The political situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period c. 1800-1550 BC 8772894210

Citation preview

CARSTEN NIEBUHR INSTITUTE PUBLICATIONS VOLUME 20

The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period

c. 1800-1550 B.C.

BY

K. S. B. RYHOLT With an Appendix by Adam Bülow-Jacobsen

THE CARSTEN NIEBUHR INSTITUTE OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN 1997 · MUSEUM TUSCULANUM PRESS

CNI PUBLICATIONS 20 K. S. B. Ryholt:

The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, c. 1800-1550 B.C. Copyright by K. S. B. Ryholt

& Museum Tusculanum Press, 1997 Cover designed by Thora Fisker

Set in Garamond by the author Printed by Special-Trykkeriet Viborg a/s

The publication of this book was made possible by grants from

the Danish Research Council for the Humanities, and the Faculty of the Humanities, University of Copenhagen Published and distributed by Museum Tusculanum Press, University of Copenhagen, Njalsgade 92

DK-2300 Copenhagen S.

ISBN 87-7289-421-0 ISSN 0902-5499

v

PREFACE

The present study is a completely revised and much enlarged version of my Μ. A. thesis submitted to the Carsten Niebuhr Institute of the University of Copenhagen in July

1993, and accepted in October of the same year. First, I would therefore like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors, Prof. P. J. Frandsen and Prof. J. Osing, for their

advice, guidance and encouragement. Both have kept in close contact with the study

until this, its final form, and have offered many useful comments. Several institutions have kindly put material at my disposal, either allowing me to study it at first hand or by checking material or museum files upon request. In several cases, permission has also generously been granted to cite unpublished material and

museum files. For this invaluable aid to my studies, I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. B. Adams (Petrie Museum), Dr. J. P. Allen (Metropolitan Museum of Art), Dr. W. V. Davies (British Museum), Dr. R. Fazzini (Brooklyn Museum), Dr. R. Freed (Museum of

Fine Arts, Boston), Dr. C. Hunt (Marishall Anthropological Museum, Aberdeen), Prof. J. H. Johnson (Oriental Institute Museum, Chicago), Dr. R. Krauss (Ägyptisches Museum, Berlin), Dr. J. Malek (Griffith Institute archives), Dr. P. R. S. Moorey (Ashmolean

Museum), Dr. S. Quirke (British Museum), Mrs. E. Rand-Nielsen (National Museum,

Copenhagen), Dr. H. Whitehouse (Ashmolean Museum), Prof. D. Wildung (Ägyptisches

Museum, Berlin). A special debt is owed to Prof. A. Μ. Donadoni-Roveri (Egyptian Museum, Turin),

who twice permitted me to study the Turin King-list and kindly facilitated my work at the museum. Dr. R. J. Demarée, with his intimate knowledge of the Turin Papyri, kindly

brought to my attention further fragments of the king-list which are not included in the present mounting. Some of these could be incorporated in the new reconstruction and he deserves many heartfelt thanks. I must further thank the Griffith Institute for

permission to use and, where necessary, to alter the figures of Gardiner’s edition of the Turin King-list (The Royal Canon of Turin, Oxford 1959).

For bringing important material to my attention, sincere thanks are due to Dr. J.

Darnell, Dr. D. Franke, Dr. C. Lilyquist and Prof. G. T. Martin.

Among my local colleges, I would like to thank Prof. Aa. Westenholz for his patience and fruitful discussions concerning the foreign names of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth

Dynasties, and Mr. Bo Dahl Hermansen for many critical and useful comments at

various stages of my work. It is also a great pleasure to be able to include the appendix

on Tutimaios by Prof. A. Bülow-Jacobsen.

vi

Finally, I am deeply grateful to Prof. J. R. Harris for devoting time and energy to read through the entire manuscript and improving my English considerably, and for his interest in my work and many valuable comments. The Danish Research Council for the Humanities and the Faculty of the Humanities, University of Copenhagen, have provided the generous grants for the publication of the present study.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ............................................................................................................................................ v TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................

vii

INTRODUCTION

0.1.: Aims..............................................................................................................................................

1

0.2. : Source Material..........................................................................................................................

2

0.3.: Procedure and Scope.................................................................................................................

4

0.4.: Anticipation of Conclusions..................................................................................................

5

PART I, PRIMARY SOURCES FOR THE CHRONOLOGY

1.1.: The Turin King-list 1.1.1.: Brief Description..............................................................................................................

9

1.1.2.: Credibility: Errors and Omissions ............................................................................... 10

-1.: -2.: -3.: -4.: -5.: -6.:

Omission of Kings and Lacunae ................................................................................. 10 Incorrect Ordering of Kings ........................................................................................ 12 Incorrect Reign-Lengths ................................................................................................13 Incorrect Names.............................................................................................................. 16 Inclusion of Fictitious Kings........................................................................................ 17 Evaluation as a Chronological Source for the SIP.................................................. 18

1.1.3.: Reconstruction

-1.: Present State of Reconstruction ..........................................................................19 -2.: Revised Reconstruction of the SIP Section..............................................................22 -2.1.: -2.2.: -2.3.: -2.4.: -2.5.:

Col. Col. Col. Col. Col.

7.............................................................................................................................. 22 8 .............................................................................................................................. 23 9 .............................................................................................................................. 24 10 ............................................................................................................................ 24 11 ............................................................................................................................ 26

1.1.4.: Notes on the SIP Section ............................................................................................... 27

1.1.5.: Excursus: The Vorlage of the Turin King-list.............................................................. 29 1.1.6.: Excursus: The Transmission of the Turin King-list and the

Dynastic Divisions ........................................................................................................ 31

1.2.: Royal Scarab-Shaped Seals 1.2.1.: Royal Scarab-Shaped Seals of the Thirteenth Dynasty

-1.: Seals of Kings............................................................................................................. 34

vili -1.1.: The Genealogical Type............................................................................................... 34 -1.2.: The ntr-nfr Type........................................................................................................... 37 -1.3.: The P&N Type ........................................................................................................... 37

-2.: Seals of Queens................................................................................................................ 38 1.2.2.: Royal Scarab-Shaped Seals of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Dynasties

-1.: Main Group/Sequence .................................................................................................. 40 -1.1.: -1.2.: -1.3.: -1.4.:

Ward’s Sériation........................................................................................................... 40 Criticism of Ward’s Sériation................................................................................... 42 Alternative Sériation .................................................................................................. 43 The Dynastic Relationships of the Kings.............................................................. 46

-2.: Secondary Group -2.1.: Seals of Kings................................................................................................................ 51 -2.2.: Seals of Royal Women................................................................................................53 -2.3.: Seals of Kings’ Sons .................................................................................................... 54 -2.3.1.: Excursus: The Title si-nsw/rc................................................................................. 59 -2.4.: Seals of Treasurers ....................................................................................................... 59 1.2.3.: Scarab-Shaped Seals Misinterpreted as Royal Seals of the SIP

-1.: -2.: -3.: -4.: -5.: -6.:

Legend Legend Legend Legend Legend Legend

ìw-ib-r'................................................................................................................ 62 hr-htp-rr................................................................................................................ 63 'l-wsr-rc................................................................................................................ 64 nb-hpš-rc.............................................................................................................. 64 r'-htp..................................................................................................................... 65 nbw-hpr-rc and dsr-hpr-r'...............................................................................65

PART II, DEFINING THE DYNASTIES OF THE SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD

2.1.: Thirteenth Dynasty (Memphis)

2.1.1.: Kings -1.: -2.: -3.: -4.:

Turin King-list...................................................................................................................69 Other Sources...................................................................................................................70 Summary............................................................................................................................ 72 Notes on the Transcription of the Turin King-list................................................74

2.1.2.: Territory

-1.: -2.: -3.: -4.:

Domain...............................................................................................................................75 Residence............................................................................................................................ 79 Royal Necropolis ........................................................................................................... 80 Foreign Relations ........................................................................................................... 84

2.2.: Fourteenth Dynasty (Avaris)

2.2.1.: Kings -1.: King Nehsy...................................................................................................................... 94 -2.: Turin King-list................................................................................................................. 94

IX

-3.: -4.: -5.: -6.:

Sériation of Royal Seals.................................................................................................. 96 Summary............................................................................................................................ 97 Notes on the Transcription of the Turin King-list............................................... 99 Origin of the Fourteenth Dynasty ............................................................................ 99

2.2.2.: Territory

-1.: -2.: -3.: -4.: -5.:

Domain............................................................................................................................. 103 Residence.......................................................................................................................... 103 Royal Necropolis ......................................................................................................... 105 Foreign Relations ......................................................................................................... 105 Excursus: Lack of Monuments.................................................................................... 116

2.3.: Fifteenth Dynasty (Avaris)

2.3.1.: Kings -1.: -2.: -3.: -4.: -5.:

Turin King-list................................................................................................................. 118 Other Sources................................................................................................................. 119 The Use of the Titlehki-hiswt ................................................................................. 123 Summary.......................................................................................................................... 125 Origin of the Fifteenth Dynasty............................................................................... 126

2.3.2.: Territory

-1.: -2.: -3.: -4.:

Domain........................................................................................................................ . 130 Residence.......................................................................................................................... 137 Royal Necropolis ......................................................................................................... 138 Foreign Relations ......................................................................................................... 138

2.3.3.: Excursus: Looting of Conquered Areas..................................................................... 143

2.3.4.: Excursus: So-called ‘Hyksos Religion’ ........................................................................ 148

2.4.: Sixteenth Dynasty (Thebes) 2.4.1.: Kings

-1.: -2.: -3.: -4.:

Turin King-list................................................................................................................. 151 Other Sources................................................................................................................. 156 Summary.......................................................................................................................... 157 Notes on the Transcription of the Turin King-list..............................................158

2.4.2.: Territory -1.: -2.: -3.: -4.:

Domain............................................................................................................................. 159 Residence.......................................................................................................................... 160 Royal Necropolis ......................................................................................................... 160 Foreign Relations ......................................................................................................... 162

2.5.: Abydos Dynasty (Abydos)

2.5.1.: Kings -1.: Wepwawemsaf, Pantjeny, Snaaib ............................................................................. 163 -2.: Turin King-list .............................................................................................................. 164

X

-3.: Summary.......................................................................................................................... 164

2.5.2.: Territory -1.: -2.: -3.: -4.:

Residence..........................................................................................................................165 Royal Necropolis ......................................................................................................... 165 Domain............................................................................................................................. 165 Foreign Relations ..........................................................................................................166

2.6.: Seventeenth Dynasty (Thebes)

2.6.1.: Kings -1.: Sources ............................................................................................................................. 167 -2.: Order of Kings .............................................................................................................. 168 -3.: Summary.......................................................................................................................... 171 2.6.2.: Territory

-1.: -2.: -3.: -4.:

Domain............................................................................................................................. 171 Residence.......................................................................................................................... 174 Royal Necropolis ......................................................................................................... 176 Foreign Relations ..........................................................................................................176

2.7.: CHRONOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS 2.7.1.: The Chronological Framework ................................................................................. 184 2.7.2.: The External Chronology............................................................................................. 186 -1.: -2.: -3.: -4.: -5.: -6.: -7.:

Fifteenth Dynasty..........................................................................................................186 Sixteenth Dynasty..........................................................................................................189 Seventeenth Dynasty..................................................................................................... 189 Thirteenth Dynasty .....................................................................................................190 Fourteenth Dynasty ..................................................................................................... 190 Abydos Dynasty............................................................................................................ 191 Summary.......................................................................................................................... 191

2.7.3.: The Internal Chronology

-1.: Thirteenth Dynasty ..................................................................................................... 191 -1.1.: -1.2.: -1.3.: -1.4.: -1.5.:

Turin King-list ............................................................................................................ 192 Contemporary Sources..............................................................................................192 Accession Dates of Specific Kings ........................................................................ 194 Estimated Average Reign-lengths.......................................................................... 195 Summary ......................................................................................................................196

-2.: Fourteenth Dynasty ..................................................................................................... 198 -2.1.: -2.2.: -2.3.: -2.4.:

-3.: -4.: -5.: -6.:

Turin King-list ............................................................................................................ 198 Estimated Reign-lengths of the First Five Kings ..............................................198 Estimated Average Reign-lengths of the Other Kings .................................... 199 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 200

