether this settlement should be identified with Thinis, as suspected by Wegner (2007, 475)—who, however, thought of the area of Kom el-Sultan where Early Dynastic remains have been excavated—is tempting but has to remain open until more evidence is found to substantiate this idea. An interesting feature is the peculiar construction of the staircase, which is not built symmetrically, as would be expected, but curves out towards the south on its southern side (Dreyer 1990, 74). This corresponds with a depression in the same direction in front of the staircase that most probably resulted from the transport of the heavy blocks on the soft underground (Dreyer et al. 2000, 117). The special design of the staircase’s southern side suggests that the space to the northeast of the tomb was reserved for other purposes, so that visitors to the tomb had to approach from a southeastern direction. Another unique aspect of this tomb is the construction in the southwestern corner that consisted of at least two building phases (Dreyer 1990, 75–78). In a first building phase a rectangle was erected that was founded directly on the desert surface, and thus cannot be interpreted as a storeroom or subsidiary tomb, as both types consist of deep brick-lined pits. This construction has close similarities to structures found by Petrie in the Valley Cemetery at Tarkhan dating to the end of the Predynastic period (Petrie 1913, 2–3, pl. XIV). Those structures were directly attached to the grave and connected to it by two small apertures symbolizing windows or small doors that allowed the deceased a virtual access to these structures. Large piles of pottery were found by Petrie at Tarkhan around these structures and he thus interpreted them as offering courts. Although the Abydos structure was not directly attached to the royal chamber and was found without offering pottery, its character is reminiscent of the Tarkhan finding. In a second building phase the so-called annexe was constructed in this corner. Like the burial chamber, this structure could be entered via a staircase that displayed at its end sliding slits for the intrusion of a door. Interestingly, the staircase was built directly to the north of one of the few errant boulders dispersed in the area, thus blocking direct access to the staircase. The annexe was dug considerably deeper than the storerooms and

subsidiary tombs but still situated on a much higher level than the burial chamber to which it was attached. From the small part of the original wall that has been preserved, it seems that no niche had been constructed towards the burial chamber. Dreyer (1990, 78) proposed that this building served for a statue cult. Also, the wall in the southwestern corner of the burial chamber was too destroyed to decide if there had been a niche built in. The top layer of the west wall, however, displays two ridges of different breadth that ascend towards the chamber, which according to Dreyer (Dreyer 1991, 93–104 with fig. 7; Dreyer et al. 2013, 36) symbolize a virtual exit, like the niches in the predecessors’ tombs. Despite the special layout of the tomb with the annexe, the closed corners of the subsidiaries and the staircase to the east, circumambulation around the royal burial chamber was possible by entering the area from the southwestern corner (as in the tomb of Meret-Neith) and by walking over the ceiling of the annexe, which was constructed at the level of the surrounding desert surface. Access to the main chamber of Den’s tomb was restricted to a limited number of persons, though, as the area was blocked by the two subsidiary tombs situated to each side of the boulder that blocked the entrance to the staircase of the annexe. This change in architectural concept must have been connected to a modification in ideological perception, confining the visitors more to the entrance areas. Tomb of Adjib While Adjib resumed several elements of the old conception, his tomb has a lot of new (and unique) features (see Fig. 4). First of all, the location of his tomb did not follow the general tradition of choosing a place to the (south)west of his predecessor’s, but was situated between the tombs of Meret-Neith and Wadj. As in the tomb of Den, a staircase on the eastern side of the grave was built to the main burial chamber. Surprisingly, the entrance touched subsidiary tombs from the eastern row of Wadj’s complex, so that it has to be surmised that those graves were no longer visible when Adjib built his tomb. Like Meret-Neith’s, Adjib’s burial chamber was oriented in a local north–south direction but as a singular feature the chamber was divided by a brick wall into two separate entities. Also singular is the layout of the northern part of the subsidiary tombs: as in Meret-Neith’s tomb, the royal chamber is surrounded by a single row only, which,

A HISTORY OF MILLENNIA

however, is closed only in the northeastern and northwestern corner. A unique feature is the prolongation of the eastern row, with a second row of subsidiary tombs to the north that is, again, directly attached to those in the east. With the long entrance on the eastern side, not only is the southeastern corner emphasized (as it is in the tombs of Djer and Wadj), but also the royal chamber could be reached from all sides with the exception of the northwestern corner (as in the tomb of Djer). Tomb of Semerkhet Even though Semerkhet continued the old tradition of aligning his tomb to the southwest of his predecessors’—again leaving a conspicuously large area vacant on the eastern side of his tomb—he took over the north–south direction of the burial chamber from Adjib and the attachment of a staircase/ramp on the eastern side of the tomb from Den (see Fig. 4; Dreyer et al. 2000, 119–21; 2006, 93–95; 2011, 72–76). As in the tombs of Meret-Neith and Adjib, the wooden chamber for the royal burial stood free, but remains of wooden posts could have belonged to a tent-like construction (Dreyer et al. 2011, 73). An absolute novelty is the direct attachment of the subsidiary tombs to the royal chamber. It was now no longer possible for visitors to circulate around the royal chamber alone, i.e. without including the subsidiary burials. While the eastern side was pronounced, with the tomb entrance consisting of a ramp that started about 10m to the east of the tomb (in all probability a planned staircase was not finished: see Dreyer et al. 2011, 74–75), the southwestern corner is emphasized with a gap in the subsidiary tombs on the western side. Tomb of Qa‘a The location of Qa‘a’s tomb also followed the concept of the development of the cemetery to the southwest; it was situated to the west of Semerkhet’s tomb complex, and close to it (see Fig. 4). Like his predecessor’s, Qa‘a’s tomb was oriented north–south, but interestingly the tomb entrance was not situated to the east but to the north, with a clear turning of the stairway to the northwest. While the construction of the main chamber and the direct attachment of the subsidiary tombs followed the tomb architecture of Semerkhet, the design of the entrance area (with storerooms on both sides of the staircase) and the insertion of further storerooms between the main chamber and the subsidiary

227

tombs were innovations (Dreyer et al. 1996, 57–66; Engel 1997; 2003; 2008). In the tomb of Qa‘a the importance of the eastern side of the tomb was given up in favour of its northwestern part, which was directed not only towards the wadi but also to the prominent southwestern part of Den’s tomb, with its annexe. Tombs of Peribsen and Khasekhemwy When, at the end of Dynasty 2, Peribsen chose to use Umm el-Qa‘ab, instead of Saqqara, as the burial ground for his tomb he obviously tried to tie in with his royal ancestors of Dynasty 1 (see Fig. 4). Interestingly, he did not build his tomb to the southwest of the last ruler of Dynasty 1—as his successor Khasekhemwy eventually did—but he chose the north of the cemetery. The tomb’s architecture is a clear compromise between the tradition of Dynasty 1 and developments during Dynasty 2 at Saqqara (Dreyer et al. 2006, 101–02; Engel 2008, 36; Lacher-Raschdorff 2014). With its location directly attached to the subsidiary tombs of Djer and Wadj, the tomb seems to visualize a close connection to the beginning of Dynasty 1. At the same time, it is interesting to note that the orientation of the tomb takes up the orientation of the tombs of Adjib, Meret-Neith, Semerkhet and Qa‘a. This orientation again points to the importance of the tomb’s alignment towards the wadi in the west and north. The only place of prominence is situated in the southwestern corner (as in the tomb of Meret-Neith). In contrast to Peribsen’s, Khasekhemwy’s tomb complex takes up the old tradition of drawing ever nearer to the wadi entrance in the southwest (see Fig. 4). At the same time, it is aligned to the course of the wadi surrounding the plateau of Umm el-Qa‘ab. In its first building phase the tomb took over the architectural concept of Peribsen’s tomb, with the difference that the tomb was dug much deeper into the ground, especially the burial chamber, which was sunk below the walking surface of the storerooms (Dreyer et al. 1998, 164–65; 2000, 122–25; 2003, 108–14; 2006, 110–12). The further building phases show close similarities with the tomb structures at Saqqara, with galleries of chambers. As in the tomb of Peribsen, the focus was on the southwestern corner of the tomb complex, which contained a large ramp. Although a second opening can be found at the north of the tomb, this place was difficult to reach as the edge of the pit rises steeply above the chamber’s roof, which is situated 5m below the desert surface (Dreyer et al. 1998, 164–65).

228

V. MÜLLER

The royal cemetery: a summary To sum up the layout of the royal cemetery of Dynasties 1 and 2: 1. As already pointed out by Kaiser and Dreyer in earlier investigations, the tombs emphasize a connection to the wadi entrance in the southwest of the Abydos embayment, both with the position of each succeeding tomb, and with the architectural gaps at the southwestern areas of the tombs. 2. The tombs are located noticeably close to one another. 3. The topographical summit is left conspicuously vacant in Cemetery U as well as in the cemetery of Dynasty 1. 4. The east and the north are considerably emphasized in the architecture of the tomb complexes. While a prolongation of the tombs’ axis to the north ends in the wadi, the extension of the eastern axis does not lead to the enclosures but to an area between the temples of Ramses II and Seti I, where the corresponding settlement might have been located. 5. With the exception of the tombs of Meret-Neith and Qa‘a of Dynasty 1 and the two tombs of Dynasty 2, the (south)eastern sides of the main burial chambers seem to have had great significance. 6. With the exception of the tombs of the last two kings of Dynasty 1 and the two of Dynasty 2, the tombs’ architecture allowed visitors to circulate right round the royal burial chamber. 7. A vast area to the east of the tombs of Den and Semerkhet was left vacant. The non-symmetrical nature of the staircase of Den’s tomb points to a special meaning of this area. To come a little closer to an understanding of some of these peculiarities, the topographical situation of the wadi and the later use of the area to the east of Den’s tomb will now be analysed. The meaning of the wadi As mentioned above, Kaiser (Kaiser and Dreyer 1982, 250, n. 133) and Dreyer (1990, 77–78; see also Dreyer et al. 2013, 24) noticed decades ago that a connection of the tombs to the wadi seems to be symbolized by the gap in the rows of subsidiary graves in the southwestern corner of each tomb. It was suggested that the mouth of the wadi might have been considered the entrance to the realm of the hereafter (Patch 1991, 57–61; Dreyer 2007b, 200–01; Patch

2011, 16). The textual evidence for this interpretation can be found in utterances PT 610, §1716–17 and PT 437, §798–99 of the Pyramid Texts (Patch 1991, 57–58 with note 132): ‘Betake yourself to the waterway, fare upstream to the Thinite nome, travel about Abydos in this spirit-form of yours which the gods commanded to belong to you; may a stairway to the Netherworld be set up for you to the place where Orion is’. Further allusions to the wadi can be found in PT 459, §867 (Effland and Effland 2013, 12). There is no question that parts of the Pyramid Texts have a long history; nevertheless, we must take into account the possibility of changes in religious ideologies during a time-span of one-and-a-half millennia. As a strengthening argument in respect to the importance of the allusions made in the Pyramid Texts, Patch (1991, 58) refers to the choice of Khentiamentiu—‘the foremost of the Westerners’—as the main god from Dynasty 1 onwards. The name Khentiamentiu points to the importance of the west as the direction of the realm of the dead. Interestingly, in the Predynastic period the dead are buried with their faces directed towards the geographic west (see below). The sacred wadi, however, which gained so much importance at the end of the 4th millennium BC, is situated in the geographic south, giving access to the cliffs in the west as well as to those situated in the south. But it was the cliffs in the south that gained major importance during the 2nd millennium, not those to the west. Wegner (Wegner and Abu el-Yazid 2006; Wegner 2007) proposes that the appearance of the southern cliffs as seen from Kom el-Sultan (i.e. the settlement site to the east of the enclosures) might have suggested a recumbent elephant that was reinterpreted at the end of the 3rd and especially in the 2nd millennium BC as the recumbent Anubis-jackal. This could also explain the writing of the place name Abdju in the late Predynastic, with the signs of an elephant on top of a (three-peaked) mountain. Perhaps the wadi and the southern cliffs contained a cultic installation or a natural phenomenon that is no longer visible to us but had a high religious meaning. The more humid climate in the 4th and 3rd millennium BC would have allowed a completely different fauna from that of today. Perhaps the climatic conditions and the different environment allowed elephants to live in this area at that time. Or perhaps it is no coincidence that baboons played such a prominent role in the late Predynastic and the Early Dynastic periods (Dreyer 1986): not only as representatives of ancestors but also

A HISTORY OF MILLENNIA

in the course of the Hebsed festival (Winter 2006, 451– 52), which was significant in the royal tombs of the Early Dynastic period (Friedman 1995; Dreyer et al. 2011, 64–69; Müller 2014, 245–46). In order to answer this question, further investigations into the ancient environment, especially concerning the wadi entrance and the plateaus on the cliffs, would be necessary. Of further interest is the connection of the tombs to the wadi course (see Fig. 2). It has been noticed above that the tombs’ axis are neither oriented towards the wadi entrance nor towards the enclosures, but that they meet in the wadi just after its turn towards the northeast. This would have been one of the spots at which visitors approaching from the enclosures would have left the wadi in order to reach the royal tombs of Dynasty 1 most directly (Engel 2008, 35). Another approach would have been from the area of a place (demarcated later with chapels) that is nowadays called the ‘Heqareshu’ hill (Dreyer et al. 1998, 127–28; Dreyer et al. 2006, 123–24; Effland 2006, 131–33). On this route, however, one would have had to be careful not to walk over the tombs of Cemetery U. This would have definitely happened if a direct route were taken between these two spots. It seems more plausible that the spot to the east of the wadi turn is the more important approach. This is reflected by the tombs’ axes, the majority of which are directed towards this area. This surmise is further supported by the prominence given to the northern parts of the tombs, which is mirrored by the sheer numbers of subsidiary tombs aligned on this part of the tomb complexes. Furthermore, the alignments of the subsidiary tombs on the northern side allowed for easy access towards the royal chamber as well as to the southwest corners. Concerning the meaning of the wadi itself, I would like to repeat the consideration noted above: even during the sparse rainfall of today, the wadi fills fast with water. When the climate was more humid in the 4th and at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC, there would have been general vegetation, but also more regular rainfall, during which the cemetery at Umm elQa‘ab would have been an island, and the enclosures would have been separated from the tombs by the wadi. It is a well-known fact that more people drowned in the desert than starved to death; this holds especially true for the wadis in which rainfalls accumulated to waterfalls. The wadi must have symbolized both the danger of death and the wonder of the resurrection of life, after the water subsided and the vegetation grew even in areas that had seemed to be barren before. Perhaps the

229

approach to the tombs from the world of the living, via the wadi with its inherent danger, to the realm of the dead in the cemetery symbolized this liminal area that the Egyptians conceptualized as existing between life and death. The vacant area to the east of Den’s tomb As illustrated above, the area to the east of Den’s tomb as well as to the south of Wadj’s, Djer’s and Aha’s tomb complexes was left conspicuously vacant (Fig. 6). On a superficial level this can be explained by the general concept of erecting each tomb to the southwest of its predecessor’s in order to draw ever closer to the wadi entrance in the southwest of the embayment. On a closer look, however, it is evident that Djer and Wadj avoided the summit between their tomb complexes, which at the same time became a kind of focal point of their burial chambers, because it had to be crossed or at least bypassed when the area of the main burial was approached. In addition, the design of the stairway of Den’s tomb also displays an avoidance of the area immediately to its northeast, while at the same time the outward curve of the southern side of the stairway seems to encompass the southeastern area. During excavations nothing could be found that would hint at any special significance of this area. It has to be taken into account, however, that Édouard Naville (1914, plan XXI) worked in this area, destroying the original surface. When the dump hills in this zone were removed in the course of the excavations by the German Archaeological Institute, the work space of Naville could easily be detected: areas not touched by him were covered with depositions. The depositions immediately to the northeast (T-O-K and T-OO-K) of Den’s staircase consisted of material dating without exception to the reign of Djer (Dreyer et al. 2000, 117– 18; 2003, 94–102; 2006, 73–92; Müller 2006; 2009). All the objects had been neatly laid down on the surface; pottery jars once stood upright while bowls were laid upside down. This arrangement alone hinted at a ritual deposition. The fact that small finds have been deposited in combinations that do not accord with their function (for instance two tags with erased inscriptions, together with two case legs of a gaming board and a wristguard laid out in a row; Fig. 7) has led to these depositions being dated to a time when the tomb of Djer had lost its original function and had been reinterpreted as the burial place of Osiris. It was surmised that the original grave goods had been taken out of the

230

V. MÜLLER

Fig. 6: Map of the royal cemetery with depositions (Müller in Dreyer et al. 2006, fig. 2).

A HISTORY OF MILLENNIA

‘Osiris grave’ and deposited to the south of it because they were considered as sacrosanct. To the southeast of Den’s tomb (T-SO-K), a working area was uncovered consisting of poles carrying baskets with mud mortar and pits containing smashed vats and jars as well as loose bricks of the size used in Dynasty 1. Further to the east, in the area designated T-SSO-K, hundreds of bowls were uncovered standing upright, many of them piled into groups of three to five, dating also to Dynasty 1. It was intriguing from the beginning that the arrangement of these depositions accorded so well with the path leading to the staircase of Den’s tomb, which coincides with the curvilinear shape of the southern side of the staircase. In the light of the observations presented above, it seems to me now much more probable that these depositions belong to the time of Djer’s burial. The existence of these depositions would explain perfectly why the tomb of Den is moved so far westwards and why the staircase is not symmetrical but curves outward on its southern side. Due to Naville’s destructions it is unfortunately not possible to find out how close the depositions once lay to the tomb of Djer. Also in the following period, this area was obviously respected as sacred, as depositions arranged, without any doubt, for the Osiris tomb did not cover this specific sector but were laid out further to the east (T-SSOOO-K) (Müller 2009). As Ute and Andreas Effland (2010) worked out, this eastern deposition consisting of jars of Dynasty 25 delineate a processional road leading from the Osiris tomb to the so-called ‘South Hill’ and thus belong to one of several sacred axes and processional roads of Abydos during the Osiris cult. Most depositions belonging to the Osiris cult were found—as expected—in the vicinity of what was considered the tomb of Osiris: the former tomb of Djer (Effland, Budka and Effland 2010; Effland and Effland 2013; Budka 2014a; 2014b; 2015a; 2015b).

Bibliography Adams, M. D., and D. A. O’Connor. 2003. The royal mortuary enclosures of Abydos and Hierakonpolis. In The treasures of the pyramids, Z. Hawass (ed.), 78–85. Vercelli. Anderson, D. A. 1999. Abydos, Predynastic sites. In Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt, K. A. Bard (ed.), 104–06. London and New York.

231

Fig. 7: Deposition T-OO-K 235-239. Photo: DAI Cairo.

Bestock, L. D. 2008a. The Early Dynastic funerary enclosures of Abydos. Archéo-Nil 18: 42–59. ———. 2008b. The evolution of royal ideology: New discoveries from the reign of Aha. In Egypt at its Origins 2. Proceedings of the international conference ‘Origin of the state: Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt’, Toulouse (France), 5th–8th September 2005, B. MidantReynes and Y. Tristant (eds), 1091–1106. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 172. Leuven; Paris; Dudley, MA.

232

V. MÜLLER

———. 2009. The development of royal funerary cult at Abydos: Two funerary enclosures from the reign of Aha. MENES – Studien zur Kultur und Sprache der ägyptischen Frühzeit und des Alten Reiches 6. Wiesbaden. ———. 2011. The first kings of Egypt: The Abydos evidence. In Before the pyramids. The origins of Egyptian civilization, E. Teeter (ed.), 137–44. Oriental Institute Museum Publications 33. Chicago. ———. 2012. Brown University Abydos Project. Preliminary report on the first two seasons. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 48: 35–80. Budka, J. 2014a. Votivgaben für Osiris: neue Forschungen in Umm el-Qaab/Abydos. Sokar 29: 56–65. ———. 2014b. Zîr vessels from the tomb of Osiris at Umm el-Qaab. Bulletin de liaison de la céramique égyptienne 24: 121–30. ———. 2015a. Pot marks on New Kingdom amphorae from the oases: The case of Umm el-Qaab. In Non-textual marking systems in ancient Egypt (and elsewhere), J. Budka, F. Kammerzell and S. Rzepka (eds), 299–305. Hamburg. ———. 2015b. Marks on Egyptian festival pottery: The use of pot marks in the context of Osirian rituals at Umm el-Qaab, Abydos. In Non-textual marking systems in ancient Egypt (and elsewhere), J. Budka, F. Kammerzell and S. Rzepka (eds), 283–97. Hamburg. Butzer, K. W. 1976. Early hydraulic civilization in Egypt. Chicago. Dreyer, G. 1986. Elephantine VIII: Der Tempel der Satet, Die Funde der Frühzeit und des Alten Reiches. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 39. Mainz am Rhein. ———. 1987. Ein Siegel der frühzeitlichen Königsnekropole von Abydos. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 43: 33–44. ———. 1990. Umm el-Qaab—Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof − 3./4. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 46: 53–90. ———. 1991. Zur Rekonstruktion der Oberbauten der Königsgräber der 1. Dynastie in Abydos. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 47: 93–104. ———. 1993. Umm el-Qaab—Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 5./6. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 49: 23–62. ———. 1998. Umm el-Qaab I: Das prädynastische Königsgrab U-j und seine frühen Schriftzeugnisse. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 86. Mainz. ———. 1999. Abydos, Umm el-Qa‘ab. In Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt, K. A. Bard (ed.), 121–27. London; New York.

———. 2007a. Friedhof B: Vom König zum Gott—Die Anfänge monumentaler Architektur. In Begegnung mit der Vergangenheit—100 Jahre in Ägypten, G. Dreyer and D. Polz (eds), 193–96. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Kairo 19. Mainz. ———. 2007b. Königsgräber ab Djer: Wege zur Auferstehung, In Begegnung mit der Vergangenheit—100 Jahre in Ägypten, G. Dreyer and D. Polz (eds), 197–210. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Kairo 19. Mainz. ———. 2007c. Wer war Menes? In The archaeology and art of ancient Egypt. Essays in honor of David B. O’Connor, Vol. I, Z. A. Hawass and J. Richards (eds), 221–30. Cahiers des Annales du Service des antiquités d’Egypte 36. Cairo. Dreyer, G., E.-M. Engel, U. Hartung, T. Hikade, E. C. Köhler and F. Pumpenmeier. 1996. Umm el-Qaab—Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 7./8. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 52: 11–81. Dreyer, G., U. Hartung, T. Hikade, E. C. Köhler, V. Müller and F. Pumpenmeier. 1998. Umm el-Qaab — Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 9./10. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 54: 77–167. Dreyer, G., A. von den Driesch, E.-M. Engel, R. Hartmann, U. Hartung, T. Hikade, V. Müller and J. Peters. 2000. Umm el-Qaab—Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 11./12. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 56: 43–129. Dreyer, G., R. Hartmann, U. Hartung, T. Hikade, H. Köpp, C. Lacher, V. Müller, A. Nerlich and A. Zink. 2003. Umm el-Qaab—Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 13./14./15. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 59: 67–138. Dreyer, G., A. Effland, U. Effland, E.-M. Engel, R. Hartmann, U. Hartung, C. Lacher, V. Müller and A. Pokorny. 2006. Umm el-Qaab—Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 16./17./18. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 62: 67–129. Dreyer, G., A. I. Blöbaum, E.-M. Engel, H. Köpp and V. Müller. 2011. Umm el-Qaab—Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 19./20./21. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 67: 53–92. Dreyer, G., E.-M. Engel, R. Hartmann, H. Köpp-Junk, P. Meyrat, V. Müller and I. Regulski. 2013. Umm elQaab—Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 22./23./24. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 69: 17–71.

A HISTORY OF MILLENNIA

Effland, U. 2006. Funde aus dem Mittleren Reich bis zur Mamelukenzeit aus Umm el-Qaab. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 62: 131–50. Effland, U., J. Budka and A. Effland. 2010. Studien zum Osiriskult in Umm el-Qaab/Abydos. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 66: 19–91. Effland, U., and A. Effland. 2010. ‘Ritual landscape’ und ‘sacred space’—Überlegungen zu Kultausrichtung und Prozessionsachsen in Abydos. In Raumdimensionen im Altertum, M. K. Lahn and M.-G. Schröter (eds), 127–58. MOSAIKJournal 1. ———. 2013. Abydos—Tor zur ägyptischen Unterwelt. Mainz. Engel, E.-M. 1997. Das Grab des Qa‘a in Umm el-Qa‘ab. Architektur und Inventar. Dissertation. Universität Göttingen. ———. 2003. Tombs of the Ist Dynasty at Abydos and Saqqara: Different types or variations on a theme? In Proceedings of the Second Central European Conference of Young Egyptologists. Egypt 2001: Perspectives of research, Warsaw 5–7 March 2001, J. PopielskaGrzybowska (ed.), 41–49. Warsaw. ———. 2008. The royal tombs at Umm el-Qa‘ab. ArchéoNil 18: 30–41. Fischer, H. G. 1968. Dendera in the third millennium B.C. New York. Friedman, F. D. 1995. The underground relief panels of king Djoser at the Step Pyramid complex. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 32: 1–42. Hartmann, R. 2011a. The chronology of Naqada I tombs in the Predynastic Cemetery U at Abydos. In Egypt at its Origins 3: Proceedings of the third international conference ‘Origin of the state. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt’, London, 27th July–1st August 2008, R. F. Friedman and P. N. Fiske (eds), 917–38. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 205. Leuven; Paris; Walpole, MA. ———. 2011b. Some remarks on the chronology of the early Naqada culture (Naqada I/early Naqada II) in Upper Egypt. Archéo-Nil 21: 21–32. ———. 2016. Umm el-Qaab IV: Die Keramik der älteren und mittleren Naqadakultur aus dem prädynastischen Friedhof U in Abydos (Umm el-Qaab). Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 98. Wiesbaden. Hartmann, R., and U. Hartung. 2005. Zwei vermutlich aus der Westwüste stammende Gefässe im prädynastischen Friedhof U in Abydos. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 61: 211–28. ———. 2011. Social and gender-specific differentiation in Predynastic Cemetery U at Umm el-Qaab, Abydos. In Egypt at its Origins. The Fourth International Conference on Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt:

233

Abstracts, D. C. Patch and M. Adams (eds), 33–34. New York. Hartung, U. 2001. Umm el-Qaab II: Importkeramik aus dem Friedhof U in Abydos (Umm el-Qaab) und die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 92. Mainz. ———. 2002. Abydos, Umm el-Qaab: le cimetière prédynastique U. Archéo-Nil 12: 87–94. ———. 2007. Der prädynastische Friedhof U: Nilpferdjäger und erste Bürokraten. In Begegnung mit der Vergangenheit—100 Jahre in Ägypten, G. Dreyer and D. Polz (eds), 187–92. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Kairo 19. Mainz. ———. 2010. Hippopotamus hunters and bureaucrats: Elite burials at Cemetery U at Abydos. In Recent discoveries and latest researches in Egyptology: Proceedings of the first Neapolitan Congress of Egyptology, June 18th– 20th 2008, F. Raffaele, M. Nuzzolo and I. Incordino (eds), 107–20. Wiesbaden. ———. 2016. Der Friedhof U in Umm el-Qaab und die funeräre Landschaft von Abydos in prädynastischer Zeit. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo—Gedenkschrift für Werner Kaiser (hgg. Daniel Polz and Stephan J. Seidlmayer) 70/71: 175–91. Heagy, T. C. 2014. Who was Menes? Archéo-Nil 24: 59–92. Hendrickx, S. 1996. The relative chronology of the Naqada culture: Problems and possibilities. In Aspects of early Egypt, A. J. Spencer (ed.), 36–69. London. Hendrickx, S., and D. Huyge. 2014. Neolithic and Predynastic Egypt. In The Cambridge world prehistory. Vol. 1: Africa, South and Southeast Asia and the Pacific, C. Renfrew and P. Bahn (eds), 240–58. Cambridge. Hossein, Y. M. 2011. A new Archaic period cemetery at Abydos. In Egypt at its Origins 3. Proceedings of the third international conference ‘Origin of state. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt’, London, 27th July—1st August 2008, R. F. Friedman and P. N. Fiske (eds), 269–80. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 205. Leuven; Paris; Walpole, MA. Kaiser, W. 1981. Zu den Königsgrabern der 1. Dynastie in Umm el-Qaab. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 37: 247–54. ———. 1987. Zum Siegel mit frühen Königsnamen von Umm el-Qaab. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 43: 115–20. Kaiser, W., and G. Dreyer. 1982. Umm el-Qaab—Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 2. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 38: 211–70. Kaiser, W., and P. Grossman. 1979. Umm el-Qaab—Nachuntersuchungen in frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 1. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 35: 155–64.

234

V. MÜLLER

Kemp, B. J. 1989. Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a civilization. London; New York. Knoblauch, C. M., and L. D. Bestock. 2009. Four thousand years in Abydos: A preliminary report on the architecture and ceramics of the 2004–05 excavation in the North Cemetery, West. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 65: 211–52. Lacher-Raschdorff, C. M. 2014. Das Grab des Königs Ninetjer in Saqqara: architektonische Entwicklung frühzeitlicher Grabanlagen in Ägypten. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 125. Wiesbaden. Müller, V. 2006. Archäologische Relikte kultischer Aktivitäten in Umm el-Qa‘ab/Abydos. In Archäologie und Ritual. Auf der Suche nach der rituellen Handlung in den antiken Kulturen Ägyptens, J. Mylonopoulos and H. Roeder (eds), 37–52. Vienna. ———. 2009. Der Goldschatz im Königsfriedhof von Umm el-Qaab/Abydos (Ägypten). In Gold—Tagung anläßlich der Gründung des Zentrums Archäologie und Altertumswissenschaften an der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 19.–20. April 2007, S. Deger-Jalkotzy, and N. Schindel (eds), 11–22. Origines—Schriften des Zentrums Archäologie und Altertumswissenschaften 1. Vienna. ———. 2014. Relations between Egypt and the Near East during the 1st Dynasty as represented by the royal tomb of Den at Umm el-Qaab/Abydos. In Egypt and the southern Levant in the early Bronze Age, F. Höflmayer and R. Eichmann (eds), 241–58. Orient-Archäologie 31. Rahden. Naville, H. E. 1914. The cemeteries of Abydos, Part I: The mixed cemetery and Umm El-Ga’ab. Egypt Exploration Fund 33. London. O’Connor, D. 2009. Abydos: Egypt’s first pharaohs and the cult of Osiris. London. Patch, D. C. 1991. The origin and early development of urbanism in ancient Egypt: A regional study. Pennsylvania. ———. 2011. Dawn of Egyptian art. New York. Peet, T. E. 1914. The cemeteries of Abydos. Part II, 1911– 1912. Egypt Exploration Fund 34. London.

Petrie, W. M. F. 1901. The royal tombs of the earliest dynasties, 1901, Part II. Egypt Exploration Fund 21. London. ———. 1913. Tarkhan I and Memphis V, British School of Ancient Egypt & Egyptian Research Account 23. London. Richards, J. E. 1999. Conceptual landscapes in the Egyptian Nile valley. In Archaeologies of landscape. Contemporary perspectives, W. Ashmore and A. B. Knapp (eds), 83–100. London; Malden, MA. Wegner, J. 2007. From Elephant-Mountain to Anubis-Mountain? A theory on the origins and development of the name Abdju. In The archaeology and art of ancient Egypt: Essays in honor of David B. O’Connor, Vol. 2, Z. A. Hawass and J. E. Richards (eds), 473–91. Supplément aux Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte 36. Cairo. ———. 2015. A new temple: The mahat of Nebhepetre at Abydos. Egyptian Archaeology 46: 3–7. Wegner, J., and M. A. Abu el-Yazid. 2006. The Mountainof-Anubis: Necropolis seal of the Senwosret III tomb at Abydos. In Timelines: Studies in honour of Manfred Bietak, E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman and A. Schwab (eds), Vol. I, 419–35. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149. Leuven; Paris; Dudley, MA. Wilkinson, T. A. H. 1999. Early dynastic Egypt. London and New York. ———. 2004. Before the pyramids: Early developments in Egyptian royal funerary ideology. In Egypt at its Origins. Studies in memory of Barbara Adams: Proceedings of the international conference ‘Origin of the state. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt’, Krakow, 28th August—1st September 2002, S. Hendrickx, R. F. Friedman, K. M. Cialowicz and M. Chlodnicki (eds), 1129–42. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 138. Leuven; Paris; Dudley, MA. Winter, E. 2006. Gedanken zum Pavian-Fund von Tell el-Dab’a. In Timelines: Studies in honour of Manfred Bietak, E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman and A. Schwab (eds), Vol. I, 447–54. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149. Leuven; Paris; Dudley, MA.

BIRTH AND REBIRTH IN THE ABYDOS LANDSCAPE Mary-Ann POULS WEGNER

Abstract

By the early Middle Kingdom, the main temple at Abydos was dedicated to Osiris-Khentiamentiu, a form of the deity syncretized with the local god ‘Foremost of the Westerners’, and the ritual programme at the site

involved a procession in which statues were carried in portable barque shrines through the landscape. Most studies of the Osiris festival at Abydos have focused on the processional voyage of images of Osiris and his retinue from the god’s dwelling in the main temple inside the Osiris Temple Enclosure towards the local west,1 to his notional ‘tomb’ at Umm el-Qa‘ab (Fig. 1). Textual evidence indicates that during the Middle Kingdom and succeeding periods, this journey was associated with events surrounding the murder, burial and subsequent regeneration of Osiris and the punishment of his enemies. The return transit of the divine image of the transfigured Osiris back to the main temple, from local west to east, is usually understood simply as having been a return of the triumphant god, accompanied by rejoicing of his followers and those of his son and successor, Horus (Schäfer 1904, 31; Lichtheim 1988, 100, n. 4). The contextual meaning of this return journey as it is expressed in material culture from the site has not yet been fully explored. The present contribution takes as its starting point archaeological, iconographic, textual and architectural evidence from the Votive Zone adjacent to the Osiris Temple Enclosure (shown in Fig. 2), which suggests that this area was invested with symbolic significance associated with birth and rebirth.2 Patterns of change discernible in the material culture from the site allow us to trace developments of the conceptual landscape of North Abydos and to explore potential correlations of such changes with ideas about the afterlife in both the non-royal and royal spheres. There were observable changes to the utilization and characterization of the Votive Zone area between the Middle and New Kingdoms, which are indicated through the usage patterns of specific toponyms and the occurrences of particular

1

2

The landscape of North Abydos evoked elements of the geography of the Netherworld, and the built environment of the site reflects changing concepts of the afterlife journey. The notional ‘tomb’ of Osiris at Umm el-Qa‘ab became the symbolic locus of post-mortem transformation and the midpoint of the journey, where the union of Osiris with Re took place. The procession back to the main temple, from local west to east, was conceptually linked to the transit of the barque of the solarized Osiris toward dawn at the eastern horizon, a metaphorical birth in which the deceased participated. The archaeological context of inscribed artefacts and iconographic elements from the Votive Zone area at the periphery of the Osiris Temple precinct indicates that this region was associated with birth, in which Heket and Khnum played important roles in the Middle Kingdom. Isis became increasingly important in early Dynasty 18, and by the Ramesside period textual evidence attests to the existence of a ‘birth-house’ at Abydos. That monument would have formally commemorated the birth of the divine child with whom the king was identified, and it was also integrally connected with the rebirth of the deceased king as Osiris. The geographical setting for these events was the Votive Zone area, which symbolically evoked the eastern horizon where the solar-Osiris experienced rebirth at the culmination of the Osiris festival. * * *

Ancient monuments at the site are oriented according to a ‘local’ directional system perhaps defined by the direction of the Nile or the line of cultivation, in which local north corresponds to true NNW.

The author wishes to thank Elizabeth Frood for her comments and thought-provoking feedback.

M.-A. POULS WEGNER

236

‘Portal Temple’ North Cemetery

N

LOCAL NORTH

Shunet el-Zebib Petit Temple de l’Oest

OSIRIS TEMPLE

Thutmose III chapels

Middle Cemetery

UMM EL-GA‘AB

Heqareshu Hill

Ramses II Temple

Tomb of Djer

Ramses I Temple

Seti I Temple and Osireion

MODERN VILLAGES/ CULTIVATION

WADI South Abydos

Senwosret III Complex

Middle Kingdom Town Site

HIGH DESERT

0

500

1000

Ahmose Complex

METRES Fig. 1: Greater Abydos. Map by author.

BIRTH AND REBIRTH IN THE ABYDOS LANDSCAPE

Divine conception and the cult of the royal ancestors at Abydos

LO

CA LN OR T

H

N

BA BO ON S

OSIRIS TEMPLE ENCLOSURE

PORTICO

‘PORTAL TEMPLE’

CHAPEL OF TUTHMOSE III

VOTIVE ZONE Stone Mud Brick

50

0

237

METRES

Area of Excavated Middle Kingdom Offering Chapels

Fig. 2: The North Abydos Votive Zone. Map by author.

deities on monuments erected there. Such changes correlate with the shift in conceptualization of the journey of the deceased to the afterlife that is discernible in mortuary texts, from the prevailing metaphor of ascent that is highlighted in the Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts, to that of travelling with the solar deity through the perilous hours of the night (metaphorically understood as the body of Nut), leading to birth/rebirth at the eastern horizon, as emphasized in the Amduat and other mortuary texts of the New Kingdom (Hornung 1999, 18–30). Abydos reflected aspects of the afterlife journey through its processional rituals that culminated in the regeneration of the deceased. The role of Isis as a crucial agent of post-mortem transformation was increasingly emphasized in the inscribed material from the site during the New Kingdom. The present research suggests that by early Dynasty 19, the Votive Zone was symbolically associated with the eastern horizon, the place where the solarized Osiris was reborn after travelling through the Netherworld landscape as it was evoked in the geography of North Abydos.

As the location of the tombs of the earliest kings of Egypt, as well as their regional predecessors, Abydos was intrinsically connected with the royal ancestors. The tombs of Dynasty 1 rulers at the site of Umm elQa‘ab, shown in Fig. 1, were explored and refurbished during the Middle Kingdom and in subsequent periods, as the excavations of the German Archaeological Institute have demonstrated (Müller 2006, 45). Such activity provides archaeological evidence for interest in the early royal monuments, as well as the selection of one of them, the tomb of Djer, to serve the function of the notional ‘tomb’ of Osiris at the site (Kemp 1972, 37; O’Connor 2009, 89; Effland and Effland 2010, 130– 35). The artefact called the ‘Osiris bier’ (Cairo JE 32090) is a black basalt statue that depicts the recumbent but sexually reinvigorated Osiris at the moment of conceiving his son Horus, with his consort Isis portrayed as a bird of prey hovering over his erect phallus to receive his seed (Leahy 1977; O’Connor 2009, 90, fig. 42). It was found during early excavations of the tomb of Djer at Umm el-Qa‘ab (Amélineau 1899, 109–15 and pls II–IV); additional fragments were recovered during Petrie’s excavations in 1900 (Leahy 1977, 425). The bier highlights the central importance of this moment of conception in the rituals associated with the tomb of Osiris, and through its provenience it also localizes that mythical event within the Abydos landscape specifically at the site of Umm el-Qa‘ab. Leahy has determined, based on close analysis of epigraphic evidence in the preserved inscriptions, that the bier dates originally to the Second Intermediate Period, perhaps more specifically to the reign of Khendjer of Dynasty 13 (Leahy 1977, 433). Relief scenes representing the moment of Horus’ conception in the same manner are preserved in the Dynasty 19 temple of Seti I in Middle Abydos. The motif occurs in four places in the temple complex (see Pls 1 and 2): on the east and west walls of the innermost sanctuary of the Osiris complex at the rear of the main temple, and on the north and south walls of the chapel of Ptah-Sokar in the southern wing of the temple, dedicated to Ptah-Sokar and Nefertem (David 1981, 149–50 and 104–05, respectively). Although accessed through different parts of the temple, the rooms in which the conception scenes occur abut each other and are separated only by a common

238

M.-A. POULS WEGNER

Plate 1: Damaged scene on the west wall of the innermost sanctuary of the Osiris complex in the temple of Seti I (Room 11, Calverley 1938), showing the conception of Horus with the ithyphallic Osiris impregnating Isis in the form of a bird of prey. A similar scene on the east wall of the chapel is less well preserved. Photo: author.

Plate 2: Scene from the south wall of the chapel of Ptah-Sokar in the southern wing of the Seti I temple, showing the ithyphallic Osiris with Isis in the form of a bird of prey conceiving Horus. The scene on the opposite wall of the chapel shows king Seti I identified with Sokar-Osiris in the act of conceiving his son. Photo: author.

BIRTH AND REBIRTH IN THE ABYDOS LANDSCAPE

wall. Other elements of the ‘divine birth’ cycle of scenes as discussed by Oppenheim (2011, 175–76) and Brunner (1986) are also represented in the Middle Abydos temples. In the context of the Seti I temple, the scenes of the conception of Horus are represented on the walls of a built structure at the edge of the cultivation, rather than at the local western extent of the low desert. They are all positioned in the westernmost sector of the temple, close to the subterranean ‘Osireion’ which represents a conceptual tomb of the deceased ruler as Osiris (Murray 1904; Frankfort, De Buck and Gunn 1933; O’Connor 2009, 50–51). It seems likely that the temple of Seti I represents on some level a replication and coalescence of distinct elements of the North Abydos ritual landscape into a single constructed complex, in a manner akin to the process known from other cultural contexts (for example: Stone 1992; Brady and Ashmore 1999). In its conceptual association with the burial chamber of a royal tomb, the Osireion alludes both to the ‘cavern of Sokar’ and to the ‘tomb’ of Osiris at Umm el-Qa‘ab. The setting of the conception scenes in the Seti I temple is, therefore, linked to the ‘tomb’ and the immediately adjacent area at Umm el-Qa‘ab. The deposits of New Kingdom votive material at Umm el-Qa‘ab and ‘Heqareshu Hill’ (Pumpenmeier 1998; Müller 2006; Budka 2013, 201) may be related to this association of the area with the conception of Horus as well as the cult of royal ancestors at the site. The elements of the ‘divine birth’ programme expressed in sculpture and relief from Abydos are paralleled at other sites, perhaps most notably at Thebes. The Abydos portrayals of the conception of Horus can be compared with scenes of the union of Amun with the king’s mother that are represented in a number of Theban temples (Brunner 1986). A relief scene in Luxor Temple, for example, shows queen Mutemwia, mother of Amenhotep III, seated on a couch with the god Amun (Brunner 1964, Taf. 4). Their touching fingertips and the god’s offering of the sign of life to Mutemwia’s nose delicately connote their sexual union resulting in the impregnation of the queen. Attendant goddesses hold up the couch, signalling the divine setting of the union. Helping goddesses are similarly associated with the representations of the conception of Horus in the scenes from the Abydos temple of Seti I, as shown in Pl. 1. A scene nearly identical to that in Luxor Temple is preserved in the temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari (Naville 1896, pl. 47), until recently considered the earliest

239

occurrence of the motif (Brunner 1964; Kemp 2006, 262–64 Redford 1995, 174). The depiction of the recumbent body of the deceased on a bed in the context of the rituals of postmortem transformation, however, has a much longer history. As Altenmüller has discussed, the ‘birth shrine’ as an iconographic element can be traced back to the Old Kingdom (1996). The depiction of Hathor motifs and sistra in conjunction with the ‘Bettlaube’ portrayed in Dynasty 4 tomb contexts highlights the sexual associations of the process of regeneration within the mortuary sphere. Such elements are clearly connected with the ‘divine birth’ cycle as it is articulated in New Kingdom temples (Altenmüller 1996, 33). Excavation of the pyramid complex of Senwosret III at Dahshur has produced evidence of scenes from the ‘divine birth’ cycle, demonstrating that they were utilized in the decorative programme of the royal tomb complex at least as early as the Middle Kingdom (Oppenheim 2011). Oppenheim has argued that the Dahshur scenes express the ruler’s descent from Re, connecting him with the solar deity in the context of his royal mortuary complex. The relief programme depicting the king’s divine geneaology in royal monuments relates directly to the policy of state patronage of local cult institutions, which, as Wegner has pointed out, served to bind those institutions economically and administratively to the state (Wegner 1996, 48). In the setting of Abydos, the association of the dead ruler with Osiris, and of his successor the living king with Horus, not only highlighted divine royal parentage, but also linked the king to the cult of the royal ancestors, each of whom was transformed into an Osiris through the performance of the required royal mortuary rituals. The ongoing renovation and votive activity associated with the tombs of the earliest rulers of Egypt at the site of Umm el-Qa‘ab (summarized in Müller 2006), including Senwosret I’s dedication of an offering table for his predecessor Sankhkare Mentuhotep there (Leahy 1989, 36), reflects the long history of veneration of the royal ancestors at the site. This practice extended to the private realm as well. Excavations in North Abydos have demonstrated that nonroyal individuals respected older structures when locating their tombs and offering chapels in the North and Middle Cemetery areas, and deposits associated with some of these contexts suggest that some monuments received offerings long after their original construction (Richards 2002; 2010; Pouls Wegner 2012, 180–81; Richards 2015, 390).