Fifteenth Dynasty......................................................................................................... 201 Sixteenth Dynasty......................................................................................................... 201 Abydos Dynasty............................................................................................................202 Seventeenth Dynasty.................................................................................................... 203

xi

PART III, THE ROYAL FAMILIES AND THE BACKGROUND OF THE KINGS

3.1.: Aim.............................................................................................................................................. 207 3.2.: Filiative Nomina...................................................................................................................... 207 3.3.: Thirteenth Dynasty 3.3.1.: Amenemhet III, Amenemhet IV, Nofrusobk,Sobkhotep I, Sonbef.................. 209 3.3.2.: Amenemhet V, Qemaw, Siharnedjheritef, Jewefni,Amenemhet VI ............... 214 3.3.3.: Sobkhotep Π..................................................................................................................... 215 3.3.4.: Ranisonb............................................................................................................................ 216 3.3.5.: Hor, Khabaw, Djedkheperew...................................................................................... 216 3.3.6.: Seb, Kay, Amenemhet VII ........................................................................................... 219 3.3.7.: Wegaf ................................................................................................................................. 219 3.3.8.: Khendjer............................................................................................................................ 220 3.3.9.: Imyremeshaw................................................................................................................... 221 3.3.10.: Sobkhotep III ................................................................................................................ 222 3.3.11.: Neferhotep I, Sihathor, Sobkhotep IV ................................................................... 225 3.3.12.: Sobkhotep V (Merhotepre)........................................................................................ 231 3.3.13.: Sobkhotep VI (Khahotepre) ...................................................................................... 233 3.3.14.: Aya, Ini............................................................................................................................ 233 3.3.15.: Sobkhotep VII (Merkawre)........................................................................................ 235 3.3.16.: Monthhotep V (Sewedjare)........................................................................................ 236 3.3.17.: Sankhptahi ..................................................................................................................... 238 3.3.18.: Unidentified /Senior Queen Nubkhaes ................................................................ 239 3.3.19.: Unidentified /Queen, King’s Mother Ahhotepti ................................................ 242 3.3.20.: Unidentified /Queen, King’s Mother Senet ......................................................... 242 3.3.21.: Unidentified /Queen Aya........................................................................................... 243 3.3.22.: Unidentified/Queen Nofret...................................................................................... 246 3.3.23.: Unidentified /King’s Mother Jewhetibew and God’s Father Dedusobk .. . 246 3.3.24.: Unidentified /King’s Son Sobkhotep and King’s Daughter Ranisonb .... 248 3.3.25.: Unidentified /King’s Daughter Dedetamen ......................................................... 249 3.3.26.: Unidentified /King’s Daughter Neferhotep ......................................................... 249 3.3.27.: Unidentified /King’s Daughter Nofru ................................................................... 250 3.3.28.: Unidentified /King’s Daughter I[...... ]..................................................................... 251 3.4.: Fourteenth Dynasty

3.4.1.: 3.4.2.: 3.4.3.: 3.4.4.: 3.4.5.:

Yakbim............................................................................................................................... 251 Sheshi, Nehsy...................................................................................................................252 Ya‘qub-Har....................................................................................................................... 254 Apophis I (?) ..................................................................................................................... 255 Unidentified /King’s Mother ’Atti............................................................................ 255

3.5.: Fifteenth Dynasty

3.5.1.: Khayan ............................................................................................................................... 256 3.5.2.: Apophis...............................................................................................................................256 3.6.: Sixteenth Dynasty

3.6.1.: Djehuty............................................................................................................................... 259 3.6.2.: Monthhotepi..................................................................................................................... 261 3.6.3.: Nebiryraw I, Nebiryraw II...........................................................................................261

xii

3.6.4.: Dedumose I, Dedumose II............................................................................................. 262 3.6.5.: Unidentified /King’s Sister Jewef............................................................................... 263 3.6.6.: Unidentified /King’s Daughter [..... ] ......................................................................... 263 3.7.: Abydos Dynasty

3.7.1.: Pantjeny ............................................................................................................................ 264 3.8.: Seventeenth Dynasty

3.8.1.: 3.8.2.: 3.8.3.: 3.8.4.: 3.8.5.:

Rahotep............................................................................................................................... 265 Sobkemsaf I, Antef VI, Antef VII, Antef VIII......................................................... 266 Sobkemsaf II..................................................................................................................... 272 Senakhtenre, Seqenenre, Kamose, Ahmose.............................................................. 272 Unidentified /King’s Son Ibiaw ................................................................................. 280

3.9.: Notes on Succession

3.9.1.: Thirteenth Dynasty .......................................................................................................282 -1.: Excursus: Family Lists and Genealogical Seals....................................................... 284 3.9.2.: Fourteenth Dynasty....................................................................................................... 286 -1.: Excursus: A Note on the Role of the King’s Sons attested by Seals...............287 3.9.3.: Fifteenth Dynasty........................................................................................................... 288 3.9.4.: Sixteenth Dynasty............................................................................................................289 3.9.5.: Seventeenth Dynasty ............................................. 289 PART IV, AN OUTLINE OF THE POLITICAL SITUATION DURING THE SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD

4.1.: The Early Second Intermediate Period (c. 1805-1649 B.C.) .........................................293 4.1.1.: The Late Twelfth Dynasty........................................................................................... 293 4.1.2.: The Thirteenth and the Fourteenth Dynasties....................................................... 295

-1.: The General Situation.................................................................................................. 295 -2.: The Thirteenth Dynasty............................................................................................. 296 -2.1.: -2.2.: -2.3.: -2.4.:

Sobkhotep - Seth .......................................................................................................296 Sobkhotep III - Sobkhotep IV ............................................................................... 297 Sobkhotep V - Aya.................................................................................................... 298 Ini - end of dynasty.................................................................................................... 298

-3.: The Fourteenth Dynasty............................................................................................. 299 -3.1.: Yakbim - Sheshi......................................................................................................... 299 -3.2.: Nehsy - end of dynasty............................................................................................. 299

4.2.: The Late Second Intermediate Period (c. 1649-1540 B.C.) ......................................... 301

4.2.1.: The Early Fifteenth, the Sixteenth, and the Abydos Dynasties ...................... 301 -1.: -2.: -3.: -4.:

The The The The

General Situation ................................................................................................301 Early Fifteenth Dynasty ....................................................................... 302 Abydos Dynasty .................................................................................................. 304 Sixteenth Dynasty................................................................................................304

4.2.2.: The Late Fifteenth and the Seventeenth Dynasties................................................306

-1.: The General Situation.................................................................................................. 306

xiii

-2.: The Late Fifteenth Dynasty ...................................................................................... 307 -3.: The Seventeenth Dynasty........................................................................................... 308 4.3.: The Term ‘Second Intermediate Period’............................................................................ 310

PART V, APPENDICES

5.1.: Appendix I: The First King of the Thirteenth Dynasty................................................ 315 5.1.1.: Background to the Discussion...................................................................................... 315 5.1.2.: Examination of Sources.................................................................................................. 316 -1.: -2.: -3.: -4.: -5.:

Kings with the Prenomen Sekhemrekhutawy....................................................... 316 Wegaf and Amenemhet VII........................................................................................ 317 Khabaw and Hor............................................................................................................318 Nerikare .......................................................................................................................... 318 Pap. Bulaq 18................................................................................................................... 319

5.1.3.: Conclusion ........................................................................................................................319 5.1.4.: Excursus: The Sequence of Nile-Records Dating to the Thirteenth Dynasty 320

-1.: The Accession Date of Sonbef....................................................................................321 5.2.: Appendix II: The Uronarti Context....................................................................................321 5.3.: Appendix III: The Supposed Existence of Vassal Kings during the SIP ................... 323 5.3.1.: The Semitic Kings............................................................................................................323 5.3.2.: The Seventeenth Dynasty............................................................................................. 325 5.3.3.: The Kushite Kingdom.................................................................................................... 326

5.4.: Appendix IV: The Abdication of Tutimaios? By Adam Bülow-Jacobsen................. 327

PART VI, CATALOGUE OF ATTESTATIONS Arrangement................................................................................................................................. 333 Thirteenth Dynasty..................................................................................................................... 336 Fourteenth Dynasty ................................................................................................................... 359 Fifteenth Dynasty........................................................................................................................383 Sixteenth Dynasty....................................................................................................................... 388 Abydos Dynasty .......................................................................................................................... 392 Seventeenth Dynasty...................................................................................................................392 Unattributed................................................................................................................................. 400

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES ............................................................................................... 407 ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................... 411 INDICES

Museographical Index to the Catalogue of Attestations .................................................. 436 Royal Names in Transliteration ............................................................................................. 448 Kings of the Second Intermediate Period...............................................................................451 Other Kings and Rulers..............................................................................................................456

xiv

Other Royal Persons of the Second Intermediate Period ................................................457 Officials and Privates of the Second Intermediate Period ............................................... 460 Selected Titles and Designations ............................................................................................. 462 Miscellaneous................................................................................................................................. 463

Aims

1

Introduction

§0.1

Aims

The Second Intermediate Period, covering the time span between the Twelfth and the

Eighteenth Dynasties (c. 1800-1550 B.C.) has in common with the other two intermediate periods of Egyptian history (viz. the First and Third Intermediate Periods) that it is an

epoch on which research is still in its pioneer stages.1 It is not entirely clear how many

kingdoms existed during the period, and those that are known are poorly defined insofar as both their territorial and chronological extent remains uncertain. Moreover, the

succession of kings belonging to these kingdoms is filled with lacunae, and the identity of many of the rulers is obscure while others are mere names whose deeds remain

unknown.

In 1964, Jürgen von Beckerath published his Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte der Zweiten Zwischenzeit in Ägypten (AF 23; Glückstadt), which has since remained the main work of reference concerning the political situation in Egypt during the Second

Intermediate Period. Von Beckerath’s study marked a considerable advance in comparison with its predecessor, Hans Stock’s Studien zur Geschichte und Archäologie der 13. bis 17. Dynastie Ägyptens, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Skarabäen dieser

Zwischenzeit (AF 12; Glückstadt 1942), which, as the title implies, was based mainly upon a study of scarab-shaped seals. It proceeded more methodically, was far more detailed, and

paid special attention to many important aspects which were completely neglected by

Stock. A further merit was the inclusion of a ‘Belegliste’ or catalogue, in which von Beckeratji listed all sources that he knew to mention kings of the Second Intermediate Period.

In the 33 years since von Beckerath’s publication, new material has come to light and

a number of specialized studies on individual aspects of the Second Intermediate Period have appeared. In particular, the Austrian excavations at Tell el-Dab‘a which began in

1966, just a few years after the publication of von Beckerath’s study, and which still continue today, 30 years later, have brought forth a wealth of important information

concerning the conditions in the western Delta throughout the entire Second Intermediate Period. Much of the older material has also been subject to reinterpretation,

despite Helck’s assertion in his review of von Beckerath’s study (AfO 22, 97) that: 'Das

1. There is at present no scholarly agreement on a formal definition of the Second Intermediate Period; this includes disagreement as to which and how many dynasties the term covers, and uncertainty as to its chronological extent. It has even been questioned most recently whether it is meaningful to maintain this designation at all. These questions are dealt with in Part II and §4.3 where the definition here given is reached.

2

Introduction

gezeichnete Bild werden kaum neue Überlegungen, sondern nur neues Material ändern

können.' The present study sets out to present a new and comprehensive model for the political

situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period by trying to identify, define

and give a general description of the nature of the kingdoms that existed during this period and to establish their chronological and regional extent, including foreign relations. The main purpose of the study is to gather and discuss relevant material and

thereby to provide an up-to-date framework for reference. The study does in no way

claim to exhaust the available source material or even to include all possible categories of source material. There is far too much material that remains to be studied in detail and will require entire projects of their own. This material includes virtually all classes of purely archaeological material, such as studies of individual ceramic wares and other

artifacts, burial and settlement patterns, etc., which have much to offer concerning social

and political conditions. For dating purposes, epigraphy and art history will be of tremendous importance. Fortunately, several important and promising studies are

presently being undertaken in these fields.