240

M.-A. POULS WEGNER

The temples of Seti I and Ramses II in Middle Abydos provide additional evidence of the cult of the royal ancestors at the site in the form of King Lists, each comprising a chronologically arranged array of royal names written in cartouches, listing preceding rulers (Redford 1986, 18–21, 193). The lists occur in the context of offering scenes in which the king and his son invoke and venerate their royal predecessors, who are represented by their names written in cartouches (Seti I temple: Mariette 1869, pl. 43; Porter and Moss 1939, 24–25; David 1981, 108–09; Ramses II temple: BM EA117; Mariette 1880b, pl. 18; Porter and Moss 1939, 35). Redford has discussed the significance of these lists in terms of the Ramesside policy of establishing offerings to the royal ancestors as a component of rituals performed in state monuments (1986, 193). The depiction in the Seti I temple at Abydos suggests that the ritual of invoking the royal ancestors, the nỉs ḥknw (Redford 1986, 38, n. 135; 193, n. 204), was performed in this context (David 1981, 83–87). Other indications of the veneration of specific royal predecessors by subsequent rulers are also known from the site: for example in the Osiris Temple Enclosure, the construction of a chapel for the deceased king Ahmose by Amenhotep I (Petrie 1902, 30, pls 62 and 63; Kemp 1968, 143; Harvey 1998, 92–95), Tuthmosis III’s dedication of a monument to Senwosret I (Petrie 1903, 34, 43, pl. 28) and Tuthmosis IV’s renewal of the endowments of Ahmose (Louvre C 53; Bryan 1991, 164) can be seen in this light. The provision of offerings and monuments for preceding kings within the context of the cult centre of Osiris reflected concepts of filial piety within the mortuary sphere, in which the son of the deceased was responsible for the proper burial, funerary rituals and provisions of his father. Horus’s vindication of his father Osiris, reflected in the epithet ‘Protector of his Father’ (ḥr nḏ ỉt.f), provided the divine model for this activity. The falcons depicted on the corners of the ‘Osiris bier’ are in fact labelled on the monument as manifestations of this aspect of Horus (Leahy 1977, 425), emphasizing the role of Horus in the regeneration of Osiris. Heket in the Middle Kingdom landscape The deities Heket and Khnum assisted in the transformation of the dead, and their presence on Middle Kingdom monuments from Abydos reflects the close conceptual connection that existed between the processes of birth and post-mortem transformation. Both

gods played prominent roles in royal ‘divine birth’ cycles, including the extensive series of scenes preserved in Hatshepsut’s temple at Deir el-Bahari (Naville 1896, pls XLVIII, XLIX; Brunner 1964, 179, 181–83). Prior to the New Kingdom, in the ‘Abydos Formula’ texts, Heket and Khnum were asked to transfigure the deceased (Spiegel 1973, 82–85; Lichtheim 1988, 87). The stela of Mery (Louvre C3), dated to the reign of Senwosret I in Dynasty 12, provides a good example of such a request (Simpson 1974, ANOC 6.3, pl. 15; Lichtheim 1988, no. 36, 85–88). Heket, who took the form of a frog, may have recalled the amazing transformation inherent in the frog’s life-cycle: from egg to fish-like tadpole to four-legged amphibian; or the adaptation of aestivation, an awe-inspiring ability of some frog species such as Sclerophrys xeros to remain dormant in dry pond beds during drought periods and then rapidly become animated again when the water returns, sometimes years later (Frost 2016; see also Bárta 1999, 111). Khnum was also linked to the generative properties of mud through his role in throwing clay on a potter’s wheel, an activity that was associated with creation (Dorman 2002, 114–30). The Westcar Papyrus (P. Berlin 3033), a Second Intermediate Period text that describes the divine conception and birth of the first three kings of Dynasty 5 as progeny of the solar deity Re and the human wife of a priest, explicitly connects Heket with birth in her role of the goddess who ‘hastened the birth’, working alongside Isis, Nephthys and Meskhenet to deliver the divine children (I, 8,15 and 23; trans. Lichtheim 1973, 215–22; Parkinson 1999, 106–27). Bárta has suggested that Heket was originally a goddess associated with mortuary practice in the Memphite region, whose introduction at Abydos occurred along with that of Osiris at the end of the Old Kingdom (1999, 112). In Bárta’s view, it was her association with rebirth that led to Heket’s integration into the Abydos cult centring on postmortem transformation. A significant number of Middle Kingdom stelae from Abydos mention Heket, most frequently in the ḥtp-dỉ-nswt offering formula, where she occurs together with Khnum (Barta 1968, 61, Bitte 26c). Table 1 compiles some of the Middle Kingdom stelae that mention the goddess, sorted by the nature of the reference. Although the table includes details of provenience only where recorded by Mariette, based on the history of excavations in the area, the majority of the stelae derived from the periphery of the Osiris Temple Enclosure in the area now designated as the Votive Zone.

241

BIRTH AND REBIRTH IN THE ABYDOS LANDSCAPE

Table 1: Middle Kingdom stelae with textual references to Heket. Stela No.

Line

Provenience

Nature of Reference

Source

Cairo CG 20088

b3

Abydos

Offering formula: ‘Heket, Khnum and all the gods of Abydos’

Lange and Schäfer 1902

Cairo CG 20552

a3

Abydos

Offering formula: ‘Heket, Khnum and all the gods of Abydos’

Lange and Schäfer 1908

Louvre C3

8

Abydos

Osiris Temple Enclosure periphery

Offering formula: ‘Heket, Khnum and all the gods of Abydos’

Simpson 1974, ANOC 6.3

Lichtheim 1988, no.36

British Museum EA 567

4

Abydos

Osiris Temple Enclosure periphery

Offering formula: ‘Heket together with Khnum and all the gods of Abydos’

Simpson 1974, ANOC 13.2

Lichtheim 1988, no.49

Leiden V4

11

Abydos

Offering formula: ‘Heket together with Khnum’

Simpson 1974, ANOC 20.1

Lichtheim 1988, no.31

Cairo CG 20028

a2

Abydos

Offering formula: Khnum, Heket etc.

Lange and Schäfer 1902

Mariette 1880a, no.752

Cairo CG 20070

b2-3

Abydos

Offering formula: ‘Heket together with Khnum’

Lange and Schäfer 1902

Cairo CG 20324

a2

Abydos

Nécropole du Nord, NE zone, against enclosure wall

offering formula: Heket, Khnum, etc.

Lange and Schäfer 1908

Cairo CG 20542

a4

Abydos

Nécropole du Nord, NE zone, against enclosure wall

Offering formula: ‘Heket together with Khnum’

Lange and Schäfer 1908

Cairo CG 20446

a3

Abydos

Heket among deities listed in damaged register of vertical text

Lange and Schäfer 1908

Cairo CG 20024

b1

Akhmim

Offering formula: Heket, Khnum, etc. and Abydos Formula

Lange and Schäfer 1902

Cairo CG 20025

a15

Abydos

Nécropole du Nord

Wadjet, one whom Heket in Abydos loved

Lange and Schäfer 1902

Cairo CG 20030

g5

Abydos

Middle Cemetery

Renseneb, overseer of the cult place of Heket

Lange and Schäfer 1902

British Museum 567

13

Abydos

Osiris Temple Enclosure periphery

Request for transfiguration by Heket and Khnum

Simpson 1974, ANOC 13.2

Lichtheim 1988, no.49

Louvre C3

13

Abydos

Osiris Temple Enclosure periphery

Request for transfiguration by Heket and Khnum

Simpson 1974, ANOC 6.3

Lichtheim 1988, no.36

Nécropole du Nord, NE zone, against enclosure wall

Nécropole du Nord

The association of Heket in such contexts with ‘all the gods of Abydos’ suggests that the goddess had a local presence at the site (see also Bárta 1999, 111–12). Some of the Middle Kingdom stelae in fact explicitly mention this association, confirming beyond a doubt that there was a cult place dedicated to the goddess at Abydos. For example, the stele of Ipw, which came from Abydos and bears a regnal date in year 20 of Amenemhet II, preserves an epithet of the stela owner’s mother Wadjet that designates her as ‘one whom Heket

Add. Source

Mariette 1880a, no.1000

in Abydos loved’ (mr.tw Ḥḳt m Ꜣbḏw) (Cairo CG 20025, line a15, Lange and Schäfer 1902). The stele of Wepwawet-aa, whose career spanned the reigns of Senwosret I and Amenemhet II, notes that the dedicator built his monument at Abydos in order to establish himself in the midst of his ancestors, ‘the primeval ones who commanded the making of Heket’s shore (pꜢw šꜢdw ỉrt ỉdb Ḥḳt)’ (Leiden V.4, l. 4; Simpson 1974, ANOC 20.1; Lichtheim 1988, no. 31), thereby linking Wepwawet-aa with the primeval origins of the

242

M.-A. POULS WEGNER

site, within which Heket was embedded.3 The existence of a specific cult place for the goddess is attested on the Dynasty 12 stela of a priest of Osiris found in the eastern section of the Middle Cemetery at Abydos, which mentions Renseneb, ‘overseer of the seat of Heket (ỉmy-r st Ḥḳt)’ (Cairo CG 20030, line g5, Lange and Schäfer 1902). The st Ḥḳt of the stele was of sufficient importance to require the supervision of an overseer; such a ‘seat’ or cult place was likely to have been located in Abydos, based on the find-spot of the stela and the Abydene deities invoked in the prayers inscribed upon it. In sum, there is strong evidence indicating that Heket was venerated at Abydos during the Middle Kingdom in a cult place that formed an element of the built environment of the site. The fact that a significant proportion of the Abydos stelae with known provenience that invoked Heket and Khnum came from the local northeastern sector of Mariette’s ‘Nécropole du Nord’ supports the inference that veneration of these deities was in fact focused in the Votive Zone area adjacent to the Osiris Temple Enclosure (see Fig. 2). As the Middle Kingdom Coffin Texts linked Heket and Khnum with a portal of the Netherworld (spell 320, CT IV, 145; Faulkner 1973, I, 248), the Votive Zone may have had symbolic significance as a portal through which Heket and Khnum, gods strongly associated with regeneration, guided the deceased toward rebirth. Heket in the New Kingdom landscape Veneration of Heket at Abydos continued after the Middle Kingdom, as a number of inscribed monuments from the site attest. A stela of the official Nebwawy, dated to the time of Tuthmosis III and recovered during Mariette’s excavations in the Osiris Temple area, preserves prayers to ‘Heket who resides in Abydos’ (Ḥḳt ḥrt-ỉb Ꜣbḏw) (Cairo CG 34017; Mariette 1880a, no. 1049; 1880b, pl. 33b; Lacau 1909, 36–37 and pl. XI).4 Nebwawy also bore the titles of overseer of the estate of Osiris and priest of Heket (ỉmy-r pr n Wsỉr ḥm-nṯr Ḥḳt), suggesting that the cult of Heket was provided with dedicated priests during this period, and

3

4

Elizabeth Frood is due credit for this insight on the role of ‘deep time’ in the self-presentation strategies of elites as reflected in their Abydos monuments. This object has been attributed to the high priest of Osiris of the same name known from the site, and could come from an earlier

that those priests could also be associated with the Osiris Temple institution. The stela text further requests that Nebwawy receive a share of the daily offerings for Heket: ‘may she give all that goes forth upon her offering table every day’ (dỉ.s prrt nbt ḥr wdḥw.s n rꜥ nb); it thus provides evidence of the existence of a cult installation at the site that was provided with regular daily offerings for the goddess. The find-spot of this monument of Nebwawy in the local northwestern section of the Osiris Temple Enclosure may suggest that the offerings for Heket were dedicated in a part of the main Osiris Temple complex that housed a portable image of Heket, and his role in her priesthood may have entitled him to a share of her daily offerings. Aside from the monument of Nebwawy, there are few references to Heket from Abydos that date to the New Kingdom. In contrast to the inscriptional data from the preceding Middle Kingdom–Second Intermediate Period, the New Kingdom sources do not commonly invoke Heket in offering formulae and she appears no longer to be closely associated with Khnum in such contexts. These patterns indicate a change in the nature of the goddess’ function within the ritual landscape of the site. They suggest that she played a less central role in facilitating the rebirth of the deceased. Heket in this period seems to have become one of a group of deities who may have had shrines within larger temples such as the Osiris Temple complex and the Seti I temple. In the inner Osiris Hall of the Seti I temple, there is a representation of the goddess, depicted as a seated frog in a portable shrine and labelled ‘Heket, Lady of the Two Lands, who resides in the temple of Menma’atre [Seti I] (Ḥḳt nbt tꜢwy ḥrt-ỉb ḥwt Mn-MꜢꜥt-Rꜥ)’ (see Fig. 3). The king is shown offering wine to this divine image. On the podium upon which the shrine rests, the king’s name appears with the epithet ‘beloved of Osiris, Lord of Ta-Djeser’ on the right side and ‘beloved of Heket, Mistress of the Two Lands (mry Ḥḳt ḥnwt tꜢ.wy)’ on the left. Heket was also portrayed on a stela from the local northeastern section of the Middle Cemetery that Mariette dated to Dynasty 20 (1880a, no. 1210). The lunette of the stela depicts Heket as a frog-headed

phase of his career (Frood 2003). However, the equivalence of these individuals is not certain. The Egyptian designation ḥrt-ỉb, translated here as ‘who resides in’, is an indication of the presence of a portable image of the deity within a built structure (Eaton 2012).

BIRTH AND REBIRTH IN THE ABYDOS LANDSCAPE

Fig. 3: The king offering to the frog goddess Heket, in a scene preserved in the ‘Osiris Complex’ in the temple of Seti I in Middle Abydos (after Calverley 1938, pl. 14).

woman, and the associated caption identifies her as ‘Heket who resides in Abydos, Lady of Heaven’ (Ḥḳt ḥrt-ỉb Ꜣbḏw nbt pt). Interestingly, she is shown together with the Abydene triad of Osiris, Horus-whoprotects-his-father and Isis. The contexts of Ramesside occurrences of Heket suggest that the goddess was no longer specifically associated with the Votive Zone area. Two Ramesside royal monuments that mention Heket from the structure that Mariette called the ‘petit temple de l’ouest’ may indicate that the location of her cult place in North Abydos had shifted to the local west of the Votive Zone, closer to the high desert cliffs, where Mariette found the remains of this chapel (see Fig. 1). Although Mariette did not indicate the position of the structure on any of his published maps of the site, he did note its geographical relationship to the Shunet el-Zebib (Mariette 1880b, 36–37). The evidence relating to the location and possible significance of this monument has been discussed elsewhere (Pouls Wegner 2002, 364–65). In association with his excavation of the ‘petit temple de l’ouest’, Mariette found the remains of a very large limestone stela bearing the name of Ramses II with epithets that describe him as beloved of Osiris, of Horus, and of Heket (Mariette 1880a, no. 1129). The occurrence of Heket in conjunction with Osiris and

243

Horus is interesting, as one might expect Isis rather than Heket to be included in the triad. From the same structure, Mariette recorded a limestone statue of Ramses III that depicts the king kneeling with a naos holding a statue of Osiris (Mariette 1880a, no. 354). On the base of the statue the dedicator’s name and titles are preserved: the overseer of the estate of Khonsu and High Priest of Osiris, Hery. Mariette mentions that Hery was shown worshipping Isis, Nephthys, Nut, Tefnut and Heket but did not reproduce the relevant scene in his publication. The monument was apparently left in situ and has not been relocated. Mariette did transcribe the following line of the inscription, which describes Hery’s activity as ‘venerating the great ones of the Duat, the lords of the necropolis’ (ỉw dwꜢ n tn nꜢ wr dwꜢt nꜢ nbw ẖrt-nṯr). The monument thus includes Heket among a group of female ancestors and kin of Osiris: his sisters Isis and Nephthys, his mother Nut and his grandmother Tefnut. These goddesses were explicitly linked with the Netherworld (Duat), as well as with the necropolis. As Hery held high offices in the priesthood of Khonsu and Osiris, his veneration of female deities in this context is interesting and supports the inference that the ‘petit temple de l’ouest’ was specifically associated with these goddesses, perhaps through their roles in the procreation of Osiris and its connections with the engendering of the ruling king as Horus. The localization of their veneration at the local southwestern edge of the North Cemetery, overlooking the processional route, underlines the associations of the eastern extent of the vestigial watercourse that once carried runoff from the high desert plateau down to the Nile with the Winding Waterway of the afterlife, metaphorically associated with the birth canal of the goddess Nut. Post-mortem transformation and the role of Isis The available inscriptional and archaeological evidence from Abydos suggests that Isis became increasingly important in the local ritual programme during the New Kingdom. In the Middle Kingdom, the Abydos festival involved the re-enactment of events central to the Osiris myth: the demise of the primordial king Osiris and the epic struggle of his sister-wife Isis and their son Horus for the succession. The Abydos ritual cycle recalled these events, during the Middle Kingdom focusing on the combat with the foes of Osiris, the subsequent post-mortem transformation of Osiris during a night vigil (sḏrt) associated with the

244

M.-A. POULS WEGNER

Haker-festival, the punishment of his enemies, and the victorious return of Osiris and his retinue to the temple (Effland and Effland 2010; Végh 2011). The relatively standardized list of wishes included in the texts on stelae set up in the Votive Zone, known collectively as the ‘Abydos Formula’,5 refers to these components of the mythical narrative. The Dynasty 12 stele of Ikhernofret (Berlin 1204, Schäfer 1904, 169–75; Lichtheim 1988, 98–100) from Abydos provides additional details of the festival and associated ritual equipment. In that text, Wepwawet is characterized as the son of Osiris, who ‘goes forth to rescue his father’ (line 17), and Iknernofret himself takes responsibility for having ‘cleared the god’s path to the tomb, ... rescued [Osiris] Wennenefer on the day of great combat, and felled all his foes on the shore of Nedyt’ (line 21, Lichtheim 1988, 99). The toponym Nedyt, site of the death of Osiris, seems to have been associated with Abydos by the Old Kingdom (Griffiths 1980, 22). As the most mysterious elements of the festival, the transformation of the inert body of Osiris and the conception of Horus are not described explicitly in the Middle Kingdom stela texts. They were secret and hidden, understood to have taken place in the subterranean context of the notional ‘tomb of Osiris’ in the region of Poqer, which can be localized on the basis of the archaeological context of the Osiris bier in the tomb of Djet at Umm el-Qa‘ab (Kemp 1972, col. 37). Leahy has suggested that the name ‘Poqer’ may derive from the Egyptian term pgꜢ, meaning an entrance, an open place or the mouth of a valley (Leahy 1984, 49). The Ikhernofret stela specifically identifies the setting of the transformation of Osiris as ‘the mꜥḥꜥ.t of the god in Poker’ (line 20, Schäfer 1904), which must be identified as the Early Dynastic royal tomb that took on the function of the notional ‘tomb’ of the god. Simpson has suggested that the term mꜥḥꜥ.t derives from the verb ꜥḥꜥ, meaning ‘to stand, arise’ (1974, 11), and the erect phallus of Osiris depicted in the bier from that context, which signals his return to virility and successful procreation, is a striking embodiment of this motif.

5

On the ‘Abydos Formula,’ see Lichtheim 1988, 55–58, 129–34; Wegner 1996, 62–69 and Appendix 1. Numerous studies have explored the series of events that took place as part of the local festival at Abydos, based upon the evidence of the formula and

In contrast to the mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris located near the high desert cliffs at Umm el-Qa‘ab, the mꜥḥꜥ.t-structures of kings and non-royal individuals at the site were situated at the junction of the low desert and the cultivation. The founder of the Middle Kingdom, Nebhepetre Mentuhotep, built a structure in Middle Abydos that was identified in the associated inscriptions as a mꜥḥꜥ.t ‘for Osiris, Khentyimentiu, Wepwawet and the gods who are in Abydos’ (Wegner et al. 2015, 5). Some of the Middle Kingdom stelae from North Abydos describe the erection of mꜥḥꜥ.t -structures for non-royal individuals (Simpson 1974, 10–13; Lichtheim 1988, 129–34). On the basis of the archaeological context of similar inscribed material, these structures are understood to have been offering chapels constructed in the Votive Zone and perhaps also the Middle Cemetery (Simpson 1974, 1–10; O’Connor 1985; Richards 2002; Pouls Wegner 2012, 4–5). They took the form of tomb chapels but were not associated with the burial of human remains. The lexical association of the mꜥḥꜥ.tchapels with the function of ascension is highlighted by the name of the place where the stela texts locate them: the ‘stairway/terrace of the great god (rd n nṯr ꜥꜢ)’ (Simpson 1974, 1). The association of the Middle Kingdom offering chapels with ideas of the raising or ascent of the deceased correlates well with the prominent metaphors of ascent in the contemporary Coffin Texts. The term mꜥḥꜥ.t in reference to structures at Abydos seems to have fallen out of use in the New Kingdom (Pouls Wegner 2002, 135–38), despite the fact that both kings and non-royal individuals continued to construct chapels at the site. The obsolescence of that term may relate to changes in the mechanisms for accessing the afterlife. Although Isis is depicted as a bird of prey being impregnated by Osiris on the ‘Osiris bier’ dated to Dynasty 13, the goddess is not a focus of attention in the inscribed material of Middle Kingdom date from Abydos. In fact, there are very few references to Isis that associate her with Abydos in the large corpus of Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period

other information included in the Middle Kingdom inscribed material from North Abydos (Schäfer 1904; Helck 1952; Otto 1968, 40–44; Lichtheim 1988, 98–100; Lavier 1991; Kucharek 2006; Effland and Effland 2010; Végh 2011).

BIRTH AND REBIRTH IN THE ABYDOS LANDSCAPE

stelae from the site.6 Lavier has noted this phenomenon and hypothesized that Isis was overshadowed by other important local deities such as Wepwawet (Lavier 1991, 293). This explanation does not go far enough to explain the observed changes in the built environment and inscriptional record from the site that began to highlight the significance of Isis and correlate with developing concepts of the afterlife. Abydos monuments show the increasing prominence of Isis as an agent of post-mortem transformation in the New Kingdom. In the early Eighteenth Dynasty, the goddess is not among the deities with shrines in the main Osiris Temple complex mentioned on the stela of Tuthmosis I from the site (Cairo CG 34007, Mariette 1880a, no. 1048; Lacau 1909; Pouls Wegner 2002, 143–44). However, there are indications that Isis was becoming associated with the Osirian transformation at this time. The stela of Amenmose (Louvre C286: Moret 1931, 725–50; Lichtheim 1976, 81–86; Rickal 2009, no. 44, 72–73), a monument that derives from Abydos and has been stylistically dated to early Dynasty 18, preserves a ‘Hymn to Osiris’ that details elements of the Osirian myth as it was expressed at Abydos during the early New Kingdom. Although similar hymns to Osiris are known from the Middle Kingdom (Lichtheim 1973, 202–04; Franke 2003, 96–104), the New Kingdom version highlights the role of Isis for the first time. One section of the text of Amenmose is dedicated to Isis, celebrating her for guarding and protecting Osiris, driving off his foes and curtailing ‘the disturber’ (Seth) through the power of her utterance. Her active role in reanimating Osiris and conceiving a child is eloquently portrayed textually through the metaphor of her as a bird of prey who ‘created breath with her wings, who jubilated, joined her brother, raised the weary one’s inertness, received the seed, bore the heir, raised the child in solitude, without anyone knowing where he [was]’ (lines 15–16: Moret 1931, 741–43; Lichtheim 1976, 83; Rickal 2009, 72–72). The hymn provides a written articulation of the scene of the conception of Horus portrayed in the ‘Osiris bier’ from the late Middle Kingdom, discussed above. It also closely parallels the relief scenes depicting the same event in the Dynasty 19 temple of Seti I.

6

In the Cairo collection, only CG 20703 (a6), CG 20868 (k) and CG 20738 (b5) from Abydos bear texts mentioning Isis (Lange

245

The celebration of Isis preserved in the context of the hymn on the stela of Amenmose from Abydos indicates that by Dynasty 18, the role of Isis in the mythological narrative of Osiris’ transformation was crucial. She marshalled the supernatural forces necessary to reanimate the body of Osiris; thus she was the agent of his return to virility. She also conceived, gave birth to, nurtured and supported their son during his battle for the kingship. The increasing profile of Isis as the mother of the living king may also be related to the inclusion of monuments dedicated to the cults of royal women within the complex of Ahmose in South Abydos (Harvey 1998). Stamped bricks associated with Temples A and C in that complex refer to AhmoseNefertari as the ‘mother of a king’ (Harvey 2008, 145). The veneration of Ahmose’s wife Ahmose-Nefertari (the mother of his son and successor Amenhotep I), as well as his grandmother Tetisheri, in the Abydos building programme parallels the statue inscription from Mariette’s ‘petit temple de l’ouest’ described above (Mariette 1880a, no. 354), in which the High Priest of Osiris Hery venerates the female ancestors of Osiris and Horus. New Kingdom monuments from Abydos refer to Isis with increasing regularity. The offering list on Cairo CG 20721, a stela of Dynasty 18 date, mentions Isis, Mother of the Gods, before Osiris-Khentiamentiu, Lord of Abydos, the Great God who resides in Ta-wer (line b1, Lange and Schäfer 1908). The chapel of Ramses I that Seti I constructed near his own temple in Middle Abydos provides evidence of the prominence of Isis from early Dynasty 19. The dedicatory texts stress the importance of the monument’s location near the deceased king’s ancestors (Otto 1968, 50), and ‘Isis the Great’ appears with the epithets ‘Mother of the God, Mistress of Heaven, Mistress of the Two Lands’ (Winlock 1921, 15, pl. I). The lineage of Seti I, the reigning king at the time of the chapel’s construction, is highlighted in a scene in which he is juxtaposed with Horus and addressed by the Abydene symbol (identified in the accompanying text as a manifestation of Osiris), as ‘my beloved son of my body’ (Winlock 1921, 14, pl. I), evoking the parallel conception of Horus and the king.

and Schäfer 1902; 1908). Of these, the last two are likely of New Kingdom date.

246

M.-A. POULS WEGNER

Non-royal monuments from Abydos set up during the Ramesside period also invoke Isis in her role as the mother of Horus and reviver of Osiris. Elements from a chapel of Userhat offer ‘praise to the Lord of Abydos as Isis rejoices on the day Horus was born’ (Frood 2007, 19A–B, 120). A large pillar-statue of Wenennefer, High Priest of Osiris in the later reign of Ramses II, was inscribed with a text describing his role in the Abydos mysteries, including transfiguring the deceased Osiris with the ‘wreath of triumph’ in his role as priest of Horus-who-protects-his-father, ferrying the god to the mouth of Poqer, smiting the enemies of Osiris, reading out the transfiguration spells which Isis made, and depositing offerings in the sacred land (Frood 2007, no. 14A, 97–101).7 The family of Wenennefer held priestly offices associated with Osiris and Isis at Abydos through the end of Dynasty 19 (Frood 2007, 97, 105); their titles attest to the formalization of the cult of Isis in this period. Among the members of this family were Wenennefer’s sister Tiy, who was a songstress of Osiris and ‘great one of the harem/musical troupe of Osiris’ (Frood 2007, 14B, 101; on the understanding of ḫnr as a musical troupe see Robins 1993, 148–49). The burial of a significant number of songstresses of Osiris in the North Cemetery at Abydos is discussed further below. The built environment of North Abydos reflected these developments in ritual practice at the site. Inscriptional evidence indicates the existence of a sanctuary of Isis in the Abydos Votive Zone by Dynasty 19. This evidence centres on the structure known as the ‘Portal Temple’, a structure dating primarily from the reign of Ramses II, although begun by Seti I (Petrie 1916; Silverman 1988; Simpson 1995; O’Connor 2009, 117–19). The architectural remains of the temple are difficult to interpret, and its decorative programme awaits full publication. However, a dislodged block from the ‘Portal Temple’, photographed in its present secondary context, bears part of a doorway inscription with royal names carved in sunk relief, preserving the epithets of the king as ‘beloved of Osiris’ and ‘beloved of Isis’ (see Pl. 3). The mention of Isis on the doorway

7

Frood has revised her reading of this text regarding the transfigurative spells of Isis since her 2007 publication, a refinement reflected in her work in progress on this topic (personal communication, 2017).

Plate 3: Dislodged block from the ‘Portal Temple’ of Seti I and Ramses II in the North Abydos Votive Zone, with base of an inscription in sunk relief describing the king as ‘beloved of Osiris’ and ‘beloved of Isis’. Photo: author.

inscription would suggest that the goddess had a presence in the temple. Corroborating this data, analysis of construction accounts preserved on ostraca associated with the ‘Portal Temple’ has demonstrated that there was a sanctuary dedicated to Isis in that temple (Pouls Wegner 2010, 559–60). This component of the building was enclosed and provided with doors, like the sanctuaries of the goddess that were associated with the temples of Seti I and Ramses II in Middle Abydos.8 The available evidence thus points to the formalization of the cult of Isis through monumental construction in the Votive Zone at the outset of Dynasty 19. The association of the Votive Zone area with regeneration and the potential identification of the ‘Portal Temple’ with the birthplace are further explored below. The union of Osiris with the solar deity A major development in New Kingdom afterlife beliefs was the increasing emphasis on the merging of Osiris with the sun god Re, which is evident in royal mortuary texts as well as in the textual record from Abydos.9 The stela of Amenmose provides a clear

8

9

The title ‘guardian of the doors of Isis of the birth house’, which occurs on the stela of PꜢy-wẖd from Abydos (Naples 1020; De Meulenaere 1982, 25–26) and has been dated to the reign of Ramses II, may be related to such an architectural feature. On this topic, see Darnell 1995 and Effland 2016.

BIRTH AND REBIRTH IN THE ABYDOS LANDSCAPE

illustration of this process, highlighting the solar associations of Osiris through analogy with various aspects of the sun god. The text celebrates Osiris who is ‘like Re when he rises in the horizon’ and when ‘he inundates the Two Lands like Aten at dawn’ (lines 12–13; Moret 1931, 737–38). The association of Osiris with forms of the solar deity alludes to his union with the sun god in the middle of the night, a concept that is most fully expressed in the royal funerary texts of the New Kingdom known as the Amduat (Hornung 1999). The Amduat plots the voyage of the sun barque in which the deceased travels through the twelve hours of the night, providing the deceased with esoteric knowledge that would assist him or her through the perils encountered there. In the fifth hour of the night, the text describes the barque encountering the tomb of SokarOsiris, initiating contact with the aspect of the god that is depicted on the walls of the complex of Ptah-Sokar and Nefertem in the Seti I temple. Wegner has suggested that this encounter was a fundamental concept of royal mortuary belief in Dynasty 12, expressed architecturally at Abydos in the well-shaft of the tomb of Senwosret III in the western cliffs of South Abydos (Wegner 2009a, 141). The central moment of the twelve-hour Netherworld voyage portrayed in the Amduat is the passage of the deceased king through the realm of Sokar, where he merges with Re and Osiris in the ‘hidden chamber (ꜥt ỉmnt)’ (Darnell 1995; Hornung 1999). Wegner has discussed the possibility of the early association of the ‘hidden chamber’ with Abydos (2009a, 143–50), and the notional ‘tomb’ of Osiris at Umm el-Qa‘ab may have served as archetype for the burial chamber of the rock-cut royal tomb. The discovery at Umm el-Qa‘ab of a shrine that probably held the Osiris bier provides archaeological evidence for the articulation of this hidden, subterranean feature located at the site known as ‘she who hides her lord’ (Effland, Budka and Effland 2010, 30–35). After the mystical merging of Re, Osiris and the deceased in the sixth hour of the Netherworld journey of the Amduat, they proceed through the remaining hours of the night toward rebirth at the eastern horizon. Although not explicitly explored in Wegner’s study, the deposition of a ‘birth brick’ in the settlement associated with the Senwosret III complex (Wegner 2009b), which lies in the local east at the junction of the low desert with the cultivation, may reflect concepts associated with the cyclical birth of the transformed solarOsirian deceased at the eastern horizon. Wegner has in fact compared the imagery on the birth brick with

247

scenes of the royal ‘divine birth’ cycle in its formal articulation of the safe delivery of a child (2009b, 456). The archaeological context of this portrayal at the eastern edge of the low desert underlines the association of the point at which the desert intersects the inundated fields with the symbolic site of the solar-Osirian rebirth to which the deceased aspired. Abydos as a birthplace Inscriptional evidence from the site identifies Abydos as a birthplace of both kings and gods from the Middle Kingdom onward. Lichtheim has suggested that the designation of Abydos as a birthplace (msḫnt) relates to the importance of the site as ‘arrival place’ for the deceased (1988, 68), alluding to the voyage to the site that was a feature of tomb decoration and mortuary texts. The frequent invocation of Khnum and Heket in Middle Kingdom monuments from the Votive Zone, explored above, is one aspect of the expression of birth metaphors at the site. Some inscribed monuments from the site go even further in identifying the locus in which they were set up as ‘the birthplace’ of Abydos. The stela of the Assistant Seal-bearer Mery from Abydos (Louvre C3) not only requests transfiguration by Khnum and Heket, but also identifies them with ‘the ancestors who rose before [on] the first birthplace of Abydos, who came from the mouth of Re himself when Abydos was sanctified on account of it (sꜢḫ sw Hnmw Ḥḳt tp-ꜥ[wy] ḫprw ḫr ḥꜢt [ḥr] msḫnt tpt Ꜣbḏw prw m r n Rꜥ ḏs.f m ḏsr Ꜣbḏw ḥr.s)’ (line 13; Simpson 1974, ANOC 6.3; Lichtheim 1988, no. 36). The text emphasizes the association of Khnum and Heket with the Abydos birthplace, and attributes the significance of Abydos to the birth of these ancestral deities from the mouth of the solar deity Re. A stela of the Overseer of the Storehouse Amenemhet (BM EA567) bears a very similar inscriptional reference to transfiguration by ‘Khnum and Heket, the ancestors who rose before on the birthplace of Abydos, who came from the mouth of Re himself when Abydos was sanctified (sꜢḫ sw Hnmw Ḥḳt tp-ꜥwy ḫprw ẖr ḥꜢt ḥr msḫnt nt Ꜣbḏw pr m r n Rꜥ ḏs.f m ḏsr Ꜣbḏw)’ (lines 11–13; Simpson 1974, ANOC 13.2; Lichtheim 1988, no. 49). The ‘classic’ example of a mꜥḥꜥ.t-text in Lichtheim’s study, carved on the stela of the Overseer of Districts Intef from the reign of Amenemhet II (Leiden V6), declares ‘I made this offering chapel (mꜥḥꜥ.t) on the birthplace (msḫnt) of Abydos, the sacred land of the

248

M.-A. POULS WEGNER

western desert, ground great of fame, [where] those in their tombs are transfigured’ (line 2; Lichtheim 1988, no. 48). In this inscription, the location of the mꜥḥꜥ.t is explicitly stated to be the ‘birthplace’ itself. As the original context of many of the Middle Kingdom stelae from the site was in the Votive Zone and the adjacent area of the North Cemetery (Simpson 1974), where the dense complex of excavated offering chapel structures of this date has been identified archaeologically (O’Connor 1985), it follows that it was this area of the site that was specifically identified with the ‘birthplace’ of Abydos to which the texts refer. Continuity in the association of the area adjacent to the Osiris Temple Enclosure with birth can be traced in the material culture record of the site from the Ramesside period. Near the Shunet el-Zebib, a massive mudbrick enclosure of Dynasty 2 date, Mariette found a significant number of stelae associated with burials of songstresses/singers (šmꜢyt/šmꜢyw) from Dynasties 19–20 and published a brief description and details of the associated inscribed material (1880a, 441–50). Sheikholeslami (2002) analysed this data in further detail, noting that women fulfilled the role in association with the cult of Osiris at Abydos. Onstine subsequently compiled the data relating to the male and female šmꜢyw; her study indicates that all of the songstresses of Osiris were female, and further, all of the known references to songstresses of Osiris are found on monuments that derive from Abydos (2005, 83). The cemetery population included songstresses/ singers of other deities as well, including Isis, Horus the Behedite, Amun, Mut and Hathor, some of whom may have lived and practised elsewhere (Onstine 2005, 83).10 The role of ‘songstress/singer’ involved musical performance in connection with sacred contexts such as funerals and temple cult (Onstine 2005, 9–10), particularly rhythmic and vocal accompaniment to processional rituals associated with transfiguration. The songstresses of Osiris represented in the area of the Shunet at Abydos may, therefore, have sung and clapped or drummed as part of the procession to and/or from the ‘tomb’ of the god at Umm el-Qa‘ab, supporting the regeneration of the god and the animation of his images. The circumscribed area in which the stelae were found

10

It is not yet possible to determine how wide a catchment area was represented in the Abydos cemetery of songstresses/singers;

suggests that the Shunet area held some significance in the context of the Ramesside landscape of North Abydos, either because of its visual prominence and great antiquity, or as a result of functional ties to the performative activity of the songstresses. Other categories of material culture from the same area provide explicit evidence of the association of this site with birth. In addition to the stelae of songstresses/ singers, Mariette’s excavations of the area around the Shunet also produced a number of small rectangular pottery coffins, some of which contained the bodies of ‘fetuses’ (Mariette 1880a, 441–42). These individuals were presumably infants who died prior to reaching full gestational age and may have been either stillborn or born prematurely. The coffins had, according to Mariette, been set into the mud-brick wall of the Shunet rather than buried in the ground. The interments may have been made in early Dynasty 20, based on the dating of the majority of the songstress/singer burials nearby (Onstine 2005, 82–83). Texts on some of the coffins, as well as on stelae of some of the songstresses, invoked specific forms of Osiris associated with birth: ‘Osiris Lord of Birth’ (Wsỉr nb ms), ‘Osiris Great Lord of Birth’ (Wsỉr nb ꜥꜢ ms) and ‘Osiris who gives birth to the gods’ (Wsỉr ms nṯrw). Manniche has suggested that the foetuses were stillborn children of the songstresses and that the songstresses buried in this cemetery may have died in childbirth (1991, 124–25). While there is no direct evidence to support this interpretation, and no forensic analysis to support the conclusion that the infants were stillborn and the women died in childbirth, the very young age at death of the infants undoubtedly links them with birth. Further, the epithets of Osiris that occur on the coffin inscriptions and stelae of the songstresses indicate that mortuary rituals carried out for them invoked aspects of Osiris specifically associated with birth. The geographically restricted area in which the burials were made further suggests that the site was associated with this form of Osiris and more broadly with his generative power. Patch has noted the existence of another cluster of burials of young children dating to the Third Intermediate Period, located adjacent to the Kom el-Sultan at the local north end of the Votive Zone area (Patch 2007). This

a full prosopographic study would provide the best hope for identifying the places of origin/activity of these individuals.

BIRTH AND REBIRTH IN THE ABYDOS LANDSCAPE

cemetery may also be connected with the significance of the Votive Zone as a locus imbued with birth-related significance. Evidence of a birth-house at Abydos Inscriptional evidence points to the existence of a built structure identified as a ‘birth-house’ associated with Isis at Abydos during the later New Kingdom. The epithet ‘one praised by Isis of the Birth-House’ (ḥsy n Ꜣst [n] pr ms) is preserved on the stela of a songstress of Osiris that Mariette recovered from the local northwestern zone of the Middle Cemetery (Mariette 1880a, no. 1191; on the possible alternate translation of ḥsy as ‘singer’, see Onstine 2005, 6–7). De Meulenaere collected additional inscriptional data from the time of Ramses II and thereafter, attesting to the existence of a birth-house at Abydos in which Isis received veneration as the divine mother (De Meulenaere 1982, 25–27). Archaeological remains of such a structure at Abydos prior to the Late Period have not been recognized, but the importance of the conception of Horus that has been traced in the Abydos record, the growing emphasis on the role of Isis at the site during the New Kingdom, and the multifaceted references to birth from the Votive Zone area all align closely with the idea of rituals celebrating the conception and birth of Horus at the site. Frood has discussed some of the inscriptional data that point to the existence of a birth-house at Abydos in the Ramesside period (2007, 105; see also De Meulenaere 1982, 25–27; Sheikholeslami 2002, 115– 17). The Dynasty 19 stela of Wenennefer (Louvre C 219, Frood 2007, no. 17; Forgeau 2010, pl. 29) offers the clearest evidence of the existence of such a structure, through the caption describing the dedicator’s veneration as: ‘giving praise to Isis of the Birth-House (Ꜣst n pr-ms)’ (Kitchen 1982, 297, 3; Frood 2007, 105). The associated scene depicts Wenennefer before four goddesses, three of whom are explicitly associated with birth: Isis of the Birth-House, Heket Lady of the Sky, and Nut the Beneficent One Who Bore the Gods (Ꜣst n pr-ms, Ḥḳt nb[t] pt, Nwt Ꜣḫt ms nṯrw). The last goddess pictured is Shenpet, Lady of the Sky (šnpt nb[t] pt), an aspect of Isis in mourning (Kitchen 1982, 297, 2; Frood 2007, 105). Wenennefer himself held the office of High Priest of Isis and Horus, a title that further highlights the importance of the Osirian triad and attests to the existence of formal cults of Isis and Horus at the site during the Ramesside period.

249

Was the ‘Portal Temple’ an early birth-house? The converging lines of evidence traced above strongly suggest that there was a structure identified as a ‘birth-house’ (pr ms) at Abydos by Dynasty 19 and that it may have been located in or near the Votive Zone at the periphery of the main Osiris Temple precinct. Independent evidence of the association of Isis with the ‘Portal Temple’, a structure built at the beginning of Dynasty 19 over the razed remains of Middle Kingdom offering chapels, indicates that the goddess was venerated there. The dislodged stone block from a doorway surround that preserves the royal epithet ‘beloved of Isis’ (see Pl. 3), as discussed above, provides evidence that the goddess was associated with the temple. The identification of a sanctuary of Isis in the ‘Portal Temple’ based on an attestation in the construction accounts (Pouls Wegner 2010) means that the structure can be considered as a possible physical setting for the cult of Isis and Horus under Wenennefer’s supervision. There is also a potential indication of the direct association of the ‘Portal Temple’ with the birth-goddesses. This evidence comprises a fragment from the structure with an inscriptional reference to ‘the four birth-goddesses dwelling in Aby[dos]’ (msḫnt 4 ḥryt-ỉb Ꜣb[ḏw]) (Frood, pers. comm. 2017, citing Silverman, pers. comm. 2002). The fragment awaits full publication, but its existence would further support the suggestion that the ‘Portal Temple’ was strongly associated with birth, perhaps more specifically that of the king as son of the solar deity and manifestation of Horus, son of Osiris and Isis. Without a better understanding of the iconographic programme and full architectural layout of the ‘Portal Temple’, it is not possible to determine the function of the structure with certainty or to assess whether it possessed the characteristics of later ‘Mammisi’ or birth-houses. Mammisi are generally considered to be a feature of the Late Period (Daumas 1977; Kockelmann 2011, 5), but as Altenmüller (1996) and Oppenheim (2011) have demonstrated, iconography associated with the divine conception and birth of the king as a child of important deities is a far older phenomenon. The monuments that formed the setting for rituals celebrating these events developed over time rather than appearing fully formed in the Late Period. Therefore, it is also unclear whether a Ramesside structure should be expected to conform to the restrictive definition of a ‘birth-house’ established with reference to later forms.

250

M.-A. POULS WEGNER

Despite the uncertainties surrounding the structure’s layout, there is iconographic evidence preserved in situ on the ‘Portal Temple’ walls that sheds significant light on its function within the landscape of North Abydos and relates it not only to Isis but also to concepts of rebirth. This evidence takes the form of depictions of standing baboons on both walls of the corridor through the portico at the local eastern side of the structure, near the current point of access into the Osiris Temple Enclosure (see Fig. 2, where the location of the corridor is marked). The baboons have not gone unnoticed in previous studies (see for example Silverman 1988, 272), but their significance can only be fully understood in the context of a broad reading of the sacred landscape in which they are portrayed. The baboons are carved in raised relief, at large scale, standing upright with their hands raised in the gesture of worship. The scenes on the local northern and southern walls of the corridor are shown in Pls 4 and 5, respectively. Baboons were associated with the horizons; in mortuary scenes of the New Kingdom they are often shown venerating the rising sun (Quirke 2001, 47–48). A text preserved in Luxor Temple in association with a depiction of Amenhotep III before the solar barque describes the king worshipping the rising sun and refers specifically to the conceptual landscape in which the baboons occur (Assmann 1970, 1–6; Parkinson 1991, no. 4). There they are identified as ‘the eastern souls’ whose secret utterances the king knows and who ‘sing acclamations to Re as he rises and appears in the horizon; the bolts open for him in the portals of the eastern horizon, so that he shall sail on the ways of the sky’ (Parkinson 1991, 39). The Luxor text links the baboons with the transitional point of the eastern horizon where the solar barque leaves the Netherworld and ascends into the sky; the king is likened to them in his acclamation of Re at dawn. What is most significant about the ‘Portal Temple’ baboons is their orientation toward the local west. This orientation seems counterintuitive, as they would be expected to be facing toward the rising sun in the local east (or even true east). Their orientation is not related to the astronomical solar transit, as the sun never rose or set in the direction they face, at any time of year. Instead, they greet a solar entity arriving from the local west. The western sector of the ‘Portal Temple’ is damaged and the extant remains do not permit analysis of its architecture. It is possible that there were sanctuaries at the rear of the structure, in which resided images of Osiris and Isis and perhaps other deities, who were associated with the

sun through rituals carried out in the temple itself. There may have been an image of a solarized form of Osiris in the temple, whom the baboons greeted as it was carried out of the structure toward the local east, perhaps to the main Osiris Temple complex. An alternate possibility is that there was a western access to the ‘Portal Temple’, through which an image of Osiris, understood as having merged with Re and the deceased king in the subterranean ‘cavern’ at Umm elQa‘ab, entered the structure at the end of the processional journey returning from the notional tomb of the god. The form of the Osiris-king at the end of the Amduat voyage was strongly solarized, and this aspect would account for the veneration of the baboons depicted on the walls of the temple. They would have thus greeted the solar-Osirian-deity as he returned from the ‘hidden chamber’ of his tomb, travelling eastward through the remaining hours of the night toward rebirth at the eastern horizon. In either case, the area immediately adjacent to the Osiris Temple precinct would then be symbolically associated with the eastern horizon. The localization of ritual practices connected with rebirth in the local eastern sector of the processional landscape of North Abydos corresponds well with the identification of the juvenile god with the rising sun that informed the iconographic and ritual programmes of later birthhouses (Daumas 1958, 127). An understanding of the ritual landscape as a reflection of the geography of the Netherworld highlights the association of the Votive Zone with the eastern horizon where the sun was reborn each morning. On this basis it is likely that the ‘Portal Temple’ represented the formalization of the horizon, a monumental setting for the rebirth of the deceased king as a solarized form of Osiris. Conclusions The preceding analysis has shown that the birth of the divine royal child as a manifestation of Horus, and the rebirth of the deceased as Osiris united with the sun god, were central themes in the ritual programme of Abydos during the New Kingdom. Elements of the built environment gave formal architectural expression to changing concepts about the afterlife realm of Osiris that developed over time. Royal mortuary texts of the New Kingdom refer to a cyclical process in which the deceased travelled with the solar deity and was united with Osiris and reborn with the sun at dawn. Although it is too simplistic to suggest a one-to-one correspondence in which

BIRTH AND REBIRTH IN THE ABYDOS LANDSCAPE

Plate 4: Raised relief scene of standing baboons venerating the solar deity, preserved in situ on the local northern wall of the corridor of the Dynasty 19 ‘Portal Temple’ in the North Abydos Votive Zone. The baboons face toward the site of Umm el-Qa‘ab. Photo: author.

Plate 5: Raised relief scene of standing baboons venerating the solar deity, preserved in situ on the local southern wall of the corridor of the Dynasty 19 ‘Portal Temple’ in the North Abydos Votive Zone. The baboons face toward the site of Umm el-Qa‘ab. Photo: author.

251

252

M.-A. POULS WEGNER

every place in the Amduat had a physical correlate at the site, specific places in the landscape of Abydos evoked locations within the geography of the Netherworld as portrayed in the mortuary texts (see for example Wegner 2009a). In the context of North Abydos, the ‘tomb’ of Osiris was associated with the sexual reinvigoration of the god and the conception of Horus, connected with the ‘cavern of Sokar’ and the ‘hidden chamber’ that lay at the midpoint of the nightly voyage of the solar barque. The procession of Osiris and associated gods back to the main Osiris Temple from this point of mystical union, from local west to east, was conceptually linked to the transit of the barque of the solarized Osiris toward dawn at the eastern horizon, a metaphorical birth in which the deceased participated. The patterning

evident in the archaeological context of inscribed artefacts and iconographic elements from the Votive Zone area at the periphery of the Osiris Temple precinct preserves significant indications of the association of this region with birth, linking it to Heket and Khnum in the Middle Kingdom and to Isis in the New Kingdom. Textual evidence also attests to the existence of a ‘birthhouse’ at Abydos in Dynasty 19. That monument would have formally commemorated the birth of the divine child, associated with the living king, as well as the rebirth of the deceased king as Osiris. The geographical setting for these events was the Votive Zone area, which had powerful associations with the eastern horizon where the solar-Osiris experienced rebirth at the culmination of the Osiris festival.

Bibliography

Daumas, F. 1958. Les mammisis des temples égyptiens. Paris. ———. 1977. Geburtshaus. In Lexikon der Ägyptologie, W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds), Vol. II, 462–75. Wiesbaden. David, R. 1981. A guide to religious ritual at Abydos. Warminster. De Meulenaere, H. 1982. Isis et Mout du Mammisi. In Studia Paulo Naster Oblata II: Orientalia Antiqua, J. Quaegebeur (ed.), 25–30, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 13. Leuven. Dorman, P. 2002. Faces in clay: Technique, imagery, and allusion in a corpus of ceramic sculpture from ancient Egypt. Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 52. Mainz am Rhein. Eaton, K. 2012. The meanings of the term ḥry-ỉb in divine epithets. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 139: 113–15. Effland, A. 2016. Die Sonnenbarke anzuhalten und die Glieder des Osiris zu verstreuen für Typhon: theologische und theurgische Ausdeutung solar-osirianischer Ritualaspekte in Abydos. In Die Variation der Tradition. Modalitäten der Ritualadaption im Alten Ägypten. Akten des Internationalen Symposions vom 25.–28. November 2012 in Heidelberg, A. Pries (ed.), 201–26. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 240. Leuven. Effland, A., and U. Effland. 2010. ‘Ritual Landscape’ und ‘Sacred Space’—Überlegungen zu Kultausrichtung und Prozessionsachsen in Abydos. Mosaik Journal 1: 127–58. Effland, U., J. Budka, and A. Effland. 2010. Studien zum Osiriskult in Umm el-Qaab/Abydos: ein Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 66: 19–91.

Altenmüller, H. 1996. Geburtsschrein und Geburtshaus. In Studies in honor of William Kelly Simpson, P. Der Manuelian (ed.), Vol. I, 27–37. Boston. Amélineau, E. 1899. Le Tombeau d’Osiris. Paris. Assmann, J. 1970. Der König als Sonnenpriester; ein kosmographischer Begleittext zur kultischen Sonnenhymnik in thebanischen Tempeln und Gräbern. Glückstadt. Bárta, M. 1999. The title ‘Priest of Heket’ in the Egyptian Old Kingdom. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 58 (2): 107–16. Barta, W. 1968. Aufbau und Bedeutung der altägyptischen Opferformel. Ägyptologische Forschungen 24. Glückstadt. Brady, J., and W. Ashmore. 1999. Mountains, caves, water: Ideational landscapes of the ancient Maya. In Archaeologies of landscape: Contemporary perspectives, W. Ashmore and B. Knapp (eds), 124–45. Oxford. Brunner, H. 1964. Die Geburt des Gottkönigs: Studien zur Überlieferung eines altägyptischen Mythos. Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 10. Wiesbaden. Bryan, B. 1991. The reign of Thutmose IV. Baltimore. Budka, J. 2013. Festival pottery from New Kingdom Egypt: Three case studies. In Functional aspects of Egyptian ceramics in their archaeological context, B. Bader and M. Ownby (eds), 185–213. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 217. Leuven. Calverley, A. 1938. The temple of King Sethos I at Abydos, Vol. III. London; Chicago. Darnell, J. 1995. The enigmatic Netherworld books of the Solar-Osirian unity. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 198. Freiburg; Göttingen.

BIRTH AND REBIRTH IN THE ABYDOS LANDSCAPE

Faulkner, R. O. 1973. The ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts. Oxford. Forgeau, A. 2010. Horus fils d’Isis. La Jeunesse d’un dieu. Bibliothèque d’étude 150. Cairo. Franke, D. 2003. Middle Kingdom hymns and other sundry religious texts: An inventory. In Egypt: Temple of the whole world. Studies in honour of Jan Assmann, S. Meyer (ed.), 95–135. Leiden. Frankfort, H., A. De Buck, and B. Gunn. 1933. The cenotaph of Seti I at Abydos. Memoirs of the Egypt Exploration Society 36. London. Frood, E. 2003. Ritual function and priestly narrative: The stelae of the high priest of Osiris, Nebwawy. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 89: 59–81. ———. 2007. Biographical texts from Ramessid Egypt. Writings from the Ancient World 26. Atlanta. Frost, D. R. 2016. Amphibian species of the world: An online reference. Version 6.0. American Museum of Natural History. . (Last accessed 31 October 2016). Griffiths, J. G. 1980. The origins of Osiris and his cult. Leiden. Harvey, S. P. 1998. The cults of King Ahmose at Abydos. UMI dissertation series, University of Pennsylvania. ———. 2008. Report on Abydos, Ahmose and Tetisheri Project, 2006–2007 season. Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 82: 143–55. Helck, W. 1952. Die Herkunft des Abydischen Osirisrituals. Archiv Orientalni 20: 72–85. Hornung, E. 1999. The ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife, trans. D. Lorton. Ithaca; London. Kemp, B. 1968. The Osiris Temple at Abydos. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 23: 138–55. ———. 1972. Abydos. In Lexikon der Ägyptologie, W. Helck and E. Otto (eds), Vol. I, 28–41. Wiesbaden. ———. 2006. Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a civilization. 2nd ed. London. Kitchen, K. A. 1982. Ramesside inscriptions, historical and biographical, Vol. IV. Oxford. Kockelmann, H. 2011. Mammisi. In UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, J. Dieleman and W. Wendrich (eds). Los Angeles. . Kucharek, A. 2006. Die Prozession des Osiris in Abydos: zur Significanz archäologischer Quellen für die Rekonstruktion eines zentralen Festrituals. In Archäologie und Ritual, J. Mylonopoulos and H. Roeder (eds), 53–64. Vienna. Lacau, P. 1909. Stèles du nouvel empire. Catalogue général du Musée du Caire, Vol. 45. Cairo. Lange, H. O., and H. Schäfer. 1902. Grab und Denksteine des Mittleren Reiches in Museum von Kairo (nos 20001–20399), Vol. I. Berlin.

253

———. 1908. Grab und Denksteine des Mittleren Reiches in Museum von Kairo (nos 20400–20780), Vol. II. Berlin. Lavier, M. C. 1991. Les mystères d’Osiris à Abydos d’après les stèles du Moyen Empire et du Nouvel Empire. In Akten des vierten internationalen Ägyptologen Kongresses, München 1985, S. Schoske (ed.), Vol. III, 289–95. Hamburg. Leahy, A. 1977. The Osiris ‘Bed’ reconsidered. Orientalia 46: 424–34. ———. 1984. The date of Louvre A 93. Göttinger Miszellen 70: 45–58. ———. 1989. A protective measure at Abydos in the Thirteenth Dynasty. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 75: 41–60. Lichtheim, M. 1973. Ancient Egyptian literature, Vol. I. Berkeley. ———. 1976. Ancient Egyptian literature, Vol. II. Berkeley. ———. 1988. Ancient Egyptian autobiographies chiefly of the Middle Kingdom. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 84. Freiburg. Manniche, L. 1991. Music and musicians in ancient Egypt. London. Mariette, A. 1869. Abydos: Description des fouilles, Vol. I. Paris. Repr. 1998, Hildesheim. ———. 1880a. Catalogue général des monuments d’Abydos. Paris. ———. 1880b. Abydos: Description des fouilles, Vol. II. Paris. Repr. 1998, Hildesheim. Moret, A. 1931. La légende d’Osiris à l’époque thébaine d’après l’hymne à Osiris du Louvre. Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 30: 725–50. Müller, V. 2006. Archäologische Relikte kultischer Aktivitäten in Umm el-Qa’ab/Abydos. In Archäologie und Ritual, J. Mylonopoulos and H. Roeder (eds), 37–52. Vienna. Murray, M. 1904. The Osireion at Abydos. Egyptian Research Account 9. London. Naville, E. 1896. The temple of Deir el-Bahari, Part II. Egypt Exploration Fund 14. London. O’Connor, D. B. 1985. The ‘cenotaphs’ of the Middle Kingdom at Abydos. In Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar, P. Posener-Kriéger (ed.), 161–77. Bibliothèque d’étude 97/2. Cairo. ———. 2009. Abydos: Egypt’s first pharaohs and the cult of Osiris. London; New York. Onstine, S. 2005. The role of the chantress (šmꜥyt) in ancient Egypt. BAR International Series 1401. Oxford. Oppenheim, A. 2011. The early life of Pharaoh: Divine birth and adolescence scenes in the causeway of Senwosret III at Dahshur. In Abusir and Saqqara in the year 2010, M. Bárta, F. Coppens and J. Krejci (eds), 171–88. Prague. Otto, E. 1968. Egyptian art and the cults of Osiris and Amon. London.

254

M.-A. POULS WEGNER

Parkinson, R. 1991. Voices from ancient Egypt. An anthology of Middle Kingdom writings. London; Norman, OK. ———. 1999. The Tale of Sinuhe and other ancient Egyptian poems 1940–1640 BC. Oxford. Patch, D. C. 2007. Third Intermediate Period burials of young children at Abydos. In The archaeology and art of ancient Egypt: Essays in honor of David B. O’Connor, Z. Hawass and J. Richards (eds), Vol. II, 237–55. Cairo. Petrie, W. M. F. 1902. Abydos I. Egypt Exploration Fund 22. London. ———. 1903. Abydos II. Egypt Exploration Fund 24. London. ———. 1916. A cemetery portal. Ancient Egypt: 174–80. Porter, B., and R. Moss. 1939. Topographical bibliography of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic texts, reliefs and paintings. Vol. VI. Oxford. Repr. 1991, Oxford. Pouls Wegner, M. A. 2002. The cult of Osiris at Abydos: An archaeological investigation of the development of an Egyptian sacred center during the Eighteenth Dynasty. PhD dissertation. UMI dissertation series, University of Pennsylvania. ———. 2010. The construction accounts from the ‘Portal Temple’ of Ramesses II in North Abydos. In Millions of Jubilees. Studies in honour of David P. Silverman, Z. Hawass and J. Houser Wegner (eds), 557–74. Cairo. ———. 2012. New fieldwork at Abydos: The Toronto Abydos Votive Zone Project. Near Eastern Archaeology 75 (3): 178–84. Pumpenmeier, F. 1998. Ein Gunstgabe von Seiten des Königs: Ein extrasepulkrales Schabtidepot Qen-Amuns in Abydos. Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 19. Heidelberg. Quirke, S. 2001. The cult of Ra: Sun worship in ancient Egypt. London. Redford, D. B. 1986. Pharaonic kinglists, annals and daybooks. Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities Publication IV. Mississauga. ———. 1995. The concept of kingship in the Eighteenth Dynasty. In Ancient Egyptian kingship, D. O’Connor and D. Silverman (eds), 157–84. Leiden. Richards, J. 2002. Time and memory in ancient Egyptian cemeteries. Expedition 44 (3): 16–24. ———. 2010. Honoring the ancestors at Abydos: The Middle Kingdom in the Middle Cemetery. In Millions of jubilees: Studies in honor of David P. Silverman, Z. Hawass and J. Houser Wegner (eds), 603–32. Cairo. ———. 2015. A New Kingdom figurine from the Abydos Middle Cemetery. In Joyful in Thebes: Egyptological studies in honor of Betsy M. Bryan, R. Jasnow and K. Cooney (eds), 387–90. Atlanta. Rickal, E. 2009. Stèle d’Imenmès. In Les Portes du ciel: Visions du monde dans l’Égypte ancienne, M. Etienne (ed.), no. 44. Musée du Louvre, Paris. Robins, G. 1993. Women in ancient Egypt. London; Cambridge, MA.

Schäfer, H. 1904. Die Mysterien des Osiris in Abydos unter König Sesostris III. nach dem Denkstein des Oberschatzmeister Ichernofret im Berliner Museum. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens 4:2. Leipzig. Sheikholeslami, C. 2002. A stele of two women from Abydos (Cairo JE 21797). In Egyptian museum collections around the world: Studies for the centennial of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, M. Eldamaty and M. Trad (eds), 1109–18. Cairo. Silverman, D. P. 1988. The so-called Portal Temple of Ramesses II at Abydos. In Akten des vierten internationalen Ägyptologen Kongresses, München 1985, S. Schoske (ed.), Vol. II, 270–77. Hamburg. Simpson, W. K. 1974. The Terrace of the Great God at Abydos: The offering chapels of Dynasties 12 and 13. Publications of the Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition to Egypt 5. New Haven; Philadelphia. ———. 1995. Inscribed material from the PennsylvaniaYale excavations at Abydos. Publications of the Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition to Egypt 6. New Haven; Philadelphia. Spiegel, J. 1973. Die Götter von Abydos: Studien zum agyptischen Synkretismus. Göttinger Orientforschungen IV/4. Wiesbaden. Stone, A. 1992. From ritual in the landscape to capture in the urban center: The recreating of ritual environments in Mesoamerica. Journal of Ritual Studies 6 (1): 109–32. Végh, Z. 2011. Counting the dead: Some remarks on the Haker festival. In Current research in Egyptology 2009, J. Corbelli, D. Boatright and C. Malleson (eds), 145–56. Oxford. Wegner, J. 1996. The mortuary complex of Senwosret III: A study of Middle Kingdom state activity and the cult of Osiris at Abydos. PhD dissertation. UMI dissertation series, University of Pennsylvania. ———. 2009a. The tomb of Senwosret III at Abydos: Considerations on the origins and development of the royal Amduat-tomb. In Archaism and innovation. Studies on the culture of Middle Kingdom Egypt, D. P. Silverman, W. K. Simpson and J. Wegner (eds), 103–68. New Haven; Philadelphia. ———. 2009b. A decorated birth-brick from South Abydos: New evidence on childbirth and birth magic in the Middle Kingdom. In Archaism and innovation. Studies on the culture of Middle Kingdom Egypt, D. P. Silverman, W. K. Simpson and J. Wegner (eds), 447–96. New Haven; Philadelphia. Wegner, J., A. Damarany, A. Abd el-Razik, A. Okasha, K. Cahail, and J. Houser Wegner. 2015. A new temple: The mahat of Nebhepetre at Abydos. Egyptian Archaeology 46: 3–7. Winlock, H. 1921. Bas-reliefs from the temple of Rameses I at Abydos. New York.

MEMORIAL MONUMENTS AT ABYDOS AND THE ‘TERRACE OF THE GREAT GOD’ Steven SNAPE

Abstract Private stelae of the Middle Kingdom from Abydos constitute one of the most important datasets available to the Egyptologist. They have been used by scholars interested in, for instance, the epigraphy, genealogy and prosopography of the Middle Kingdom. They have been especially useful in the study of interactions between Osirian cult practice at Abydos and the interests of non-royal individuals. The way in which these private individuals operated within the specific topography of the sacred landscape of Abydos is an important subset of such scholarship, and one which will also be explored in this paper. * * * Many museum collections include stelae from Abydos, although few have any significant information regarding their original context or circumstances of removal from the site. Much of the reason for this combination of ubiquity and poor provenance is, of course, the history of their large-scale ‘harvesting’ at Abydos before any serious attempts at recorded excavation there. Some of these circumstances as they relate to the formation (and subsequent dispersal) of some of the great collections of Abydene stelae in the 18th and 19th centuries are explained in Simpson’s Terrace of the Great God (1974). That volume is of fundamental importance in the study of Abydene stelae in that it attempts to link some of these individual artefacts by assigning them to related assemblages, Simpson’s ANOC (Abydos North Offering Chapel) groups. The underlying idea of the ANOC is that its contents were not intended to be displayed as individual, independent objects, but were part of a carefully curated collection of stelae (and other objects, although for our purposes stelae are the main focus of attention), displayed together, in order to provide a greater opportunity for these memorial monuments to reveal different aspects of the activities/identities of individuals represented on them, and to enable those individuals to enjoy the benefits of a permanent presence within the specific sacred landscape of Abydos.

Clearly the elements of the ANOC groups required a physical context which would allow their display to an appropriate audience. The term ANOC indicates some form of ‘chapel’ in which these stelae were originally located, but the specific nature of these ‘chapels’ is not immediately obvious from the internal evidence they provide, although Simpson (1974, 11) notes examples of stelae which refer to the construction of a mꜥḥꜥ.t, in the case of Cairo CG 20733 a mꜥḥꜥ.t made of mud brick. Private mꜥḥꜥ.t -chapels at Abydos A mꜥḥꜥ.t is neither a tomb nor a conventional offering chapel attached to a tomb. The term mꜥḥꜥ.t might be used in contrast to an js (tomb) and owners of a mꜥḥꜥ.t at Abydos are known to own a tomb elsewhere in Egypt; this has given rise to the use of the term ‘cenotaph’ to refer to these structures (O’Connor 1985, 166 & refs cit.). However, a key feature of a mꜥḥꜥ.t at Abydos seems to be its relationship to processional routes (Damarany in this volume). The standard object placed within a mꜥḥꜥ.t is a vertically displayed round- or square-topped limestone stela, but other types of minor monument might be placed here, such as small-scale statuary and horizontally placed offering tables; an example is ANOC 9, which contains the well-known statue and niched stela of Sahathor. A number of small statues, mostly of unknown specific provenance, come from Middle Kingdom Abydos; Garstang excavated several such small statues (see, for example, Fig. 2, which shows just such a small statue of a squatting figure, close to the stela of Bmbw from 310/325 A’07). As far as their location at Abydos is concerned, O’Connor attempted to make a distinction between true tomb-chapels and mꜥḥꜥ.t-chapels or ‘cenotaphs’, commenting that, ‘as far as present knowledge goes, Middle Kingdom “cenotaphs” do not occur in the “North Cemetery”, while tombs do not occur in the “cenotaph” zone on the promontory overlooking the Osiris temple complex’ (O’Connor 1985, 166, n. 9). O’Connor’s conclusions were primarily based on his excavations through the Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition

256

S. SNAPE

to Abydos. This fieldwork project was successful in locating a group of these ‘chapels’ which had been preserved under the later ‘Portal Temple’ of Ramses II, which was built immediately to the west of the Kom el-Sultan, i.e. in a location adjacent to, but outside, the precinct of the Middle Kingdom temple of Osiris. The chapels discovered by the Pennsylvania-Yale team comprise a dense cluster of relatively small mud-brick structures, which were oriented to face eastwards, towards the Osiris Temple. Individual ‘chapels’ varied in size and shape, but each had the basic purpose of displaying its stelae in such a way that they were accessible to the beneficent living making offerings for the stela owner, and allowed the stela owner to take part (especially post-mortem) in festivals connected to the cult of Osiris at Abydos. Evidence for these intentions is provided by information from the stelae themselves, whose textual content refers directly to the provision of offerings (‘Appeal to the Living’) and the beneficial participation in the Osiris cult (the ‘Abydos Formula’: Lichtheim 1988, 55–64). However, it is notable that, even in this zone, few stelae have been found in situ within their chapel; an exception is the stela of Ankhu found by the Pennsylvania-Yale team in 1969 (O’Connor 1969, 33; Simpson 1974, 9). The lack of in situ recovery means that some of the best-known private monuments of the Middle Kingdom from Abydos cannot be placed at the site with any degree of precision at all. An outstanding example here is the extensive group(s) of stelae belonging to Ikhernofret and his family (ANOC 1), whose location, were it known, would undoubtedly illuminate discussions concerning the locations of mꜥḥꜥ.t-chapels and their relationship to the Abydene landscape (especially processional routes) in late Dynasty 12. However, evidence that the cenotaph/tomb-chapel dichotomy might not be so clear cut is provided by Peet’s Cemetery S (Peet 1914, 38–39, fig. 8). This is a cluster of mud-brick chapels very similar in form to those from the ‘Votive Zone’, although Cemetery S —as its name suggests—also contained tomb-shafts associated with these chapels. Also, like the ‘Votive Zone’, these chapels are oriented eastwards to face the Osiris Temple Enclosure. Another aspect of Abydene stelae relevant to the argument of cenotaph/tomb-chapel is the extent to which they include examples which were brought to, or commissioned at, Abydos by those individuals who lived and were buried elsewhere in Egypt. These individuals wished to undertake what was clearly an

important aspect of religious practice in Middle Kingdom Egypt: that of travelling to Abydos in what we might call ‘pilgrimage’. The evidence left by the ‘pilgrims’ themselves at Abydos suggests the presence of the key elements one associates with much Medieval and modern pilgrimage, especially participation in rituals carried out at the site during particular festivals. Mꜥḥꜥ.t-chapels could preserve the memory of the visit to the site by an individual, or their proxy, at the site itself. The extra-Abydene origin of stelae found at the site is an issue which has been examined in depth by Ilin-Tomich (2017), who has concluded that a very high proportion of stelae from the late Middle Kingdom found at Abydos were produced in workshops in a number of key centres (especially Thebes and the Memphite region) and brought to the site. The ‘Terrace of the Great God’ at Abydos and the topography of the North Cemetery Simpson defined the area from which the ANOC came as being: ‘… the Nécropole du Nord of Mariette, specifically the area outside of and abutting on the northern end of the western enclosure wall of the Osiris-Wepwawet precinct … Topographically, the area formed part of or else was adjacent to the rwdw n nṯr ꜥꜢ, “the stairway of the great god”’ (Simpson 1974, 1–2). This statement is not entirely indisputable in its identification of the rwdw n nṯr ꜥꜢ (a term which only appears on private monuments) as being largely congruent with the location of the offering chapels/stelae of the ANOC groups in a tight topographic grouping close to the Osiris Temple (Kom el-Sultan). This is, however, an assumption which has driven much of the debate around the nature and location of the rwdw n nṯr ꜥꜢ, more recently under the term ‘Votive Zone’. Simpson’s identification of this close grouping was to a large degree (as he notes in 1974, 1–2, n. 7) derived from descriptions of the find-spots of Abydene stelae given in the Catalogue général of the Cairo Museum. Only category 21 (‘westliche Nekropole nicht weit von Shûnet el-Zebîb’) appears to be a description of a location in the North Cemetery any distance at all away from the vicinity of the Kom el-Sultan, and this is represented by a single stela (Cairo CG 20518). Simpson (1974, 9) postulates that ‘The high ground overlooking the Osiris temple to its east and the wadi to the south may have been considered the terrace of the great god’. This is not an interpretation which has found universal

MEMORIAL MONUMENTS AT ABYDOS AND THE ‘TERRACE OF THE GREAT GOD’

acceptance. Lichtheim (1988, 129–34) argues that the ‘Terrace’ should be narrowly defined as all or, more probably, part of the Osiris Temple itself, while Kemp (1975, 35) argues for a very much wider definition: ‘The term mꜥḥꜥ.t includes tomb-chapels, and the North Cemetery was within the area called the “staircase” of Osiris.’ The argument put forward in this study is that the latter wider definition fits the evidence better, at least as far as the late Middle Kingdom is concerned. Temporal usage of the North Cemetery It is tempting to see the way that the North Cemetery developed in the Middle Kingdom as a direct function of the rituals of the Osiris cult. By this time the eastern ridge had already been largely abandoned, possibly because it had become too full for further use, although Richards (2010) notes the presence of some Middle Kingdom burials/chapels in the Middle Cemetery, using major late Old Kingdom tombs as localized foci. Probably because of the desire to have one’s tomb/ chapel placed as close as possible to the Osiris culttemple and the processional route to the god’s tomb in the Umm el-Qa‘ab, which probably ran along the Great Wadi, the major focus of activity was moved to the northern side of the Great Wadi. Garstang (1901, 3–4) believed that a rough chronological division could be made between most of the tombs to the east of the Shunet el-Zebib and ‘Middle Fort’, which dated to the Middle Kingdom, and those to the west, which were mainly from the Second Intermediate Period/ New Kingdom (for this patterning see also Ilin-Tomich 2017, 136–41, table 47). However, the North Cemetery does not present a simple pattern of usage over time. During the Middle Kingdom, and probably at other periods, different regions within the area available for interment (and for the construction of chapels without attached burials) had their own hierarchy of desirability with the most favoured positions being those most closely connected with locations within the sacred landscape of North Abydos. A good example of this is provided by Petrie’s (1925) ‘Tombs of the Courtiers’ excavations when he excavated a group of memorial monuments around the remains of the ‘Funerary Enclosures’ of the Early Dynastic period. These include chapels and stelae, located on Fig. 1, belonging to Montuhotep (Fitzwilliam E.9.1922) from ‘a large pit full of ruined brickwork of the tomb, which had been constructed at the N.E. corner of the Zer square’ (Petrie 1925, 10,

257

pls 22–23); Montusahathor (Ashmolean 1922.144), which was ‘let into the face of a little brick mastaba at the S.E. corner of the square of Merneit’ (Petrie 1925, 10, pl. 12,6); Shenu (Petrie Museum, UC 14334) from ‘a wide tomb pit, ravaged and destroyed, in the square of Zet’ (Petrie 1925, 11, pl. 27); Antef and Sentuankh (Hunterian Museum, Glasgow D1992.13) from ‘the ruin of a large pit tomb, 197, in the S.E. of the square of Zet’ (Petrie 1925, 10, pl. 24). The date range of these stelae varies from late Dynasty 11 in the case of Montuhotep (Lichtheim 1988, 68–69; Bourriau 1988, 21–22) to Dynasty 13 in that of Montusahathor (Ilin-Tomich 2017, 183). The Antef/Sentuankh (dating to early Dynasty 12; Franke 2004, 103–4) is the most interesting of these stelae with regard to the question of the extent of the ‘Terrace of the Great God’ in that it refers to itself as st.f m tꜢ ḏsr r rwd n nṯr ꜥꜢ “Its place is in the Sacred Land at/on the Terrace of the Great God”. More recent Pennsylvania-Yale excavations have produced groups of chapels and burials, especially from the wide-ranging investigation of the area around the Shunet el-Zebib by Richards, most notably the chapel and stela of Dedu from close to the Djer enclosure (Richards 2005, esp. 163–64 & refs cit., figs 76–77 and 184–85, fig. 87). Middle Kingdom chapels and burials have also been excavated to the northeast of the main Aha enclosure (not shown on Fig. 1, but immediately adjacent to the north of the Djer enclosure), especially the in situ stela of Nakht, described by Adams (2010, 12–14, fig. 10), and also used by him as the starting point for an important discussion of the way in which that part of the North Cemetery around the Early Dynastic ‘Funerary Enclosures’ became, after a long period when it seems to have been avoided for nonroyal activity, much-used in the Middle Kingdom (see also Richards 2005, 156–57). More specifically, the material excavated by Petrie, Richards and Adams points to significant use in the early Middle Kingdom. Part of the impetus for this may be, as Adams notes (2010, 20), a Middle Kingdom association of the Early Dynastic ‘Funerary Enclosures’ with the presence of the ‘Great God’, that deity being in this context ‘an amalgam of all dead kings’ (Eyre 1987, 22). We have no clear idea exactly how the identity and nature of the monuments of early kings—both the ‘Funerary Enclosures’ and the tombs at the Umm el-Qa‘ab—were understood in the Middle Kingdom, but it is difficult to imagine that the dominating physical presence of the Shunet el-Zebib was irrelevant to the sacred landscape of Abydos during the Middle Kingdom.

258

S. SNAPE

Fig. 1: Map of north Abydos, indicating areas of excavation and individual loci referred to in the text. © Steven Snape.

MEMORIAL MONUMENTS AT ABYDOS AND THE ‘TERRACE OF THE GREAT GOD’

However, as Leahy notes, it is possible to identify the development of Abydos around the identification of the Early Dynastic royal cemetery at the Umm el-Qa‘ab as early as Dynasty 11 (Leahy 1989, 56–57 & refs cit.; Yamamoto 2015, 250) with a particular emphasis in the reign of Senwosret I, which is also identified by Müller (2004), on the basis of seal impressions from the Umm el-Qa‘ab, as the key reign for the restoration/refurbishment of the site as the tomb of Osiris. This royal activity is amply mirrored in private stelae, including many from the reign of Senwosret I, referring to processional activity. Two private stelae from this period, unfortunately without specific provenance, are especially useful in providing an early reference to the ‘Terrace’, its use for burials at this time, and its links to processional activity connected to Wepwawet. The Dynasty 11 stela of Nakhty (Chatsworth 720/12; Lichtheim 1988, 67–68) says: ‘I made this tomb (ỉs pn) at the terrace of the august god in the sacred land of the western horizon, on the ground that gives offerings, the arrival place of every god, so that I might be in the following of Wepwawet … Going to the terrace of the necropolis (ẖrt nṯr) following the god in his strides’. The stela of Intef-Iker (Leiden V3; Simpson 1974, 13), self-dated to year 33 of Senwosret I, says ‘I have come to this tomb (ỉs pn) at the terrace of the august god … I shall see Wepwawet on all his festivals at his footsteps’. The relationship between royal and private activity at Abydos in the Middle Kingdom, from a private monument, is best exemplified by Ikhernofret (Lichtheim 1988, 98–100). His activities in reviving the ‘Osiris Mysteries’ at the behest of Senwosret III provided the context for his own memorial monuments (original location sadly unknown) on which, with neat circularity, he could report his royal mission. Ikhernofret’s work can be seen as part of a major initiative on the part of Senwosret III to develop Abydos, most notably his own memorial monument/tomb in South Abydos. Other stelae from Abydos reflect the activities of other officials engaged in similar royal missions (e.g. Lichtheim 1988, 84–100). Another surge of royal activity at Abydos occurred in Dynasty 13. The most notable evidence for this comes from the ‘Osiris-bed’, installed in the tomb of Djer by a king of Dynasty 13, possibly Khendjer (Leahy 1977; but cf. Ryholt 1997, 217), and a contemporaneous but now very fragmented monolithic ‘shrine’ which probably enclosed it (Effland, Budka and Effland 2010, 30–35). The tomb of Djer had also been provided with a new staircase to the burial chamber,

259

which post-dated the tomb’s catastrophic burning event (of the First Intermediate Period?) which Petrie (1901, 9) believed was associated with the installation of the ‘Osiris-bed’. In addition a set of four boundary stelae was set up, which defined the processional area: one of these has survived, originally the work of Wagaf and later usurped by Neferhotep I (Leahy 1989). It is especially noteworthy that the Wagaf/Neferhotep stela refers specifically and only to Wepwawet, not Osiris, whose role as the spearhead of the procession of Osiris is amply evidenced, including by Ikhernofret. Pouls Wegner (2007) argues that the placement of depictions of Wepwawet on Middle Kingdom stelae at Abydos is strongly influenced by their position within the site’s sacred/processional landscape. The boundary stela, a royal monument, does not refer to the ‘Terrace of the Great God’, but is concerned with protecting the tꜢ ḏsr ‘the Sacred Land’, which Kemp (1975) and Leahy (1989) identify in this context as the Great Wadi, acting as a processional route to the Umm el-Qa‘ab. Excavations in the North Cemetery In order to understand the location of mꜥḥꜥ.t-chapels and stelae within the ‘Terrace of the Great God’, and to identify the extent of the Terrace, it is now necessary to review the evidence concerning the locations of excavations carried out within the North Cemetery. The (very) tentative results of this review are shown on Fig. 1. In the discussion below, cardinal points refer to (local) directions at Abydos (see directional indicators on Fig. 1). Nécropole du Nord Mariette’s Nécropole du Nord included most of the eastern half of the North Cemetery. Mariette (1880, 42, 240) states that it was bordered on the east by the Osiris Temple Enclosure and on the west by the Shunet el-Zebib, while its southern boundary was probably on the ridge of the Great Wadi. The northern limits of the Nécropole du Nord would seem to be roughly half way between the Great Wadi and the village of Deir Sitt Damyana. Peet’s (1914, 30) statement that the southern part of his Cemetery S had been ‘worked sporadically by early excavators’ while the northern portion had, until then, been virtually untouched, suggests that this marks the northern extent of Mariette’s work. The location of the northwest corner of the Nécropole du Nord is something of a problem. Leahy (1975, 255)

260

S. SNAPE

places it on the northeast corner of the Shunet el-Zebib; this may be justified by Amélineau’s illustration of a shallow ridge running from here to the northwest corner of the Kom el-Sultan, which would make a neat boundary for the Nécropole du Nord. Kemp and Merrillees (1980, 286) place the northwest corner of the Nécropole du Nord on the southeast corner of the Shunet el-Zebib—this would seem possible if the northern extent of the Nécropole du Nord was a straight line running from the northwest corner of the Kom elSultan and through Peet’s Cemetery S, and thus hitting the Shunet el-Zebib close to its southeast corner. The position of Peet’s Cemetery S (Peet 1914, xiv, 30–47) can be fixed with some accuracy since it included part of the northern wall of the ‘Funerary Palace’ of Merneith, which was later planned in relation to the other ‘Funerary Enclosures’ (including the Shunet elZebib) by Petrie (1925, pl. XV). Cemetery S covered an area of approximately 40 × 45m (Peet 1914, 30, fig. 8). Another area in the North Cemetery close to the Shunet el-Zebib to be explored by Peet was his Cemetery Y, located not far to the east of the southern half of the Shunet el-Zebib. North and northwest of the Shunet el-Zebib A number of excavations have been carried out which are not directly relevant to the present study and do not appear on Fig. 1. These include Peet’s Cemeteries A (Peet 1914, xiv, 54, 70–72) and G (Peet 1914, xiv, 54), Currelly’s excavations (Ayrton, Currelly and Weigall 1904, 7–8, pl. VIII) and Randall-MacIver’s excavations (Randall-MacIver and Mace 1902, 55), Peet’s Cemeteries K, L, M and N (Peet 1914, xiv, 54) and D (Peet and Loat 1913, 23–28; Peet 1914, xiv, fig. 1). South and southwest of the Shunet el-Zebib Peet excavated in a large, contiguous area consisting of his Cemetery Z (to the south of the southeast corner of the Shunet el-Zebib), Cemetery W (between Cemetery Z and the edge of the Great Wadi), and Cemetery O (lying just to the west of Cemetery Z and south of the Shunet el-Zebib). To the southwest of the Shunet el-Zebib lies Garstang’s Cemetery E. Randall-Maclver and Mace (1902, 63) state that this was an area about 250 yards long, between their Cemetery D and the Shunet el-Zebib. Garstang himself described Cemetery E as ‘a strip of eight or ten acres in area, bounded

on the south by this valley [i.e. the Great Wadi], marked off on the north by the Shuna, and so westward’ (Garstang 1901, 2). Garstang also published a useful plan of the site (1901, pl. 2) but, as Kemp and Merrillees (1980, 287) point out, at least some of the information provided on this plan is wrong. Randall-Maclver and Mace’s Cemetery D is described by its excavators as being in the furthest half away from the Shunet el-Zebib of the 500 yards between it and the edge of the cemetery (Randall-Maclver and Mace 1902, 63), this edge being the most westerly extent of the North Cemetery during the Dynastic/post-Dynastic period and marked with the boundary stela of Neferhotep I. They note (1902, 65) that not one tomb in Cemetery D was found intact and that Mariette and Amélineau worked in the area. Although they may have been mistaken in assigning any of Mariette’s work to this part of the North Cemetery, Amélineau records that he himself worked here (7 on the frontispiece-map of Amélineau 1899). Between Randall-Maclver and Mace’s Cemetery D and Garstang’s Cemetery E, and the ridge of the Great Wadi, were a few small areas which were explored by Peet, his Cemeteries B, C, X and F (Peet 1914, xiv, 61, 73). Possible positions of these are located on Fig. 1, but Kemp and Merrillees (1980, 289) note that considerable caution should be used in relying on the locations of Peet’s cemeteries on his published map. It is worth noting that the sites discussed above have been subject to ‘diagonal stratigraphy’, by which material of one period is reused in a later period in a different part of the cemetery. Stelae can easily be transported around an archaeological landscape, not least because they had the useful attribute of often being readily to hand in ground-level superstructures, and are conveniently shaped slabs of stone with many possible applications, including their use as battering stones by robbers trying to break into stone sarcophagi (Peet 1914, 91) and as coffin-stands (Ayrton, Currelly and Weigall 1904, 50). This point needs to be borne in mind as a caveat against the assumption that find-spot is equivalent (or close to) the place of original deposition, in the discussion which follows. The Garstang Abydos excavations of 1906–09 We now turn to an important set of largely unpublished data; the records of John Garstang’s excavations at Abydos from 1906 to 1909, together with the published material from his earlier (1899) work at the

MEMORIAL MONUMENTS AT ABYDOS AND THE ‘TERRACE OF THE GREAT GOD’

site. An understanding of this material will allow us to cast some light on the location of the ‘Terrace of the Great God’, especially in the late Middle Kingdom. Although the published record (Garstang 1901) suggests that Garstang’s most significant fieldwork at Abydos was the excavation of Cemetery E for Petrie’s Egyptian Research Account in the 1899–1900 season, his most substantial activity at the site was actually the major series of excavations he carried out there between 1906 and 1909 on behalf of the Institute of Archaeology at Liverpool. Garstang advertised that the results of this work would be published as Thousand Tombs of Abydos (Garstang 1913, 107) but no such volume ever appeared and no manuscript of this work (if it ever existed) has survived. Garstang published very little on the Abydos excavations, even in the way of preliminary reports. Exceptions are a brief note in the Egypt Exploration Fund Archaeological Report for 1906–07 in which Garstang mentions his major finds of the 1907 season (Garstang 1907), and a preliminary discussion of the Minoan material from tomb 416 A’07 (Garstang 1913 – more fully published in Kemp and Merrillees 1980). In the absence of Garstang’s own definitive published account, a range of sources needs to be utilized in order to give as full an account as is now possible of the Garstang/Abydos excavations. These sources, as they relate to the 1907 season, are discussed in Kemp and Merrillees (1980, 107–08) with a broader account of sources for the 1906–09 period given in my doctoral thesis (Snape 1986). No plan showing the position of the tombs excavated at Abydos now exists for any of the four seasons Garstang worked there. Also missing are the individual tomb-cards, compiled by Garstang’s assistant Harold Jones and, after May 1907, by Jones’ replacement, Horst Schliephack. At least some of these Abydos tomb-cards were in existence for some time after the excavations since Emery notes that he used the tomb-card for one of the graves (524 A’08) in his publication of the ‘Nubian Graves’ from 1908 (Emery 1923, 34). The only substantive written record of the day-to-day progress of the excavations is provided by Garstang’s field notebooks, now in the archives of Liverpool University. The entries for each tomb and its contents were, for the most part, made by Garstang himself. These notebooks are by no means a complete set; only those for 1906 (1-34 A’06), the second part of 1907 after Garstang had arrived at the site (300-436 A’07), and 1909 (7301130 A’09) have survived.

261

Garstang sent monthly reports to his financial backers, the Abydos Excavations Committee. One member of this committee was Sir Francis Chatillon Danson. His collection of antiquities was passed on to his son, Lieut. Col. J. R. Danson, on whose death in 1976 the collection was bequeathed to what is now the World Museum, Liverpool, together with the Danson family archive. Documents within this archive include the surviving copies of the monthly reports, as well as a set of postcards which Garstang, as a personal friend, sent to Danson. The final significant piece of documentation for the Garstang 1906–09 excavations is the archive of 803 plate-glass Abydos photographic negatives at Liverpool University (these are referred to below using the formula ‘Neg.A.xx’). These photographs are useful in helping to locate the particular areas in which Garstang was working at Abydos, while his photographs of excavated objects are invaluable in identifying objects which are now widely scattered and without their original tomb-numbers. That many of the photographs are of more substantial excavated objects (including stelae, e.g. Neg.A.125 = Fig. 3) is fortunate for, as Kemp and Merrillees (1980, 108) point out, these were likely to be the ones which were distributed to the individual members of the Abydos Excavations Committee and subsequently dispersed further afield. The concession granted to Garstang was ‘in the necropolis of Abydos within a radius of half a kilometre around the Shunet el-Zebib’ (Kemp and Merrillees 1980, 105). As has already been noted, Garstang had previously excavated at Abydos in 1899–1900 in Cemetery E, on the southern fringe of the North Cemetery. The quality of material he had excavated then presumably attracted him back to this productive site, and the places at which he first renewed his activities at Abydos were unexcavated portions of Cemetery E. The plan of Cemetery E published by Garstang (1901, pl. II), shows an area on the edge of the Great Wadi which is marked ‘not completely excavated here’. The entries for the first few tombs in the 1906 excavation notebook also indicate that the first 1906 soundings were in this area, while the Liverpool University copy of El-Arábah has pencil annotations, in Garstang’s hand, which locate tombs 6 A’06 and 7 A’06 immediately to the west of E.39, and 17 A’06 in the centre of Cemetery E, not far to the northeast of E.330. Garstang did not confine his activities in 1906 entirely to within, or in close proximity to, the area of Cemetery E, but dug much further afield—15 A’06 and 20 A’06 were

262

S. SNAPE

both to the east of the Shunet el-Zebib, while 34 A’06 was found to the west of it. Notebook entries state the location of some of these loci, including: 1 A’06 (‘About 50m south of the Shuna’); 2 A’06 (‘110m true south of the Shuna’); 3 A’06 (‘north of the valley on the ridge’); 4 A’06 (‘on the north side of the valley’); 24 A’06 (‘At the western end of the old ‘E’ cemetery, to the west of 301’ [i.e. E.301 in Cemetery E]); and 25 A’06 (‘In the western end of the ‘E’ cemetery, south-west of tomb 301’). Excavations for 1907 began in a Graeco-Roman necropolis (not shown on Fig. 1) in the western part of the Great Wadi, followed by his ‘having a turn at the outskirts of the XI–XIIth Dynasty Necropolis’ (Report of 8 February 1907), that is to say, close to Cemetery E again. Garstang described this area as ‘the limit of a plateau raised about 6 metres above the level of the valley leading to the tombs of the Kings’ (Report of 7 March 1907). In his description of 416 A’07, Garstang mentions that the work of Spring 1907 was ‘occupied chiefly with the excavation of a portion of the great

necropolis of Abydos lying immediately to the northwest of [the Great Wadi]’ (Garstang 1913, 107). Photographic support for these statements is found in Neg.A.122, which shows the group 308 A’07 to 310 A’07 (see Fig. 2) on the top of the slope at the southern edge of the Northern Cemetery, just west of a line along the main axis of Garstang’s dig house. The approximate area covered by these 1907 excavations is shown on Fig. 1 (see also Kemp and Merrillees 1980, 106, fig. 36,3b). In early March Garstang reported that ‘we have been going on steadily with the work of clearing away the mounds of sand that fringe the XII Dynasty Necropolis’ (postcard to Danson, 8 March 1907). He seems to have been working from east to west, since he refers to his first trenches as being among ‘the early tombs’ of the ‘XI–XIIth Dynasty Necropolis’ (postcard to Danson, 16 February 1907) while later he was moving ‘well into the XIIth Dynasty portion’ (postcard to Danson, 8 March 1907). By the middle of February, 321 A’07 had been cleared (postcard to Danson,

Fig. 2: View, looking southwest over locus 310 A’07 towards Garstang’s excavation house. Note the stela of Bmbw from 325 A’07 in the right foreground (Neg.A.122). Photo © Garstang Museum of Archaeology, University of Liverpool, reproduced with kind permission.