§0.2

Source Material

The Second Intermediate Period remains one of the most obscure periods of Egyptian

history. This situation is not due entirely to a scarcity of source material as such, since

certain phases at least of the Second Intermediate Period are fairly well represented both archaeologically and textually, but rather to the nature of the textual sources. Most of the

latter are monuments produced for officials and remarkably few attest to the numerous

kings of the period. The textual sources, moreover, provide us with surprisingly few points of historical interest. Accordingly, there is little material through which the

individual dynasties can be identified and defined, and this has generally led to over­ generalizations based on sources which may not be representative of the period as a

whole, and an intensive use of non-contemporary sources. These latter include especially the Turin King-list, the Manethonian tradition,2 the two literary texts ‘Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage’ and ‘the Quarrel of Apophis and Seqenenre’, and the ‘Four Hundred Year Stela’. Most of these sources have been used without a proper examination of their

source value; and progress in the study of the Second Intermediate Period, as regards its

definition, has long been obstructed by scholars clinging to the corrupt and unreliable

Manethonian tradition rather than confronting the diffuse and often much more difficult

contemporary sources available? As regards Manetho, it remains unknown what sources

2. The term Manethonian tradition is used to designate the different copies of Manetho’s Aegyptiaca and the extracted Epitome. 3. A typical example is the recent study of Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, which boldly claims to present the royal succession of ‘the Historical Fifteenth Dynasty’ (p. 110) by a trivial identification of the garbled names of the six Fifteenth Dynasty rulers in the Manethonian tradition, while simply dismissing the attempt

Source material

3

he used and whether these were reliable, and we depend on copies at the bottom end of a long line of transmission where numerous errors have crept in and where redactions have been made for various purposes. Similarly, the exact purpose of the ‘Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage’ and the ‘Four Hundred Year Stela’ remains unknown, and ‘the Quarrel of Apophis and Seqenenre’ is simply a narrative.4 Since there is an obvious margin for error in using such non-contemporary sources in reconstructing history, their use is restricted in the present study to the Turin King-list. The inclusion of the Turin King-list is not a matter of choice but of necessity, since it would at present be impossible to undertake a study of the kind intended here without this document. The order, reign-lengths, and even the very existence of many kings cannot be established from the contemporary sources as yet available and are known only from the Turin King-list. A consequence of making use of this non-contemporary source is, however, that a large part of the present work will stand or fall with the accuracy of this list which, it will be shown, is not without error. It is therefore inevitable that this study should include a critical examination of this document. Among the contemporary sources, one particularly informative body of material, the significance of which has been gravely neglected and underestimated, consists of the vast numbers of private and royal seals of the period. When properly examined, these seals provide invaluable information especially as regards chronology, administrative patterns and foreign relations, just to mention those areas that are relevant to the present study. In this respect, the two recent corpora of scarab-shaped seals published by G. T. Martin and O. Tufnell have been of paramount importance, and equally so the study of royal seals by W. A. Ward, while the catalogue of the Basel collections by E. Hornung and E. Staehelin deserves praise for its excellent standard.5 The royal scarab-shaped seals form the second main source for chronology in the present work.

by Ward (Tufnell, Studies, II, 162-173) to establish the succession on the basis of contemporary sources through a sériation of royal seals. In another study, Redford (Orientalia 39,1-51) embarks upon a lengthy and problematic defence of Josephus’ account of the Hyksos invasion and concludes that all the information which he believes to be correct in Josephus’ account was taken from the genuine Manetho and all that evidently is incorrect was taken from a pseudo-Manetho, thus implying that all the sources to which Manetho had access were reliable and that he misunderstood nothing. Most recently, a defence of the validity of the Manethonian tradition has been presented by Greenberg (DE 25,21-29), who concludes that ‘Manetho was well acquainted with the events of the Second Intermediate Period and presented a highly accurate account of the dynastic chronology . In fact, the article consists entirely of a manipulation of the corrupt figures preserved in the Manethonian tradition and the conclusions are not the least convincing; the author argues, for instance, that the Thirteenth Dynasty lasted less than 69 years while there is no disagreement today among scholars that it lasted more than a century. 4. The text has recently been reedited by Goedicke (Apophis and Seqenenre^ who states that his new rendering ‘ elevates the text from an apparently capricious fairy tale to a major historical source" (ibid. 32), but most of his interpretations are speculative in the extreme and not generally accepted. For a more reliable treatment, see Wente, Literature ofAncient Egypt2 (ed. Simpson), 77-80. A bibliography of the text may be found in Bellion, Cat. des manuscrits, 343.

5. Martin, Seals·, Tufnell, Studies, II; Ward, in Tufnell, Studies, II, 151-192. The important study of Ward Dever, Studies, III, unfortunately arrived too late to be included here in more than a very cursory fashion.

4 §0.3

Introduction

Procedure and Scope

The study is divided into six parts.

Part I presents an examination and evaluation of the two main sources used to establish an internal chronology for the Second Intermediate Period, the Turin King-list

and the contemporary royal seals. In Part Π, the individual dynasties of the Second Intermediate Period are defined. The definition centres upon which kings may be ascribed to the individual dynasties, and their

territorial and chronological extent. The dynastic arrangement and the order of individual kings are based primarily on the Turin King-list, but where relevant

contemporary sources are available, these are given priority. On the basis of the

distribution of, and textual information gained from, objects inscribed with the names

of the kings and officials belonging to the individual dynasties, an attempt is made to define the territorial extent of the separate dynasties, as well as their residences and royal

necropolises. The significance of the location of the royal necropolis is that it usually seems to have been located near the royal residence and therefore gives a clue to the

location of the latter. An attempt to establish the foreign relations of the individual dynasties is also made, but only in the most general terms. As noted by Kemp and Merrillees in their treatment of Minoan pottery in Egypt,6 the foreign relations of ancient

civilizations are far easier to establish than to explain, and it would certainly require a

study of its own to describe the nature of the relations in detail and what commodities were traded.7 The external chronology of the Second Intermediate Period is based on the

dated astronomical observations available for the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom.

The internal chronology is based primarily on the King-list and contemporary dated

material. Part ΙΠ contains a discussion of the background and family of the individual kings in

order to detect patterns of royal succession and to provide a view of that political aspect

of the period.

|

In Part IV a historical outline of the political situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period is presented, based on the results arrived at in the preceding sections.