MEMORIAL MONUMENTS AT ABYDOS AND THE ‘TERRACE OF THE GREAT GOD’

16 February 1907). Considerable progress was made during March and April (Report of 27 April 1907) before excavation was halted in the second week of April 1907. Just before digging stopped, tomb 416 A’07 was discovered and cleared (Kemp and Merrillees 1980). A series of loci from the 1907 season produced stelae, or fragments of them, associated with structures which may be mꜥḥꜥ.t-chapels. Reported in Garstang’s 1907 notebook, these include: 300 A’07 (‘Much broken mastaba with only S wall complete. Broken stele found in redeem [i.e. loose fill] to E’); 302 A’07 (‘Very much broken mastaba with kiosk to the N. S and E walls of kiosk complete, with fragment of the West. Behind the west wall, to the west and lower down, a shrine facing E’); 303 A’07 (‘Mastaba with surrounding walls almost entirely gone. Fragments of northern, eastern and southern walls’); 305 A’07 (‘W and S walls of kiosk with trace of plaster. In W wall to S a square projection 2m. by 1m. about, with oblong shrine’); 322 A’07 (‘Mastaba with 3 false doors in E wall’); 330 A’07 (‘Near to 330 to north, fragment of limestone stela’); 351 A’07 (‘Stone stele near 351’); 360 A’07 (‘Fragment of stele’); 383 A’07 (‘Fragment of stele found in redeem over 383’); 408 A’07 (‘Fragment of limestone stele’); 409 A’07 (‘3 fragms of limestone stelae’); 410 A’07 (‘Limestone stele with figures’); 414 A’07 (‘fragments of inscribed stele’); 415 A’07 (‘Small limestone stele’); and 429 A’07 (‘Broken limestone stele, ?XII dyn’). As Marée (2010, 245–66, n. 23) notes, there is significant confusion regarding the number, original find-spot and current location of stelae from the 1906 season, as is also the case with 1907. Also, it must be emphasized that a full exploration of this material is not being attempted here. However, some of the loci from 1906 and 1907 are especially relevant to the current discussion and deserve further comment. 6 A’06

It is unclear precisely how many inscribed stone monuments came from this locus, but they include the central panel of the chapel (Mer.16.11.13) framed by two jambs (Snape 1986, pl. 4) and a separate roundtopped stela. They are inscribed for the ‘royal sealbearer and overseer of an estate division’, ḫtmty-bỉty ỉmy-r gs pr, Khonsu. This rather elaborate assemblage has been dated to the reigns of Neferhotep I–Sobekhotep IV (Franke 2004, 109–10).

263

301 A’07 + 328 A’07

‘deep tomb. mastaba to E …. Good small stele – broken in two’. The stela (Glasgow City Museum ’23-33ad; Fig. 3 [left]) is inscribed for the ‘steward, counter of cattle’, ỉmy-r pr ḥsb ỉḥw, Sobekhotep, dated by Franke (2004, 109–10) to the first half of Dynasty 13. This stela is especially interesting in that it is a good example of a stela associated with a burial showing signs of being ‘used’ for some time by repeated rubbing of the figure of Min (Kemp and Merrillees 1980, 234–36). 304/360 A’07

‘Two parallel walls 3 ft. below surface running N and S, about a metre apart. E wall slopes outwards cut out of the about 2 ft down. Part of stela with middle, found in redeem 6 ft. below surface to SE’. This is the well-known stela of Amenysonb (Liv.E.30: Kitchen 1961; Bourriau 1988, 60–63; Baines 2009; Yamamoto 2015, 268–69) which can be firmly dated to the reign of Khendjer. A further fragment of the stela was found at locus 360 A’07. This is one of three stelae attributed to ANOC 58 (see below). 310 A’07

‘Large hôsh complete. Entrance at E. 3ft below surface’ (cf. Fig. 2, where it appears that the entrance is in fact in the southern wall). The term hôsh is used by Garstang to designate a mud-brick enclosure or courtyard, perhaps similar to the courtyards marking the limits of some of the chapels in the ‘Votive Zone’ (see O’Connor 1985, 176, fig. 6). Close by is: 325 A’07

‘Stele in redeem. 1ft. Below surface’. The stela (BM EA 1562; Simpson 1974, 22, pl. 65 = ANOC 65.1) is inscribed for the ‘great one of 30 of Upper Egypt, district councillor of Abydos’, wr mḏ šmꜥw ḳnbty n W n Ꜣbḏw, Bmbw and can be dated to Dynasty 13 (Franke 1984, 165). Fig. 2 shows 310/325 A’07 as being close to the southern edge of the North Cemetery with Garstang’s dig house in the background, giving an indication of how far west along that ridge it was. 316 A’07

‘Square enclosure lying NNE. SEE. SSW. NNW. Stele XVIIth? Found 7 ft from NE corner face down.’ The

264

S. SNAPE

Fig. 3: Stela of Sobekhotep from 328 A’07 (left), and that of Nakhti-ankh (right) (Neg.A.125). Photo © Garstang Museum of Archaeology, University of Liverpool, reproduced with kind permission.

stela (Dublin 1920.273; Fig. 3 [right]) is inscribed for the sꜢw rwdw n Wsỉr Nakhti-ankh, dated by Ilin-Tomich (2017, 225) to the Second Intermediate Period. It is especially noteworthy that this individual bears a title related to the policing of the ‘Terrace’ – might this suggest that 316 A’07 is itself located on the ‘Terrace’?

368 A’07

‘Large part of XII Dyn stele’. The stela (Coll. J. H. Fisher, Detroit) is inscribed for the ‘Governor of Upper Egypt’, ỉmy-r šmꜥw, Amen-Wosret and can be dated to the reign of Amenemhat III (Simpson 1965; 1966; Kemp and Merrillees 1980, 109).

321 A’07

See fuller description below in next section, under ANOC 19. 361 A’07

‘Small limestone stele coloured. XII’. The stela (Mer.1977.109.36: Bienkowski and Southworth 1986, p1. 1) is inscribed for the untitled Sekher and is dated by Ilin-Tomich (2017, 240) and Marée (2010, 246[x], pl. 77) to the Second Intermediate Period.

Locating the ANOCs As noted above, the vast majority of the stelae assigned to Simpson’s ANOC groups cannot be placed in specific parts of North Abydos. However, there are some exceptions where some stelae which have been included within the ANOC groups, or indeed constitute all the stelae in an ANOC group, were excavated in locations which can, to some extent, be identified. Most of these examples come from the work of Garstang and

MEMORIAL MONUMENTS AT ABYDOS AND THE ‘TERRACE OF THE GREAT GOD’

Peet in the southwestern part of the North Cemetery, and the evidence they contain is telling. The groups in question are ANOC 19, 46, 47, 56, 58, 65, 69 and 70, which will be discussed below in numerical order, apart from ANOC 19, which requires special consideration. ANOC 46

Of the four items from this group, three (a stela, stela fragment and statue-base) come from Peet’s Cemetery X—specifically X.58 (Peet 1914, pl. 15,1–3; pl. 23.5; Peet and Loat 1913, fig. 18). The group belongs to Nebankh, a known official of Sobekhotep IV (Franke 2004, 100). Although, as noted above, caution is needed when utilizing Peet’s site plan, it seems reasonable to conclude that Cemetery X was close to the southern edge of the North Cemetery, somewhere in the vicinity of the area between Garstang’s Cemetery E and Randall-MacIver and Mace’s Cemetery D.

265

two Louvre stelae specifically refer to the ‘mission’ element of Amenysonb’s presence at Abydos as being involved with the renewal of temple-building which had originally carried out under Senwosret I. The stela group is dated to the reign of Khendjer. Lichtheim (1988, 80) believed that the two larger Louvre stelae were made to be placed in the ‘immediate vicinity of the temple’ of Osiris, while the smaller, ‘more coarsely done’ Liverpool stela was made for Amenysonb’s tomb. But perhaps the most relevant point here is the distinctly ‘architectural’ nature of the Liverpool stela which, with its ankh-shaped central hole and doublesided inscription, seems certain to have been made for a serdab-like chapel (not discussed more fully here, but see Hill 2010 and note that one of the other five ankh-stelae discussed by her comes from ANOC 47). It is also worth noting that, in respect of location and function of this group, Louvre C.11 specifically refers to ‘praising Wepwawet at his procession’.

ANOC 47

ANOC 65

Two stelae, one from Peet’s Cemetery W (Peet and Loat 1913, pl. 13.4) and the other from Garstang’s Cemetery E (Garstang 1901, pl. 4.3). They belong to Pepi, son of Sehetepib, dated to late Dynasty 12 or Dynasty 13 (Franke 1984, 166). If found close to their original locations, then an overlap (or at least reasonably close proximity) between these two cemeteries seems possible, although this is not reflected in Fig. 1. Unfortunately, the locus given by Garstang (E.238) does not appear on his site plan (although there are two E.237s).

Four stelae dating to Dynasty 13, three of unknown origin but one, BM EA 1562, excavated by Garstang from 310/325 A’07 (see above and Fig. 2). ANOC 69

Two stelae from E.295 in Garstang’s Cemetery E (Garstang 1901, pl. 6; Simpson 1974, 20, pl. 77). They belong to Amenemhat-Nebwy and are dated to late Dynasty 12 or Dynasty 13 (Franke 1984, 85; IlinTomich 2017, 230). This locus is described by Garstang as ‘limestone steles from a disturbed mastaba of the XIth dynasty, surrounded by XVIIIth dynasty tombs’ (Garstang 1901, 6).

Two stelae belonging to the well-known soldier Sobek-khu (Manchester 3306 and BM EA 1213; Baines 1987 & refs cit.), who was active during the reign of Senwosret III (and probably Amenemhat III). The find-spot of the BM stela is not known, but that of the former is E.11 in Garstang’s Cemetery E (Garstang 1901, 6). The Manchester stela was found displaced, but if it was originally set up close to E.11 (as suggested on Fig. 1) it is especially noteworthy since the stela specifically refers to itself as coming from a mꜥḥꜥ.t which was set up on the ‘Terrace of the Great God’. Simpson noted (1974, 11) that this stela is one of those which refer to themselves as being constructed on/at the ‘Terrace of the Great God’, although the specific location of Cemetery E, some distance away from the main ‘Votive Zone’, is not remarked on.

ANOC 58

ANOC 70

Three stelae make up what is one of the more notable ANOC groups. Two are from an unknown location at Abydos (Louvre C11–12), while the third is of two fragments, from 304/360 A’07 (see above). The

Mastaba H in Peet’s Cemetery S produced a group of stone objects—two door jambs, an offering table and the lower part of an in situ stela belonging to Iww (no title surviving) (Peet 1914, pl. 6.3).

ANOC 56

266

S. SNAPE

Fig. 4: View looking southeast over the western side of 321 A’07, including the in situ stela 321 A’07(a) and miniature sarcophagus 321 A’07(e) (Neg.A.134). Photo © Garstang Museum of Archaeology, University of Liverpool, reproduced with kind permission.

ANOC 19 and 321 A’07

321 A’07 is, after 416 A’07, the single most productive single locus from Garstang’s 1907 season. It dates to Dynasty 13 (see Franke 1984, 217). A series of contemporary photographs shows the progress of its excavation, the most informative being Neg.A.134, already published by Bourriau (1988, 40) and Wegner (2010a, 367), and reproduced here as Fig. 4. A fuller picture of the structure of 321 A’07 becomes clearer by looking at Negs.A.129 and 131 (Figs 5 and 6) and the plan sketched by Garstang in his 1906 notebook (reproduced here as Fig. 7), which helpfully gives an indication of north. This memorial monument consists of a solid block of mud brick sitting on a platform also made of mud brick. It appears that the whole was covered in mud plaster and whitewashed. Towards the top of this ‘tower’ four niches were formed from the brickwork, designed to contain stelae, one on each face. The upper

part of the block, including the tops of all four niches, has been badly eroded. The block is a tight fit within a mud-brick enclosure wall, which appears to be one of the hôsh courtyards referred to by Garstang. At the southern edge Cemetery E Garstang shows an un-numbered feature (see Fig. 1) which appears to be a square enclosure containing a shaft and, notably, a shaded solid oblong with what appear to be four niches, one on each face. It is unlikely that this un-numbered feature was 321 A’07, although its location would fit well with what we can deduce about the latter’s location. If this feature was 321 A’07 then it needs to be explained why Garstang did not excavate this feature in 1899 if he had located it, since the amount of clearance required to see the four niches would also have revealed the in situ 321 A’07(a). What this might indicate, however, is the presence of other four-sided niched chapels similar to 321 A’07 in this part of the cemetery.

MEMORIAL MONUMENTS AT ABYDOS AND THE ‘TERRACE OF THE GREAT GOD’

267

Fig. 5: View looking west over the eastern side of 321 A’07, showing stelas 321 A’07 (b)–(d). The kneeling figure to the right is Harold Jones (Neg.A.129). Photo © Garstang Museum of Archaeology, University of Liverpool, reproduced with kind permission.

It is striking that both the photographs and notebook sketch indicate that 321 A’07 was part of a larger group of connected structures, the most important being the rather larger 326 A’07, a corner of which is shown in Garstang’s sketch. Unfortunately, Garstang’s notebook has nothing at all to say about 326 A’07. His descriptions of the objects recovered from 321 A’07 follow: ‘a / Fine stela. 3 rows of figures and inscription between. In niche facing west’. This is Bolton Museum 10.20/11, Simpson’s ANOC 19.4 (see also Bourriau 1988, 54, 65); measuring 51 × 33cm, it was found in situ within its niche. It belongs to the family of the ṯꜢw n sꜢtw, ‘bearer of documents of lands’, Iy. ‘b / Unpainted stela, four rows of figures, lying face up, Heads to the south of wall. Nail ? through top left corner’. Neg.A.129 shows this stela adjacent to the southern niche b on Garstang’s sketch plan. This stela is Cairo CG 20803 (= JdE 39069), Simpson’s ANOC 19.5 (for illustration see also Baligh 2008). Measuring

37 × 25cm, it is slightly smaller than 321 A’07(a), but clearly capable of fitting within the niches of 321 A’07, and it too depicts the family of the ṯꜢw n sꜢtw Iy. Facing this niche is what appears to be a gap in the enclosure wall, formed by an arch of mud brick, later filled in (shown in Figs 5 and 6). This looks similar to ‘loopholes’ in the northern walls of other chapels at Abydos (Adams 2010, 9–11; Peet 1914, 36–37) which Adams suggests allowed the ‘sweet breath of the north wind’ to enter the chapel (Adams 2010, 16). Stela 321 A’07(b) is inscribed with a ḥtp dỉ nsw formula to Min, and refers to the god’s ‘going forth’ (m prt.f). ‘c / Stela, upper part worn away. Inscribed in hieroglyphs, 2 figures. Found in redeem to north of 321, 5 ft. below surface’. This stela, Garstang Museum E.31, is shown in Neg. A.129. Note that Garstang states that this stela was also not found within one of the niches of 321 A’07, but in giving it the designation 321c he clearly identified it with the nearby niche c on

S. SNAPE

268

Fig. 6: View looking west over the eastern side of 321 A’07, at a later stage of excavation than Fig. 5 (Neg.A.131). Photo © Garstang Museum of Archaeology, University of Liverpool, reproduced with kind permission.

his sketch plan. Its dimensions (45 × 21cm) make this likely. Garstang’s notebook does not refer to any stela from niche d, but Neg.A.129 shows a stela in a position which suggest that it had been originally placed in that niche. The current whereabouts of stela d are unknown. The contents of these stelae c and d are currently being prepared for publication by my colleagues Nicky Nielsen and Huw Twiston Davies, and I am grateful for their information that both stelae can be attributed to the family of Iy. Thus, all four niches of the block in 321 A’07 seem to have been filled with stelae belonging to the Iy family. This is worth emphasizing, as there are three other stelae connected to ANOC 19 which need to be considered. ANOC 19.3 (Manchester Museum 2963)

This stela was excavated by Garstang (Garstang 1901, 9, 35, 46, pl. XII) at the locus E.330 in Cemetery

E. On Garstang’s plan of Cemetery E, locus E.330 is drawn as a solid, shaded square with what appears to be a shaft adjacent to it (see Fig. 1), but Garstang notes that the stela was not found in situ. It is inscribed for the ỉdnw n ỉmy-r ḫtm, ‘deputy treasurer’, Netjeruraw and of a similar size (47.4 × 28.8cm) to the stelae from the niches in 321 A’07. If one were trying to find a home for the Netjeruraw stela, the solid block of plastered mud brick in the courtyard west of the 321 A’07 ‘tower’ has what appears to be a (now-broken) round-topped niche facing into that courtyard (see Fig. 4), albeit at a lower height than 321 A’07, but this is speculation. ANOC 19.1 (Cairo CG 20087) and 19.2 (Cairo CG 20100)

These stelae belong to the ḫtmty-bỉty ỉmy-r pr wr, ‘royal seal-bearer and high steward’, AmenemhatsenebNemtyemweskhet. The two stelae are similar in their dimensions (83 × 48cm and 82 × 48.5cm) and much larger than the 321 A’07 stelae. The Garstang

MEMORIAL MONUMENTS AT ABYDOS AND THE ‘TERRACE OF THE GREAT GOD’

Fig. 7: Garstang’s notebook entry for 321 A’07, with transcription. Photo © Garstang Museum of Archaeology, University of Liverpool, reproduced with kind permission.

269

270

S. SNAPE

photographs of 321 A’07 do not indicate any obvious place where they could have been set up; indeed CG 20100 is described in the Cairo Catalogue Général as coming from the nördliche Nekropolen, nordöstliche Zone, which is not a good description of Garstang’s Cemetery E nor his work of 1907. Both stelae include depictions of minor figures bearing titles of inferior status to that of Amenemhatseneb-Nemtyemweskhet; Cairo CG 20087 includes the ṯꜢw n sꜢtw Iy, while Cairo CG 20100 includes the ỉdnw n mr sḏꜢt Netjeruraw. Simpson (1974, 23) noted the possible connection of the individuals from ANOC 19 with Qau/the 10th Upper Egyptian (Tjebite) nome, on the basis of their names. Wegner (2010b) goes further in describing the presence of a significant cohort of officials with Tjebite origins in the administration of the town of Wah-Sut, including sealings found there belonging to Netjeruraw and Iy. Wah-Sut was founded to serve the memorial monument/tomb of Senwosret III at Abydos. Therefore, these three officials might have been both ‘local’ to Abydos (they worked there) but also ‘unlocal’ in that their family connections were elsewhere (Qau). Which of these two locations would have been most appropriate for their burial is not clear, but they were, self-evidently, able to create memorial monuments in a location which seems to have become very desirable real estate by Dynasty 13. At this point, although the three men are connected through the appearance of the two junior officials on stelae belonging to the senior (perhaps an extension of a power relationship which existed when the stelae were produced), there seems to be no reason to believe that ANOC 19 is a single structure which housed the stelae of all three men. It is clear that the four-niched block in 321 A’07 was completely filled with four stelae belonging to Iy and, while one might speculate about the original location of the stela of Netjeruraw, there is no reason to physically connect the two Amenemhatseneb-Nemtyemweskhet stelae to 321 A’07. However, there is one final significant object excavated by Garstang at 321 A’07, 321 A’07(e). This is a limestone miniature sarcophagus, containing a wooden coffin, containing a mummiform figure inscribed for Amenemhatseneb-Nemtyemweskhet (Wegner 2010a, 367–71). This object (see Fig. 4) appears to have been buried below the floor level of the courtyard on the western side of 321 A’07. The Garstang sketch plan (see Fig. 7) indicates a complex history of building and rebuilding to the south and west of 321 A’07, which is now difficult to resolve. However, it is difficult to believe that the miniature sarcophagus of

Amenemhatseneb-Nemtyemweskhet was originally buried anywhere other than at his own memorial monument, since this part of the North Cemetery was not one of the parts of the Abydos landscape—like ‘Heqareshu Hill’ near the Umm el-Qa‘ab—which was used for the deposition of extrasepulchral shabtis (Wegner 2010a, 366). If the miniature sarcophagus was found by Garstang where it was originally deposited, that might strengthen the case that 326 A’07, much larger than 321 A’07, had been the mꜥḥꜥ.t-chapel belonging to AmenemhatsenebNemtyemweskhet. If this were the case, then it would appear that Iy’s memorial monument had a subsidiary relationship to that of Amenemhatseneb-Nemtyemweskhet, as the two men had in their official roles at Wah-Sut. Whatever the case, it is worth noting that Garstang does not record any actual burial associated with the (admittedly partially preserved) 321/326 A’07 structures, suggesting that they represent a substantial complex of non-funerary mꜥḥꜥ.t-chapels in the southwest of the North Cemetery during Dynasty 13. Cultic participation on Abydene stelae of Dynasty 13 A final level of connectedness in this discussion for some of the stelae described above comes from Franke’s 2004 study of a group of Abydene stelae whose distinguishing feature is that they are ‘inscribed with hymns or solemn invocations of a god’ or similar texts (Franke 2004, 95). Franke linked these stelae to individuals who had seen or participated in the ‘Osiris Mysteries’, with the hymns on the stelae recording a version of the hymns they had heard/recited at these festivals. The overwhelming majority of these stelae can be dated to early Dynasty 13 (Franke 2004, 95), that is to say broadly contemporary with an important phase of royal activity at Abydos associated with the ‘Osiris Mysteries’, most notably the work in the tomb of Djer, the Neferhotep boundary stela, and another stela of Neferhotep I (Leahy 1989, 59, n. 79 & refs cit.) commemorating a visit to Abydos by that king to participate in the ‘Osiris Mysteries’. One question which Franke did not address is the issue of the actual original locations of these stelae and the extent to which those locations can be related to contemporary processional routes around which they might have clustered. Relevant stelae whose locations are known (see Fig. 1) with their dates, are: ANOC 46 (Sobekhotep IV); ANOC 65 (Dynasty 13); Tomb 14 in Cemetery D (dated to second half of Dynasty 13 by

MEMORIAL MONUMENTS AT ABYDOS AND THE ‘TERRACE OF THE GREAT GOD’

Franke 2004, 98–99); Antef from Petrie’s ‘Tombs of the Courtiers’ (early Dynasty 12); 6 A’06 (reigns of Neferhotep I–Sobekhotep IV); and 328 A’06 (first half of Dynasty 13). This is, admittedly, a relatively small sample, but it might be noted that, apart from that of Antef, all the above stelae date to Dynasty 13 and all can be assigned to the western half of the northern side of the Great Wadi. In conclusion This study has argued that the southwestern part of the North Cemetery can be regarded as being part of

Bibliography Adams, M. D. 2010. The stela of Nakht, son of Nemty: Contextualizing object and individual in the funerary landscape at Abydos. In Millions of jubilees: Studies in honor of David P. Silverman, Z. Hawass and J. Wegner (eds), 1–25. Cairo. Amélineau, E. C. 1899. Les nouvelles fouilles d’Abydos 1895–96. Paris. Ayrton, E. R., C. T. Currelly, and A. E. P. Weigall. 1904. Abydos Part III. London. Baines, J. 1987. The stela of Khusobek: Private and royal military narrative and values. In Form und Mass: Beiträge zur Literatur, Sprache und Kunst des alten Ägypten: Festschrift für Gerhard Fecht, J. Osing and G. Dreyer (eds), 43–61. Wiesbaden. ———. 2009. The stelae of Amenisonbe from Abydos and Middle Kingdom display of personal religion. In Sitting beside Lepsius: Studies in honour of Jaromir Malek, D. Magee, J. Bourriau and S. Quirke (eds), 1–22. Leuven. Baligh, R. 2008. Three Middle Kingdom stelae from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 44: 169–84. Bienkowski, P., and E. Southworth. 1986. Egyptian antiquities in the Liverpool Museum. Warminster. Bourriau, J. 1988. Pharaohs and mortals: Egyptian art in the Middle Kingdom. Cambridge. Effland, U., J. Budka, and A. Effland. 2010. Studien zum Osiriskult in Umm el-Qa‘ab/Abydos – Ein Vorbereicht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteiling Kairo 66: 19–91. Emery, W. B. 1923. Two Nubian graves of the Middle Kingdom at Abydos. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 10: 33–35.

271

the ‘Terrace of the Great God’ by Dynasty 13 at the latest. Although this part of the North Cemetery may well have seen some memorial monuments constructed during Dynasty 12, it was in Dynasty 13 that it became densely filled with such monuments—with or without associated burials. It is likely that the development of this part of the North Cemetery was, in part, a response to a surge in royal activity (both in building work and cultic performance) at Abydos under some Dynasty 13 kings, comparable to similar bursts of activity in late Dynasty 11/early Dynasty 12 and during the reign of Senwosret III.

Eyre, C. J. 1987. Work and the organisation of work in the Old Kingdom. In Labor in the ancient Near East, M. A. Powell (ed.), 5–47. New Haven. Franke, D. 1984. Personendaten aus dem Mittleren Reich. Wiesbaden. ———. 2004. Middle Kingdom hymns and other sundry religious texts – an inventory. In Egypt – Temple of the whole world. Studies in honour of Jan Assmann, S. Meyer (ed.), 95–135. Leiden. Garstang, J. 1901. El Arábah. Egyptian Research Account 6. London. ———. 1907. Postscript. Archaeological Report (Egypt Exploration Fund), 1906–1907: 79. ———. 1913. Note on a vase of Minoan fabric from Abydos (Egypt). Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 5: 107–11. Hill, J. A. 2010. Window between worlds: The ankh as a dominant theme in five Middle Kingdom monuments. In Millions of jubilees: Studies in honor of David P. Silverman, Z. Hawass and J. Wegner (eds), 227–47. Cairo. Ilin-Tomich, A. 2017. From workshop to sanctuary: The production of late Middle Kingdom memorial stelae. London. Kemp, B. J. 1975. Abydos. Lexikon der Agyptologie I: 28–41. Kemp, B. J., and R. S. Merrillees. 1980. Minoan pottery in second millennium Egypt. Mainz am Rhein. Kitchen, K. A. 1961. An unusual stela from Abydos. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 47: 10–18. Leahy, A. 1975. The Late Period in the Thinite nome. PhD thesis. Cambridge. ———. 1977. The Osiris ‘bed’ reconsidered. Orientalia 46: 424–34.

272

S. SNAPE

———. 1989. A protective measure at Abydos in the Thirteenth Dynasty. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 75: 41–60. Lichtheim, M. 1988. Ancient Egyptian autobiographies chiefly of the Middle Kingdom. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 84. Freiburg; Göttingen. Marée, M. 2010. A sculpture workshop at Abydos from the late Sixteenth to early Seventeenth Dynasty. In The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth–Seventeenth Dynasties): Current research, future prospects, M. Marée (ed.), 241–81. Leuven. Mariette, A. 1880. Abydos I. Paris. Müller, V. 2004. The chronological implication of seal impressions: Further evidence for cultic activities in the Middle Kingdom in the Early Dynastic royal necropolis at Umm el-Qa‘ab/Abydos. In Scarabs of the second millennium BC from Egypt, Nubia, Crete and the Levant: Chronological and historical implications, M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds), 140–59. Vienna. O’Connor, D. 1969. Abydos and the University Museum: 1898–1969. Expedition 12 (1): 28–39. ———. 1985. The cenotaphs of the Middle Kingdom at Abydos. In Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar, P. PosenerKrieger (ed.), 162–77. Cairo. Peet, T. E. 1914. The cemeteries of Abydos II. London. Peet, T. E., and W. Loat. 1913. The cemeteries of Abydos III. London. Petrie, W. M. F. 1901. The royal tombs of the earliest dynasties II. London. ———. 1925. Tombs of the courtiers and Oxyrhynkhos. London. Pouls Wegner, M.-A. 2007. Wepwawet in context: A reconsideration of the jackal deity and its role in the spatial organization of the North Abydos landscape. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 43: 139–50.

Randall MacIver, D., and A. Mace. 1902. El Amrah and Abydos. London. Richards, J. 2005. Society and death: Mortuary landscapes of the Middle Kingdom. Cambridge. ———. 2010. Honoring the ancestors at Abydos: The Middle Kingdom in the Middle Cemetery. In Millions of jubilees: Studies in honor of David P. Silverman, Z. Hawass and J. Wegner (eds), 137–66. Cairo. Ryholt, K. 1997. The political situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, c. 1800–1550 BC. Copenhagen. Simpson, W. K. 1965. The stela of Amun-Wosre, governor of Upper Egypt in the reign of Ammenemes I or II. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 51: 63–68. ———. 1966. Provenance and date of the stela of Amunwosre. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 52: 174. ———. 1974. The Terrace of the Great God at Abydos: The offering chapels of Dynasties 12 and 13. Publications of the Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition to Egypt 5. New Haven. Snape, S. 1986. Mortuary assemblages from Abydos. PhD thesis. Liverpool. Wegner, J. 2010a. A group of miniature royal sarcophagi from South Abydos. In Millions of jubilees: Studies in honor of David P. Silverman, Z. Hawass and J. Wegner (eds), 351–77. Cairo. ———. 2010b. External connections of the community of Wah-Sut during the late Middle Kingdom. In Perspectives on ancient Egypt: Studies in honor of Edward Brovarski, Z. Hawass, P. Der Manuelian, and R. B. Hussein (eds), 437–58. Cairo. Yamamoto, K. 2015. Abydos and Osiris: The Terrace of the Great God. In Ancient Egypt transformed: The Middle Kingdom, A. Oppenheim, Di. Arnold, Do. Arnold, and K. Yamamoto (eds), 250–69. New York.

OBJECTS FROM ABYDOS IN EARLY 19TH-CENTURY BRITISH COLLECTIONS: REDISCOVERING ‘LOST’ PROVENANCE AND CONTEXT John H. TAYLOR

Abstract The unregulated digging at Abydos in the years 1815–35, driven mainly by the collecting activities of European diplomats, brought to light thousands of antiquities but caused immense damage to crucial parts of the site. The lack of accurate recording of the discoveries, and the rapid dispersal of the objects to collections throughout the world, has made it still harder to understand what was originally found. Museological studies, notably William Kelly Simpson’s pioneering work on the offering chapels of the Middle Kingdom, have recovered important contextual information, and the scope of this type of research is now being extended, as archival material becomes more accessible and modern excavations rediscover the findspots of some significant groups of objects. This paper focuses on objects which were discovered in the 1820s and which passed into the collections of the British consuls Henry Salt and John Barker, and their agent the dealer/entrepreneur Giovanni d’Athanasi. The collation of museum records, sale catalogues and the letters and journals of travellers has enabled objects from Abydos to be identified and associations between some of them to be re-established. Introduction The years 1815–35 witnessed almost uncontrolled excavation of important Egyptian sites and the forming of large collections of antiquities, the dominant figures being European diplomats who operated under the authority of firmans from the Ottoman government. As is well known, these men had a near-monopoly on antiquities, and they (and more particularly their agents) were intensely competitive. Some of the consuls, such as Henry Salt and Bernardino Drovetti (representing Britain and France, respectively), had a genuine interest in the ancient history of Egypt, but nevertheless the commercial value of the antiquities was a major factor in their activities. The chief goal of their investigations was the amassing of collections, and little attention was paid to the recording of provenance, the context of

finds or the associations between objects, even when intact tomb-groups were found. What would now be called archaeological assemblages were routinely dispersed and a huge amount of contextual information was thereby lost. The sites most intensively targeted were Thebes and the Memphite necropolis, where the very conspicuous ancient structures drew the attention of collectors and explorers. The situation at Abydos was rather different. The identity of the site was known to the Jesuit Claude Sicard as early as 1718, and the Napoleonic expedition made a short visit there. The discovery of the first known monumental King List at the temple of Ramses II by William John Bankes in 1818 focused scholarly attention on the site but it received fewer visitors than Thebes and Memphis in the early 19th century, probably because access to Abydos from the Nile was less convenient and because there was less for the curious to see. The temple of Seti I was known, but was drowned in sand up to its roof, and Colonel Howard Vyse in 1837 wrote that Abydos’ temples ‘are so deeply buried that they scarcely merit the attention of a cursory traveller’ (Vyse 1840, 100). For about twenty years before this date, however, the site had been recognized as a rich source of portable antiquities. Much digging took place there and many objects were found, ultimately passing to museums and private collections, either by independent sale or public auction. The recording of what was found was at best rudimentary and incomplete, at worst non-existent, and identifying this material today and recovering its context is a laborious undertaking. To this end, William Kelly Simpson did crucial pioneering work in his study of the votive chapels of the Middle Kingdom (Simpson 1974; Snape in this volume), but there is potential for more research of this kind. The aim of this paper is to show that museum collections hold substantially more Abydos material from this phase of digging than has yet been identified. After a short account of the early exploration of the site, the focus turns to antiquities which entered British collections, in particular the British Museum, in the early decades of the 19th century and considers how the documentation of this material might be enhanced.

274

J. H. TAYLOR

Consular collectors at Abydos Those who exploited Abydos in the 1810s–30s were principally the French consuls Bernardino Drovetti (1776–1852) and Jean François Mimaut (1773–1837), the British consuls Henry Salt (1780–1827) and John Barker (1771–1849), and the Swedish-Norwegian consul Giovanni Anastasi (1780–1860) (Bierbrier 2012, 161–62, 375, 484–85, 40–41, 19–20). All formed substantial collections which included material from Abydos and which were later sold to national museums in France, Italy, Britain and the Netherlands, some en bloc, others piecemeal by auction. The collections were formed by excavation and by purchase from local inhabitants. These activities were actually organized by agents who worked on behalf of the consuls. Drovetti seems to have been the first of the main collectors to obtain antiquities from Abydos, and several European travellers recorded that in the years before and after 1820 he was using the services of Catholic monks from the Franciscan convent at Girgeh, whom he paid to supervise digging and to purchase antiquities from the local villagers. Robert Wilson (1787–1871), who travelled through Egypt in 1820–21, reported that Padre Domenico, the head of the convent, had been excavating at Abydos on Drovetti’s behalf: ‘He has found many rich antiquities, but scarce equivalent to the money expended in procuring them.’1 Padre Ladislaus (1780–1828; Bierbrier 2012, 306) of the same convent conducted similar work at Abydos for Drovetti, as mentioned by Baroness von Minutoli (von Minutoli 1827, 110; Ridley 1998, 105, 329, n. 133), Conder (1827, II, 58) and others. Ladislaus also worked on behalf of Anastasi2 and continued in this role until his death in 1828. The site was also exploited during the 1820s–30s by two more prominent collecting agents who were based at Luxor: Piccinini and d’Athanasi. They had houses on the Theban west bank and made periodic forays to Abydos to dig and to buy, sometimes installing an assistant at the site (see below). The Italian Piccinini (Bierbrier 2012, 432) is mainly documented as the agent of Anastasi, but he also worked for others including Drovetti, and he supervised excavation for the

Franco-Tuscan expedition during their stay in Egypt in 1828–29, besides selling antiquities to independent travellers. The Greek Giovanni d’Athanasi (1798–1854), known as ‘Yanni’, worked for the British (Bierbrier 2012, 28; Taylor, forthcoming). He began his career as an interpreter to Henry Salt but rapidly demonstrated a flair for finding and gathering antiquities; by 1824 he had acquired a reputation as one of the leading antiquities dealers in Egypt and was Salt’s business partner in the trade (diary of Henry Westcar, cited Schmidt 2011, 160). Following Salt’s death in October 1827, d’Athanasi acted as collecting agent for his successor John Barker. Over a period of about eighteen years he amassed many thousands of antiquities, offering the choicest pieces to Salt for his collections, but he was at liberty to sell material to other collectors, as well as retaining many items himself for eventual auction. Giuseppe Passalacqua (1797–1865; Bierbrier 2012, 418), another leading collector/dealer, is recorded by John Madox as having visited Abydos in December 1823 (Madox 1834, I, 398–99), and he included material from the site in the collection he had assembled by 1826, which later formed the nucleus of the Egyptian collection in the Berlin Museum (Passalacqua 1826, 3, 6, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 27, 39, 49, 50, 54–66, 68–69, 73, 94, 97, 108, 168, 195, 209). The collection of Lavoratori (Bierbrier 2012, 312), formed between 1818 and 1821 and sold in London in May 1833, also included objects from Abydos, among which were a small obelisk and numerous stelae (Sotheby 1833b, 1, 3, 11–12, 20–22). Also in the 1820s, stelae and statuary from Abydos were collected by Sauveur-Fortuné ThédénatDuvent (Guichard 2007, 209–14) and Nicolau Fiengo (Kitchen 1990, I, 4–7), while other pieces from the site entered the collection of Giuseppe Nizzoli, passing via Pelagio Palagi to the Bologna Museum (Bresciani 1985, 9–10; Bierbrier 2012, 405, 413). Several of the collections formed by Drovetti and Anastasi, containing Abydos material, entered public repositories in the 1820s–30s, Drovetti’s first collection going to Turin in 1824, while Anastasi’s first and second collections passed respectively to the Rijksmuseum in Leiden (1828) and the British Museum, London

1

2

Robert Wilson, Journey through Egypt and Nubia during the years 1820 and 1821 (unpublished MS, University of Aberdeen, AUL MS 415). For Wilson, see Bierbrier 2012, 583.

He is mentioned in this capacity by Joseph Bonomi in two letters written to James Burton, 15 April and 2 October 1829, in the possession of Yvonne Neville-Rolfe.

OBJECTS FROM ABYDOS IN EARLY

19TH-CENTURY BRITISH COLLECTIONS

275

(1839).3 The British, however, seem to have been rather slower than their competitors to gather antiquities from Abydos. Although Bankes had found the King List in 1818, it had been left in situ, and Salt’s first collection, assembled between 1816 and 1821, included only three objects reported to be from Abydos.4 It is unclear whether Giovanni Belzoni, Salt’s chief agent between 1816 and 1819, actually collected anything there.5 Salt visited the temple of Seti I in 1822, but makes no references to collecting or digging (Halls 1834, II, 184–85). The situation changed about 1823. In that year d’Athanasi, having succeeded Belzoni as Salt’s agent, is first recorded as receiving antiquities from Abydos, which were sent to him at Thebes by his brother (Madox 1834, I, 398). He then visited the site and subsequently exploited it heavily, seemingly maintaining a long-term presence there through agents of his own. In 1825 ‘a man of Mr Salt’s, a Greek’ was at the site, and in 1827 a Greek named Niccolo was, ‘attending the excavations ... for Yannie’, as Robert Hay reported, adding: ‘He had relieved the last superattendant [sic] who was gone to Thebes to supply the place of Triantapholos [i.e. Georgios Triantaphyllos, d’Athanasi’s chief assistant]’.6 Other travellers, such as Joseph Bonomi, James Webster and John Lowell, mention this British party working at Abydos in the subsequent years,7 but intervention against foreign collectors by the Egyptian government in and after 1829 seems to have curtailed these activities (below, p. 278). The last major collection to contain Abydos material which d’Athanasi assembled, that of John Barker, was being offered for sale as early as 1831 (below, p. 285) and was auctioned two years later. It seems, then, that

d’Athanasi’s activity at Abydos falls mainly within the roughly eight-year period 1823–31.8 D’Athanasi published an account of his excavations, which mentions work at Abydos, but it is frustratingly vague about the exact areas he operated in (1836, 67–71, 99–102, 126–28). Fortunately, the writings of contemporaries who visited the site supply some of the missing details, showing that most of the digging by consular agents was situated in the northern part of the site.9 This impression is supported by Mariette’s statement that the agents of Salt, Drovetti and Anastasi left no area in ‘la nécropole’ untouched (Mariette 1880, 39), and this has been confirmed by recent re-excavation of some of the areas that were being dug. Particularly valuable is the diary of the Austrian consul Giuseppe Acerbi (1773–1846), who describes a visit to Abydos in March 1829, from which we can identify four distinct spots where monuments were visible and where digging had been undertaken (Bresciani 1979, 7–10). Proceeding from south to north, the first location mentioned is the temple of Seti I. Although it was still buried, Acerbi notes that Anastasi had organized digging in the area and had found what was described as a ‘sepolcro’ there containing 300 statuettes of wood, stone and bronze.10 Nearby, Acerbi described a freestanding structure of limestone with fine relief work, of which he made copies, showing that this was a chapel of King Kha-ankhre Sebekhotep of Dynasty 13, parts of which are now in the Louvre.11 From here Acerbi moved on to the temple of Ramses II, noting that this was where Bankes had found the King List. But the main target of excavation was at the northernmost end of the site, and was focused

3

7

4

5

6

The collection which Anastasi sold to the Dutch contained many stelae and at least two offering tables which can be attributed to the Abydos North offering chapels: Simpson 1974, 25. The Abydos material in this first Anastasi collection was obtained through Piccinini (Lilyquist 1988, 66). The objects in question were three ‘votive tablet[s], from Abydos (purchased)’, mentioned in a MS ‘List of Egyptian Antiquities belonging to Hy. Salt Esq. forwarded to the British Museum’ in the archives of the Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan, AES Ar. 235, nos 66–68. Unfortunately, these objects cannot be securely identified in the collections of the British Museum today. In his Narrative, Belzoni records stopping at Girgeh in 1816 and adds that he made a visit to Abydos two years later, but gave no further details (Belzoni 1822, I, 51). Hay diary 3 Feb. 1825, British Library, Add. MS 29857, f.81v; 26 July 1827, British Library, Add. MS 31054, f.173r.

8

9

10

11

Letters, Joseph Bonomi to James Burton, 15 April and 2 October 1829 (in possession of Yvonne Neville-Rolfe); Webster 1830, II, 134–38; for Lowell, see below. D’Athanasi himself stated that he carried out excavations at Abydos ‘up to the year 1823’ (1836, 68). This may be an error for ‘from 1823’, since it is only from that date that other sources refer to his activity at the site. Alternatively, ‘1823’ might be emended to ‘1833’, if this was the year in which his work at Abydos ended. ‘Northern’ is used here as ‘local north’ following the direction of the river; O’Connor 1985, 162. In view of the location of this find it is possible that it consisted of a deposit of disused votive statuary, such as are known from many other temple sites, including Karnak and the Sacred Animal Necropolis at Saqqara. Paris, Louvre B 3-5, C 9-10. See most recently Siesse and Connor 2015, 228, n. 6, 230.

276

J. H. TAYLOR

around the Osiris temple enclosure and the ‘Terrace of the Great God’, the area of the many votive chapels of the Middle Kingdom which comprised brick structures containing stone stelae, statues and offering tables. The intensive digging in this area also extended to the nearby North Cemetery, where there were burials of many different periods, as well as other brick chapels of the Middle Kingdom, and a little further away in the Middle Cemetery, containing large elite tombs of the late Old Kingdom. The Shunet el-Zebib, although a conspicuous feature of the northern part of the site, was not a prime target of early excavation (Bestock 2009, 46), and—still more fortunately—the royal necropolis of Umm el Qa‘ab and the monuments of South Abydos seem to have escaped serious attention at this period. The area of the Middle Kingdom chapels and the Middle Cemetery were rich in portable objects of stone, and acted as a magnet for the diggers. At Thebes, the competitive nature of the digging teams at this period had resulted in a partition of the ground at Karnak, which was physically marked out to define the territories of the French, British and Swedish consuls, and Acerbi records that he saw that the same thing had been done at Abydos, ‘una striscia’ marking the territorial boundaries of Drovetti, Anastasi and Salt (Bresciani 1979, 10). This is a valuable piece of information, as it may help to identify the general areas from which objects in these consular collections came. By the time of Acerbi’s visit, however, the only parties working there were those of Anastasi and ‘un greco protetto inglese certo Jani [i.e. d’Athanasi]’ (Bresciani 1979, 10). From a study of the contents of the main collections, supplemented by contemporary references to activity on site, it is possible to suggest at least tentatively which areas were exploited in the 1820s by two of the chief groups—the British and the Swedish—and (with less precision) the French. The ‘British’ area (Fig. 1) evidently included the temple of Ramses II. Robert Hay records how d’Athanasi’s collaborator Niccolo arranged for the chamber of the King List to be cleared of sand when he visited the site in 1827,12 and the American traveller John Lowell, visiting Abydos in 1835, stated that ‘Salt found 2 beautiful sarcophaguses

12

Hay diary 26 July 1827: British Library, Add. MS 31054, f.173r.

[sic], as his agent says’ in a ‘tomb’ which contained a King List—presumably secondary burials in the temple of Ramses II (Lowell diary 11 April 1835: for Lowell, see Bierbrier 2012, 340; Oliver 2014, 188–93, pls 21–22). D’Athanasi’s men were also active in the Middle Cemetery, since an important group of objects which was included in Salt’s third collection came from the tomb of Idi, which was rediscovered in this part of the site by a University of Michigan expedition in the 1990s (Richards in this volume). D’Athanasi, among others, probably also exploited the ‘petit temple de l’ouest’, located south of the main Osiris temple enclosure, close to the Processional Wadi, since this is the likely find-spot of the pillar-statue of the high priest Wennefer, which entered the Louvre in 1826 as part of the second Salt collection (Thomas 2016, 61–62). Drovetti, on the site ahead of his rivals, probably exploited the whole ‘northern’ area in the years before the site was partitioned. He certainly excavated close to the temple of Seti I (Halls 1834, II, 184–85) and also dug in the cemetery/Terrace areas, and it is probably to his workers that d’Athanasi refers when he criticizes the damage done to the monuments by those who had preceded him (d’Athanasi 1836, 127). It is clear that Anastasi’s activities were focused particularly on the Terrace site, since his collections were rich in stelae and offering tables of the Middle Kingdom from the chapels there. He also probably exploited the area of the Portal Temple of Ramses II, since both his first and second collections, now in Leiden and London respectively, contain inscribed bowls and clay votive figures which are highly characteristic of that location (O’Connor 1985, 168, n. 19; Raven 2012, 116–17, 153). On this evidence the activity of Anastasi and d’Athanasi seems to have taken place respectively north and south of the wadi (which perhaps to some extent served as a territorial marker). Nonetheless, d’Athanasi obtained numerous stelae and other stone monuments of the Middle Kingdom and Ramesside period, which entered the collections of Salt and Barker and of d’Athanasi himself, but it is uncertain whether his workers excavated these personally or whether they were purchased from the local villagers.

OBJECTS FROM ABYDOS IN EARLY

19TH-CENTURY BRITISH COLLECTIONS

277

N

ancient townsite

Osiris-Khentiamentiu temple Tuthmosis III temple

Portal Temple of Ramses II Deir Sitt Damyana

floodplain

Small Temple Shunet el-Zebib

Falcon cemetery Ramses II Temple

North Cemetery

Seti I Temple Middle cemetery

Osireion floodplain

l na

Marketplace excavations

W

Cemetery U

Senwosret III townsite

low desert

Pr

oc

es

sio

ad

i

Arabah el-Madfuna

Umm el-Qa’ab Senwosret III complex modern villages and cemeteries

Ahmose complex

high desert 0

1000 metres

Fig. 1: Map of Abydos showing the probable area (shaded) excavated by Giovanni d’Athanasi on behalf of Henry Salt and John Barker, c. 1823–31 (Drawn by Claire Thorne).

The work of extracting the saleable items was carried out in a very rough manner, which provoked harsh criticism from some travellers. James Webster (1802– 1828; Bierbrier 2012, 569), mentions in his posthumously published Travels a visit he made to Abydos in March 1828. After describing the temples, still largely buried, he notes: ‘Every tomb in the neighbourhood is ransacked—the bones, skulls, and vestments of the dead are strown [sic] along the desert; and we saw, still busy in violating the abodes of the dead, men whose master was then lying lifeless, perhaps a victim to his persevering avarice’ (Webster 1830, II, 137–38).13

13

A reconstruction of Webster’s itinerary along the Nile shows that the date of his visit to Abydos was 8 March, not 8 September as suggested by an erroneous date given on p. 134 of his

A few years later, James St. John (1801–1875; Bierbrier 2012, 483) wrote even more scathingly about the damage done to the monuments of Abydos by the consular agents, singling out Padre Ladislaus for special condemnation: ‘The ravages committed by this brutal monk and others among these ruins, by order of Drovetti, who had obtained from the ignorant and unreflecting Pasha a firman for the purpose, would in any civilised country have conducted the perpetrators to the galleys … disgraceful transactions, conducted with the most wanton contempt of every feeling of taste and humanity’ (St. John 1834, I, 286–98).

book. The ‘master ... then lying lifeless’ is undoubtedly an allusion to the recently deceased Henry Salt.

278

J. H. TAYLOR

At the end of the 1820s the Egyptian government began to intervene in the unregulated collection and sale of antiquities, an initiative in which Champollion had been an influential force (Gady 2007). D’Athanasi’s work at Thebes was suspended in 1829, and though he later resumed it, most foreign digging was forbidden, and a Turk was appointed to excavate for the government from about 1830.14 An official embargo in 1835 further tightened control; this did not stop all unlicensed digging but it made it more difficult for antiquities to be exported. This intervention also occurred at Abydos. Writing in 1836, d’Athanasi noted that both there and at Thebes, ‘they have commenced working … on account of the government, without employing a single man experienced in these sort of matters to direct the operations; they only waste time, therefore, and up to the present moment have not found any thing of interest’ (d’Athanasi 1836, 89–90). Travellers’ descriptions of visits to Abydos in the 1830s refer only to previous excavations, with no mention of ongoing work (e.g. Lindsay 1838, I, 137–44). The site’s ancient remains were now increasingly threatened by building and lime-burning operations, as reported by George Gliddon (and later by Mariette).15 Gliddon also complained that important standing monuments such as the Ramses II King List and the Sebekhotep chapel were removed from the site at this time and bought by the French consul Mimaut. The King List was cut from the wall in 1835 by the dealer Demetrios Papandriopulos, acting as agent for Mimaut (Lepsius 1853, 2),16 but, unacceptable as this would be by today’s standards, it was perhaps the only way to prevent these antiquities from being destroyed by the government builders. The large consular collections of antiquities were disposed of by public or private sale during the 1820s– 50s. All of them contained items from Thebes, Memphis and Abydos, as well as from a few other sites, but most of them were poorly documented, the available lists giving few reliable statements of provenance, so that to distinguish objects from particular sites is a

difficult task. The situation is a little better for some of the collections assembled by the British, such as the third Salt collection and those of Barker and d’Athanasi, each of which included items which were stated to be from Abydos. All of these collections were formed by d’Athanasi himself, and hence there is likelihood that a substantial amount of the Abydos material they contain comes from one particular zone of the North Abydos area, the ‘British territory’ mentioned by Acerbi in 1829.

14

16

15

Letters, Ippolito Rosellini to Joseph Bonomi, 14 October 1829, and Joseph Bonomi to James Burton, 12 and 20 January 1830 (in possession of Yvonne Neville-Rolfe). Gliddon 1841, 52–53. The destruction of monuments at the site to make lime was already in progress in 1829, as it is mentioned in a letter of Joseph Bonomi to James Burton, 15 April 1829 (in possession of Y. Neville-Rolfe).

Objects from Abydos in the British Museum: the 1835 Salt sale The British Museum acquired objects from Abydos from several major collectors in the 1820s–50s—notably from Anastasi’s second and third collections, which included numerous stelae from the Middle Kingdom votive chapels, and also from d’Athanasi, Barker and the collector Joseph Sams (1784–1860; Bierbrier 2012, 485). However, in the absence of precise documentation the provenance of these items is generally derived from internal evidence, such as the inscriptional and iconographic content of the stelae; most of the smaller and uninscribed objects offer no reliable diagnostic clues to their provenance. The chief exception is the third collection of Henry Salt, assembled by d’Athanasi in 1824–27, shipped to Leghorn and after a long interval sold at Sotheby’s, London, 29 June–8 July 1835 (Sotheby 1835, vi; d’Athanasi 1836, 151). The catalogue of this sale is unusual in assigning provenance to a large proportion of the lots, information which is specifically attributed to d’Athanasi, who travelled to London to oversee the sale, in which he also had a financial interest (Sotheby 1835, vi–vii; d’Athanasi 1836, ix, 151–52). Here, then, there is the chance to assess a wider range of material from one of the major collections, which is reported to come from Abydos. The British Museum was a major buyer at the 1835 Salt sale, acquiring more than 480 of the

Gliddon 1841, 52, gives the date of the removal of the King List and other sculptures as 1837, but as this was the date of the sale of Mimaut’s collection in Paris, Lepsius’ ‘1835’ seems more plausible. Lepsius also mentions finds made by ‘Demetrios’ at Abydos (Naville 1904, 171) – perhaps another reference to collecting activity by Papandriopulos.

OBJECTS FROM ABYDOS IN EARLY

19TH-CENTURY BRITISH COLLECTIONS

279

1,283 lots—approximately 200 of which were listed in the catalogue as from Abydos.17 In order to identify these pieces today, however, a careful scrutiny of the Museum’s records is necessary. On entering the Museum all the objects which had been bought at the sale were listed in a handwritten acquisitions register (‘Catalogue of Additions made to the Dept. of Antiquities in the year 1835’, AES Ar. 580), with their lot numbers meticulously recorded, but without inventory or registration numbers. At that time, Egyptian antiquities in the British Museum were identified chiefly by the name of the collection from which they originated. A consistent system of inventory numbers for Egyptian objects was only introduced in the mid1830s, when a continuous numerical sequence from 1 to 10,000 was instituted by Samuel Birch (Usick 2009, 108). This became the basis of the numbers with an ‘EA’ prefix which are still used today (and are traditionally known by British Museum staff as the ‘big numbers’), although the system has undergone several revisions. Following the system devised by Champollion for the Musée Charles X in the Louvre, Birch classified the objects by type, and assigned inventory numbers accordingly.18 At first there were two parallel sequences of numbers: one for the ‘Egyptian Saloon’ on the ground floor (later expanded to become the ‘Egyptian Sculpture Gallery’) and a second for the ‘Egyptian Room’ on the upper floor, the forerunner of the present-day series of Upper Egyptian galleries (though not located in the same physical spaces). These numerical sequences were later merged into a single run of numbers. Each category of object in the Egyptian Room was allotted a specific sequence of numbers (so 2564ff were ‘objects of dress and attire’, 4466–5182 were ‘vases’, etc.), and as the collection grew the categories were expanded by the addition of lower-case lettersuffixes (a, b, c, etc.) to the existing numbers. Birch made a handwritten description of every object on a

separate slip of paper (with multiple slips for more complex objects), and these were usually annotated with details of the source (collection name, and lot number if acquired at auction).19 When documenting objects from the 1835 Salt sale, Birch noted the lot number from the catalogue and sometimes also the provenance of the object, but the latter detail was often omitted, and to find this information it was necessary to refer back to the original sale catalogue. Thus on Birch’s catalogue slip for the stone vessel 4474 (now ‘EA 4474’), the abbreviation ‘S.83’ is the only clue to the origin of the object, and it is only by reference to lot 83 in the sale catalogue that we find that this vase is stated to be from Abydos (Figs 2–3). Over the years, curators have added some of these provenances to the Museum’s digital collections database (the present-day successor to Birch’s ‘slip’ catalogue) but this has not been done systematically. In consequence, the recorded provenances of many pieces that were acquired in the early 19th century were never included in the Museum’s definitive documentation. This disconnection in the object histories means that in the British Museum’s online collections database many items appear without provenance, when this information could in fact be ascertained. Although Birch’s catalogue slips did not always record the Salt lot numbers, these were sometimes written in ink either on small paper labels attached to the object or directly on the object itself, and fortunately, many of these inscriptions are still legible. By reconnecting the early records with the objects we can begin to discern more clearly what Henry Salt obtained from Abydos in the 1820s. Table 1 lists all those lots which were attributed to Abydos in the sale catalogue, together with their present locations, where known. The following paragraphs consider some of these items which are now in the British Museum and discuss the reliability of their purported provenance.

17

18

Strictly speaking, only lots 1–1270 belonged to the collection of Henry Salt. Lots 1271–83 consisted of ‘Miscellaneous antiquities, the property of the late Mr Belzoni’: Sotheby 1835, 104. In fact, the Belzoni items were not bid for competitively but were purchased directly by the British Museum: Anonymous 1835, 188.

19

Birch acknowledged his debt to Champollion’s system in a note at the beginning of his ‘Egyptian Room [Catalogue]’: AES Ar. 15. The ‘Birch slips’, now in bound volumes, are kept in the archives of the Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan: AES Ar. 15.

280

J. H. TAYLOR

Objects from the tomb of Idi

Fig. 2: Calcite vessel, British Museum EA 4474 (lot 83 in 1835 Salt sale) (© Trustees of the British Museum).

A particularly important group from the Salt collection is an assemblage of over sixty stone and metal objects which are clearly from a high-status burial or cult installation of the late Old Kingdom. Only a few of these have been published, the best known being the miniature offering table in copper alloy with its twentysix utensils, inscribed for a smr wꜥty ẖry-ḥbt named Idi (EA 5315: Radwan 1983, 49, 57, 62–63, 75, Taf. C, 32) (Fig. 4). This group, lot 403 in the Salt sale, is described in the catalogue as ‘discovered in a tomb at Abydos’. At the same time the British Museum acquired another set comprising twenty-five copper alloy razors, model axe heads, miniature trays and a knife (?) blade.20 These formed lot 114 in the catalogue, where they were described as ‘mathematical and other instruments … found altogether in a tomb at Abydos’. Some of these bear the name Idi, with the same titles as on the offering table, supporting the association between the two groups. The same Idi is also named on elements of a set of calcite offering vessels, comprising a circular table and ten vessels (lot 84), a polished stone bowl (lot 677) (Fig. 5), a headrest (lot 790) and a tablet for sacred oils (probably lot 789). For all these items, now in the British Museum, see Table 2.

Fig. 3: ‘Birch slip’ catalogue record for the vessel ‘4474’, showing the reference to the Salt sale, with lot number, ‘S.83’ (© Trustees of the British Museum).

20

Only twenty-three of these items are currently identifiable in the British Museum: see Table 2.

OBJECTS FROM ABYDOS IN EARLY

19TH-CENTURY BRITISH COLLECTIONS

Fig. 4: Copper alloy offering table inscribed for Idi, with model utensils, British Museum EA 5315 (© Trustees of the British Museum).

Fig. 5: Stone vessel with hieroglyphic inscription giving the name and titles of Idi (lot 677 in the 1835 Salt sale), British Museum EA 4697 (© Trustees of the British Museum).

281

282

J. H. TAYLOR

Although these objects were dispersed in different sections of the sale, the catalogue assigns an Abydos provenance to all of them, and the inscriptions support the connection between them. With the assistance of the sale catalogue, it is also possible to identify uninscribed objects from the Idi group. So two large copper alloy vessels which are stated to come from the same tomb as the offering table (lot 403) can be recognized as British Museum EA 5326 and 38215 by reference to their lot number (404) (Figs 6–7). The dissociation of related items could also arise from the practice, common in the 19th century, of registering a group of objects under a single number. This is what happened to Idi’s copper alloy offering set,

which comprised twenty-six separate pieces at the time of its acquisition. The number ‘5315’ was written only on the table, hence only by retaining the physical association between the smaller objects and the table could the long-term integrity of the group be assured. Fig. 4 shows how the objects are arranged today, but a drawing published in 1857 shows a significant difference (Fig. 8). Most of the items are easily recognizable, but the object identified as ‘3a’ (and illustrated separately as ‘3’ at lower right) is a sieve (Wilkinson 1857, 59, 60), no longer associated with the other objects. A ‘cullender … or sieve’ is, however, mentioned in the enumeration of the components of the set in the MS ‘Catalogue of Additions …’ for 1835 (AES Ar. 580).21 At some point in the 19th century the sieve’s association with the offering table was apparently forgotten and it was assigned an inventory number of its own, 38230 (Fig. 9). Fortunately, a separate numerical list of the British Museum’s Egyptian antiquities shows that ‘38230’ was associated with the number S.403, the auction lot number of Idi’s offering set, giving confirmation of the sieve’s true context.22

Fig. 6: Copper alloy vessel from the tomb of Idi, British Museum EA 5326 (part of lot 404 in 1835 Salt sale) (© Trustees of the British Museum).

Fig. 7: Copper alloy vessel from the tomb of Idi, British Museum EA 38215 (part of lot 404 in 1835 Salt sale) (© Trustees of the British Museum).

21

The sieve is a rare example in metal of a type of object that was used in purificatory rituals and is sometimes depicted in object friezes on Middle Kingdom coffins: Willems 1997, 344–45, fig. 1. For another example in copper, from the tomb of Djehutynakht (I?) at Bersha, see Willems 2016, 154, Abb. 9, 160. A ‘strainer?’ is listed among small copper objects discovered in another Dynasty 6 tomb at Abydos: Loat 1923, 163. I owe this reference to Marie Vandenbeusch.

22

‘Egyptian Numbers’ I-40,000: Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan, Ar. 959. The sieve’s separation from its context led to its being ‘reinterpreted’ as ‘a copper alloy strainer of the Ptolemaic Period’ for use in the preparation of therapeutic drugs: Nunn 1996, 139, fig. 7.1.

OBJECTS FROM ABYDOS IN EARLY

19TH-CENTURY BRITISH COLLECTIONS

283

Fig. 9: Copper alloy sieve, part of the ritual equipment associated with Idi’s offering set EA 5315 (and depicted in the 1857 illustration, Fig. 8), British Museum EA 38230 (© Trustees of the British Museum).

Fig. 8: Illustration of Idi’s model offering table and utensils, published in J. G. Wilkinson, The Egyptians in the time of the pharaohs. Being a companion to the Crystal Palace Egyptian collections. London, 1857, 59.

The Idi material is important as a substantial comprehensive group of objects with a specific purpose, but also because his tomb was relocated in recent excavations by the University of Michigan expedition led by Janet Richards. It lies in the Middle Cemetery, close to the tomb of the famous Weni the Elder, vizier and governor of Upper Egypt in Dynasty 6, and this information provides a fixed point on the ground where we now know that d’Athanasi’s workers were digging (Richards 2002, 88, fig. 9, 99; 2010, 141, fig. 3; 149, fig. 11; 150, 155–63; 2015, 390, 398–99, fig. 11). The Michigan re-excavation of the site has shown that Idi was a more significant figure than was previously realized: he was himself a nomarch, governor of Upper Egypt and vizier, and his tomb in the Middle Cemetery became the focus of a ‘saint’-cult which attracted votive chapels and which enjoyed two phases of activity, in the late First Intermediate Period and, following a break, in later Dynasty 12 (Richards 2010, 150,

155–63; 2015, 390; Richards and Tunmore 2016; Richards 2016–17, 145–59). Four statuettes from the third Salt collection, all of which are attributed to Abydos in the catalogue (lots 975, 1113, 1255 and 1258, respectively British Museum EA 2313, Durham EG 4009, British Museum EA 2312 and 2296), were probably set up in the First Intermediate Period in one or more cult buildings close to Idi’s tomb (Richards and Tunmore 2016; Richards 2016–17, 149, fig. 5, 152). His exceptional status is perhaps also signalled by the addition of a bird-hieroglyph to his name on some of the objects in the British Museum, indicating that he was known as ‘Idi the Great’ (Ἰdỉ wr) (Richards 2015, 390, n. 3; Richards 2016–17, 152). Other objects Among the items from Abydos in the third Salt sale which cannot be attributed to a specific burial, stone vessels form one of the largest categories. On stylistic grounds some of these can be assigned to the Early Dynastic period or to the very early Old Kingdom, such as the vessel EA 4713 (lot 676) and the calcite jar EA 4474 (lot 83), respectively, while a larger number can be attributed to the later Old Kingdom on stylistic grounds and occasionally by inscription. Lot 669 comprised two conical calcite vases, one of which (EA 4603) can be dated to the end of Dynasty 5 by the titulary of Unas. Very similar vessels have been

284

J. H. TAYLOR

excavated from graves in areas around the Middle Cemetery (e.g. Ayrton and Loat’s Cemetery F: Loat 1923, pl. XXIX). There were many examples of this type of fairly poor grave around the tombs of Weni the Elder and Idi, which had clearly acted as focal points in the necropolis, attracting further burials, and it is likely that some of the stone vessels found by d’Athanasi’s diggers came from this area. Also numerous in the Salt sale were copper (or copper alloy) mirror plates, perhaps from other graves of the same type (lots 405, 970, 1085 and 1217). In view of the generally poor preservation of organic remains in the Middle Cemetery, it is not surprising that Salt’s collection did not include wooden coffins from these burials, although the decayed remains of some of them were probably found: lot 384 and part of lot 670 comprised the components of eyes and their eyebrows and associated markings, for inlaying into one or more large coffins of Old or Middle Kingdom date: EA 2051–52 (eye surrounds) and EA 6911–12 (eyes). The most intensively studied objects from these early excavations at Abydos are the stelae, statues and offering tables, particularly those from the votive chapels of the Middle Kingdom which stood on, or adjacent to, the ‘Terrace of the Great God’. Numerous examples were included in the 1835 Salt sale and also in that of d’Athanasi’s collection in 1837 (Sotheby 1837; Simpson 1974, 5), and much more Middle Kingdom material of this kind was incorporated into the three great collections of Anastasi (Simpson 1974, 2, 5–6). Of the thirty stelae from the third Salt collection, all stated to have been ‘taken from the sides of the tombs at Abydos’, which can now be identified in the British Museum, ten date from the late Old Kingdom to the Middle Kingdom, and no doubts have been expressed about their Abydos provenance; most of them probably derive from the votive chapels at Abydos North.23 One stela (lot 717 = EA 201) is a typical Abydos piece of the late Old Kingdom, perhaps from one of the tombs

23

24

25

See Table 1. See Franke 2013, 4–5; also 52, 70 and 99 for specific references to the stelae EA 220, 226 and 239 respectively. I am grateful to Janet Richards for comments on the style and likely provenance of this stela. The following stelae have been re-attributed to Thebes: EA 217 (lot 140), James 1970, 60; EA 345 (lot 147), James 1970, 61; EA 346 (lot 148), Hall 1925, 5; EA 291 (lot 436), Bierbrier 1982, 27–28; EA 297 (lot 573), British Museum 1922, 9; EA 305 (lot 577), James 1970, 36. The Memphite necropolis has

in the Middle Cemetery.24 The solitary Late Period stela EA 338 (lot 435) is also unproblematic, as its owner bore characteristic Abydene titles and it shares significant design features with Cairo JE 91251, excavated at the site by the Pennsylvania-Yale expedition (Simpson 1995, 88–89, fig. 165, pl. 28). Nineteen of Salt’s stelae date to the New Kingdom, particularly to the Ramesside period. An Abydene provenance for some of these is suggested by iconographic features such as the Abydos fetish (e.g. lot 984: EA 161) and by the style, which resembles that of other stelae of this period excavated at Abydos in more recent times. However, a substantial number of the New Kingdom stelae in Salt’s third collection were reattributed to the Theban or Memphite necropoleis in the 20th century. These attributions are based partly on prosopographical and stylistic grounds, and are supported in some cases by the presence at Thebes or Saqqara of other monuments of the persons named on the stelae.25 It is therefore difficult to avoid the conclusion that—for the New Kingdom stelae at least—the provenance ‘Abydos’ as given in the 1835 sale catalogue is unreliable. This is surprising, in view of the fact that the inclusion of provenances in the catalogue was an innovation at that time, and that d’Athanasi had been brought from Egypt to London to supply this information from his knowledge of the finds. It is known that he kept written records of his collecting activities (a journal of finds and purchases was seen by Prisse d’Avennes in the mid-19th century, though it is now apparently lost: Dewachter 1985, 50), so his attributions were not necessarily based solely on his memory. At the time of the Salt sale d’Athanasi also offered his services to the British Museum as an excavator, proposing to work at Abydos as well as at Thebes, and promising itemized lists of all future finds, with provenances; his offer was not taken up, but it shows that he had at least a basic understanding of the significance of provenance.26 The

26

been proposed as the provenance of: EA 211 (lot 715), Hall 1925, 12; EA 167 (lot 845), James 1970, 29–30; EA 158 (lot 983), James 1970, 33; EA 164 (lot 1117), James 1970, 25–26; EA 166 (lot 1118), James 1970, 26–27; EA 165 (lot 1124), James 1970, 28–29. ‘Proposition of Giovanni D’Athanasi to the Trustees of the British Museum, July 11th 1835’, in correspondence of the former Department of Antiquities, now housed in Department of Middle East, The British Museum.

OBJECTS FROM ABYDOS IN EARLY

19TH-CENTURY BRITISH COLLECTIONS

285

evidence against the Abydos provenance of some of the New Kingdom stelae in Salt’s collection is strong, but other cases are less certain. It should perhaps be borne in mind that people from many parts of Egypt were commemorated at the site, and that monuments could have been made at and brought from other localities or carved at Abydos by artists who were trained in other centres, as undoubtedly happened in the Middle Kingdom (Franke 2013, 5). Nevertheless, a circumspect attitude ought to be maintained towards the other provenance statements in the sale catalogue, and each individual case should be judged on its own merits.27 Among the smaller objects from the New Kingdom which are stated to come from Abydos, lot 1044, a ‘figure of a mummy’ is of particular interest. Described as ‘of ebony, finely engraved and covered with hieroglyphics’, it is in fact one of the finest-known examples of a shabti of the Amarna period, inscribed for a Chantress of the Aten named Hatsheret (now British Museum EA 8644). Geoffrey Martin has rightly advised that the provenance should be treated with caution (Martin 1986, 115–16, Taf. 11), but if correct it is particularly significant, as the owner is identified as an Osiris and described as ‘one revered before Osiris’, while the inscription is a conventional version of the shabti spell, chapter 6 of the Book of the Dead. The Barker collection: a mummy from Abydos The collection of John Barker, Salt’s successor, also contained material from Abydos. It was assembled by d’Athanasi, and already by 1831 Barker was attempting to sell his antiquities, but was experiencing difficulty in finding a buyer.28 The collection was finally sold in 1833 in an anonymous auction at Sotheby’s in London (Sotheby 1833a). The sale comprised 258 lots, its main strengths being in stelae and papyri. The British Museum bought most of the principal pieces, including a limestone statue of Panehsy, with the cartouches of Ramses II on the shoulders (lot 245, EA 1377) (Fig. 10). The sale catalogue does not record its provenance, but the figure holds a naos containing the Abydene triad, and a letter written by Joseph Bonomi

records d’Athanasi’s discovery of a limestone statue bearing the cartouches of Ramses II at Abydos in 1829, the period when he was collecting for Barker, although the identification of this piece with EA 1377 is uncertain.29 Barker’s collection included forty-one stone stelae, of which thirty-six were bought for the British

27

29

28

The Abydos provenance given for lot 558 is also suspect. Since this pair of dummy vessels (EA 9526–27) are inscribed for the sš-ḳd n ỉmn m st-mꜢꜥt Pay, a Deir el-Medina find-spot is obviously more plausible. Edward Barker [son of John Barker] to John Lee, 17 December 1831: British Library, Add. MS 47490, f.120.

Fig. 10: Limestone statue of Panehsy (lot 245 in the 1833 Barker sale), British Museum EA 1377 (© Trustees of the British Museum).

J. Bonomi to James Burton, 15 April 1829: collection of Y. Neville-Rolfe. Bonomi supposed that the statue represented a woman, and attributed it to ‘the wife of Sesostris [i.e. Ramses II]’, but he was only able to see the head and shoulders. His copy of the cartouches on the shoulders corresponds with the inscriptions on EA 1377.

286

J. H. TAYLOR

Museum. The catalogue does not give their provenance, but some, such as EA 347 (Munro 1973, 264), are recognizably Abydene by their style. Many of them are of New Kingdom date and are stylistically very similar to examples which were included in the 1835 Salt and 1837 d’Athanasi sales, as well as to Abydene stelae from other collections.30 However, in the absence of definite proof, it seems wise to exercise the same caution with regard to the provenance of these stelae as was found necessary with those of the Salt collection. John Barker’s collection is also of interest because it contained a rare example of a mummy from Abydos, dating to the Ptolemaic period. The sale on 15–16 March 1833 included five mummies (lots 253–57), one of which (lot 256) is described as follows: A DITTO, SUPPOSED TO BE THAT OF A PRIEST; in its case, AND THE ONLY ONE EVER FOUND AT ABYDUS. The outer case of this mummy is in the highest state of preservation, the face being beautifully gilt; down the centre are three rows of hieroglyphics, surmounted by seven figures of deities, highly coloured. The head of the mummy is covered with a mask highly gilt on the face. On the breast is placed a gorget, and down the body are the deities, &c. cut out of thick cloth and gilt. (Sotheby 1833a, 22)

The statement of the mummy’s uniqueness is typical of the hyperbole of auction catalogues at that period, but it does reflect the fact that mummies and wooden coffins of high quality found at Abydos are not generally in as good a state of preservation as those from Thebes (Mariette 1880, 29–30) and hence they rarely found their way into European collections. D’Athanasi noted that he had found only three mummies there ‘who could have had any claim to nobility’, while Drovetti ‘did not find one, I believe, of any note’ (d’Athanasi 1836, 70; see also below, p. 289). Later excavations by the Egypt Exploration Society and others brought to light burials of the Late to Ptolemaic periods, but this material was not exhaustively published and study of it is still ongoing.

30

31

Thus British Museum EA 139 (Barker lot 230) has obvious stylistic affinities with the Abydos stela Bologna KS 1915, from the Palagi (formerly Nizzoli) Collection: Bresciani 1985, 74–75 (no. 26). That this agent represented Sams is specifically mentioned in an anonymous report on the 1835 Salt sale in The Gentleman’s Magazine 1835, 298, and this is confirmed by a comparison

Barker’s lot 256 is therefore of significance for studies of coffins and mummy-trappings at Abydos in this period, and it is fortunate that it is possible to trace its present whereabouts. In identifying the location of this mummy and coffin the auctioneer’s annotated copy of the sale catalogue supplies the first clue. In a column on the right of the page have been entered the names of the purchasers, some of whom are denoted only by initials or abbreviations. The purchaser of the Abydos mummy is identified as ‘Wm’. This abbreviation (also appearing often as ‘W’) recurs in several Sotheby sale catalogues of the 1830s, where it denotes an agent, acting on behalf of a buyer who wished to remain anonymous. Two contemporary sources reveal that this agent represented the bookdealer and collector Joseph Sams (1784–1860; Bierbrier 2012, 485), who acquired substantial numbers of Egyptian antiquities both from his own travels and by purchase at sales.31 In 1834 Sams sold a large collection of Egyptian antiquities to the British Museum, and a year later he offered for sale a second collection, which included a mummy which fits the description of lot 256 in the Barker catalogue.32 Sams’ second collection remained unsold for many years, so to attract buyers he published in 1839 a series of coloured lithographs illustrating objects in his possession, one of which depicts the inscriptions and decoration on the coffin of a Horwennefer, which matches the description of Barker lot 256 (Sams 1839, 31st pl.) (Fig. 11). Sams does not give the provenance, but the inscriptions include the priestly titles of ḥsk ỉmỉ ỉs[t] and ḥpt-wḏꜢt— the first two denoting cult officiants in the service of Osiris in Abydos, and of Shu-Tefnut of This (De Meulenaere 1954, 227–28; Leahy 1980, 174). Sams’ second collection was finally bought by Joseph Mayer of Liverpool, to become the nucleus of the Egyptian collection of the Liverpool Museum. Although many of the antiquities were badly damaged by bombing in the Second World War the mummy and coffin (M. 13996) survived (Gray and Slow 1968,

32

of two annotated copies of the catalogue of the sale of James Burton’s collection in 1836; in one of these, the purchaser of several lots is listed as ‘Wm’, while the corresponding lots in the second copy are attributed to ‘Sams’: British Museum, Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan. MS list of Sams’ second collection, cited Gray and Slow 1968, 32.

OBJECTS FROM ABYDOS IN EARLY

19TH-CENTURY BRITISH COLLECTIONS

Fig. 11: Images and inscriptions from the lid of the coffin of Horwennefer, purchased by Joseph Sams at the sale of John Barker’s antiquities, 1833, and illustrated in Sams, Ancient Egypt. Objects of antiquity forming part of the extensive and rich collections from ancient Egypt brought to England by, or now in the possession of, J. Sams. London, 1839, 31st plate.

287

288

J. H. TAYLOR

Fig. 12: Lid of the coffin of Horwennefer, Liverpool World Museum M. 13996C (© World Museum, Liverpool).

Fig. 13: Mummy of Horwennefer, Liverpool World Museum M. 13996A (© World Museum, Liverpool).

OBJECTS FROM ABYDOS IN EARLY

19TH-CENTURY BRITISH COLLECTIONS

289

32–35, no. 8) (Figs 12–13).33 Their history was known as far back as Sams, but the links with Barker, and hence the provenance, had been lost. D’Athanasi, writing in 1836, mentions that ‘during the whole of my sojourn in Abydos I only found two mummies in an untouched and perfect state, which were contained in cases of very ordinary make. These two cases are now in London, one of them belonging I believe to Mr. Sams, who bought it of me with some other articles of antiquity when he was in Egypt’ (d’Athanasi 1836, 127). Unless this is a reference to the mummy of Horwennefer (and d’Athanasi is mistaken concerning the method of its acquisition by Sams), it would seem possible that Sams possessed a second mummy and coffin from Abydos; if so, it remains to be identified. A stelophorous statue Finally, in identifying the provenance of objects recorded by early travellers, chance also plays a part. The Englishman John Madox (1768–1837), mentioned above, stayed in d’Athanasi’s house at Thebes in 1823– 24 and made drawings of antiquities that were in his possession (Bierbrier 2012, 349; Taylor 2013 and forthcoming). His published journal mentions that d’Athanasi was obtaining objects from Abydos at this time, both indirectly and on the spot (above, p. 275). In 2014 some of Madox’s papers came to light, and among them was a sketch, probably made during his sojourn at Thebes. It shows a stelophorous statue of a well-known Dynasty 18 type, and is captioned ‘a figure or priest kneeling, found at An[cien]t Abidos’ (Fig. 14). The identical statue appears on one of the coloured plates issued by Joseph Sams in 1839 to promote the sale of his second collection. The well-rendered copy of the inscription shows that the statue belonged to a man named Nebamun, who is called Neby (Sams 1839, 28th plate) (Fig. 15). In spite of the rather wobbly hieroglyphs in Madox’s sketch, the owner’s two names and some of the other more distinctive groups of signs are recognizable, leaving no doubt that the two illustrations represent one and the same object. Madox’s notes on the colours on the statue also tally with those of Sams’ illustration. The statue passed with

33

I am indebted to Ashley Cooke for the photographs which appear as Figs 12–13, and for permission to reproduce them here.

Fig. 14: The statue of Nebamun, called Neby, ‘found at An[cien]t Abidos [sic]’; sketch by John Madox, c. 1824, private collection (photograph John H. Taylor).

the rest of Sams’ collection to the Liverpool Museum (M. 13503), but less fortunate than the mummy, it was destroyed when the museum was bombed in 1941. Although Sams’ illustration provides an excellent record of the piece, its provenance is not recorded, and volume VIII of the Topographical Bibliography (‘Objects of provenance not known’) suggests that it was ‘probably from the Theban area’ (Malek, Magee and Miles 1999, 571–72). Madox’s drawing allows us now to assign it to Abydos instead. It was established several years ago by the late Herman De Meulenaere that this statue was formerly in

290

J. H. TAYLOR

Fig. 15: The same statue (shown in Fig. 14), as illustrated in Sams, Ancient Egypt. Objects of antiquity forming part of the extensive and rich collections from ancient Egypt brought to England by, or now in the possession of, J. Sams. London, 1839, 28th plate.

the possession of the Belgian entrepreneur Charles Bogaert (1791–1875), who issued a printed catalogue of Egyptian antiquities for sale at Bruges about 1830 (De Meulenaere 1993). The descriptions of the objects in this catalogue were sufficiently precise to enable several of them to be recognized in the plates of Sams’ Ancient Egypt. Objects of Antiquity (De Meulenaere 1993, esp. 13 and pl. 1), indicating that he had bought Bogaert’s collection at some time before 1839. Bogaert, in turn, seems to have obtained his antiquities from Jean-Baptiste de Lescluze (1780–1858), who had a brief and unsuccessful business career in Egypt in 1824–25 (Van de Walle 1976; De Meulenaere 1993). Madox’s sketch of the statue, dating from around the time de Lescluze was in Egypt, comes close to providing the last link in the chain of its recent history.

Conclusion The foregoing paragraphs have attempted to show that objects acquired in an unscientific manner can still yield more details about their origins even after nearly 200 years. To advance further along this path, we need to study the early 19th-century written sources more deeply, and to collate this information with museum collections so that object databases can be improved and made more easily searchable for relevant material. A clearer understanding of what Salt, Barker and d’Athanasi took from Abydos ought to sharpen the focus of researches and should help to identify material from the site which entered other collections at that time. In this way we might hope to repair a little of the damage that was done to Abydos’ history in the early days of our discipline.

OBJECTS FROM ABYDOS IN EARLY

Bibliography Anonymous. 1835. Egyptian antiquities. The Gentleman’s Magazine, 187–89, 298–301. d’Athanasi, G. 1836. A brief account of the researches and discoveries in Upper Egypt, made under the direction of Henry Salt, Esq. London. Belzoni, G. B. 1822. Narrative of the operations and recent discoveries within the pyramids, temples, tombs, and excavations in Egypt and Nubia. 2 vols. 3rd edition. London. Bestock, L. 2009. The development of royal funerary cult at Abydos. Two funerary enclosures from the reign of Aha. MENES. Studien zur Kultur und Sprache der ägyptischen Frühzeit und des Alten Reiches 6. Wiesbaden. Bierbrier, M. L. (ed.) 1982. The British Museum. Hieroglyphic texts from Egyptian stelae etc., 10. London. ——— (ed.) 2012. Who was who in Egyptology. 4th revised edition. London. Bresciani, E. 1979. Un edificio di Kha-anekh-ra Sobek-hotep ad Abido (MSS Acerbi, Biblioteca Comunale di Mantova). Egitto e Vicino Oriente 2: 1–20. ———. 1985. Le stele Egiziane del Museo Civico Archeologico di Bologna. Bologna. British Museum. 1922. Hieroglyphic texts from Egyptian stelae, &c., in the British Museum, 6. London. Conder, J. 1827. The modern traveller. A popular description, geographical, historical, and topographical, of the various countries of the globe: Egypt, Nubia and Abyssinia. London. Dewachter, M. 1985. Nouvelles informations relatives à l’exploitation de la nécropole royale de Drah Aboul Neggah. Revue d’égyptologie 36: 43–66. Franke, D. 2013. Egyptian stelae in the British Museum from the 13th to 17th Dynasties. Vol. I, Fascicule 1: Descriptions (ed. M. Marée). London. Gady, É. 2007. Champollion, Ibrahim Pacha et Méhémet Ali: aux sources de la protection des antiquités égyptiennes. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists. Actes du neuvième congrès international des Égyptologues, J.-C. Goyon and C. Cardin (eds), I, 767–75. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 150. Leuven. Gliddon, G. R. 1841. An appeal to the antiquaries of Europe on the destruction of the monuments of Egypt. London. Gray, P. H. K., and D. Slow. 1968. Egyptian mummies in the City of Liverpool Museums. Liverpool Bulletin. Libraries, Museums and Arts Committee. Museums Number 15. Guichard, S. 2007. Une collection d’antiquités égyptiennes méconnue: La Collection Thédenat-Duvent. Revue d’égyptologie 58: 201–28, pls I–VIII. Hall, H. R. 1925. Hieroglyphic texts from Egyptian stelae, &c., in the British Museum, 7. London.

19TH-CENTURY BRITISH COLLECTIONS

291

Halls, J. J. 1834. The life and correspondence of Henry Salt, Esq. FRS &c. 2 vols. London. James, T. G. H. (ed.) 1970. The British Museum. Hieroglyphic texts from Egyptian stelae etc., 9. London. Kitchen, K. A. 1990. Catálogo da Coleção do Egito Antigo existente no Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro. Catalogue of the Egyptian Collection in the National Museum, Rio de Janeiro. 2 vols. Warminster. Leahy, A. 1980. Two Late Period stelae in the Fitzwilliam Museum. Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 8: 169–80, Taf. III–IV. Lepsius, R. 1853. Über die Zwölfte Ägyptische Königsdynastie. Berlin. Lilyquist, C. 1988. The gold bowl naming General Djehuty: A study of objects and early Egyptology. Metropolitan Museum of Art Journal 23: 5–68. Lindsay, Lord. 1838. Letters on Egypt, Edom and the Holy Land. 2 vols. London. Loat, W. L. S. 1923. A Sixth Dynasty cemetery at Abydos. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 9: 161–63, pl. XXIX. Madox, J. 1834. Excursions in the Holy Land, Egypt, Nubia, Syria, &c. including a visit to the unfrequented district of the Haouran. 2 vols. London. Malek, J., D. Magee, and E. Miles. 1999. Topographical bibliography of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic texts, reliefs and paintings. VIII, Objects of provenance not known. Part 2, Private statues (Dynasty XVIII to the Roman period). Statues of deities. Oxford. Mariette, A. 1880. Abydos. Description des fouilles. II. Paris. Martin, G. T. 1986. Shabtis of private persons in the Amarna period. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 42: 109–29, Taf. 8–19. De Meulenaere, H. 1954. Une famille de prêtres thinites. Chronique d’Égypte 29: 221–36. ———. 1993. Les antiquités égyptiennes de la collection Charles Bogaert. Bulletin de la Société française d’égyptologie 127: 6–19. von Minutoli, Baroness. 1827. Recollections of Egypt (English translation). Philadelphia. Munro, P. 1973. Die spätägyptischen Totenstelen. Ägyptologische Forschungen 25. Glückstadt. Naville, E. (ed.) 1904. Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiiopien. Text, II. Leipzig. Nunn, J. F. 1996. Ancient Egyptian medicine. London. O’Connor, D. 1985. The ‘cenotaphs’ of the Middle Kingdom at Abydos. In Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar, P. Posener-Kriéger (ed.), 161–77, pl. I. Bibliothèque d’Étude 97/2. Cairo. Oliver, A. 2014. American Travelers on the Nile. Early U.S. Visitors to Egypt, 1774–1839. Cairo; New York. Passalacqua, J. 1826. Catalogue raisonné et historique des antiquités découvertes en Égypte. Paris.

292

J. H. TAYLOR

Radwan, A. 1983. Die Kupfer- und Bronzegefässe Ägyptens (von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn der Spätzeit). Prähistorische Bronzefunde Abteilung II 2. Munich. Raven, M. J. 2012. Egyptian magic. The quest for Thoth’s Book of Secrets. Cairo; New York. Richards, J. 2002. Text and context in late Old Kingdom Egypt: The archaeology and historiography of Weni the Elder. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 39: 75–102. ———. 2010. Honoring the ancestors at Abydos: The Middle Kingdom in the Middle Cemetery. In Millions of Jubilees. Studies in honor of David P Silverman, Z. Hawass and J. H. Wegner (eds), 137–66. Supplément aux Annales du Service des antiquités de l’Égypte, Cahier 39, II. Cairo. ———. 2015. A New Kingdom figurine from the Abydos Middle Cemetery. In Joyful in Thebes. Egyptological studies in honor of Betsy M. Bryan, R. Jasnow and K. M. Cooney (eds), 387–99. Atlanta. ———. 2016–17. Local saints and national politics in the late Middle Kingdom. Cahiers de recherches de l’Institut de papyrologie et d’égyptologie de Lille 31: 139–60. Richards, J., and H. Tunmore 2016. Contextualising Idi. The British Museum Newsletter Egypt and Sudan 3: 44. Ridley, R. T. 1998. Napoleon’s proconsul in Egypt: The life and times of Bernardino Drovetti. London. St. John, J. A. 1834. Egypt and Mohammed Ali or travels in the valley of the Nile. 2 vols. London. Sams, J. 1839. Ancient Egypt. Objects of antiquity forming part of the extensive and rich collections from ancient Egypt brought to England by, or now in the possession of, J. Sams. London. Schmidt, H. C. 2011. Westcar on the Nile. A journey through Egypt in the 1820s. Wiesbaden. Siesse, J., and S. Connor. 2015. Nouvelle datation pour le roi Sobekhotep Khâânkhrê. Revue d’égyptologie 66: 227– 38, pls XXVI–XXX. Simpson, W. K. 1974. The Terrace of the Great God at Abydos: The offering chapels of Dynasties 12 and 13. New Haven and Philadelphia. ———. 1995. Inscribed material from the PennsylvaniaYale excavations at Abydos. Publications of the Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition to Egypt 6. New Haven and Philadelphia. Sotheby, Mr. and Son. 1833a. Catalogue of a most interesting & magnificent collection of Egyptian antiquities, presumed to be the finest extant; together with a most splendidly illuminated manuscript on vellum, consisting of eighty-six superb paintings. London.

———. 1833b. Catalogue of a most interesting collection of Egyptian antiquities, principally found at Thebes and Abydos, during the years 1818, 19, 20 and 21. London. ———. 1835. Catalogue of the highly interesting and magnificent collection of Egyptian antiquities, the property of the late Henry Salt, Esq. His Britannic Majesty’s late Consul General in Egypt. London. Sotheby, L. 1837. Catalogue of the very magnificent and extraordinary collection of Egyptian antiquities, the property of Giovanni d’Athanasi. London. Taylor, J. H. 2013. John Madox: A diligent traveller and his scattered legacy. In Souvenirs and new ideas. Travel and collecting in Egypt and the Near East, D. Fortenberry (ed.), 179–91. Oxford; Oakville. ———. Forthcoming. The collecting activities of Giovanni d’Athanasi: Recovering object provenances and associations from archival sources. Thomas, A. P. 2016. A review of the monuments of Unnefer, High Priest of Osiris at Abydos in the reign of Ramesses II. In Mummies, magic and medicine in ancient Egypt. Multidisciplinary essays for Rosalie David, C. Price, R. Forshaw, A. Chamberlain and P. T. Nicholson (eds), 56–68. Manchester. Usick, P. 2009. The archives of the Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan, The British Museum. Egyptian & Egyptological Documents, Archives, Libraries 1: 107–11. Vyse, [R. W.] H. 1840. Operations carried on at the Pyramids of Gizeh in 1837: With an account of a voyage into Upper Egypt, and an appendix. Vol. 1. London. Van de Walle, B. 1976. Le catalogue de la collection Ch. Bogaert. Chronique d’Égypte 51: 47–57. Webster, J. 1830. Travels through the Crimea, Turkey, and Egypt; performed during the years 1825–1828. 2 vols. London. Wilkinson, J. G. 1857. The Egyptians in the time of the pharaohs. Being a companion to the Crystal Palace Egyptian collections. London. Willems, H. 1997. The embalmer embalmed. Remarks on the meaning of the decoration of some Middle Kingdom coffins. In Essays on ancient Egypt in honour of Herman te Velde, J. van Dijk (ed.), 343–72. Egyptological Memoirs 1. Groningen. ———. 2016. Die Grabkammer des Djehutinakht (I.?) in Dayr al-Barsha—Methodologische Aspekte des Rekonstruktion des Ablaufs des Bestattungsrituals anhand eines Neuentdeckten Beispiels. In Die Variation der Tradition. Modalitäten der Ritualadaptation im Alten Ägypten, A. H. Pries (ed.), 133–70. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 240. Leuven, Paris, Bristol, CT.

OBJECTS FROM ABYDOS IN EARLY

19TH-CENTURY BRITISH COLLECTIONS

293

Table 1: Objects stated to be from Abydos in the catalogue of the sale of the third collection of Henry Salt, Sotheby & Son, London, 29 June–8 July 1835. The names of the purchasers are taken from the auctioneer’s own annotated copy of the sale catalogue (British Library). For the abbreviation ‘Wm’, see above, p. 286. The purchasers of some lots are not recorded, and in many cases the current locations of objects are unknown. Some of the items purchased by the British Museum remain unidentified, for the reasons explained on p. 279. The descriptions are simplified from those given in the sale catalogue, and have been corrected where appropriate. ‘Calcite’ is substituted for the catalogue’s ‘alabaster’, and ‘vessel’ denotes objects which were variously described as ‘vase’, ‘lachrymatory’, etc.

b.

Notes to Table 1. a.

The oil tablet British Museum EA 6122 fits the catalogue description of lot 1205 and is stated to be from Abydos in the Birch slips. The numbers ‘S.1045’ and ‘S.1405’, which appear respectively on the Birch slip for 6122 and on the object itself, are both erroneous (lot 1045 was a statue, and the sale did not include a lot 1405).

Lot number

c.