Part V consists of four appendices which contain discussions of subjects that are

essential for reference in Part I and Π but are too long to be included in footnotes and would disturb the line of argument if included in the main text. Appendices I and II deal

with chronological matters, Appendix III with the existence of vassal kings, and

Appendix IV with the supposed king Tutimaios of Josephus. Part VI contains a catalogue of all attestations of kings of the Second Intermediate Period known to the author. It is hoped that this catalogue will facilitate future research.

Bibliography and indices follow.

6. Kemp - Merrillees, Minoan Pottery, 268. 7. For commodities imported from the Levant, see esp. Helck, Beziehungen1, 380-427.

Anticipation of Conclusions $0.4

5

Anticipation of Conclusions

Owing to the nature of this study, where many arguments depend upon one another and where many cross-references are therefore essential in order to proceed in a methodical manner, it is necessary to anticipate some of its conclusions to facilitate its use.

The Second Intermediate Period is here divided into six dynasties. These dynasties are designated as the Thirteenth to Seventeenth Dynasties, in order to maintain the usual

numbers employed for this period, and the Abydos Dynasty. The definitions and arrangement of these dynasties does, however, differ substantially from previous studies.

Briefly summing up the conclusions reached in Part II, the six dynasties are defined thus:

(1) Thirteenth Dynasty: Memphite kings. It is the direct continuation of the Twelfth

Dynasty, after the rise of a rival Canaanite Dynasty in the Delta (the Fourteenth Dynasty). The dynasty falls with the conquest of Memphis by the Fifteenth Dynasty. Its kings rule

the whole of Egypt except for that part of the Delta which was occupied by the Fourteenth Dynasty. Trade with the Levant, Fourteenth Dynasty Egypt and Nubia. (2) Fourteenth Dynasty: Canaanite kings with their residence at Avaris contemporary with the Thirteenth Dynasty. The dynasty came into being when the Canaanite population in the Delta proclaimed its own ruler during the reign of Nofrusobk, after having gradually seceded from the rest of Egypt during the late Twelfth Dynasty. The rise of this

dissident dynasty and the subsequent division of Egypt ushered in the Second

Intermediate Period. The dynasty falls with the conquest of Avaris by the Fifteenth Dynasty. Trade with the Levant, Thirteenth Dynasty Egypt and Nubia. (3) Fifteenth Dynasty: Canaanite kings with their residence at Avaris succeeding the Fourteenth Dynasty. The dynasty arose with the conquest of Avaris by an invading hkihìswt who subsequently settled himself and his people in the Delta and thus became the

founder of the Fifteenth Dynasty. It falls with the conquest of Avaris by Ahmose. Mainly trade with Canaan and Cyprus. War against the southern Egyptian dynasties (viz. the Sixteenth, Abydos, and Seventeenth Dynasties), except for shorter periods of peace during

which there were also relations with Nubia. (4) Sixteenth Dynasty: A Theban dynasty which came into being in the power vacuum created in Upper Egypt by the fall of the Thirteenth Dynasty.8 It falls with the conquest

of Thebes by the Fifteenth Dynasty. Contemporary with the first two-thirds of the

Fifteenth Dynasty. Scanty indications of relations with Nubia, otherwise no trace of foreign relations.

(5) Abydos Dynasty: A dynasty at Abydos which came into being simultaneously

8. On the basis of Africanus, who defines this dynasty as consisting of ‘Shepherd (i.e. Hyksos) kings’, the Sixteenth Dynasty has previously been defined as Semitic vassal kings of the Fifteenth Dynasty ruling within the Delta. In §5.3, it is argued that no such kings existed. Accordingly, the designation ‘Sixteenth Dynasty* becomes vacant and is used in the present study to designate the first Theban Dynasty. Incidentally, it may be noted that Eusebius in fact defines the Sixteenth Dynasty as Theban. It is therefore possible that his version provides a more reliable version of the Manethonian Epitome as far as this dynasty is concerned. This would presuppose that Manetho divided the Theban kings of the Late Second Intermediate Period into two dynasties, one prior to and one subsequent to the Fifteenth Dynasty conquest of Thebes, as in the present study.

6

Introduction

with the Sixteenth Dynasty in the power vacuum created in Upper Egypt by the fall of the Thirteenth Dynasty. Ephemeral and obscure.

(6) Seventeenth Dynasty: A Theban dynasty subsequent to the Fifteenth Dynasty’s withdrawal from Thebes and southern Egypt. It becomes the Eighteenth Dynasty with the unification of Egypt under Ahmose. Contemporary with the last third of the

Fifteenth Dynasty. Relations with Nubia and perhaps also the Fifteenth Dynasty during a period of peace. War against the Fifteenth Dynasty and the Kushites from the reign of

Seqenenre.

The relative arrangement of the dynasties is presented below:

Time

Thebes

Abydos

Memphis

Avari s

|| ll

1

Î

Î Twelfth Dynasty

1800

Thirteenth Dynasty

Fourteenth Dynasty

1650

Sixteenth Dynasty

Abyd. Dyn.

Fifteenth Dynasty

1580

Seventeenth Dynasty 1550 Eighteenth Dynasty

Î IL

I J1

Î -II

Table 1: Chronological/Geographical Arrangement of the Dynasties of the Second Intermediate Period.

Part I

Primary Sources for the Chronology

The Turin King-List

§1.1

The Turin King-list

§1.1.1

Brief Description

9

The Turin King-list (Pap. Turin 1874 vs) is too well-known to require a full description,

and here it will suffice simply to make a number of specific comments.9 The document can be dated to the reign of Ramesses II of the Nineteenth Dynasty, partly on

palaeographical grounds and partly because the recto is inscribed with a tax-list which mentions domains of Ramesses II. Its origin remains unknown. The Turin King-list is often referred to as a canon, but this is something of a

misnomer.10 It is, in fact, the only known genuine king-list from ancient Egypt. As distinct from a canon, the purpose of the Turin King-list was evidently to establish an

objective record of all kings from primeval times until - or perhaps including part of - the

New Kingdom, in their correct chronological order, and with the length of reign noted

for each king.

In its present condition, the Turin King-list comes to an end in the section that records the kings of the Late Second Intermediate Period (col. 11 = Gardiner’s col. XI). The end

of the papyrus seems to have been deliberately cut off in ancient times. The sharp edge along fr. 127 and 163, as well as the fact that the edge is slightly diagonal rather than

parallel with the vertical fibres, suggests that the papyrus was cut rather than torn or

accidentally fragmented. Since the recto of the fragments in question is blank, it therefore

seems highly probable that the final part of the document was cut away to be reused after

the king-list itself had served its purpose. The missing portion of the papyrus cannot have been large, since it is unlikely that more than a single sheet was left blank before the tax

account on the recto. Moreover, the king-list could only have listed, at most, about 30

9. For the history of the Turin King-list, see esp. Farina, Papiro, 7-11. The document has recently been discussed at length by Redford, Pharaonic King-lists, 1-18, 197-201, but many of his conclusions are problematic. A bibliography of the Turin King-list may be found in Bellion, Cat. des manuscrits, 253, 283; cf. also Roccati, LÀ, VI, 809-810. The main editions are those of Farina {Papiro) and Gardiner {Royal Canon). The present mounting is identical to Farina’s edition. Gardiner’s transcription may conveniently be found in Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions, II, 827-844. The old editions by Lepsius {Auswahl, pls. 3-6) and Wilkinson {The Hieratic Papyrus at Turin), which are practically identical, reflect Seyffarth’s early reconstruction of the king-list. They are certainly not without worth even today, though often neglected. In the following, the edition of Gardiner is used where nothing else is noted. It is important to note that references to the king-list in the present study do not refer to Gardiner’s edition, but to an improved reconstruction which I am preparing. As it will be argued below, an entire column is missing between Gardiner’s col. I and II, whereas most of his col. IX and X should be merged into one column. Accordingly, Gardiner’s col. I roughly corresponds to the original col. 1, his col. II-VHI to the original col. 3-9, his col. IX-X to the original col. 10, and his col. XI to the original col. 11. In order to avoid confusion, Arabic numerals are used to refer to the new reconstruction, whereas Roman numerals refer to that of Gardiner.

10. The fact that Gardiner’s edition of the king-list was entitled The Royal Canon of Turin is largely responsible for this.

10

Primary Sources for the Chronology

more kings, even if it included all the kings of the New Kingdom until Ramesses IL11

This too would only allow for one missing column after col. 11.

§1.1.2

Credibility: Errors and Omissions In order to use the Turin King-list as a chronological source, indeed as the main

chronological source, for the Second Intermediate Period, its credibility must first be examined to determine to what extent it can be relied upon and where caution should be

used. The following discussion concentrates on five factors which directly affect the

reliability of the Turin King-list: 1) omission of kings, 2) incorrect ordering of kings, 3) incorrect reign-lengths, 4) incorrect names, and 5) inclusion of fictitious kings. §1.1.2.1

Omission of Kings and Lacunae: The notation

ws/(the reading is uncertain) occurs a

number of times in the Turin King-list, usually written in red. Its meaning has been the subject of some dispute and it has generally been thought to signal the presence of a

lacuna or gap in the original, or alternatively kings whose memory was suppressed. Recently, Redford has advocated for the latter interpretation and suggested that wsf was

'a technical expression for “suppressed” or “(intentionally) omitted” \12 Redford argues that it is 'a surprising coincidence that in all seven cases it was the name that was broken away in

the Vorlage, never the length ofreign" and asks how the scribe could possibly have known 'theprecise number which was missing". This, however, is a misrepresentation of the facts.

First of all, he fails to take account of two passages where evidently the expression was

used to signal that the number of months was lost from the record of the total reign of

a king: ‘King Sewoserenre: 12 years, wsf [x] days’ (11/8) and ‘King Awibre: [x years], wsf 18 days’ (9/12). The context in these two passages makes it clear that the scribe responsible for the Turin King-list simply used the notation wsf to signal the presence of

lacunae or gaps in his original. Secondly, we never have a precise figure when the name of a king was lost. In two cases (5/15 = 5/16, 7/6), the reign is recorded as a round ‘6 years’ which, it may be argued, was a round estimate produced by the scribe in order to

avoid chronological gaps in his list (see §1.1.2.3). In the only other case where the reign is preserved (6/18), it is a round ‘7 years’ which was presumably arrived at by subtracting the preserved reigns from the total duration of the dynasty. Accordingly, those kings

whose names were replaced by this notation must be regarded as kings whose names had

been lost in lacunae rather than kings who for some reason were suppressed. The

frequent use of wsf as well as the number of incomplete names and kings who are missing where they ought to have stood, makes clear that, in fact, the original of the

11. Le. a few more kings of the ephemeral Abydos Dynasty (continuing from col. 11), the c. 10 kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty, the 13 kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty, and the first three kings of the Nineteenth Dynasty. 12. Redford, Pharaonic King-lists, 15.

The Turin King-List

11

Turin King-list was riddled with lacunae. In this connection, it is important to note that there is no evidence of omitted kings who could not have been accounted for by the

notation wsf Whenever it can be shown that a king is missing where he ought to have

been listed, there is always a note to that effect - the notation wsf - or a lacuna in which such an expression could have stood!

Ten kings of the Dynasties VII/VIII recorded in the Abydos Canon (nos. 41-50) are not listed by name in the Turin King-list. However, in the summation of the kings of Dynasties VI-VIII, and therefore also in the following summation covering the whole of Dynasties I-VIII, the notation wsf rnpt 6, ‘lacuna, six years’, is included. It has been argued by von Beckerath that ws/here accounts for the ten missing kings, and that these

kings were lost after Nemtiemsaf II (5/7).13 Von Beckerath’s suggestion is corroborated by the fact that no note of a lacuna is preserved in the entries of the kings from Teti to Nemtiemsaf II (5/1-6) or in the final four entries before the summation (5/10-13). It could

therefore only have been present in one of the damaged records following upon Nemtiemsaf Π, i.e. col. 5/7-9. The fact that no less than ten kings are missing suggests the

presence of a larger lacuna in the original. It is therefore quite significant that the names

of the two kings following immediately upon the supposed lacuna were incompletely

recorded, since this suggests that their names too had been damaged in relation to this lacuna and that the scribe had simply copied what remained of these names. The names are nfr-kì (5/9) and nfr (5/10) which represent nfr~ki~rc and nfr-kì-mnw of the Abydos Canon, following von Beckerath’s reconstruction.14 The six years recorded for the lacuna may seem rather short for eleven kings, and it is argued below (§1.1.2.3) that the six years

was an estimate made by a scribe who simply saw a note of a lacuna before him and who

did not realize that it included more than one king. The Thirteenth Dynasty section of the Turin King-list can be shown to have included

at least three lacunae: after Sonbef (7/6), after Amenemhet V (7/7), and after Hor (7/17).