Brief description

Numerous objects are listed in the 1835 ‘Catalogue of Additions...’ (AES Ar. 580) and in the Birch slips under the lot numbers ‘1206x’ and ‘1206xx’, and these numbers are also inscribed on the objects. These were supplementary lots, added on the ninth day of the sale, and not included in the printed catalogue (nor do they appear in d’Athanasi 1836). One of the two annotated copies of the catalogue in the library of the Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan, the British Museum, includes these lots, added in pencil following lot 1206, as follows: ‘1206x [no description]’ and ‘1206x [sic—for ‘1206xx’] Pots.’ Both lots, which were purchased by the British Museum, contained numerous items, those of lot 1206xx including both ceramic and stone vessels—some of the latter attributed to Abydos in the 1835 ‘Catalogue of Additions...’ Correlation of these objects with current inventory numbers remains to be done. Lots 1244–52 comprised papyri, ‘found in the tombs at Thebes, Memphis, and Abydos’ (Sotheby 1835, 99), but none can be identified as to provenance and hence they are omitted from the table.

1835 purchaser

Location

37

Figure of Thoth

41

Faience pectoral

Cureton

42

Limestone cat figure

Dawkins

43

Faience Taweret figure

Cureton

44

Faience Bastet figure

Hay

46

Faience Bastet figure

Sir F. Roe

51

Faience figures of Ptah and ‘Priapus’ (Min?)

SLS

80

2 calcite vessels

Cureton

BM EA 4609, 4653

81

Calcite vessel

Ewbank

BM EA 4781

82

Calcite vessel

Hay

83

Calcite vessel (‘embalming jar’)

Cureton

BM EA 7846

BM EA 4474

84 [No provenance in sale Calcite table with 10 vessels of Idi Hawkins catalogue, but from Abydos on internal evidence; see p. 280]

BM EA 4684–87, 4689–95

114

25 copper alloy ‘mathematical & other instruments’ [model tools, razors etc.] of Idi

BM EA 6071–83, 6085–94

135

2 painted stelae

Davidson

136

2 stelae

Curzon

137

3 stelae

Wm

138

Stela

Ottley

139

Stela

Wm

140

Stela

Hawkins

141

Stela

Rogers

142

2 stelae

Wm

143

Stela

MacKenuan

144

Stela

Wm

Hawkins

BM EA 217

J. H. TAYLOR

294 Lot number

Brief description

1835 purchaser

Location

145

Stela

Rogers [cancelled] S L S

146

2 stelae

Wm

147

Stela

Hawkins

BM EA 345

148

Stela

Hawkins

BM EA 346

219

8 beads of ‘gold composition’

Cureton

BM EA 3085

246

Calcite spoon & vessel

Cureton

247

Calcite vessel

Roche

248

Calcite vessel

Cureton

249

Calcite vessel

Hay

287

Stela

Till

288

Stela

Wm

289

Stela

Hay

290

2 stelae

Till

291

Stela

Bentham

292

2 stelae

Hawkins

293

2 stelae

Hanson

294

Stela

Wm

295

2 stelae

Till

296

Stela

Blanshard

Boston MFA 22.402

297

Stela

Hawkins

BM EA 644

365

3 small vases

Wm

366

2 small vases

Hay

367

Vase with handles, on stand

Hay

368

Vessel

Cureton

369

Vessel

Hay

370

Vessel

Hall

371

Vessel

Cureton

372

Vessel

Hay

373

Vessel

Cureton

374

2 small vessels, of ‘Corinthian marble’ and ‘agate’

Cureton

BM EA 4490 & ?

384

‘Various Symbols of hard Stone’ [eyebrow and eye-surround inlays from an OK-MK coffin]

Cureton

BM EA 2051–52 [possibly belonging with eyes, lot 670]

401

Bronze figure of Osiris

Leather

BM EA 6198

402

Bronze kneeling priest with offering table

Cureton

BM EA 2283

403

Copper alloy offering table & 26 utensils, of Idi

Hawkins

BM EA 5315 & 38230

404

2 copper alloy vessels

Cureton

BM EA 5326, 38215 [previously 5321]

405

2 ‘bronze’ mirrors

Hay

423

Limestone seated statue

Cureton

BM EA 2362 BM EA 2307

BM EA 230

BM EA 220, 258

427

Limestone statuette of Senbef

Cureton

429

Stela

Rogers

430

Stela

Wm

431

Stela

Wm

432

Stela

Hawkins

BM EA 309

433

Stela

Cureton

BM EA 226

434

Stela

Cureton

BM EA 288

OBJECTS FROM ABYDOS IN EARLY

Lot number

19TH-CENTURY BRITISH COLLECTIONS

Brief description

1835 purchaser

295 Location

435

Stela

Cureton

BM EA 338

436

Stela

Cureton

BM EA 291

437

Stela

Wm

545

5 stone vessels

Wm

546

4 stone vessels

Wm

547

2 small stone vessels

Hay

548

Calcite vessel with lid

Cureton

549

2 stone vessels

Ld. Nugent

550

2 stone vessels

Ld. Nugent

551

Stone vessel

Hay

552

Stone vessel

Ld. Mount Norris

553

Calcite vessel with handle

Hawkins

BM EA 4639

554

2 small ‘agate’ vessels on wooden Hawkins stand

BM EA 2632

555

2 small ‘agate’ vessels with lids

BM EA 2629, 2630

556

‘Agate’ vessel with lid

Hay

557

2 vases, ‘agate’ and ‘serpentine’, with lids

Hawkins

BM EA 2628, 2637 (?)

558

2 limestone dummy vessels

Hawkins

BM EA 9526, 9527

569

Limestone kneeling statue

Cureton

572

Stela

Rogers [cancelled] A

573

Stela

Hawkins

574

Stela

A

575

Stela

576

Stela

WA

Devonshire Collection, Chatsworth House

577

Stela

Hawkins

BM EA 305

578

Stela

Cohen

579

Stela

Wm

595

4 faience figures of deities

Cureton

598

4 faience figures of deities

Cohen

609

Faience cat figure

Hay

612

Faience ‘Thoth’ figure [actually Bes]

Cureton

665

3 small stone vessels

Hay

666

3 stone vessels

Hawkins

BM EA 2623 & 4610; a model vessel, labelled ‘666’ occupies a recess in Opening-of-Mouth set EA 5526

667

6 stone vessels

Cureton

BM EA 4541, 4542, 4547, 4726, 4738, 5545

668

Vase and lachrymatory

Hay

669

2 vases

Hawkins

BM EA 4602, 4603

670

2 stone vessels and eyes ‘from a mummy’

Hawkins

Vessels: BM EA 4520, 4570; Eyes: BM EA 6911–12 [from an OK-MK coffin; cf. lot 384?]

671

2 stone vessels

Hay

672

5 ‘agate’ vessels

Hay

673

2 ‘agate’ vessels

Hawkins

BM EA 4705, 4706

674

5 ‘basalt’ vessels

Hawkins

BM EA 4704 & ??

675

2 ‘basalt’ vessels, one with lid

Hawkins

BM EA 2637, 4710

Hawkins

BM EA 4507

BM EA 297

BM EA 61216

J. H. TAYLOR

296 Lot number

Brief description

1835 purchaser

Location

676

2 vessels, ‘Corinthian marble’ and Hawkins ‘serpentine marble’

BM EA 4708, 4713

677

Inscribed ‘basalt’ bowl of Idi

Hawkins

BM EA 4697

678

Calcite vessel, inscription partly erased

Hawkins

BM EA 4516

710

Limestone seated statue

Wm

712

Stela

Wm

713

Stela

Hawkins

714

Stela

Wm

715

Stela

Hawkins

716

Stela

Wm

717

Stela

Hawkins

BM EA 201

718

Stela

Hawkins

BM EA 239

719

Stela

Wm

720

Stela

Wm

721

Stela

H

789

Alabaster ‘palette’ [tablet for sacred oils] of Idi

Hawkins

BM EA 6123 [Birch slip for ‘6123’ has ‘S.783’, erroneously]

790

Alabaster ‘pillar’ [probably for ‘pillow’, i.e. headrest] of Idi

Hawkins

BM EA 2523

794

Calcite ‘shell’ [spoon]

Hawkins

BM EA 4585

795

Calcite vessel with lid and stand

Hawkins

796

Calcite vessel

Cureton

BM EA 4644

797

Calcite vessel

Cureton

BM EA 4688

798

Calcite vessel

Cureton

BM EA 4565

799

Calcite vessel

Hay

800

Calcite vessel

Hawkins

BM EA 214 BM EA 211

BM EA 4551

801

Vessel of ‘Corinthian marble’

Hawkins

825

Hieratic papyrus

Forshall

BM EA 10051

839

Limestone statue of Ramses II

Hawkins

BM EA 96 [lower part restored]

840

Stela

Wm

841

Stela

Wm

842

Stela

L (?)

843

Stela

Wm

844

Stela

Hawkins

BM EA 143

845

Stela

Hawkins

BM EA 167

846

Stela

Prudhoe

Durham 1941

847

Stela

Wm

848

Stela

Hawkins

BM EA 163

849

Stela

Hawkins

BM EA 152

850

Stela

Hay

851

Stela

Wm

867

3 figures of deities

Hawkins

868

3 figures of deities

Hay

870

3 figures of deities

Hay

877

Faience cat with kittens, and falcon

R

878

Figures of Anubis and ‘Priapus’

McKenuan

937

2 calcite vessels

Halls

938

Calcite vessel

Hawkins

Birmingham 134.72

BM EA 4563

OBJECTS FROM ABYDOS IN EARLY

Lot number

19TH-CENTURY BRITISH COLLECTIONS

Brief description

1835 purchaser Hawkins

297 Location

939

Calcite vessel

952

Hieratic Book of the Dead papyrus Thorpe of Irthorru

BM EA 10095

BM EA 4522

970

7 copper alloy mirrors

Hawkins

BM EA 2742–43, 2745, 37169, 37170 [Birch slip 2738, 2741 also from lot 970, but not traceable]

974

Limestone seated statue

Hay

975

Calcite seated figure on stepped plinth

Hawkins

BM EA 2313

982

Stela

Hawkins

BM EA 162

983

Stela

Hawkins

BM EA 158

984

Stela

Hawkins

BM EA 161

985

Stela

Hawkins

BM EA 148

1044

Wooden shabti

Hawkins

BM EA 8644

1052

Ivory figure of ‘Thoth’ [cancelled: Wm ‘Typhon’]

1060

Opening-of-mouth set

Hawkins

BM EA 5526; one model vessel bears label ‘666’

1061

Calcite headrest

Hawkins

BM EA 2525

1061*

‘Various ornaments taken from the Cureton body of a mummy’

1067

6 small bronze figures of Osiris

Bayley

1068

2 small bronze figures of Osiris

McQueen [cancelled]

1083

Bronze ‘basin’ and ‘jug’

Hawkins

1085

3 bronze mirrors

Hay

1086

2 calcite & 1 ‘crystal’ vessels

Hay [cancelled] Hawkins

1087

Calcite vessel with lid

Ld. M.Norris

1088

Calcite vessel

Ld. M.Norris

1089

Calcite vessel

Hay

1090

Calcite vessel

Hawkins

1091

5 calcite ‘embalming vases’, inscribed

Hay

1092

Calcite vessel, inscribed

Hawkins

1093

Calcite vessel, inscribed

Wm Ath for Mr Bank (?)

1094

‘Basalt’ vessel

Hawkins

1103

Papyrus, ‘taken from a mummy’

Thorpe

1113

Calcite statuette

Ld. Prudoe

Durham EG 4009

1115

Limestone seated statue of Sebekhotep

Dr Lee

Bodmer Collection

1117

Stela

Hawkins

BM EA 164

1118

Stela

Hawkins

BM EA 166

1119

Stela

P. Wm A (?)

1120

Stela

Hawkins

1121

Stela

Wm P. A

1122

Stela

Wm

1123

Stela

Stevens

1124

Stela

Hawkins

BM EA 165

1195

2 calcite spoons

Hawkins

BM EA 4583, 4594

1196

3 calcite spoons

Hawkins

BM EA 4589, 4592 & prob. 4588

1197

3 calcite vessels

Hawkins

BM EA 5322, 38200 [previously 5322a] BM EA 4544, 4606 & ?

BM EA 4549

BM EA 4492

BM EA 159

J. H. TAYLOR

298 Lot number

Brief description

1835 purchaser

Location

1204

2 stone headrests

Hawkins

BM EA 2524, 2528

1205

Tablet for sacred oils (?) and calcite knife

Hawkins

Oil tablet prob. BM EA 6122 [see Note a]

1206xx

‘Pots’

1217

5 bronze mirrors

1218

Bronze mirror and bowl

Cohen

1220

3 stone vessels

Hawkins

BM EA 2626, 4539 & prob. 4528 [though the last is marked ‘S.1224’]

1221

3 stone vessels

Hawkins

BM EA 4611, 4622 & ?

1222

Stone vessel

Hay

1223

Stone vessel

Hay

1224

Calcite vessel

Hawkins

BM EA 4598

1225

Calcite vessel

Hawkins

BM EA 4596

1226

Calcite vessel

Hawkins

1227

Stone vessel

Ld. Cardigan

1228

3 calcite vessels

Hawkins

1229

2 stone vessels

Cohen

1230

2 stone vessels

Hawkins

1231

2 stone vessels

Cohen

1232

Stone vessel

Ld. Cardigan

1233

Stone vessel

Cohen

1235

2 stone vessels

Hawkins

1236

2 stone vessels

Hawkins

BM EA 4711 & ?

1237

‘Serpentine’ vessel

Hawkins

BM EA 4731

1244–52

Papyri

1255

Calcite statuette

Hawkins

BM EA 2312

1256

Limestone statue

Hawkins

BM EA 2314

1257

Limestone statue

Davenport

1258

Limestone statue

Hawkins

1259

Statue

Dr Lee

See Note b Hay

BM EA 4531, 4623 & ? BM EA 2574 (kohl tube) & 4543

BM EA 4615

See Note c

Prob. BM EA 2296

OBJECTS FROM ABYDOS IN EARLY

19TH-CENTURY BRITISH COLLECTIONS

299

Table 2: Objects from the tomb and associated cult installations of Idi, from the sale of the third collection of Henry Salt, Sotheby & Son, London, 29 June–8 July 1835. This list only includes objects which can be attributed to Idi either by inscription or by documented association with the inscribed objects (as for the two vessels, lot 404).

BM Object number

Salt 1835 lot number

Description

EA 2523

790

Headrest, inscribed

EA 4684

84

Calcite offering table

EA 4685

84

Calcite libation vessel

EA 4686

84

Calcite vessel

EA 4687

84

Calcite vessel

EA 4688

797

Calcite vessel

EA 4689

84

Calcite vessel

EA 4690

Association with Idi group uncertain

Calcite vessel

EA 4691

Calcite jar

EA 4692

84

Calcite vessel

EA 4693

84

Calcite vessel

84

Calcite bowl

EA 4694 EA 4695

Remarks Listed in sale catalogue as a ‘pillar’ (sic: probably for ‘pillow’)

Calcite vessel

EA 4697

677

Schist bowl, inscribed

EA 5315

403

Copper alloy model offering table with 26 utensils

EA 5326

404

Copper alloy vessel

EA 5526

1060

Opening of Mouth set

EA 6071

114

Copper alloy model axe head

EA 6072

114

Copper alloy model axe head

EA 6073

114

Copper alloy model axe head

EA 6074

114

Copper alloy model axe head

EA 6075

114

Copper alloy razor, inscribed

EA 6076

114

Copper alloy razor, inscribed

EA 6077

114

Copper alloy razor, inscribed

EA 6078

114

Copper alloy razor, inscribed

EA 6079

114

Copper alloy razor, inscribed

EA 6080

114

Copper alloy razor, inscribed

EA 6081

114

Copper alloy razor, inscribed

EA 6082

114

Copper alloy razor, inscribed

EA 6083

114

Copper alloy razor, inscribed

EA 6085

114

Copper alloy razor

EA 6086

114

Copper alloy tray

EA 6087

114

Copper alloy tray

EA 6088

114

Copper alloy tray

EA 6089

114

Copper alloy tray

EA 6090

114

Copper alloy razor, inscribed

EA 6091

114

Copper alloy razor, inscribed

EA 6092

114

Copper alloy razor, inscribed

EA 6093

114

Copper alloy razor, inscribed

EA 6094

114

Copper alloy model knife (?) blade

Sieve has separate number EA 38230 One model vessel is part of lot 666. Association of this group with Idi uncertain

J. H. TAYLOR

300 BM Object number

Salt 1835 lot number

Description

EA 6123

789 [see Remarks]

Calcite tablet for sacred oils, inscribed

EA 38215

404

Copper alloy vessel

Remarks Birch slip for 6123 has the lot number 783, in error. It is probably lot 789, a ‘painter’s palette’ with eight divisions. [The Birch slips seem to identify this lot with EA 6122, but as this tablet has only the usual seven divisions EA 6123 is a better candidate].

THE mꜥḥꜥ.t OF OSIRIS IN ASYUT Zsuzsanna VÉGH

Abstract The cults associated with the mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris in Abydos have been the subject of inquiry for a long time. However, the Middle Kingdom inscriptions from Asyut that refer to the local mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris are less well known. Despite their potential importance to the study of Middle Kingdom religion, these references have not been studied in detail. The aim of this paper is, therefore, to analyse the written sources referring to the cult of Osiris at Asyut, in order to describe its characteristics and potential relationship to the cult of Osiris at Abydos. A possible reconstruction of the cult origins will be proposed, which may contribute to a better understanding of the Abydene Osiris festivals. The meaning of the word mꜥḥꜥ.t 1 Before turning to the sources of Abydos and Asyut, the first question that should be discussed is the meaning of the word mꜥḥꜥ.t. There is a certain divergence in research as to how the word mꜥḥꜥ.t is to be understood in different contexts. If the word refers to the mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris, it is understood as ‘tomb’ (e.g. Schäfer 1904a, 28–30; Anthes 1974, 30–41; Assmann 2001, 310–11). The same word is, however, translated in other contexts in quite a different way. On the Middle Kingdom stelae from Abydos there are many references to the erection of a mꜥḥꜥ.t at the ‘Terrace of the Great God’, in order to allow the deceased to join the followers of Osiris and/or to participate eternally in the offerings presented to him.2 The archaeological contexts of most of these stelae are not documented. There are indications that some of them stood in a tomb-chapel (cf. Simpson

1

2

I am grateful to Jochem Kahl for reading this draft and for his valuable comments. For proofreading and correcting my English I am indebted to Gyula Priskin, Charles Draper and Lauren Morris. See the following example: ‘As for this mꜥḥꜥ.t that I made at Abydos in the Thinite Nome, at the Terrace of the Great God, lord of the gods, at the district Nebet-hetepet, the sacred land of the

1974, 11), but it is proposed that the vast majority stood in chapels unconnected with any burial. These latter chapels stood in the so-called Votive zone/Cenotaph zone, on the desert scarp overlooking the OsirisKhentiamentiu temple (O’Connor 1985, 161–77). In his fundamental study of the Abydene cults and of these dedicatory inscriptions, William Kelly Simpson translated the word mꜥḥꜥ.t as ‘offering chapel’, arguing that the word is an ‘m-performative of the verb ꜥḥꜥ, a standing place, a station, an erected structure, or the like’, and could be applied ‘to a memorial place, a pyramid, a mastaba tomb, a grave, a naos or a stela’. He further stated that the translation ‘offering chapel’ was ‘not intended to exclude [the] other senses’ (Simpson 1974, 11; for the etymology see Osing 1976, 746– 47; Takács 2008, 185–86 with further literature). At the time Simpson wrote this, the Votive zone was not yet discovered. After identifying and excavating this area, David O’Connor proposed that in Abydos the term mꜥḥꜥ.t designates only chapels without associated burials, even if outside Abydos the word could designate a real tomb (O’Connor 2009, 96; Cahail 2014, 241–42, 328–29). One of the arguments supporting the distinction between the word mꜥḥꜥ.t and the word js, ‘tomb’, in Abydos, is the stela of Tetisheri, the mother of the king Ahmose from South Abydos. In the text of this stela, there is a clear distinction between the mꜥḥꜥ.t built in Abydos and the js built in Thebes (O’Connor 1985, 166, n. 11; Cahail 2014, 310–11). This is, however, an inscription from a later period and, moreover, of a royal character. Indeed, during Dynasty 11 and early Dynasty 12, both of these words (mꜥḥꜥ.t and js) appear in non-royal consecration texts.3 Otherwise, the

3

western horizon, in order that my akh may be strong in the retinue of the great god.’ (Louvre C 170, cf. Landgráfová 2011, 203). Consecration texts mentioning the building of an js: Stela Chatsworth 720/12 from Dynasty 11: Lichtheim 1988, 67–68; Leiden No. 3 (V 3) from Sesostris I: Lichtheim 1988, 73; Leiden No. 5 (V 4) from Sesostris I/Amenemhet II: Lichtheim 1988, 75; and Turin Cat. 1534 from early Dynasty 12 (Donadoni Roveri 1988, 109; Spiegel 1973, 152–53).

302

Z. VÉGH

inscriptions use the very same phraseology, and thus, in this context, the words mꜥḥꜥ.t and js do seem to be synonyms. That the word js does not appear in consecration inscriptions in later times was most assuredly not caused by a cessation in tomb construction. There is also no reason to assume that there was any kind of restriction in operation deeming that consecration texts must only be used for mꜥḥꜥ.t-chapels. The implication is rather that in Dynasty 11 and early Dynasty 12 both the concept and the name of the mꜥḥꜥ.t may have been quite new, but became increasingly popular with time. Therefore, the possibility should not be discounted that this term denotes both tomb-chapels and chapels without associated burials, especially as chapels similar to those in the Votive zone were found all over the cemetery (cf. Adams 2010, 11–13). As the term mꜥḥꜥ.t could designate a chapel associated with burials, but does not necessarily, translating the mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris as a ‘tomb of Osiris’ is not unproblematic. If one translates it as the ‘tomb of Osiris’, this might imply that it was an actual burial place, being a site where Osiris figurines were deposited. It is, however, uncertain whether or not such figures were produced during the Middle Kingdom (Quack 2007). Furthermore, as seen above, the designation mꜥḥꜥ.t could also simply refer to a cult chapel and it is possible, therefore, that the mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris was a cult chapel of the god, in which a cult statue was installed and visited regularly, without any associated burial (Cahail 2014, 329–30). Because of all these uncertainties the mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris will be understood in this study in a more neutral manner, as a special cultic structure dedicated to Osiris, and will thus be left untranslated. It may well be the case that the meaning of this designation (the cultic structure of Osiris) was the original one. While the Wörterbuch maintains that the word mꜥḥꜥ.t is attested only from the Middle Kingdom onwards (WB II, 49, cf. Morenz 1998, 243), the word appears in the Pyramid Texts, where it ꜥḥꜥ.t describes a shelter for Osiris. Since ꜥḥꜥ.t is a variant spelling of mꜥḥꜥ.t in Middle Kingdom texts (WB I, 221 and WB II, 49, noting the absence of the determinative),

4

That this passage was embedded into an invocation to the sycamore tree also evokes the image of the later depictions of the Osiris tomb, namely, that there was a tree on the tomb. See, for

the word which appears in the Pyramid Texts may well refer to the same structure (Meurer 2002, 187). The text in question reads: jnḏ ḥr=ṯ nh.t ẖnm.t nṯr ꜥḥꜥ.t nṯr.w nntj.w ẖr=s (…) ꜥḥꜥ.t=k wsjr šw=k ḥr tp=k wsjr ḫsf Ꜣ.t=k stẖ ḥwnw.t ḥtp.t jr.t n Ꜣḫ pn gḥstj šw.t=k wsjr ‘Hail to you, you sycamore-tree, which encloses the god, under which the gods of the Lower Sky stand (…). Your ꜥḥꜥ.t, Osiris, is your shelter, which is above you, Osiris, which repels your striking-power, Seth, the peaceful maiden who helped this spirit of Geheset, your shadow, Osiris’ (Pyramid Text 574 [Allen 2013, §§ 1485a–1487d]; Moftah 1965, 40–41; Koemoth 1994, 124; Meurer 2002, 187). Geheset is one of the designations of the place where Osiris died (Helck 1986, 424; Gomaà 2001, 43–44; Meurer 2002, 122– 24; Strandberg 2009, 162–70). The ‘spirit of Geheset’ could refer to Osiris, who is not revivified yet, and thus, the ꜥḥꜥ.t serves as his protection while he is in his vulnerable state.4 The interpretation of the word ꜥḥꜥ.t as mꜥḥꜥ.t would fit well into the context, indicative of a protective structure associated with Osiris. If we accept this evidence, it can be proposed that the (m)ꜥḥꜥ.t was originally a designation for a special cultic structure of Osiris, in which rites for the revivification of Osiris were celebrated. Thereafter, during the First Intermediate Period/Early Middle Kingdom, the word was applied to a memorial chapel or tomb of a royal or a private person. By describing his own offering chapel or tomb-chapel as a mꜥḥꜥ.t, the deceased associated their own death with the triumph and revivification of Osiris, whom they hoped to emulate. The mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris in Abydos As for the mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris during the Middle Kingdom, sources from Abydos and from Asyut provide considerable evidence. The stela of Ikhernofret (Berlin No. 1204: Schäfer 1904a; Landgrafová 2011, 204–07 with further literature) from Abydos reports how the dedicant cleared paths leading to the mꜥhꜥ.t of Osiris at the forefront of Poqer (jw ḏsr.n=j wꜢ.wt nṯr r mꜥḥꜥ.t=f ḫntj.t Pḳr). Another reference may occur in

example, Einaudi 2007, 475–85. The word Poqer may have originally been the designation of a tree which stood on the mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris (Schäfer 1904b, 107–10).

THE

mꜥḥꜥ.t OF OSIRIS IN ASYUT

303

an Osiris Hymn from Dynasty 13 (BM EA 893),5 which names Osiris-Khentiamentiu as ‘Lord of Powers in Tawer, Lord of Mahats’ (nb sḫm.w m tꜢ-wr, nb mꜥḥꜥ.wt). Poqer, where, according to the stela of Ikhernofret, the mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris was situated, is traditionally identified with the area of the royal tombs of Umm el-Qa‘ab (Leahy 1989, 57–59). In the tomb of Djer, Amélineau found a statue of Osiris lying on a bier (Amélineau 1899, 109–13), which is most likely to be dated to Dynasty 13 (Leahy 1977). During the project of the German Archaeological Institute Cairo, ‘Die Geschichte des Osiriskultes in Abydos’, fragments of a limestone shrine were found belonging to the tomb of Djer, probably to house a statue of Osiris (Effland and Effland 2013, 19–20). The tomb of Djer has thus been frequently identified with the mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris. In 2014, a chapel built by Nebhepetre Mentuhotep of Dynasty 11 was found next to the temple of Seti I. Its dedication text, translated by Josef Wegner, reads as follows: ‘The King of Upper and Lower Egypt, son of Ra Mentuhotep. It was for Osiris, Khentiamentiu, Wepwawet, and the gods who are in Abydos, that he made his monument. He made for them a mahat of white limestone (…)’ (Wegner 2015, 5). The text is written in four columns and appears between the king and a male deity. This deity has no attribute, but above him in three separate columns the following inscription appears: ‘Words spoken by Osiris. Words spoken by Khentiamentiu. Words spoken by Wepwawet’. Thus, the same deity appears to be identified with these three gods. This manner of depiction suggests that Osiris, Khentiamentiu and Wepwawet may be understood either as sharing a manifestation or as one divinity represented by three separate gods. In any case, according to the dedication text this is a mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris, Khentiamentiu, Wepwawet and all the gods who are in Abydos. However, the excavators identified the structure as a royal mꜥḥꜥ.t-chapel, as already indicated by the title of the preliminary publication: A new temple: The mahat of Nebhepetre at Abydos. In other words, this was not a mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris as known from the stela of Ikhernofret, but a mꜥḥꜥ.t of

the king, probably constructed in imitation of the mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris. The building lies indeed in the area where the Mansions of Millions of Years of Ramses I, Seti I and Ramses II were built during Dynasty 19. Although the inscriptions of these temples do not designate the buildings as mꜥḥꜥ.t, there are several references indicating that they could indeed have been understood as such. There is, for example, a statue of Ramses I which stood, according to its inscriptions, in the king’s mꜥḥꜥ.t (Clère 1957, 33–36; Schott 1964, 14–16; Kitchen 1975, 108). Although the archaeological context of this statue is not documented, it stood most probably in his Mansion of Millions of Years. Furthermore, Ramses II claims in his dedicatory inscription in the Seti temple to have found the mꜥḥꜥ.t-chapels of the earlier kings there in ruins (Kitchen 1979, 38; Maderna-Sieben 2003a; 2003b). Thus, this area seems to be the area of the royal mꜥḥꜥ.t-chapels. Therefore, it is reasonable to propose that this building of Nebhepetre may have had a similar function. The ongoing excavations will clarify this question as well as the different functions of a royal ka-chapel and of a royal mꜥhꜥ.t.6 It is consequently proposed that the mꜥḥꜥ.t originally had the meaning a ‘cultic structure of Osiris’. Later on, kings as well as private people erected their own mꜥḥꜥ.tchapels in Abydos, in order to secure the same fate as Osiris and to participate in the rites celebrated for him during his yearly festival. In the following section the Osiris cult in Asyut will be examined, as well as its possible connections to the Abydene cults.

5

6

According to Porter and Moss (1964, 893) the stela is from Thebes. However, shorter versions of this hymn are also documented on Abydene stelae (Franke 2003, 98–99). Thus it is quite possible that this hymn was used also in Abydos.

Osiris in Asyut The city of Asyut, the capital of the 13th Upper Egyptian nome, lies around 160km north of Abydos. From the First Intermediate Period onwards its main deity was Wepwawet, whose most frequent epithets were ‘Lord of Asyut’, ‘Power of the Two Lands’, or ‘The Upper Egyptian’ (Kahl 2007, 39). During the Middle Kingdom, another important god was Anubis, whose most frequent epithet was ‘the Lord of

Although the chapel of Ramses I is designated in his inscription as the Mansion of Millions of Years, there are also allusions showing that it was understood as a ka-chapel: it is called ḥw.t n kꜢ=k ‘Mansion for your ka’ and ḥw.t n(.t) mꜢꜥ-ḫrw ‘Mansion of justification’ (Ullmann 2002, 205).

304

Z. VÉGH

Ra-kereret’ (Kahl 2007, 49). Ra-kereret is the name of the local necropolis. According to Edel, the temple of Anubis, Lord of Ra-kereret stood on an area adjacent to this necropolis (Edel 1984, 58). Several other gods also had a cult there, including Osiris, who was designated mostly as ‘Lord of the West’ (nb jmnt.t) or ‘Lord of Ta-ankh’ (nb tꜢ-ꜥnḫ) (Kahl 2007, 50–51). Additionally, coffin inscriptions mention ‘Osiris, Lord of Busiris, Great God, Lord of Abydos’ or ‘Osiris, Lord of Busiris, Khentiamentiu, Lord of Abydos’ (Kahl 2007, 50; see also Hannig 2006, 3044–50, especially 3047–48 and 3050). Furthermore, Osiris was venerated in his form as Wennefer, as the tomb of Djefaihapi II mentions a temple of Wennefer (pr n wnn-nfr) (Griffith 1889, pl. 10, col. 21). The Asyutian necropolis was built on the hillside of the ‘Gebel Asyut al-gharbi’. It is currently being reexcavated by a joint project of the University of Sohag, the University of Mainz and the Freie Universität Berlin (most recently Kahl et al. 2015, 103–61). The earliest finds from the site date back to the Naqada I– IIa-b period (Kahl et al. 2015, 144–45, fig. 33.1). The name of the necropolis, Ra-kereret, is also attested from Dynasty 6; a certain Hetep-nebi, who was involved in the cult of the local ka-chapel of Pepi I (?) (Lange 2006, 131; Kahl 2012a, 10) was an jmꜢḫw before ‘Lord of Ra-kereret’. As this later became a main local epithet of Anubis (see above), this could be a reference to that god. The name of the city itself first appears during Dynasty 5. It is mentioned in the inscriptions of the sarcophagus of the vizier Min-Nefer found in the Memphite necropolis (Kahl 2012a, 9), who was a ḥm-nṯrnb sꜢwt jmj-wt ‘lord of Asyut, who is in priest of the embalming place’. It is not clear with which jackal deity this god should be identified. The seated jackal (Gardiner E 15) is mostly used to write the name of Anubis, although it is also documented for the name of Wepwawet (DuQuesne 2005, 74). Beginning in the First Intermediate Period, Wepwawet was the Lord of Asyut (nb sꜢwt), whereas Anubis did not bear this title until the Late Period (Beinlich 1976, 140; LGG III, 725). Wepwawet, however, was never called jmj-wt ‘who is in the embalming place’ (DuQuesne 2005, 74; LGG I, 232–34). Therefore, this passage should rather be interpreted as ‘Anubis, Lord of Asyut, who is in the

embalming place’ (Beinlich 1976, 140; Jones 2000, 505 [no. 1892]; DuQuesne 2005, 74; Kahl 2007, 49). The city of Asyut is also mentioned in two spells from the Pyramid Texts. In Spell 366 and Spell 574 the following passage is found: sꜢw n=k Ꜣs.t ḥnꜥ nb.t-ḥw.t m sꜢwt n nb=sn jm=k m rn=k n nb sꜢwt ‘Isis and Nephthys watched over you (sꜢw) in Asyut because their lord is in you in your name of “Lord of Asyut”’ (§ 630a–c and § 1634a–c). As the actions of Isis and Nephthys concentrate on Osiris, this could be taken as a reference to the identification of Osiris with the ‘Lord of Asyut’, and thus possibly with Anubis, though this cannot be determined with certainty. The passage could be taken also as the earliest reference to the local Asyutian Osiris cult. Against this, one could argue that references to a relationship between Osiris and a certain city in the Pyramid Texts should not be taken at face value for an existing local Osiris cult. However, since the Osiris cult is already referred to in the local inscriptions during the First Intermediate Period, the passages from the Pyramid Texts could indeed be taken as early evidence for his cult. Thus, there is a reference from the Old Kingdom to the cult of Anubis and Osiris in Asyut. Furthermore, there might be a reference to the relationship of the two gods, although this is uncertain. For the mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris the only sources date to early Dynasty 12. The earliest sources come from the tomb of Djefaihapi II. Although he is referred to as ‘Djefaihapi II’, he lived at the very beginning of Dynasty 12; that is to say, he preceded Djefaihapi I (Kahl 2007, 85; Becker 2012, 69). He was a local nomarch, overseer of the priests of Wepwawet and Osiris, as well as ḥrj-sštꜢ n wsjr m s.t=f ‘privy to the secrets of Osiris in his place’ (Becker 2012, 83–84). In his inscriptions he claims: jw jr.n=j mnw.w r s.t šps.t ꜥḥꜥ.t nṯr ‘I made monuments at the noble place, the mꜥḥꜥ.t of the god’ (Griffith 1889, pl. 10, col. 19; Becker 2012, 84). In a subsequent fragmentary passage a house of Wennefer (pr n wnn-nfr) is also mentioned, but the context is lost and the relationship to the preceding passages unclear. Among the epithets of Djefaihapi I the following is to be found: šms nṯr r s.t=f mꜥḥꜥ.t=f jmj.t rꜢ-ḳrr.t tꜢ-ḏsr ẖr jnpw sštꜢ jmn n wsjr jn.t ḏsr.t n.t nb ꜥnḫ bs štꜢ n nb Ꜣbḏw ‘who follows the god to his place, to his mꜥhꜥ.t which is in Ra-kereret of the sacred land which belongs

THE

mꜥḥꜥ.t OF OSIRIS IN ASYUT

305

to Anubis, the hidden secret7 of Osiris, the sacred valley of the Lord of Life, the sacred image8 of the Lord of Abydos’ (Siut I, 238–39). Other epithets include smꜢꜥ ḫrw wsjr m s.t=f n.t rꜢ-ḳrr.t ḏsr.t jmj.t sꜢwt ‘who justifies Osiris in his place of the sacred Rakereret which is in Asyut’ (Siut I, 237) and bḥn ḫftj.w wsjr m-bꜢḥ ḥrw ḥr [n]s.t jt=f ‘who strikes the enemies of Osiris in the presence of Horus who is on the throne of his father’ (Siut I, 246). Djefaihapi I was the owner of the Siut Tomb I. He was, among other things, a local nomarch, overseer of the priests of Wepwawet, Anubis and Osiris. He has the lengthiest list of titles and epithets found on Middle Kingdom monuments (Doxey 1998, 12). Furthermore, he is especially well known in Egyptology because of the ten contracts he made with the local priesthood regarding his mortuary cult (Kahl 2012b, 179–81). After his death he was venerated as a local saint (Kahl 2012b, 168–88; Kahl et al. 2015, 126), and the inscriptions of his tomb were copied in the following centuries (Kahl 1999; 2014, 159–72). There is no indication, however, that the discussed epithets were copied as well (Kahl 1999, 393; 2014, 168–69). According to the cited inscriptions the mꜥhꜥ.t of Osiris was situated in Ra-kereret, which belongs to Anubis. Thus, it seems to be in the necropolis. On the other hand, the temple of Anubis, Lord of Ra-kereret, as mentioned above, may have been built on an area adjacent to the necropolis. The emphasis on Anubis concerning the location may imply that the mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris might belong to the temple of Anubis, Lord of Ra-kereret and they might have been situated near to each other. This is not the only source which refers to the strong relationship between the two deities in the local cults. The possible references in the Pyramid Texts have already been mentioned. Furthermore, the gods have shared epithets: Osiris is once called Lord of Ra-kereret (Magee 1998, 720; Kahl et al. 2013, 125). Anubis,

on the other hand, is attested in one inscription as Lord of Ta-ankh (Satzinger 1968, 160–62), which is a typical epithet of Osiris (see above). The exact difference between the meaning of Ra-kereret and Ta-ankh is unclear. The second one appears later. It is probably a secondary designation of the necropolis or a more specific name for the area of the mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris in Ra-kereret (Gomaà 1986, 270–72). The location of the mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris, and the shared epithets, suggest a strong relationship between Anubis and Osiris in Asyut. It is also remarkable that after the Middle Kingdom both the cult of Osiris and the cult of Anubis, Lord of Ra-kereret seem to have had less importance. There is no local priest of Osiris attested between the second half of Dynasty 12 and Dynasty 26 (Kahl 2007, 51). Anubis, Lord of Ra-kereret is attested after the Middle Kingdom, though much less frequently.9 This may also suggest that the cults of the two gods were related. It has already been proposed in previous research that Anubis, Lord of Ra-kereret was a form of Osiris. The relation between the two gods was often described as a power struggle (‘Machtkampf’) and was compared to the relationship between Osiris and Khentiamentiu, with the important difference that Anubis could have defended himself (Satzinger 1968, 160–62; Beinlich 1976, 140–47). In the current article the assumption that Anubis was also understood as a form of Osiris is accepted. Their relationship seems, however, to be less adequately described as a power struggle. It is, rather, proposed to understand it as comparable to that of Osiris and Wepwawet in Abydos, as it was depicted in the Nebhepetre chapel discussed above. There, it was argued either that Osiris, Khentiamentiu and Wepwawet share a manifestation, or that there is one divinity embodied by three separate gods. The idea of the identity of Anubis and Osiris strongly influenced the local cultic structure, but did not simply result in the existence of the god Osiris-Anubis.

7

8

Kahl, who recently analysed this passage, read tꜢ ḏsr ẖr jnpw ḥrj-sštꜢ jmn (Kahl 2012b, 183–84). However, the sign belongs more probably to the word jnpw ‘Anubis’ as a determinative. ḥrj-sštꜢ in Siut I, 216 and in Siut II, 12 (Griffith 1889, pl. 10) is written as

.

9

If the phrase bs štꜢ n nb Ꜣbḏw belongs to the next group of epithets (twr ꜥ.w sḥḫp=f ḥtp.wt […] ‘one clean of hands when he brings offerings […]’), then the translation of ‘who initiates into the secret of the Lord of Abydos’ is also possible (Kahl 2012b, 183–84), although a preposition (ḥr, for example) would be expected. See e.g. LGG III, 682–83. Most of the listed sources from the New Kingdom are from Thebes. However, there are newly discovered references to him in the visitors’ graffiti in Tomb N13.1 (Verhoeven 2012, 47–58).

306

Z. VÉGH

If one accepts the assumption that Anubis was a form of Osiris in the local cults, then the following scenario is to be reconstructed: Anubis was the protector of the mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris, but at the same time, he was also a form of Osiris. In the following section the relationship between Osiris and the jackal deities will be examined, especially the relationship between Osiris and Anubis, in order to understand the process of how the cult of Osiris was introduced in Asyut and how it could have further developed. Osiris and Anubis Before the appearance of Osiris in Dynasty 5, Anubis was the only god who appeared in the offering formulae (Barta 1968, 8, 15). During the early phase of his cult, in Dynasty 5 and early Dynasty 6, Osiris could occasionally have epithets like nb tꜢ ḏsr ‘lord of the sacred land’ (Jones 2000, 21, no. 97) or tpj-ḏw=f ‘who is on his hill’ (Badawy 1976, 16–17, pl. 19, fig. 19) or ḫntj ḏdw nb tꜢ-ḏsr jmj-wt ḫntj-sḥ-nṯr ‘who is at the fore of Busiris, lord of the sacred land, who is in the embalming hall, who is at the fore of the divine booth’ (Ziegler 1990, 176). These epithets are typical for Anubis and not for Osiris. Although the sources are sparse, they could indicate that Osiris in these examples was regarded as a form of Anubis. According to DuQuesne, on the First Intermediate Period stelae from Naga ed-Deir, a certain ‘Anubis-Osiris’ form is documented (DuQuesne 2005, 166), although it is not clear whether these examples are to be read as ‘AnubisOsiris’ or as ‘Anubis and Osiris’. Griffiths proposed in his book The origins of Osiris that Osiris was originally a jackal deity in Abydos (Griffiths 1980, 144–46). In order to prove it, he cited two passages from the Pyramid Texts. Both passages are actually from the same Spell 690 (§ 2108b, 2098b–2103b), a detail he did not mention. In § 2108b it is stated: ḫꜥj.tj m nṯr ḥr=k m sꜢb wsjr js bꜢ pw jmj ndj.t sḫm pw jmj tꜢ-wr.t ‘You appear as a god, your face is as a jackal as Osiris, who is in Nedit, as the power, who is in the Great Land’. In § 2103a–b is

10

In Coffin Text I 282b [67] rs wsjr rs jnpw tpj mnjw=f ‘Raise yourself Osiris, raise yourself Anubis, who is upon his mnjwshrine’ (De Buck 1935, 282). Furthermore, in the offering

the following: wꜥb.n ṯw sn.t=k ḳbḥw.t ḥr rd-wr m rꜢ-š ḫꜥj.tj r=sn m sꜢb ḥrw js ḫntj ꜥnḫ.w gbb js ḫntj nṯr.w wsjr js ḫntj Ꜣḫ.w ‘Your sister Qebehut has purified you on the Great Staircase at the Opening of the Sea. You appeared for them as a jackal, as Horus, who is at the fore of the living ones, as Geb, who is at the fore of the gods, as Osiris, who is at the fore of the Akhs’. In this spell Osiris indeed appears as a jackal god. However, as the second passage already shows, this is not a form specific to him. According to numerous spells in the Pyramid Texts, the king could have the face of a jackal or jackal deity, or appear as a whole jackal, especially when he ascends to the throne (Spiegel 1971, 78–79; Popielska-Grzybowska 1999, 143–53; DuQuesne 2005, 355–58). Pyramid Text 537 (Allen 2013, § 1298a–b) also states that he has the face of a jackal when he ascends to the throne of Osiris. The jackal form of the king may come from an archaic ritual during which the king wore a jackal mask. Osiris became associated with the jackal form most probably because of the association between the jackal form and the living or dead king. The special relationship of Osiris and Anubis is indicated in PT §§ 793b: ṯsj ṯw wsjr Ꜣḫ js sꜢ gbb tpj=f ꜥḥꜥ=k m jnpw ḥr mnjw ‘Raise yourself Osiris, as an Akh, as the son of Geb, his firstborn and stand as Anubis upon the mnjw-shrine’. In PT *767 (according to Allen’s numbering system: Allen 2015, 197; Berger el-Naggar et al. 2001, pl. 22), a similar passage is to be found: j:rs j:rs jtj wsjr m jnpw tpj mnjw=f ‘Raise yourself, raise yourself, father Osiris, as Anubis, who is upon his mnjw-shrine’. Anubis, who is upon his mnjw-shrine, is attested after the Old Kingdom only twice.10 The exact meaning of the mnjw-shrine is not clear. According to the Wörterbuch it could have the meaning ‘Schrein, ursprünglich vielleicht Hirtenzelt, insbesondere die Thronhalle’ (shrine, originally possibly shepherd’s tent, especially throne hall: WB II, 75). In PT 419 § 744a it seems to be a synonym of the coffin or the tomb of Osiris: j:nḏr.n Ꜣs.t ꜥ=k sꜥḳ=s ṯw m-ẖnw mnjw ḏbꜢ tꜢ ḥꜥj wrš.w=k ‘Isis has grasped your hand, in order she let

formula on the canopic chest of Auibre Hor from Dynasty 13 a certain jmj-wt tpj mnjw=f is mentioned (Aufrère 2001, 35–36).

THE

307

mꜥḥꜥ.t OF OSIRIS IN ASYUT

you enter the mnjw-shrine, which adorns the earth (?), while your mourners wail’. If the mnjw-shrine is indeed a reference to the tomb of Osiris, then the cited passages from the Pyramid Texts describe the very same scenario which is proposed for Asyut, namely that Anubis, who protects the Osiris tomb, is at the same time also a form of Osiris. In this context two further details should be noted. There was another Anubis-form: ‘Anubis, who is on his mountain’ (tpj ḏw=f),11 which was interpreted as a form of Osiris (Spiegel 1973, 45), although there is no direct evidence for this identification. However, the assumption that the ḏw jnpw could refer indeed to a tomb is supported by the fact that the tomb of Sesostris III in South Abydos is called ḏw jnpw (Wegner 2007, 472–73). The other detail which should be noted is that the mnjw-shrine has some astronomical connotations. In PT 311 § 496b the deceased claims to know the ‘halls of the mnjw-shrine, which is in the terrace of Isken’ (sḥ.w mnjw ḥrj-jb ḫtw jskn), from which the sun-god goes forth to enter the evening barque. Thus, Isken designates a part of the sky,12 which is connected to the nightly journey of the sun. As the mnjw-shrine is part of it, the references of Osiris entering the mnjwshrine may refer (or may also refer) to some stellar constellations. The link between Osiris and Anubis was especially strong during Dynasties 5–6. That is the period during which the cult of Osiris appeared in Asyut. It is, therefore, possible to propose that this bond was the reason why the Osiris cult was introduced here, or at least warranted the binding of this cult into the local ones. This shows that the cult of Osiris in Middle Kingdom Asyut was rooted deeply in local tradition, and it was certainly not the case that it took the over Abydene cults. It should be noted, however, that there are some similarities. First, the Osiris cult appeared around the same time in Abydos as in Asyut, during Dynasties 5–6. Second, the local Abydene god, Khentiamentiu, may originally have been an aspect of Anubis.

This possibility—that Khentiamentiu was originally an aspect of Anubis—arises from the Predynastic sources. On the Early Dynastic seals (Dreyer 1987, 33–43, Dreyer et al. 1996, 72), in a kind of early King List, where it precedes royal names the name is written

11

12

According to a short note of Spiegel’s, it was proposed in earlier research that jnpw tpj ḏw=f should be read as jnpw tpj mnw=f, as the (Gardiner N 26) occasionally had the reading mnjw (Spiegel 1973, 45). Unfortunately I have not found the article to which he referred.

as

and

. The reading Khentiamentiu (Dreyer 1987,

33–43, Dreyer et al. 1996, 72) was proposed, suggesting that the reason for the jackal sign preceding the name Khentiamentiu is the fact that it alternates in this position with the Horus falcon, which occurs in the titles of the Horus kings. The reading of AnubisKhentiamentiu (DuQuesne 2005, 41) was also suggested. On an Early Dynastic pot sherd (Meyer 1904, 97) the jackal hieroglyph seems to be written indeed at the end of the word:

. The direction of reading

is, however, based only on the direction of the jackal sign. In the sources of Dynasty 3, the jackal sign could simply be written in reverse, facing the other hieroglyphs (Kahl, Kloth and Zimmermann 1995, 54–55, 72–75, 82–85). Thus it is possible to read this source, too, as ‘Anubis-Khentiamentiu’. In the Pyramid Texts and during Dynasties 5–6 offering formulae contain a certain Anubis-Khentiamentiu (DuQuesne 2005, 162–63), but unlike the sources for the form of OsirisKhentiamentiu of this period, these examples (especially in the Pyramid Texts) clearly show that the word ‘Khentiamentiu’ is to be understood as an epithet. Thus, this Anubis-Khentiamentiu may refer to the archaic form (cf. Hays 2011, 122–23). It is possible, therefore, to propose that Khentiamentiu may have been originally a form of Anubis, although it cannot be proven with certainty. After a longer period without any sources, Khentiamentiu reappears in Dynasty 5, in the Memphite offering formulae (Begelsbacher-Fischer 1981, 50–52) and thus around the same time as Osiris. From Dynasties 5–6, there is only one source in which his name is written with a jackal determinative, and that is PT 357 § 592b. The jackal form was no longer a prominent one

In WB I, 130 a different translation is given: ‘Verwalter, Hüter o.ä. (die Stellung, die der tote König im Himmel erhält)’.

Z. VÉGH

308

in the concepts surrounding Khentiamentiu, but it certainly existed. To sum up: the cult of Anubis was prominent in both cities. In Asyut he was one of the most important gods. In Abydos the local god might have originally been a form of Anubis, or at least strongly associated with him. Both Anubis in Asyut and Khentiamentiu in Abydos may have been regarded in later times as forms of Osiris. But there are further similarities between Abydos and Asyut. It is well known that Wepwawet had an important role in the Abydene cults (Spiegel 1973, 54–59). On the cited stela of Ikhernofret, Berlin No. 1204, Osiris is claimed to be his father (jw jr.n=j pr.t wp-wꜢ.wt wḏꜢ=f r nḏ jt=f ‘I celebrated the Procession of Wepwawet as he proceeded to help his father’), but as has been indicated above through the example of the Nebhepetre chapel, it is possible that he was also understood as a form of Osiris. In Asyut, the main god was Wepwawet. Although there is no direct reference to a relationship between Osiris and Wepwawet in this city, in the contracts of Djefaihapi I a certain procession of Wepwawet is mentioned. The god’s statue visited the temple of Anubis, Lord of Ra-kereret on the first epagomenal day every year (Griffith 1889, pl. 6, cols 273–74). This day is the birthday of Osiris (Spalinger 1995, 33–47). As the Osiris tomb might have belonged to the temple of Anubis, it is possible that this visit was connected to the cult of Osiris. Although one would expect the status of Abydos in the religious landscape of Egypt to be different from that of Asyut, owing to the presence of the early royal tombs, these examples show that there are some similarities between the two cult places. The question emerges whether these two localities were in contact and whether they influenced each other. In the next section the question of possible influences will be discussed.

13

Asyut and Abydos The first evidence for the relationship of the two cities is the appearance of Anubis, Lord of Ra-kereret. This god’s name is not attested during the Old and Middle Kingdoms outside Asyut, and only known from two coffins in Naga ed-Deir (Brovarski 1989, 977–80). Naga ed-Deir is the cemetery of the city of Thinis, the capital of the Thinite nome. As already mentioned above, in the offering formulae of this city a certain ‘Anubis-Osiris’ form is attested, although its interpretation is uncertain. However, if one takes these references at face value and assumes that in the local cults at Thinis Anubis was understood as a form of Osiris, it could explain why ‘Anubis, Lord of Ra-kereret’ could have appeared here. In any case, these sources show that the Asyutian cults were known in the Thinite region. There is also one special toponym which is attested during the Middle Kingdom only in Asyut and in Abydos. This is the toponym Shen-Hor, which has been previously misinterpreted as a god’s name, a misinterpretation which still occurs.13 It is first attested in Dynasty 6 or the late Old Kingdom on two stelae from Abydos14 and altogether three times in two tombs in el-Hagarsa.15 In these sources a certain god called ‘Wepwawet, Lord of Shen-Hor’ is mentioned. This god does not occur after the Old Kingdom. Subsequently, however, during Dynasty 12 there are several other attestations of the toponym itself. In Abydos, there is a feast called grḥ n sḏr.t, sḏry.t n.t šn ḥrw ‘the night of the sḏr.t, the sḏry.t of Shen-Hor’.16 This is mentioned in a passage of the Abydos-formula which reads: sḏm=f hnw m rꜢ n tꜢ-wr hꜢkr grḥ n sḏr.t sḏry.t n.t šn ḥrw ‘May he hear jubilation from the mouth of Ta-wer (Thinite nome) in the Haker feast, the night of the sḏr.t, the sḏry.t of Shen-Hor’. Furthermore, there is another feast name attested: pr.t tp.t m šn ḥr ‘the first

See e.g. Landgráfová 2011, 165; Altenmüller 2013, 9–22;

the god’s name with this archaic toponym (Helck 1952, 74,

but it was also misinterpreted by the author (Végh 2011, 148). The reason for the misinterpretation is that the name of Horus was honorifically transposed in most of the Abydene sources (

n. 8; Zibelius 1978, 230–32). 14

15

). However, on BM EA 573 and on Oxford Ash-

molean Museum E3921 it is clearly written as on Louvre C 3 as

, and

. The writing on Louvre C 3 was

recognized in earlier research; however, it was interpreted as a mistake that was due to the fact that the scribe was confusing

16

Cairo CG 1575, Cairo CG 1615; for publication see Borchardt 1964. In the tomb of Sobeknofer: Kanawati and McFarlane 1993, 28, 30, 46, pls 24a, 25c; and in the tomb of An-ankhi: Kanawati and McFarlane 1993, 46, pls 9 and 36. Louvre C 3, Munich WAF Gl. 35, BM EA 567, BM EA 573. For the publication of these stelae see Lichtheim 1988; Landgráfová 2011.

THE

mꜥḥꜥ.t OF OSIRIS IN ASYUT

309

procession in/from Shen-Hor’.17 The deceased would like to see the beauty of Wepwawet during the first procession from Shen-Hor. This toponym is also mentioned in Asyut. There is a certain feast, wp.t-wꜢ.wt m šn ḥr ‘Opening of the ways in Shen-Hor’, which is mentioned on five coffins dated to Dynasties 11–12.18 The name occurs in a feast list without any further comments: ḥtp-dj-n-jnpw m wp.t-wꜢ.t m šn-ḥrw ‘An offering which was given to Anubis (Lapp 1986, 32–33) at the Opening of the Ways in Shen-Hor’.19 No other feast names occur. The wp.t-wꜢ.wt ‘opening of the ways’ is otherwise fairly commonly attested on the Asyutian coffins (Hannig 2006, 655). Thus, Shen-Hor is first attested in the Thinite region,20 and later at Asyut. This suggests an indirect Thinite influence was exerted on the Asyutian cults. Shen-Hor was an area sacred to Wepwawet, so it is not surprising that it appears in the city whose main god was Wepwawet. Remarkably, however, as mentioned above, the cult of Wepwawet, Lord of Shen-Hor is not attested after Dynasty 6, neither in Abydos nor Asyut. What are attested are the rites connected to this territory, namely, the sḏry.t of Shen-Hor and the Opening of the Ways in Shen-Hor. This indicates the importance of this area. Why was this area so important? As this designation was also attested in el-Hagarsa, at the border of the 8th and the 9th Upper Egyptian nomes (Kanawati and McFarlane 1993, 7), it has been proposed that it denotes its necropolis (Gomaà 1977, 929; LGG V, 292). The term may, however, have designated another area. At

Middle Kingdom Abydos the only other toponym which is attested in connection with the rite sḏr.t is the toponym Peqer. It is attested in the feast name sḏr.t Pḳr. This feast name is attested only twice, both times in a feast list.21 In one of the sources it was grouped together with the Haker feast, which, as has been shown above, was connected to the night of the sḏry.t-festival in Shen-Hor. Although the possibility that there were different sḏr.t/sḏry.t-nights celebrated in different areas cannot be ruled out completely, it is more plausible to assume that the two toponyms, Poqer and Shen-Hor, referred to the same area. Poqer is the designation of the area where the mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris is situated. If Shen-Hor and Poqer are indeed regional synonyms, this would mean that Shen-Hor also designates the area of a mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris. Shen-Hor might then have been the older designation, which disappeared after Dynasty 12, while Poqer was the newer one. If this interpretation is correct, it would explain why the area was so important, and why the rites attached to it survived and gained supraregional importance even after the cult of Wepwawet, Lord of Shen-Hor disappeared. This assumption suggests that Osiris already had a mꜥḥꜥ.t during the Old Kingdom in the Thinite nome, as the designation of Shen-Hor existed already at the time. This is supported by the fact that the Pyramid Texts already refer to the mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris. This hypothesis, however, does not necessarily mean that the mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris must have already been situated at Umm elQa‘ab. This might have been the case, but evidence only indicates that the area of the mꜥḥꜥ.t, wherever it

17

19

18

Cairo CG 20516 (Lange and Schäfer 1908, 108–10), Oxford Ashmolean Museum E 3921 (Dakin 1938, 190–97). Chassinat and Palanque 1911, 19 (S24C according to De Buck’s numbering; for the date see Lapp 1993, Blatt 23); Chassinat and Palanque 1911, 35 (S1Chass according to De Buck’s numbering; for the date see Lapp 1993, Blatt 22); Chassinat and Palanque 1911, 53 (S1P according to De Buck’s numbering; for the date see Lapp 1993, Blatt 20); Chassinat and Palanque 1911, 191 (S3C according to De Buck’s numbering, for the date see Lapp 1993, Blatt 19); Gauthier and Lefebvre 1923, 19–22 (Museum Port Said, Inv. Ta 714, S4Ta according to De Buck’s numbering; for the date see Lapp 1993, Blatt 23). In these examples the name is written consistently as , and thus it cannot be the name of a god, even if in one instance it has the determinative of a seated god (Chassinat and Palanque 1911, 191).

20

21

It would be possible to read ‘at the feast of the Opening of the Ways and at the Feast Shen-Hor’. The wish: mꜢ=f nfrw wpwꜢ.wt m pr.t tp.t m šn ḥrw could also be read as ‘Seeing the beauty of Wepwawet at the First Procession and at the Feast Shen-Hor’. However, otherwise no feast of Shen-Hor is known, and it is also never written with a feast-determinative, like (Gardiner W 3) or (Gardiner W 4). Thus, in these texts also it should rather be interpreted as a toponym. El-Hagarsa lies at the border of the 8th and the 9th nomes, and it is disputed where it belonged (although according to the latest reconstruction, it belonged to the 9th nome: Kanawati and McFarlane 1993, 7). On the stela Munich WAF Gl. 35 (Landgráfová 2011, 162–63 with further literature), and on Los Angeles A. 5141.50-876 (Landgráfová 2011, 124–26 with further literature; the passage is partly destroyed and the copy of Landgráfová does not show the p and the ḳ from the word pḳj ‘Poqer’, but see the photo published by Faulkner 1952, pl. 1).

310

Z. VÉGH

was built originally, was called Shen-Hor during the Old Kingdom, and that Wepwawet had an important role in the rites associated with the tomb area, as indeed he also had in later times. The designation ‘Shen-Hor’ eventually gained the general meaning ‘the area of the Osiris tomb’ and therefore could have been used during the Middle Kingdom also as a synonym for Poqer. In Asyut, the ‘Opening of the ways in ShenHor’ might have been performed in Ra-kereret, although without further sources this must remain speculative. Summary Sources concerning the mꜥḥꜥ.t of Osiris in Asyut derive from early Dynasty 12, from the tombs of Djefaihapi I (Siut Tomb I) and Djefaihapi II (Siut Tomb II). The structure lies within the necropolis and might have belonged to the temple of Anubis, Lord of Ra-kereret. There was a strong bond between the local manifestation of Anubis and Osiris. The link between these gods was especially prominent at the end of the Old Kingdom, the time during which the Osiris cult in Asyut was introduced. It is, therefore, quite possible that this link led to the introduction of the Osiris cult in the city. The rites connected to the Asyutian Osiris tomb were rooted deeply in local traditions. Nevertheless, the two Upper Egyptian cult centres of Osiris, Asyut and

Bibliography Adams, M. D. 2010. The stela of Nakht, son of Nemty: Contextualizing object and individual in the funerary landscape at Abydos. In Millions of jubilees: Studies in honor of David P. Silverman, Volume I, Z. Hawass and J. H. Wegner (eds), 1–25. Supplément aux Annales du service des antiquités de l’Egypte 39. Cairo. Allen, J. P. 2013. A new concordance of the Pyramid Texts. Vol. V. Providence. ———. 2015. The ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. 2nd revised edition. Writings from the Ancient World 38. Atlanta. Altenmüller, H. 2013. Der ‘Schlaf des Horus-Schen’ und die Wiederbelebung des Osiris in Abydos. In Studies on the Middle Kingdom: In memory of Detlef Franke, H. W. Fischer-Elfert and R. B. Parkinson (eds), 9–22. Philippika 41. Wiesbaden.

Abydos, may have been in contact with each other. For the Abydene influence on the Asyutian cults, the feast name ‘Opening of the ways in Shen-Hor’ is cited, as the toponym Shen-Hor may have been an old Abydene or Thinite designation for the area of the tomb of Osiris. The Asyutian Osiris cult had its first heyday during early Dynasty 12. During the First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom Asyut became an important economic, cultural and religious centre, as evidenced by the evolution of local funerary culture, especially coffins. The emphasis on a local Osiris cult during this period may well have been part of a process to shape a regional cultural identity. Abbreviations LGG: Leitz, Chr. 2002–2003. Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen. Volumes I– VIII. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 110–16, 129. Leuven. PT: Sethe, K. 1908–1922. Die altägyptischen Pyramidentexte, nach den Papierabdrücken und Photographien des Berliner Museums. Neu herausgegeben und erläutert von Kurt Sethe. Volumes I–III. Leipzig. WB: Ermann, A., and H. Grapow. 1926–1961. Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache. Volumes I– VII. Berlin.

Amélineau, E. 1899. Le tombeau d’Osiris: Monographie de la découverte faite en 1897–1898. Paris. Anthes, R. 1974. Die Berichte des Neferhotep und des Ichernofret über das Osirisfest in Abydos. In Festschrift zum 150 jährigen Bestehen des Berliner Ägyptischen Museums, 15–49. Mitteilungen aus der Ägyptischen Sammlung 8. Berlin. Assmann, J. 2001. Tod und Jenseits im alten Ägypten. Munich. Aufrère, S. 2001. Le roi Aouibrê Hor. Essai d’interprétation du matériel découvert par Jacques de Morgan à Dahchour (1894). Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 101: 1–41. Badawy, A. 1976. The tombs of Iteti, Sekhemꜥankh-Ptah, and Kaemnofert at Giza. Los Angeles. Barta, W. 1968. Aufbau und Bedeutung der altägyptischen Opferformel. Ägyptologische Forschungen 24. Glückstadt.

THE

mꜥḥꜥ.t OF OSIRIS IN ASYUT

Becker, M. 2012. The reconstruction of Tomb Siut II from the Middle Kingdom. In Seven seasons at Asyut: First results of the Egyptian–German cooperation in archaeological fieldwork. Proceedings of an international conference at the University of Sohag, 10th–11th of October, 2009, J. Kahl, M. El-Khadragy, U. Verhoeven, and A. Kilian (eds), 69–90. The Asyut Project 2. Wiesbaden. Begelsbacher-Fischer, B. L. 1981. Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des Alten Reiches im Spiegel der Privatgräber der IV. und V. Dynastie. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 37. Freiburg; Göttingen. Beinlich, H. 1976. Studien zu den ‘Geographischen Inschriften’ (10.–14. o.äg. Gau). Tübinger ägyptologische Beiträge 2. Bonn. Berger el-Naggar, C., J. Leclant, B. Mathieu, and I. PierreCroisiau. 2001. Les textes de la pyramide de Pépy 1er. Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 118. Cairo. Borchardt, L. 1964. Denkmäler des Alten Reiches (ausser den Statuen) im Museum von Kairo. Nr. 1295–1808. Teil II. Text und Tafeln zu Nr. 1542–1808. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Cairo. Brovarski, E. 1989. The inscribed material of the First Intermediate Period from Naga ed-Deir. PhD dissertation: University of Chicago. De Buck, A. 1935. The ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts. Volume I. Texts of Spells 1–75. Chicago. Cahail, K. 2014. In the shadow of Osiris: Non-royal mortuary landscapes at South Abydos during the Late Middle and New Kingdoms. PhD dissertation: University of Philadelphia. Chassinat, É., and Ch. Palanque. 1911. Une campagne de fouilles dans la nécropole d’Assiout. Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 24. Cairo. Clère, J. J. 1957. Notes sur la chapelle funéraire de Ramsès I à Abydos et sur son inscription dédicatoire. Revue d’égyptologie 11: 1–38. Dakin, A. N. 1938. The stela of the sculptor Sirēꜥ at Oxford. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 24: 190–97. Donadoni Roveri, A. M. 1988. Das alte Ägypten. Die religiöse Vorstellungen. Milan. Doxey, D. M. 1998. Egyptian non-royal epithets in the Middle Kingdom: A social and historical analysis. Probleme der Ägyptologie 12. Leiden. Dreyer, G. 1987. Ein Siegel der frühzeitlichen Nekropole von Abydos. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 43: 33–43. Dreyer, G., E.-M. Engel, U. Hartung, Th. Hikade, E. Ch. Köhler, and F. Pumpenmeier. 1996. Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof, 7./8. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 52: 11–81.

311

DuQuesne, T. 2005. The jackal divinities of Egypt. Oxfordshire Communications in Egyptology 6. London. Edel, E. 1984. Die Inschriften der Grabfronten der Siut-Gräber in Mittelägypten aus der Herakleopolitenzeit. Eine Wiederherstellung nach den Zeichnungen der Description de l’Egypte. Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 71. Opladen. Effland, U., and A. Effland. 2013. Abydos. Tor zur Ägyptischen Unterwelt. Darmstadt. Einaudi, S. 2007. The ‘Tomb of Osiris’: An ideal burial model? In Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists, Grenoble 6–12 September 2004, J.-C. Goyon and C. Cardin (eds), 475–85. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 150. Leuven. Faulkner, R. O. 1952. The stela of the master-sculptor Shen. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 38: 3–5. Franke, D. 2003. Middle Kingdom hymns and other sundry religious texts: An inventory. In Egypt – temple of the whole world / Ägypten – Tempel der gesammten Welt: Studies in honour of Jan Assmann, S. Meyer (ed.), 95–136. Studies in the History of Religions; Numen book series 97. Leiden. Gauthier, H., and G. Lefebvre. 1923. Sarcophages du Moyen Empire provenant de la nécropole d’Assiout. Annales du service des antiquités de l’Egypte 23: 1–33. Gomaà, F. 1977. El-Hagarsa. In Lexikon der Ägyptologie, Volume II, W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds), 929. Wiesbaden. ———. 1986. Die Besiedlung Ägyptens während des Mittleren Reiches I: Oberägypten und das Fayyūm. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B (Geisteswissenschaften) 66 (1). Wiesbaden. ———. 2001. Särge und andere Funde aus der Nekropole der Falkenstadt. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 57: 35–57. Griffith, F. L. 1889. The inscriptions of Siût and Dêr Rîfeh. London. Griffiths, J. G. 1980. The origins of Osiris and his cult. Studies in the History of Religions 40. Leiden. Hannig, R. 2006. Ägyptisches Wörterbuch II. Mittleres Reich und Zweite Zwischenzeit. Hannig-Lexica 5; Kulturgeschichte der Antiken Welt 112. Mainz. Hays, H. M. 2011. The death of the democratisation of the afterlife. In Old Kingdom, new perspectives: Egyptian art and archaeology 2750–2150 BC, N. Strudwick and H. Strudwick (eds), 115–30. Oxford. Helck, W. 1952. Die Herkunft des abydenischen Osirisrituals. Archív Orientální 20: 72–85. ———. 1986. Topographisierung von Begriffen und Gegenständen in den Pyramidentexten. In Hommages à François Daumas. Volume II, 421–25. Montpellier. Jones, D. 2000. An index of ancient Egyptian titles, epithets and phrases of the Old Kingdom. BAR International Series 866 (1–2). Oxford.

312

Z. VÉGH

Kahl, J. 1999. Siut-Theben: zur Wertschätzung von Traditionen im alten Ägypten. Probleme der Ägyptologie 13. Leiden. ———. 2007. Ancient Asyut: The first synthesis after 300 years of research. The Asyut Project 1. Wiesbaden. ———. 2012a. Asyut and the Asyut Project. In Seven seasons at Asyut: First results of the Egyptian–German cooperation in archaeological fieldwork. Proceedings of an international conference at the University of Sohag, 10th–11th of October, 2009, J. Kahl, M. El Khadragy, U. Verhoeven, and A. Kilian (eds), 1–29. The Asyut Project 2. Wiesbaden. ———. 2012b. Regionale Milieus und die Macht des Staates im Alten Ägypten: die Vergöttlichung der Gaufürsten von Assiut. Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 41: 163– 88. ———. 2014. Assiut – Theben – Tebtynis: Wissensbewegungen von der Ersten Zwischenzeit und dem Mittleren Reich bis in Römische Zeit. Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 43: 159–72. Kahl, J., M. El-Khadragy, U. Verhoeven, M. Abdelrahiem, and E. Czyżewska. 2013. The Asyut Project: Tenth season of fieldwork (2012). Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 42: 123–53. Kahl, J., N. Kloth, and U. Zimmermann. 1995. Die Inschriften der 3. Dynastie: eine Bestandsaufnahme. Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 56. Wiesbaden. Kahl, J., M. El-Khadragy, H. F. Ahmed, U. Verhoeven, M. Abdelrahiem, I. Regulski, M. Becker, E. CzyżewskaZalewska, A. Kilian, M. Stecher, and T. Rzeuska. 2015. The Asyut Project: Eleventh season of fieldwork (2014). Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 44: 103–61. Kanawati, N., and A. McFarlane. 1993. The tombs of elHagarsa. Volume I. Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 4. Sydney. Kitchen, K. A. 1975. Ramesside inscriptions, historical and biographical, Volume I: Ramses I, Sethos I and contemporaries. Oxford. ———. 1979. Ramesside inscriptions, historical and biographical, Volume II: Ramses II, royal inscriptions. Oxford. Koemoth, P. 1994. Osiris et les arbres. Contribution à l’étude des arbres sacrés de l’Égypte ancienne. Aegyptiaca Leodiensia 3. Liège. Landgráfová, R. 2011. It is my good name that you should remember: Egyptian biographical texts on Middle Kingdom stelae. Prague. Lange, E. 2006. Die Ka-Anlage Pepis I. in Bubastis im Kontext königlicher Ka-Anlagen des Alten Reiches. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 133: 121–40. Lange, H. O., and H. Schäfer. 1908. Grab- und Denksteine des Mittleren Reichs. Teil II: Text zu No. 20400–20780.

Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire 52. Berlin. Lapp, G. 1986. Die Opferformel des Alten Reiches: unter Berücksichtigung einiger späterer Formen. Sonderschrift des Deutschen Archäologisches Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 21. Mainz. ———. 1993. Typologie der Särge und Sargkammern von der 6. bis 13. Dynastie. Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 7. Heidelberg. Leahy, A. 1977. The Osiris ‘bed’ reconsidered. Orientalia 46: 424–34. ———. 1989. A protective measure at Abydos in the Thirteenth Dynasty. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 75: 41–60. Lichtheim, M. 1988. Ancient Egyptian autobiographies chiefly of the Middle Kingdom: A study and an anthology. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 84. Freiburg; Göttingen. Maderna-Sieben, C. 2003a. Die große Bauinschrift von Abydos. Göttinger Miszellen 196: 31–48. ———. 2003b. Die große Bauinschrift von Abydos. In Egypt – temple of the whole world / Ägypten – Tempel der gesammten Welt: Studies in honour of Jan Assmann, S. Meyer (ed.), 237–82. Studies in the History of Religions; Numen book series 97. Leiden. Magee, D. 1998. A small tomb at Asyut based on the Mss. of P. E. Newberry. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge, 3–9 September 1995, C. Eyre (ed.), 717–29. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 82. Leuven. Meurer, G. 2002. Die Feinde des Königs in den Pyramidentexten. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 189. Freiburg; Göttingen. Meyer, E. 1904. Die Entwicklung der Kulte von Abydos und die sogenannten Schakalsgötter. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 41: 97–107. Moftah, R. 1965. Die uralte Sykomore und andere Erscheinungen der Hathor. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 92: 40–47. Morenz, L. D. 1998. Besondere Zeichen aus der späten XI. Dynastie: zu den Inschriften des Antef, Sohn der Myt. Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 25: 237–49. O’Connor, D. 1985. The ‘cenotaphs’ of the Middle Kingdom at Abydos. In Mélanges Gamal eddin Mokhtar, Volume II, P. Posener-Kriéger (ed.), 161–77. Bibliothèque d’étude 97, Cairo. ———. 2009. Abydos: Egypt’s first pharaohs and the cult of Osiris. London. Osing, J. 1976. Die Nominalbildung des Ägyptischen. Sonderschrift des Deutschen Archäologisches Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 3. Mainz. Popielska-Grzybowska, J. 1999. Some preliminary remarks on Atum and Jackal in the Pyramid Texts. Göttinger Miszellen 173: 143–53.

THE

mꜥḥꜥ.t OF OSIRIS IN ASYUT

Porter, B., and R. L. B. Moss. 1964. Topographical bibliography of Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic texts, reliefs, and paintings. I. The Theban necropolis. Part 2. Royal tombs and smaller cemeteries. Oxford. Quack, J. F. 2007. Saatprobe und Kornosiris. In Das Heilige und die Ware: Eigentum, Austausch und Kapitalisierung im Spannungsfeld von Ökonomie und Religion, M. Fitzenreiter (ed.), 325–31. Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie 7. London. Satzinger, H. 1968. Der Opferstein des šmswj aus dem Mittleren Reich. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 23: 160–62. Schäfer, H. 1904a. Die Mysterien des Osiris in Abydos unter König Sesostris III. nach dem Denkstein des Oberschatzmeisters I-cher-nofret im Berliner Museum. Leipzig. ———. 1904b. Das Osirisgrab von Abydos und der Baum pqr. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 41: 107–10. Schott, S. 1964. Der Denkstein Sethos’ I. für die Kapelle Ramses’ I. in Abydos. Nachrichten von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen: Philologisch-Historische Klasse 1964 (1). Göttingen. Simpson, W. K. 1974. The terrace of the great god at Abydos: The offering chapels of Dynasties 12 and 13. Publications of the Pennsylvania-Yale expedition to Egypt 5. New Haven; Philadelphia. Spalinger, A. 1995. Some remarks on the epagomenal days in ancient Egypt. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 54: 33–47. Spiegel, J. 1971. Das Auferstehungsritual der Unas-Pyramide: Beschreibung und erläuterte Übersetzung. Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 23. Wiesbaden. ———. 1973. Die Götter von Abydos. Studien zum ägyptischen Synkretismus. Göttinger Orientforschungen. Reihe 4: Ägypten, 1. Wiesbaden.

313

Strandberg, A. 2009. The gazelle in ancient Egyptian art: Image and meaning. Uppsala Studies in Egyptology 6. Uppsala. Takács, G. 2008. Etymological dictionary of Egyptian. Volume III. Handbuch der Orientalistik 48 (3). Leiden. Ullmann, M. 2002. Die Häuser der Millionen von Jahren: eine Untersuchung zu Königskult und Tempeltypologie in Ägypten. Ägypten und Altes Testament 51. Wiesbaden. Végh, Zs. 2011. Counting the dead. Some remarks on the Haker-Festival. In Current research in Egyptology 2009: Proceedings of the tenth annual symposium, University of Liverpool 2009, J. Corbelli, D. Boatright, and C. Malleson (eds), 145–56. Oxford. Verhoeven, U. 2012. The New Kingdom graffiti in tomb N13.1: An overview. In Seven seasons at Asyut: First results of the Egyptian–German cooperation in archaeological fieldwork. Proceedings of an international conference at the University of Sohag, 10th–11th of October, 2009, J. Kahl, M. El Khadragy, U. Verhoeven, and A. Kilian (eds), 47–58. The Asyut Project 2. Wiesbaden. Wegner, J. W. 2007. The mortuary temple of Senwosret III at Abydos. Publications of the Pennsylvania-Yale expedition to Egypt 8. New Haven. ———. 2015. A new temple: The mahat of Nebhepetre at Abydos. Egyptian Archaeology 46: 3–7. Zibelius, K. 1978. Ägyptische Siedlungen nach Texten des Alten Reiches. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B (Geisteswissenschaften) 19. Wiesbaden. Ziegler, C. 1990. Catalogue des stèles, peintures et reliefs égyptiens de l’Ancien Empire et de la Première Période Intermédiaire vers 2686–2040 avant J.-C. Paris.

A LATE OLD KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM ABYDOS: TOMB F109, EXCAVATED BY THE EEF IN 1908 Kei YAMAMOTO

Abstract Among the Egyptian collection of the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto is a group of fifty-five artefacts and faunal remains that derives from a single tomb in Abydos. This article catalogues these objects and examines their archaeological context in light of previously unpublished records that are kept in the Egypt Exploration Society’s archive. The burial assemblage and its context indicate that the anonymous tomb owner was probably a member of the upper middle class from the end of Dynasty 6. * * * The objects discussed in this article were acquired by the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) in 1909 through the division of artefacts from the (then) Egypt Exploration Fund (EEF).1 Working on behalf of the EEF, Edward R. Ayrton and his assistant William Leonard S. Loat conducted archaeological excavations at Abydos in the autumn of 1908. The primary area of their investigation, designated as ‘Cemetery F’, was located at the north (local east) end of an elongated mound, known to Egyptologists as the Middle Cemetery. Karl R. Lepsius (1904, 176) and Auguste Mariette (1880a, 40–41; 1880b, passim) had already explored the highest portion of this sandy mound in the 19th century, but Ayrton and Loat found that its northern end, which slopes down abruptly to the level of the cultivation fields, was essentially untouched by the previous excavators. In less than two months, they uncovered and

1

I would like to thank Krzysztof Grzymski of the ROM for granting me permission to publish the material. I also owe much gratitude to Bill Pratt and Cheryl Copson, who helped me examine the objects at the ROM, many of which had to be de-installed for detailed recording. The faunal remains were examined by the ROM’s zoologist, Kevin Seymour. I would like to thank Chris Naunton and Carl Graves of the EES for allowing me to access and publish the archival documents that are now kept in the Society’s Lucy Gura Archive. My visit to the archive was funded by the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities Research Grant. While preparing this report, I received much

recorded about two hundred burials on this steep hillside. Many graves were dated to the late Old Kingdom, although the archaeologists also encountered some tombs of Middle Kingdom, New Kingdom and Late Period dates. Just before Ayrton and Loat abandoned their excavation of Abydos Cemetery F to relocate their work to Mahasna in January 1909, John Garstang, representing his own Abydos Excavations Committee, arrived at the site and resumed his annual exploration. Seeing that Ayrton and Loat were leaving Cemetery F only partially investigated, Garstang renamed this area the ‘Eastern Ridge’ and excavated ‘several hundred tombs’ (Garstang 1909; Snape 1986, 8–18, 65–67, 113–19, figs 1, 2, 4, pl. 2).2 In 1911–12, Thomas E. Peet, who had assisted Garstang in 1909, led another EEF expedition in this area with an aim ‘to finish the clearing of this very productive ridge’. Designating the north end of the slope as ‘Cemetery R’ and the south end as ‘Cemetery T’, Peet uncovered a total of almost 250 burials (Peet 1914, xiv–xvi, 76–83, pls 10, 14–15, 21–22, 32–33, 37). In 1925–26, Henri Frankfort briefly investigated the general area on behalf of the Egypt Exploration Society (EES, formerly EEF), but the location of Frankfort’s work in relation to earlier explorations is unclear (Frankfort 1930). Since 1995, the University of Michigan team led by Janet Richards has been conducting a more systematic study of the entire Middle Cemetery (Richards 2003; 2007; 2010a; 2010b). Richards refers to the steep hillside as ‘Lower Slope Cemetery’, a term that probably encompasses all

2

insightful advice from Christian Knoblauch, Janet Richards, Ann Macy Roth, and Teodozja Rzeuska. Finally, I thank Ilona Regulski of The British Museum for inviting me to contribute to this volume. Snape believes that Garstang’s Eastern Ridge, including Ayrton’s Cemetery F, was a separate area from the Middle Cemetery and is now buried under a modern village. This view has been followed by others (e.g., Richards 2003, 401). Based on the comparison of Ayrton’s photographs and the modern landscape, however, Cemetery F almost certainly corresponds to the northern end of the Middle Cemetery, which still survives today.

316

K. YAMAMOTO

of Ayrton’s Cemetery F, Garstang’s Eastern Ridge and Peet’s Cemeteries R and T. The excavation of the upper portion of ‘Lower Slope Cemetery’ began in 2009. Some of the objects that Ayrton and Loat collected in 1908 were retained by the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, and the rest were shipped to London for an annual exhibition at the EEF. After the exhibition, the objects were distributed to various institutions that had funded the project. Eager to improve their Egyptian collections, many museums around the world were contributing funds toward the EEF’s scientific research at that time. As a result, the artefacts excavated at Abydos Cemetery F in 1908 can be seen today in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Egypt, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. One of the major beneficiaries of the objects from Abydos Cemetery F was the ROM, which in 1909 existed only in concept, as this museum in Toronto was officially established in 1912 and opened to the public in 1914 (Dickson 1986, 33–39).3 Aside from a brief mention in the EEF’s annual report (Naville, Ayrton and Loat 1909) and a meagre three-page article (Loat 1923), Ayrton and Loat’s work at Abydos Cemetery F remained virtually unpublished for a long time. The excavation documents now housed at the EES’s Lucy Gura Archive in London include: an incomplete set of tomb cards (reference #: AB.TC.F); photographs in the form of glass plates (reference #: AB-MAH.NEG.08–09.001–.190);4 and Ayrton’s handwritten manuscript describing selected tombs (reference #: AB.003). In 2007, the EES published several of the photographs from the excavation (Rowland 2007, 188–97). Three years later, Karin Sowada produced an article on Tomb F40 based on her examination of the objects now kept in two museums in Sydney as well as the relevant archival documents (Sowada 2010). In a similar vein, the present author is currently undertaking a project to fully publish Ayrton and Loat’s

3

4

5

The creation of a major museum in Toronto was first conceived in 1902 by its first director Charles Trick Currelly, a colleague of Ayrton and Loat at the EEF. This includes photographs of other parts of Abydos, as well as Mahasna, which Ayrton and Loat excavated in the same season. Archival documents at the ROM indicate that the museum originally received 216 objects from Cemetery F, but 154 of them

excavation of Cemetery F, supplemented with a catalogue of all known museum objects from that fieldwork that have now been dispersed in twenty-three cities. The present paper is a preliminary report of the ongoing project and focuses on one particular tomb, which Ayrton called in his unpublished manuscript ‘the largest and most interesting tomb found in this cemetery’. Tomb F109 The ROM currently holds sixty-three items from Abydos Cemetery F,5 and fifty-five of them come from a single burial, namely Tomb F109. The objects distribution list at the EES’s archive suggests that the ROM was the only museum that received objects from F109. It is likely, therefore, that all other F109 objects (mostly duplicate or broken pottery vessels) that were not sent to Toronto were left on site in Abydos. A careful comparison of the museum objects, published articles and relevant archival documents allows a better understanding of this tomb. Ayrton and Loat created a summary card for each grave they excavated, but the card for Tomb F109 no longer exists. Based on other archival documents and the excavators’ brief report (Naville, Ayrton and Loat 1909, 4),6 however, one can reconstruct the tomb’s architecture schematically and consider some of the finds in their archaeological contexts. Ayrton’s unpublished manuscript describes its four architectural features (Fig. 1): A: Very deep vertical shaft B: Small serdab chamber C: Offering niche D: Burial chamber The presence or absence of any superstructure is unknown.

6

(many crude pottery and unbaked clay vessels and some bones) were regrettably de-accessioned and probably discarded in the 1960s when the museum suffered a serious shortage in storage space. Although not numbered explicitly in the article, the tomb described in the second paragraph clearly refers to Tomb F109.

317

A LATE OLD KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM ABYDOS

Y B X

C

D

A

X’

Y’

0

2m

a

A

A B

D

C b (X–X’)

D c (Y–Y’)

Fig. 1: Schematic plan view (a) and section views (b, c) of Tomb F109 (1:100). A: Shaft. B: Serdab-chamber. C: Offering chamber D: Burial chamber. Drawings by K. Yamamoto.

Shaft (A) The shaft measured 264cm × 168cm × 823cm (104in × 66in × 324in).7 The top 183cm (72in) of the shaft was lined with brickwork and plastered on the surface with mud. Each mud brick was 30cm (12in) long. It is unclear from Ayrton’s description

7

The excavators recorded all measurements in the Imperial system to the nearest inch; in this article these measurements have been converted into the metric system to the nearest centimetre. There are discrepancies for the depths of the shaft between

what portion of the shaft was cut out of the densely compacted sand and gravel of the desert surface, but one can assume that the bottom 640cm (252in) without mud-brick lining was stable enough to require no structural reinforcement.

Ayrton’s unpublished manuscript and published report (Naville, Ayrton and Loat 2010, 4). The former gives ‘324 ins.’ (823cm), while the latter gives ‘23 feet’ (701cm). Ayrton’s manuscript is more detailed and therefore seems more trustworthy.

318

K. YAMAMOTO

Serdab chamber (B) On the southwest wall of the shaft, about 312cm (123in) down from the top of the preserved brickwork, a small irregular recess was hollowed out into the desert surface.8 The niche was approximately 114cm (45in) long and 74cm (29in) high. The entrance to this recess was found sealed completely with a mud-brick wall (Pl. 1). In the sand in front of the niche, the excavators encountered a deposit of 161 ceramic vessels. Slightly below, there was another heap of similar rough vases. Ayrton’s unpublished manuscript does not specify how many and what types of vessels were found at the two loci. Once the mud-brick wall was removed, the recess was found to contain ten or eleven painted wooden statues, the poor preservation of which made their precise count impossible (Pl. 2). Scattered before and around the statues were 104 small pottery vessels. Once again, the excavation record does not specify the types and quantity of the vessels, although the in situ photograph shows some medium-sized bowls and jars. The presence of statues identifies this irregular niche as a serdab. The niche cannot have been a burial chamber, either original or intrusive, as it was found intact and contained neither human remains nor coffin. Underground serdabs, like this one, are attested in

Plate 1: Mud-brick wall sealing the entrance of the serdab. EES Archive (AB-MAH.NEG.08–09.051).

8

The recess was ‘123 ins. [312cm] below the top of the brickwork’ according to Ayrton’s manuscript, but it was ‘about 8 feet [244cm] down’ according to the published report (Naville, Ayrton and Loat 2010, 4).

some late Old Kingdom tombs in the Memphite region, especially Saqqara (Lehmann 2000, 62–65). The chronological implication of this serdab chamber will be discussed later in this article. Offering niche (C) On the southeast wall at the bottom of the shaft, there was a very small recess cut into the desert surface. The manuscript does not record the exact dimensions of this niche. This recess contained the head and some bones of a young bovine animal, so it might have functioned as a one-time offering niche or an extra storage for eternity.

Plate 2: View inside the serdab chamber with objects in situ. EES Archive (AB-MAH.NEG.08–09.054).

A LATE OLD KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM ABYDOS

319

Burial chamber (D)

Wooden statues

On the northwest wall, thus opposite from the offering recess, was the burial chamber. Lined with mud bricks, the chamber measured 305cm × 198cm × 107cm (120in × 78in × 42in). The wooden coffin lay lengthwise, near the southwest wall of the chamber. Inside the coffin, the body of a man lay at full length on his left side with his back leaning against the side of the coffin and his head pointing to the northwest. The arms stretched straight down the sides of the body. Nothing else was found inside the coffin. Remains of two small wooden boxes were found on the coffin lid; one was placed above the pelvis area, and the other above the knees. The first box contained a travertine (Egyptian alabaster)9 jar, three long and flat rectangular sticks of ivory, a ‘strip of wood on which were two uninscribed seals one red and the other black’ and a flat, tapering, blade-like piece of copper. The identity of the reported red and black ‘seals’ is unclear since they no longer exist. The second box contained a serpentinite vessel, a set of travertine vases and a copper mirror. On the northeast side of the coffin, near the head, lay two large pottery bowls. One held the femur and rib of a young bovine, and the other the humerus, scapula and ribs of a young bovine along with the bones of a bird. Another smaller dish lay on its edge against them. Between these dishes and the foot of the coffin stood a number of large pottery jars and a few small vases (the types of which are unclear from Ayrton’s description), roughly arranged in two rows.

About ten to eleven painted wooden statues were found inside the serdab chamber. Most of them were very poorly preserved owing to the activity of termites. Since the actual objects no longer survive, the descriptions below are based on Ayrton’s notes and two archival photographs; one taken in situ in the serdab (see Pl. 2) and the other taken on a sheet of black cloth after removal (Pl. 3). In the centre of the recess stood a striding figure of a man about 46cm (18in) high. It was apparently the largest of the group and most likely represents the owner of the tomb. The right arm seems to be pendent parallel to the body (Harvey 2001, 37, fig. 6a).10 The left arm, broken and missing, could either have hung straight down like the right arm (Harvey 2001, 31, 35, 37–39, fig. 6a)11 or have been bent forward at the elbow and held a long walking staff (Harvey 2001, 32–33, fig. 6a).12 The man is wearing a short round wig with the locks apparently long enough to cover most or all of the ears (Harvey 2001, 11–12, 15–17, figs 1a, 1c).13 The surface of the head is eroded. The hairstyle probably would have consisted of so-called ‘echelon-curls’,

Finds Tomb F109, aside from being the largest tomb that Ayrton and Loat found at Cemetery F, was by far the richest burial in terms of burial equipment. The objects that were recovered from this tomb ranged from painted wooden statues to numerous pottery and stone vessels.

9

10

For a discussion on the geologically correct and historically preferred terms for this stone, see Aston, Harrell and Shaw 2000, 59. It is not impossible, however, that the missing hand clasped the front edge of the kilt, as in Harvey’s arms position types A.8, A.8a, A.8b.

Plate 3: Wooden statues from the serdab after removal. EES Archive (AB-MAH.NEG.08–09.037).

11

12 13

Harvey’s arms position types A.1, A.6, A.9, A.12, A.12a, A.14, A.15. Harvey’s arms position types A.3, A.3a, A.3b. Harvey’s wig types W.1, W.1b, W.5, W.6a, W.6b, W.8, W.8a, W.9, W.10.

320

K. YAMAMOTO

but it could alternatively have been the so-called ‘bag wig’ (Harvey 2001, 16, fig. 1b).14 His dress seems to be a short kilt, but the statue is so damaged that details are unclear. A broad collar might have been painted on the chest, just below the neck. A smaller figure of a naked man stood immediately behind the first statue. This statue was found missing its head, left shoulder and legs below the knees. The right arm was pendent beside the torso, and so was the left arm, judging from the remaining part. In the unpublished manuscript, Ayrton notes that it was too eroded to determine if the figure was circumcised or not. He also suggests that these first two statues might represent the tomb owner and his son, but it is also plausible that both represent the tomb owner at different stages of life. As a parallel example from within the Abydos Middle Cemetery, the serdab at the nearby tomb of the vizier Weni the Elder contained numerous wooden statues of the tomb owner shown as an adult and a limestone figure representing a naked boy who is labelled as ḥꜢty-ꜥ Weni (Richards 2003, 406, fig. 4; 2010b, fig. 3). In front of the largest statue were two more figures. According to Ayrton’s unpublished manuscript, one was a crouching figure holding a dish of offerings. Wooden statuary in such an attitude is unknown from the Old Kingdom, so it is more likely that the figure depicted a servant, either grinding grain, roasting a duck or cleaning jars. The other statue in front of the main statue represented a female figure, as indicated by its yellow-painted skin. The attitude of this statue is unclear. It could have been a simple standing statue of a woman, perhaps representing the deceased’s wife, or it could have represented a servant engaged in grinding grains, baking bread, brewing beer or carrying offerings, which are some of the more typical activities for Old Kingdom female servant statues. The remaining six or seven figures were too poorly preserved to render any description possible.

They were found in four clusters: 1) inside the serdab chamber, before and around the wooden statues; 2) in the shaft just outside the serdab; 3) in the shaft but below the serdab level; and 4) in the burial chamber, next to the coffin. The following descriptions of pottery types are based on an examination of the vessels at the ROM, using a ×30 handheld magnifying lens. The fabric typology generally follows the Vienna System (Nordström and Bourriau 1993, 168–82), but some uncertainty remains since the cross-sections could not be examined on the intact museum objects. Type 1 is made of non-fired mud, Type 2 is either non-fired or fired at a very low temperature, and all other types have been fired.

Ayrton observed hundreds of pottery and mud vessels in F109. The exact number is unknown, but there were probably about three hundred vessels in total.

Type 1 (ROM 909.77.3; Fig. 2a): Small cups very roughly hand-modelled out of mud with much chaff temper (unbaked Nile C). The surface is untreated and pitted from the large pieces of chaff that have either decomposed or been eaten away by termites. They were found mostly in two clusters; in the tomb shaft just outside the serdab and in the shaft below the serdab level. It is possible that they are miniature bedja bread moulds, although the inner shape is not as conical as one might expect. Only one example is left at the ROM. Type 2 (ROM 909.77.1 and 909.77.2; Figs 2b and 2c): Small conical vases hand-modelled of the same material as the Type 1 cups but fired at a very low temperature (Nile C). The surface is untreated and porous owing to the large pieces of chaff that had burned away. Most of them were found in the same contexts as Type 1 cups, and they might be miniatures representing beer jars, complementing the Type 1 miniature bread moulds.15 Type 3 (ROM 909.77.7; Fig. 2d): Small dish with simple rim made of Nile B1. The upper portion was shaped on a slow wheel, and the bottom was then scraped. All surfaces are treated with wash or very thin red slip. The original find spot within the tomb is unknown. Only one example has survived at the ROM, but there might have been more in the tomb. Type 4 (ROM 909.77.9 and 909.77.10; Figs 2e and 2f): Small dishes with short vertical wall and rolled rim. The fabric is Nile B1. The upper portion is

14

15

Pottery and mud vessels

Harvey’s wig types W.7, W.7a.

I would like to thank Christian Knoblauch for suggesting this idea.

321

A LATE OLD KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM ABYDOS

a

d

b

c

e

f

g

h

i

j

k

l

m 0

Fi

2 P tt

l T

5

1 6 (1 3)

Fig. 2: Pottery vessels, Types 1–6 (1:3). Drawings by K. Yamamoto.

10 cm

322

K. YAMAMOTO

shaped on a wheel, and the bottom is scraped (in one case after being removed from a hump by string-cutting). All surfaces are treated with very thin red slip. They might be reduced-scale versions of the so-called ‘Meidum bowl’—a carinated bowl with a rounded base, usually treated with red slip and burnished (Op de Beeck 2004, 239). The full-sized versions are common in Abydos (Knoblauch and Bestock 2009, 225–26, fig. 6a–e; Knoblauch 2010, 248, fig. 3a–c). The original find spots within the tomb are unknown. Type 5 (ROM 909.77.11, 909.77.12, 909.77.13 and 909.77.14; Figs 2g, 2h, 2i and 2j): Small dishes very similar to Type 4 but with a tubular spout. The fabric is Nile B1. The upper portion was shaped on a wheel, and the bottom is scraped (in one case after being removed from a hump by string-cutting). The spout is hand-modelled; the hole through the hand-modelled spout is so small that its functionality is somewhat doubtful. All surfaces are treated with very thin red slip. These dishes could be reduced-scale versions of the larger and much deeper carinated bowl with a spout commonly attested from Abydos (Knoblauch and Bestock 2009, fig. 6f). The original find spots within the tomb are unknown. Type 6 (ROM 909.77.16, 909.77.17 and 909.77.18; Figs 2k, 2l and 2m): Small dishes each with a thin lip that has been shaped into an open spout. The fabric is Nile B1, approaching Nile A. The vessels were formed on a wheel, and the base was string-cut from a hump and then scraped. One side of the rim was warped while moist by hand to form an open spout. All surfaces are treated with very thin red slip. In a way, they resemble lamps of later periods, but none of them shows any evidence of burning. They might instead be miniatures of regular open-spouted bowls that are at least twice as large (Rzeuska 2006, 276–91). The original find spots within the tomb are unknown. Type 7 (ROM 909.77.21 and 909.77.22; Figs 3a and 3b): Medium-sized bowls with simple or squared rims. The fabric is Nile B1. The bowls were manufactured on a wheel, and the bottom half was scraped. All surfaces are treated with thin red slip. The original find spots within the tomb are unknown, but they might come from the serdab niche. Type 8 (ROM 909.77.15; Fig. 3c): Medium-sized bowl with many holes pierced through the base; probably intended as a strainer. The fabric is Nile B1, approaching Nile A. The whole vessel was shaped on a wheel, and the bottom was scraped first before the bowl was punctured from the interior to the exterior.

All surfaces are treated with thin red slip. The original find spot within the tomb is unknown. Only one example has survived, but there might have been more in the tomb. Type 9 (ROM 909.77.23; Fig. 3d): Miniature beaker with a basket handle extending from one side of the mouth to the other. The fabric is Nile B1. The small vessel was hand-modelled by pinching-and-hollowing, and the base was scraped. A hand-modelled coil was attached while wet to form the handle, giving a shape reminiscent of a Late Period situla. The exterior surface is treated with thin red slip. The original find spot within the tomb is unknown. Only one example has survived, but there might have been more in the tomb. The field marking clearly indicates it was found at Tomb F109, but given its unusual form for an Old Kingdom corpus, it is not impossible that this small vessel is intrusive. Type 10 (ROM 909.77.41; Fig. 3e): Deep bowl with flattened base, high shoulder and slightly restricted mouth with rolled rim. The fabric is Nile B1. It was shaped on a wheel, and the very bottom was scraped. All surfaces are treated with thin red slip. The original find spot within the tomb is unknown. Only one example has survived, but there might have been more in the tomb. Type 11 (ROM 909.77.20; Fig. 3f): Squat pot with rolled rim similar to Type 10 bowl but with a somewhat more restricted mouth and a spout. The fabric is Nile B1. The pot was shaped on a wheel, and the base was string-cut first and then scraped. The separately manufactured spout was attached by hand. It is chipped at the end, but a trace of finished surface indicates that the spout was not much longer than indicated in the drawing. The exterior surface is treated with thin red slip. The original find spot within the tomb is unknown. Only one example has survived, but there might have been more in the tomb. Type 12 (ROM 909.77.36; Fig. 3g): Short-necked squat jar with a handle extending from the rim to the shoulder. The fabric seems to be a sandy variant of Nile B2, where the sand is not conspicuous enough to classify the fabric as Nile E. It was shaped on a wheel, and the base was string-cut. A thick coil was attached while wet to form a handle, and this process might have caused the wall to become uneven. The exterior surface and the interior down to the neck are treated with thin red slip. The original find spot within the tomb is unknown. Only one example has survived, but there might have been more in the tomb.

323

A LATE OLD KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM ABYDOS

a

b

c

d

e

g

f

h

i 0

5

Figure 3: Pottery vessels Types 7 14 (1:3) Fig. 3: Pottery vessels, Types 7–14 (1:3). Drawings by K. Yamamoto.

10 cm

324

K. YAMAMOTO

Type 13 (ROM 909.77.19; Fig. 3h): Small globular jar with flared neck and simple rim shaped into an open spout. The fabric is Nile B1. The vessel was shaped on a wheel, and the shoulder incised with three horizontal lines, probably while on the wheel because they are sharp and even. The base was scraped. One side of the rim was warped while moist to form an open spout. The exterior surface and the interior down to the neck are treated with thin red slip. The original find spot within the tomb is unknown. Only one example has survived, but there might have been more in the tomb. Type 14 (ROM 909.77.60; Fig. 3i): Small elongated ovoid jar. The shape of the upper portion down to the neck is unknown because it was broken off. The fabric is Nile B2. The jar was formed on a wheel, and the exterior below the maximum diameter shows vertical scraping marks. The surface is untreated and shows vertical scraping marks. The original find spot within the tomb is unknown. Only one example has survived, but there might have been more in the tomb. Type 15 (ROM 909.77.31, 909.77.32, 909.77.33 and 909.77.34; Figs 4a, 4b, 4c and 4d, Pls 4 [right] and 5 [centre]): Medium low-shouldered storage jars with rolled rim, very short neck and flat base. The fabric is Nile B1. The vessels were shaped by coiling, and the top portion was finished on a wheel. The bottom twothirds and the underside were scraped. The external surface is self-slipped and shows white residue (perhaps leached-out salt) in some places, especially toward the bottom. Each of the jars was ‘nearly full of mud’ and originally capped with a mud stopper of a truncated conical form (see Pl. 4 [right]). Although the stoppers no longer survive, one can still observe traces of mud on the surface of the jars. The shape of these flat-bottomed jars is unusual, as vessels of this size tend to have either rounded or pointed bases during the late Old Kingdom. The closest parallel is from contemporaneous Balat (Soukiassian, Wuttmann and Pantalacci 2002, fig. 301). One type of jar that always has a flat base is canopic jars. The fact that these four identical vessels were found together raises a possibility that they functioned as a set of canopic jars, but only symbolically since they contained mud instead of mummified viscera. The excavators did not keep the mud, but it might have been mixed with natron since the vessels have the

16

No chemical analysis has been conducted for the white substance.

white, salt-like accretion not observed on other vessels from the tomb.16 The placement of these jars—on the floor of the burial chamber next to the foot end of the coffin—also conforms to how canopic jars were typically deposited during the Old Kingdom (Ikram and Dodson 1998, 277–78). Ceramic canopic jars are not uncommon, but an exact parallel for this shape could not be found. Type 16 (ROM 909.77.30; Fig. 5a, Pls 4 [left] and 5 [left]): Large, more elongated jar with rounded base, high shoulder and simple rim. The fabric is Nile C. The bottom portion was probably shaped by coiling, while the upper portion was finished on a slow wheel. The bottom two-thirds was scraped in vertical strokes.

Plate 4: Two pottery jars with stoppers and a pottery bowl. EES Archive (AB-MAH.NEG.08–09.039).

Plate 5: Five pottery jars. EES Archive (AB-MAH.NEG.08–09.038).

325

A LATE OLD KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM ABYDOS

a

b

c

d 0

Fi

4 P tt

l T

5

15 (1 3)

Fig. 4: Pottery vessels, Type 15 (1:3). Drawings by K. Yamamoto.

10 cm

K. YAMAMOTO

326

b

c

d

e

a

g

f

h

i

j

0

k

5

Figure 5: Pottery vessels Types 16–18 (1:3) Fig. 5: Pottery vessels, Types 16–18 (1:3). Drawings by K. Yamamoto.

10 cm

A LATE OLD KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM ABYDOS

The exterior surface is treated with thin red slip. This type of jar was found capped with a mud stopper of truncated conical form (see Pl. 4 [left]), and one can still observe traces of mud on the surface of this jar. This might have been among the ‘large jars’ found next to the coffin, but it might also come from somewhere else in the tomb. Only one example has survived, but there might have been more in the tomb. Type 17 (ROM 909.77.24, 909.77.25, 909.77.37, 909.77.38 and 909.77.39; Figs 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e and 5f): Small, very low ring stands. The fabric is Nile A. They were manufactured on a wheel, and they were removed from the hump by the string-cutting technique. The surface is treated with uneven splotches of very thin red slip. They could be either stands for very small vessels or miniatures. The original find spots within the tomb are unknown. Type 18 (ROM 909.77.26, 909.77.27, 909.77.28, 909.77.29 and 909.77.40; Figs 5g, 5h, 5i, 5j and 5k): Small spool-shaped ring stands. The fabric seems to be Nile B1. They were shaped on a wheel and then stringcut from the hump. The surface is treated with uneven splotches of thin red slip. They could be either stands for very small vessels or miniatures. The original find spots within the tomb are unknown. In addition to these eighteen types of pottery vessels attested at the ROM, archival photographs reveal that Tomb F109 yielded several other types, including the very large bowl in the middle of Pl. 4 and the second, fourth and fifth jars from the left in Pl. 5. Since these vessels are no longer preserved and therefore could not be recorded properly, they have been left out of the typology presented above. It is notable that many of the small pottery vessels found in the Tomb F109 serdab chamber seem to be miniaturized or reduced-scale versions of bread moulds, beer jars and bowls. During the Old Kingdom, miniature vessels were frequently used for perpetual mortuary cult, in which a large number of mass-produced vessels were offered regularly at above-ground cultic chapels (Allen 2006, 21–24). The mixture of miniature and full-scale pots from Tomb F109, on the other hand, represents a one-time deposit as part of the funerary ritual, a practice more similar to the burial assemblage of the Middle Kingdom.

327

Stone vessels A total of seven stone vessels were found in the two wooden boxes placed on top of the coffin: one box above the pelvis, and the other above the knee. The first box contained one travertine jar, while the second box contained five travertine vessels and one dark green serpentinite jar. It is unknown which of the six travertine vessels was found in the first wooden box. The vessels can be classified into five types: Type 1 (ROM 909.77.48; Fig. 6a, Pl. 7 [top right]): Short cylindrical vases with a very wide horizontal rim and flat base. This example is made of travertine. Type 2 (ROM 909.77.49; Fig. 6b, Pl. 6 [middle right]): Collared vases with a spindle-shaped body that tapers down to a flattened base. This example is made of travertine. A trace of oxidized copper, almost certainly from the copper mirror (see below), was found on its surface, so it was presumably found in the second box. Type 3 (ROM 909.77.50; Fig. 6c, Pl. 6 [middle left]): Funnel-necked jars with a modelled rim and an ovoid body that tapers down to a pointed base. This example is made of travertine. Type 4 (ROM 909.77.51, 909.77.52 and 909.77.53; Figs 6d, 6e and 6f, Pl. 6 [bottom left, bottom centre, bottom right]): Globular to slightly ovoid jars with short upright neck, wide horizontal rim and round base. These examples are made of travertine. Type 5 (ROM 909.77.47; Fig. 6g, Pl. 7 [top left]): Globular jars with short upright neck, modelled rim and round base. This example is made of dark green serpentinite. Miscellaneous artefacts In addition to the mud, pottery and stone vessels, a number of other artefacts were found in F109. The first box in the burial chamber contained: 1. Three undecorated flat sticks of ivory (Pl. 7 [bottom left]). One of them does not have any hole (ROM 909.77.45; Fig. 7c), while two have small holes that indicate they were meant to be joined at a right angle with thin dowels (ROM 909.77.44 and 909.77.46; Fig. 7d). They are most likely model construction tools representing a ruler and a set square, respectively.

328

K. YAMAMOTO

Plate 6: A copper blade, a copper mirror, and five stone vessels. EES Archive (AB-MAH.NEG.08–09.187).

2. A strip of wood (probably ROM 909.77.42; Fig. 7e) with two uninscribed seals (now lost). The type of the ‘seals’, whether they were cylindrical or button-shaped, is unknown. 3. A flat, tapering, blade-like piece of copper, pierced on the broader end (ROM 909.77.69; Fig. 7b, Pl. 6 [top]). In the second box was: 4. A copper mirror (ROM 909.77.43; Fig. 7a, Pl. 6 [middle centre]), to which was adhered a small piece of cloth (now lost). In addition, it is possible, although unlikely, that the painted limestone model representing a stack of bedja bread moulds (ROM 909.77.59; Fig. 7f)17 was found somewhere in F109. This object was photographed at the London exhibition together with one of the travertine vessels, the serpentinite jar and the three strips of ivory from F109 (Pl. 7 [bottom left]), but the ‘group photograph’ might have been taken to minimize the expense of the costly glass plates. The object itself does not bear any field mark to confirm its provenance. Neither the annual report (Naville, Ayrton and Loat 1909) nor Ayrton’s unpublished manuscript remarks on this piece, which would have merited a brief mention at the least. It is, therefore, unlikely that the model of heaped bread moulds belongs with the F109

17

18

For comparison, see Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 64.66.10, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston 06.1887. A similar drilled hole appears on Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna ÄS 7870. Jaroš-Deckert and Rogge 1993, 105.

Plate 7: Stone vessels, ivory objects and a limestone model. EES Archive (AB-MAH.NEG.08–09.161).

assemblage. On one side of the bottom layer is a small horizontal opening, perhaps representing a stokehole.18 On the underside is a vertical hole to receive a dowel that fixed the model onto a base board. The latter observation indicates that this object was part of a larger composition, which probably included a separately manufactured figure of a baker tending the oven.19 Faunal remains Faunal remains were found in two different locations. In the burial chamber (D), there were two large bowls containing animal bones. The bones in the first bowl included:

19

For a composite limestone statue of a baker stoking a stack of bread moulds (poker restored in wood), see Oriental Institute Museum, Chicago E 10634. Breasted [1948], 28, pl. 26c.

329

A LATE OLD KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM ABYDOS

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

0 Figure 6: Stone vessels (1:3) Fig. 6: Stone vessels (1:3). Drawings by K. Yamamoto.

5

10 cm

K. YAMAMOTO

330

a

b

Possibly not from F109 c

d

f e

0

5

Figure 7: Other objects (1:3) Fig. 7: Other objects (1:3). Drawings by K. Yamamoto.

10 cm

A LATE OLD KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM ABYDOS

1. The right femur of a young bovine (ROM 909.77.55). 2. A rib of a young bovine (perhaps ROM 909.77.57.A–B). The second bowl contained: 3. The right humerus of a young bovine (ROM 909.77.56). 4. The right scapula of a young bovine (ROM 909.77.54). 5. Ribs of a young bovine (perhaps ROM 909.77.57.A–B). 6. Bones of a bird (now lost). In addition, the small offering niche (C) contained: 7. A skull of a young bovine (now lost). 8. Some additional bones of a young bovine (now lost). The femur, humerus and ribs (ROM 909.77.55–57) show signs of some cut marks from the butchering process. Zoologist at the ROM, Kevin Seymour, examined the four mammal bones extant at the museum and determined all of them as a young adult (but not juvenile) Bos taurus. The faunal remains found in the bowls inside the burial chamber may be interpreted as the meat offerings deposited as part of the funerary ritual, while those in the niche across from the burial chamber can be understood as part of the symbolic eternal provisions. Note that all bovid remains come from the right side of the young Bos taurus. The absence of the left side of the animal suggests that it was probably consumed by the family members of the deceased and/ or distributed to the mortuary priests as a form of payment, although there is no evidence to prove either scenario (De Meyer et al. 2005–06, 60–61). Discussion Dating Ayrton and Loat reported that most tombs at Cemetery F dated from Dynasty 6. The small corpus of Cemetery F objects published by Loat (1923) is comparable to the material from Phase I at Dendera and Qau, datable from the end of Dynasty 5 to the reign of Pepi II (Seidlmayer 1990, 353). Based on the architecture of Tomb F109 and the types of artefacts found in it, I believe the date of this tomb can be narrowed down to the late Dynasty 6.

331

One dating criterion is the unusual location of the serdab niche, cut in the wall halfway down the vertical shaft. During much of the Old Kingdom, the serdabs were normally situated in the above-ground superstructures. In contrast, statues were often deposited either at the bottom of the shaft or in the burial chamber from the First Intermediate Period to the early Middle Kingdom (Lehmann 2000, 64). The location of the serdab in Tomb F109, in the shaft, may be considered an intermediate stage in the general downward movement of the statue deposition (Fitzenreiter 2001, vol. 1, 343–53, vol. 2, 191–95; Harvey 2001, 3). The best parallels for the serdab dug into the walls of the vertical shafts come from the late Dynasty 6 tombs at Saqqara (Lehmann 2000, 63–64, nos S53, S75, S81, S86, S102, S108 and S117). For example, the tomb of Ishtji-Tjetji at Saqqara was equipped with a 2.2 × 1.2m recess in the east wall of the shaft (Lehmann 2000, no. S81), and the recess contained nine wooden statues of the owner and servants. Ishetji-Tjetji’s burial must be from the reign of Pepi II at the earliest, since he served in the estates of the pyramids of Pepi I and Pepi II, and his statues stylistically fit this period (Fitzenreiter 2001, vol. 2, 193; Harvey 2001, 70–71, 230–39). The tomb of Tjeteti in Saqqara had four recesses in the walls of the shafts (Lehmann 2000, no. S117), and one of them contained numerous statues datable stylistically to the end of Dynasty 6 or shortly thereafter (Harvey 2001, 74–78, 279–317; Peterson 1985, 3). Unfortunately, the wooden statues from Tomb F109 are so poorly preserved that they cannot be dated with confidence based on their style. The few features on these statues that can be observed from archival photographs, however, are compatible with late Dynasty 6 examples like those of Ishetji-Tjetji and Tjeteti mentioned above. Most of the pottery types attested from Tomb F109 are not very useful in narrowing the date of the tomb, because they are either very generic (e.g., simple dishes and bowls) or unparalleled from any dated contexts (e.g., ‘canopic jars’ and Type 9 miniature beaker). The second jar in Fig. 6 (now lost) is a cylindrical ‘beer jar’ with rounded bottom, made of coarse silt ware. The form is datable generally to the late Old Kingdom, probably Dynasty 6 (Brunton 1928, pl. 81 [77K]; Hope and McFarlane 2006, 40, 68–69, fig. 6, pl. 2 [b]; Rzeuska 2006, 382–88; Knoblauch 2010, 247, fig. 2c). The travertine vessel types also confirm a late Old Kingdom date. The squat cylindrical vase (Type 1) is uncommon, but it may be a larger, better-manufactured

332

K. YAMAMOTO

version of a vessel found in Tomb F40 dated to Dynasty 6 (Sowada 2010, 222, fig. 2a, pl. 2). The collared vessel (Type 2) is also datable to Dynasty 6 (Aston 1994, 135–36, no. 123; Brunton 1927, pl. 27 [45, 68]; Sowada 2010, 222, fig. 2b, pl. 2). The funnel-necked jar (Type 3) is datable to Dynasty 5–6 (Aston 1994, 137, no. 127; Brunton 1927, pl. 28 [122]). Globular and slightly ovoid jars (Types 4 and 5) are datable to Dynasty 6–8 (Aston 1994, 137–38, no. 130; Brunton 1927, pl. 28 [142, 144–46]). Also, stone vessels of Types 2, 3, 4 and 5 were all recovered in a single tomb at Balat, ‘caveau 5100’, datable from a vase lid inscribed with the royal name Neferkare, which probably refers to Pepi II20 (Castel, Pantalacci and Cherpion 2001, vol. 1, 54–59; vol. 2, figs 39–43). Combined, the material culture associated with the tomb seems to indicate a late Old Kingdom date, most likely around the reign of Pepi II at the end of Dynasty 6. The rectangular, rather than square, shape of the shaft and the fully extended, rather than contracted, position of the body also corroborate this proposed date. Ownership Since the skeleton found in the coffin was not kept, there is no way to either confirm or reject Ayrton’s statement in his unpublished manuscript that it was a male body. Ayrton does not indicate the sex of the deceased in his brief preliminary report (Naville, Ayrton and Loat 1909, 4). Mirrors and travertine vessels were iconographically associated with women, and they were often deposited in female burials (Seidlmayer 2001, 233–35). Nevertheless, these items are not exclusive to female burials, and therefore Ayrton’s observation cannot be rejected on this basis.21 For what is worth, the largest statue found in the serdab depicts a man, and it probably represents the tomb owner. The age of the tomb owner cannot be determined without the human remains, and owing to the lack of any inscribed artefacts from Tomb F109, the name and title of the tomb owner also remain unknown. His general social and economic status, however, can be inferred

20

21

Many of Pepi II’s successors also adopted the name Neferkare to emulate their illustrious ancestor. For example, a late Middle Kingdom man named Reniseneb was buried with a mirror tucked in his mummy wrappings. His tomb

based on the scale, content and location of the burial in relation to the contemporaneous graves in the area. Ayrton noted in his unpublished manuscript that Tomb F109 was the largest found in Cemetery F. The vertical shaft (A) of Tomb F109 was 823cm (324in) deep, and the surviving tomb cards confirm that it was indeed the deepest shaft in the cemetery. In fact, there were only three other tombs that had shafts deeper than 460cm, namely Tombs F110, 111 and 112. Judging from the proximity of their tomb numbers, these three burials were probably located near Tomb F109, although there is no site map to confirm this notion. As noted earlier, the top 183cm (72in) of the deep shaft of F109 was lined with sun-dried bricks and treated with mud plaster, indicating the extra care taken to construct this tomb. More indicative of the owner’s relatively high economic standing is the presence of the serdab chamber (B), which was a rare feature among the tombs in Abydos Cemetery F. About ten statues were found inside this niche located about halfway down the shaft. Inclusion of multiple wooden statues of the tomb owner and his servants is generally reserved for middle- to upperclass officials and provincial elites during the late Old Kingdom. The inclusion of luxury items, such as seven stone vessels and a bronze mirror, among the burial goods also points to the tomb owner’s wealth. Pottery vessels are generally assumed to have been cheaper commodities, and most pots from Tomb 109 appear to be miniatures. Nevertheless, the fact that the owner could afford about three hundred of them may indicate a relatively high socio-economic standing. This idea is also supported by the offering of beef, which was regarded as more valuable than the meat of sheep, goat, swine, fowl or fish in ancient Egypt (Ikram 1995, 199; Rossel 2004, 201). Finally, the status of the owner of Tomb F109 can be determined from the location of the burial in relation to the other graves of the area. The EEF’s annual report published in 1909 states, ‘Towards the top of the slope the shafts of the tombs are deeper …’, most likely

also yielded a wooden chest that once belonged to another man named Kemeni, and the box had a space for the mirror as well as a drawer for eight travertine ointment vases (Roehrig 2015).

A LATE OLD KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM ABYDOS

333

referring to Tombs F109, 110, 111 and 112, which had the deepest shafts in this cemetery. From Auguste Mariette’s excavation and Janet Richards’ ongoing reinvestigation of the Middle Cemetery, it is known that at least three Dynasty 6 viziers, Iuu, Weni the Elder and Idy, had their large tombs built on the summit of the same mound (Richards 2007; 2010a; 2010b). The lengthy biographical text inscribed on the wall of Weni’s tomb describes the important roles that he and his father Iuu played at the royal court, and it also refers to the expensive materials, such as Tura limestone, that Weni was allowed to use for the construction of his tomb. These viziers’ tombs featured architectural elements with relief carving, and they yielded some imported goods, including Syrian pottery jars (Knoblauch 2010, 247–55, figs 5–7; Richards 2010b, 354, fig. 5), supporting the notion of these elite owners’ high socio-economic standing. Richards has already pointed out that one should regard the entire Middle Cemetery, including the slope of Cemetery F, in terms of a ‘politically inspired conceptual landscape’ (Richards 2010b, 354). It reflected, at least initially in the late Old Kingdom, the socio-economic stratification of the provincial society. At the very top of the hill, with an advantaged view toward the Early Dynastic royal

cemetery, were the tombs belonging to the members of the elite class, such as the three viziers. A little below them were the burials of upper-middle-class denizens, such as the owners of Tombs F109 through F112. Following this pattern, people of lower-middle social ranks were interred in smaller and more poorly equipped tombs on the lower half of the slope. Tomb F40, with a 91cm (36in) shaft, might belong to this class (Sowada 2010, 221). Finally, the lowest class might have been buried in simple pit graves at the bottom of the mound.

Bibliography

Castel, G., L. Pantalacci and N. Cherpion. 2001. Balat V. Le mastaba de Khentika: Tombeau d’un gouveneur de l’Oasis à la fin de l’Ancien Empire, 2 vols. Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 40. Cairo. De Meyer, M., W. Van Neer, C. Peeters and H. Willems. 2005–06. The role of animals in the funerary rites at Dayr al-Barshā. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 42: 45–71. Dickson, L. 1986. The museum makers: The story of the Royal Ontario Museum. Toronto. Fitzenreiter, M. 2001. Statue und Kult: Eine Studie der funerären Praxis an nichtköniglichen Grabanlagen der Residenz im Alten Reich, 2 vols. Berlin. Frankfort, H. 1930. The cemeteries of Abydos: Work of the season 1925–26: II. Description of tombs. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 16: 213–19. Garstang, J. 1909. Excavations at Abydos, 1909: Preliminary description of the principal finds. Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 2: 125–29. Harvey, J. 2001. Wooden statues of the Old Kingdom: A typological study. Egyptological Memoirs 2. Leiden; Boston; Cologne.

Allen, S. 2006. Miniature and model vessels in ancient Egypt. In The Old Kingdom art and archaeology: Proceedings of the conference held in Prague, May 31– June 4, 2004, M. Bárta (ed.), 19–24. Prague. Aston, B. 1994. Ancient Egyptian stone vessels: Materials and forms. Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 5. Heidelberg. Aston, B. G., J. A. Harrell and I. Shaw. 2000. Stone. In Ancient Egyptian materials and technology, P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw (eds), 5–77. Cambridge. Borchardt, L. 1911. Statuen und Statuetten von Königen und Privatleuten im Museum von Kairo, Teil 1. Text und Tafeln zu Nr. 1–380. Berlin. Breasted, J. H. [1948]. Egyptian servant statues. The Bollingen Series 13. [New York]. Brunton, G. 1927. Qau and Badari I. British School of Archaeology in Egypt 44. London. ———. 1928. Qau and Badari II. British School of Archaeology in Egypt 45. London.

Future research This study is a brief preliminary report from the ongoing project to publish the entirety of Cemetery F as it was found and recorded by Ayrton and Loat in 1908. As the largest and best provisioned of all the tombs that Ayrton’s team recorded, Tomb F109 is not representative of the whole cemetery. To assess the value of the data more critically, all graves and their contents must be studied as an assemblage and compared with the subsequent investigations of the neighbouring cemeteries by Garstang, Peet, Frankfort and especially Richards.

334

K. YAMAMOTO

Hope, C. A., and A. McFarlane. 2006. Akhmim in the Old Kingdom, Part II: The pottery, decoration techniques and colour conventions. The Australian Centre for Egyptology Studies 7. Oxford. Ikram, S. 1995. Choice cuts: Meat production in ancient Egypt. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 69. Leuven. Ikram, S., and A. Dodson. 1998. The mummy in ancient Egypt: Equipping the dead for eternity. London. Jaroš-Deckert, B., and E. Rogge. 1993. Statuen des Alten Reiches. Corpus Antiquitatum Aegyptiacarum, Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Ägyptisch-Orientalische Sammlung, Lieferung 15. Mainz am Rhein. Knoblauch, C. 2010. Preliminary report on the Early Bronze Age III pottery from contexts of the 6th Dynasty in the Abydos Middle Cemetery. Ägypten und Levante 20: 243–61. Knoblauch, C. M., and L. D. Bestock. 2009. Four thousand years in Abydos: A preliminary report on the architecture and ceramics of the 2004–05 excavations in the North Cemetery, West. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 65: 211–52. Lehmann, K. 2000. Der Serdab in den Privatgräbern des Alten Reichs. PhD diss., Universität Heidelberg. Lepsius, C. R. 1904. Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethyopien, Text, Vol. 2. Leipzig. Loat, W. L. S. 1923. A Sixth Dynasty cemetery at Abydos. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 9: 161–63. Mariette, A. 1880a. Abydos: Description des fouilles exécutées sur l’emplacement de cette ville. Paris. ———. 1880b. Catalogue général des monuments d’Abydos découverts pendant les fouilles de cette ville. Paris. Naville, E., E. R. Ayrton and L. Loat. 1909. Excavations at Abydos. Archaeological Report 1908–1909: 1–5. Nordström, H.-Å., and J. Bourriau. 1993. Ceramic technology: Clays and fabrics. In An introduction to ancient Egyptian pottery, D. Arnold and J. Bourriau (eds), 143– 90. Mainz am Rhein. Op de Beeck, L. 2004. Possibilities and restrictions for the use of Maidum-bowls as chronological indicators. Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 7: 239–80. Peet, T. E. 1914. The cemeteries of Abydos, part II: 1911– 1912. Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund 34. London. Peterson, B. 1985. Finds from the Theteti tomb at Saqqara. Bulletin. Medelhavsmuseet 20: 3–24. Richards, J. 2003. The Abydos cemeteries in the late Old Kingdom. In Egyptology at the dawn of the twenty-first century: Proceedings of the eighth International Congress of Egyptologists, Cairo, 2000, Vol. 1: Archaeology, Z. Hawass in collaboration with L. Pinch Brock (eds), 400–07. Cairo and New York.

———. 2007. The archaeology of excavations and the role of context. In The archaeology and art of ancient Egypt: Essays in honor of David B. O’Connor, Vol. 2, Z. A. Hawass and J. Richards (eds), 313–19. Cairo. ———. 2010a. Honoring the ancestors at Abydos: The Middle Kingdom in the Middle Cemetery. In Millions of jubilees: Studies in honor of David P. Silverman, Vol. 1, Z. Hawass and J. Houser Wegner (eds), 137–66. Cairo. ———. 2010b. Spatial and verbal rhetorics of power: Constructing late Old Kingdom history. Journal of Egyptian History 3: 339–66. Roehrig, C. H. 2015. Box with vessels and mirror. In Ancient Egypt transformed: The Middle Kingdom, A. Oppenheim, D. Arnold, D. Arnold and K. Yamamoto (eds), 141–42. New York. Rossel, S. 2004. Food for the dead, the priest, and the mayor: Looking for status and identity in the Middle Kingdom settlement at South Abydos, Egypt. In Behaviour behind bones: The zooarchaeology of ritual, religion, status and identity, S. Jones O’Day, W. Van Neer and A. Ervynck (eds), 198–202. Oxford. Rowland, J. 2007. El-Amrah, el-Mahasna, Hu and Abadiyeh. In Egypt Exploration Society – the early years, P. Spencer (ed.), 167–97. EES Occasional Publication 16. London. Rzeuska, T. 2006. Saqqara II: Pottery of the late Old Kingdom: Funerary pottery and burial practice. Warsaw. Seidlmayer, S. J. 1990. Gräberfelder aus dem Übergang vom Alten zum Mittleren Reich: Studien zur Archäologie der Ersten Zwischenzeit. Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 1. Heidelberg. ———. 2001. Die Ikonographie des Todes. In Social aspects of funerary culture in the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms: Proceedings of the international symposium held at Leiden University, 6–7 June, 1996, H. Willems (ed.), 205–52. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 103. Leuven. Snape, S. R. 1986. Mortuary assemblages from Abydos. PhD diss., University of Liverpool. Soukiassian, G., M. Wuttmann and L. Pantalacci. 2002. Balat VI. Le palais des gouverneurs de l’époque de Pépy II: Les sanctuaires de ka et leurs dépendences. Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 46. Cairo. Sowada, K. N. 2010. Forgotten Cemetery F at Abydos and burial practices of the late Old Kingdom. In Egyptian culture and society: Studies in honour of Naguib Kanawati, Vol. 2, A. Woods, A. McFarlane and S. Binder (eds), 219–32. Cairo.

A LATE OLD KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM ABYDOS

Appendix 1: Catalogue of F109 objects at the Royal Ontario Museum ROM 909.77.1

ROM 909.77.2

ROM 909.77.3

ROM 909.77.7

ROM 909.77.9

ROM 909.77.10

ROM 909.77.11

ROM 909.77.12

ROM 909.77.13

ROM 909.77.14

ROM 909.77.15

ROM 909.77.16

ROM 909.77.17

ROM 909.77.18

ROM 909.77.19

Cup (Pottery Type 2) Fig. 2c Pottery H. 9.9cm; Rim ø 2.8cm (uneven); Max. ø 3.9cm Cup (Pottery Type 2) Fig. 2c Pottery H. 10.1cm; Rim ø 3.1cm (uneven); Max. ø 4.2cm (uneven) Cup (Pottery Type 1) Fig. 2a Unbaked mud H. 4.6cm (uneven); Rim ø 3.8cm; Max. ø 4.5cm (uneven) Dish (Pottery Type 3) Fig. 2d Pottery H. 2.0cm (uneven); Rim ø 9.0cm; Max. ø 9.5cm Dish (Pottery Type 4) Fig. 2e Pottery H. 2.5cm; Rim ø 9.8cm; Max. ø 10.0cm Dish (Pottery Type 4) Fig. 2f Pottery H. 2.9cm; Rim ø 10.4cm; Max. ø 10.7cm Dish (Pottery Type 5) Fig. 2g Pottery H. 3.1cm; Rim ø 10.4cm; Max. ø 10.9cm Dish (Pottery Type 5) Fig. 2h Pottery H. 2.9cm; Rim ø 10.4cm; Max. ø 10.8cm Dish (Pottery Type 5) Fig. 2i Pottery H. 3.0cm; Rim ø 11.5cm; Max. ø 11.8cm Dish (Pottery Type 5) Fig. 2j Pottery H. 3.0cm; Rim ø 10.7cm; Max. ø 11.0cm Strainer (Pottery Type 8) Fig. 3c Pottery H. 5.3cm; Rim ø 15.8cm; Max. ø 16.6cm Dish (Pottery Type 6) Fig. 2k Pottery H. 2.5cm; Rim ø 10.2cm (uneven); Max. ø 10.4cm (uneven) Dish (Pottery Type 6) Fig. 2l Pottery H. 2.6cm; Rim ø 9.7cm (uneven); Max. ø 9.9cm (uneven) Dish (Pottery Type 6) Fig. 2m Pottery H. 2.2cm; Rim ø 11.2cm (uneven); Max. ø 11.4cm (uneven) Jar (Pottery Type 13) Fig. 3h Pottery H. 11.0cm; Rim ø 6.1cm; Neck min. ø 4.5cm; Max. ø 8.9cm

335

336 ROM 909.77.20

ROM 909.77.21

ROM 909.77.22

ROM 909.77.23

ROM 909.77.24

ROM 909.77.25

ROM 909.77.26

ROM 909.77.27

ROM 909.77.28

ROM 909.77.29

ROM 909.77.30

ROM 909.77.31

ROM 909.77.32

ROM 909.77.33

ROM 909.77.34

ROM 909.77.36

K. YAMAMOTO

Pot (Pottery Type 11) Fig. 3f Pottery H. 7.6cm; Rim ø 6.5cm; Max. ø 10cm; Base ø 7.2cm (uneven) Bowl (Pottery Type 7) Fig. 3a Pottery H. 6.6cm (uneven); Rim ø 14.2cm (uneven); Max. ø 15.4cm Bowl (Pottery Type 7) Fig. 3b Pottery H. 9.4cm; Rim ø 16.1cm; Max. ø 16.5cm Beaker (Pottery Type 9) Fig. 3d Pottery H. including handle 6.5cm; Rim ø 2.8cm; Max. ø 3.6cm Stand (Pottery Type 17) Fig. 5b Pottery H. 1.7cm; Rim ø 7.2cm (uneven); Base ø 7.5cm (uneven) Stand (Pottery Type 17) Fig. 5c Pottery H. 2.6cm; Rim ø 8.4cm (uneven); Base ø 8.0cm (uneven) Stand (Pottery Type 18) Fig. 5g Pottery H. 5.7cm (uneven); Rim ø 5.6cm; Base ø 5.9cm Stand (Pottery Type 18) Fig. 5h Pottery H. 5.4cm; Rim ø 5.1cm; Base ø 6.2cm (uneven) Stand (Pottery Type 18) Fig. 5i Pottery H. 5.4cm (uneven); Rim ø 5.3cm; Base ø 5.7cm Stand (Pottery Type 18) Fig. 5j Pottery H. 5.4cm; Rim ø 4.7cm; Base ø 4.8cm (uneven) Jar (Pottery Type 16) Fig. 5a; Pls 4a, 5a Pottery H. 40.4cm; Rim ø 10.5cm; Max. ø 23.1cm Jar (Pottery Type 15) Fig. 4a; Pls 4c (?), 5c (?) Pottery H. 26.5cm; Rim ø 8.9cm; Max. ø 19.5cm; Base ø 10.7cm Jar (Pottery Type 15) Fig. 4b; Pls 4c (?), 5c (?) Pottery H. 26.1cm; Rim ø 8.7cm; Max. ø 19.1cm; Base ø 9.8cm Jar (Pottery Type 15) Fig. 4c; Pls 4c (?), 5c (?) Pottery H. 26.2cm; Rim ø 8.9cm; Max. ø 19.1cm; Base ø 10.0cm Jar (Pottery Type 15) Fig. 4d; Pls 4c (?), 5c (?) Pottery H. 26.3cm; Rim ø 9.2cm; Max. ø 18.4cm; Base ø 10.3cm Jar (Pottery Type 12) Fig. 3g Pottery H. 8.5cm (uneven); Rim ø 5.7cm; Max. ø 9.1cm; Base ø 5.8cm

A LATE OLD KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM ABYDOS

ROM 909.77.37

Stand (Pottery Type 17) Fig. 5d Pottery H. 2.3cm (uneven); Rim ø 6.6cm; Base ø 6.1cm (uneven) ROM 909.77.38 Stand (Pottery Type 17) Fig. 5e Pottery H. 2.3cm (uneven); Rim ø 7.1cm; Base ø 6.2cm ROM 909.77.39 Stand (Pottery Type 17) Fig. 5f Pottery H. 3.0cm (uneven); Rim ø 7.6cm; Base ø 7.2cm ROM 909.77.40 Stand (Pottery Type 18) Fig. 5k Pottery H. 5.9cm (uneven); Rim ø 4.9cm; Base ø 5.8cm ROM 909.77.41 Bowl (Pottery Type 10) Fig. 3e Pottery H. 9.2cm; Rim ø 10.7cm; Max. ø 12.5cm; Base ø 9.0cm ROM 909.77.42 Peg Fig. 7e Wood L. 8.1cm; Max. ø 1.0cm ROM 909.77.43 Mirror Fig. 7a; Pl. 6c Copper L. 14.4cm; W. 12.8cm; Th. 0.3cm ROM 909.77.44, .46 Model set square Fig. 7d; Pl. 7c Ivory (probably hippopotamus tusk) 909.77.44: L. 12.1cm; W. 1.2cm; Th. 0.45cm 909.77.46: L. 10.8cm; W. 1.2cm; Th. 0.45cm ROM 909.77.45 Model ruler Fig. 7c; Pl. 7c Ivory (probably hippopotamus tusk) L. 12.2cm; W. 1.2cm; Th. 0.3cm ROM 909.77.47 Jar (Stone Vessel Type 5) Fig. 6g; Pl. 7a Serpentinite H. 12.1cm; Rim int. ø 3.0cm; Rim ext. ø 4.2cm; Max. ø 9.6cm ROM 909.77.48 Vase (Stone Vessel Type 1) Fig. 6a; Pl. 7b Travertine H. 7.0cm; Rim int. ø 6.8cm; Rim ext. ø 11.5cm; Base ø 8.5cm ROM 909.77.49 Vase (Stone Vessel Type 2) Fig. 6b; Pl. 6d Travertine H. 13.1cm; Rim int. ø 3.3cm; Rim ext. ø 4.1cm; Base ø 1.9cm ROM 909.77.50 Jar (Stone Vessel Type 3) Fig. 6c; Pl. 6b Travertine H. 13.2cm; Rim ø 4.5cm; Neck min. ø 3.0cm; Max. ø 5.1cm ROM 909.77.51 Jar (Stone Vessel Type 4) Fig. 6d; Pl. 6g Travertine H. 9.7cm; Rim int. ø 2.8cm; Rim ext. ø 5.1cm; Max. ø 7.2cm ROM 909.77.52 Jar (Stone Vessel Type 4) Fig. 6e; Pl. 6e Travertine H. 10.2cm; Rim int. ø 2.8cm; Rim ext. ø 4.9cm; Max. ø 6.8cm ROM 909.77.53 Jar (Stone Vessel Type 4) Fig. 6f; Pl. 6f Travertine H. 10.7cm; Rim int. 3.1cm; Rim ext. ø 5.9cm; Max. ø 8.5cm

337

338 ROM 909.77.54

K. YAMAMOTO

Incomplete right scapula Not illustrated Bos taurus ROM 909.77.55 Complete right femur Not illustrated Bos taurus ROM 909.77.56 Complete right humerus Not illustrated Bos taurus ROM 909.77.57.A–B Fragments of a right rib (or ribs) Not illustrated Bos taurus ROM 909.77.59 Model of bread moulds Fig. 7f; Pl. 7d Limestone, paint H. 12.6cm; Max. W. 9.7cm ROM 909.77.60 Jar (Pottery Type 14) Fig. 3i Pottery Preserved H. 12.4cm; Max. ø ca. 6.5cm ROM 909.77.69 Blade Fig. 7b; Pl. 6a Copper L. 8.9cm; W. 1.0cm; Th. 0.1cm

A LATE OLD KINGDOM BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM ABYDOS

Appendix 2: Catalogue of F109 photographs at the EES’s Lucy Gura Archive AB-MAH.NEG.08–09.037 Pl. 3 Wooden statues from the serdab chamber after removal. AB-MAH.NEG.08–09.038 Five pottery jars.

Pl. 5

AB-MAH.NEG.08–09.039 Pl. 4 Two pottery jars capped with stoppers and a pottery bowl. AB-MAH.NEG.08–09.051 Pl. 1 Mud-brick wall sealing the entrance of the serdab chamber. AB-MAH.NEG.08–09.054 View inside the serdab chamber with objects in situ.

Pl. 2

AB-MAH.NEG.08–09.161 Pl. 7 Two stone vessels, ivory objects and a limestone model. AB-MAH.NEG.08–09.187 Pl. 6 A copper blade, a copper mirror, and five stone vessels.

339