A note of the lacuna is actually preserved behind the record of Sonbef: wsfrnpt 6, ‘lacuna, six years’. The king, or one of the kings, in question can be identified with certainty as

Nerikare (§5.1.2.4). After Amenemhet V, his son Qemaw is missing (§3.3.2). Finally, a

group of four kings is missing after Hor (§3.3.5.6). The latter two omissions were presumably also accounted for by the notation wsf but the entire left-hand side of the column where this would have been recorded is now lost.

A list of lacuna, either known from the ws/notations or discernable through

omissions, is listed in the following table:

13. Von Beckerath, JNES 21,145. Von Beckerath counts the number of missing kings as eleven since he does not equate Nitocris with Netjerkare. For this equation, see Ryholt, ‘The Late Old Kingdom in the Turin King-list and the Identity of Nitocris’ (forthcoming).

14. Von Beckerath, JNES 21,144-145.

12

Primary Sources for the Chronology

TK

3/21 3/25

4/4

4/24 5/8-10

5/13

6/17

7/6 7/7

7/\7

8/29

9/12 9/14 11/8

Comment

The age of Kakaw is missing. Could be a simple omission. The cartouche-open is missing. Could be a simple omission. Possibly the element rc is also missing since the Saqqara Canon, to which the Turin King-list is closely related, has nfr-k3rc (no. 8). The cartouche-open is missing. Could be a simple omission. Possibly the element rc is also missing since the Saqqara Canon has nb-k3-r' (no. 14), but the correct form of the name was nb-k3 which is also the form that is used in the Abydos Canon.15 Incomplete prenomen: dd for dd-k3-rç.Xi> The elements k3 and rc are missing. After the record of ‘Nitocris’ (5/8), ten kings whose names are preserved in the Abydos Canon are missing.17 The papyrus is lost where the note of the lacuna would have stood, but the note is included as wsfrnpt 6 both in the summation for Dynasties VI-VIII (5/1415) and in the summation for Dynasties I-VIII (5/15-17) which follow immediately afterwards. The incomplete prenomina nfr-k3{-rc} and nfrfk3-mnw} which follow immediately upon the record of Nitocris were clearly damaged by the same lacuna, and the scribe simply copied what was preserved. Reign rounded off as ‘1ιΛ years’ straight which suggests that the number of months and days was lost in the original and that the scribe made an emendation to avoid a chronological gap in his list. After the record of Monthhotep Sankhkare (6/17), at least Monthhotep Nebtawyre is missing. The papyrus is lost where the note of the lacuna would have stood, but the note is included as [ws/*] rnpt 7 in the summation of the Eleventh Dynasty (6/18). Record of lacuna after entry of Sonbef: wsf rnpt 6. This lacuna accounts for Nerikare. Qemaw, the son of Amenemhet V, is missing between this king and his successor Siharnedjheritef. The lacuna may have been accounted for with the notation wsf but the papyrus is now lost where it would have been written. At least four kings are missing between Hor and Amenemhet VII. The lacuna may have been accounted for with the notation wsf but the papyrus is now lost where it would have been written. The five predecessors of Nehsy are missing before to his record in col. 9/1.18 The lacuna may have been accounted for with the notation wsf but the papyrus is now lost where it would have been written. Record of lacuna in reign of Awibre: the number of months is lost. Record of lacuna after record of Nebsenre. The missing king or kings cannot be identified. Record of lacuna in reign of Bebiankh Sewoserenre: the number of months is lost.

Table 2: List of Lacunae Recorded or Discernible in the Turin King-list

§1.1.2.2

Incorrect Ordering of Kings: One of the more significant errors in the Turin King-list is

that kings seem to have been interchanged on at least three occasions. There is positive

15. This form is attested in an inscription of the Third Dynasty: Kahl - Kloth - Zimmermann, Die Inschriften der 3. Dynastie, 202-205. 16. The use of two dd signs is not a mistake, but a convention which is also used elsewhere in the document (9/27, 10/7). 17. See Ryholt, ‘The Late Old Kingdom in the Turin King-list and the Identity of Nitocris’ (forthcoming) 18. For these kings, see §1.2.2.1.4 and §2.2.1.3.

The Turin King-List

13

evidence to show that Sobkhotep I and Wegaf of the Thirteenth Dynasty were interchanged, presumably through confusion of their prenomina ( ©^ => vs. © = ) since

their reigns were separated by at least 18 other kings.19 There is, further, reason to believe

that Pepi I and Merenre of the Sixth Dynasty, as well as Senwosret II/III and Amenemhet

II of the Twelfth Dynasty, may have been interchanged in the Turin King-list (see below). In both these cases, the scribe seems to have confused succeeding reigns. Jl.1.2.3

Incorrect Reign-Lengths: There is little evidence of incorrect reign-lengths in the Turin King-list.20 For the Archaic Period, we have only the Old Kingdom Annals (Palermo

Stone with additional fragments) for comparison. For the Old Kingdom, however, we have a series of contemporary regnal dates with which comparisons can be made.21 None of these can be shown with certainty to contradict the figures recorded in the Turin King-

list, except in the case of Pepi I. The names of all the kings of the Sixth Dynasty are lost in the Turin King-list (5/1-6).

In the third position (5/3) where we would expect Pepi I, a reign of 20 years is recorded, and in the next position (5/4) where Merenre is expected, a reign of 44 years.22 However,

a ‘year of the 25th occurrence’ attested for Pepi I makes it clear that he ruled between 25 and 50 years, depending on how often a ‘biennial’ census was made. On the other hand,

there are indications that Merenre had a relatively short reign since his highest attested

date is the ‘year after the 5th occurrence’. There are, however, considerable gaps in the

19. See discussion in §5.1.

20. Some Old Kingdom reigns recorded in the Turin King-list have been emended on the basis of the Manethonian tradition; e.g., the reign of Unas which is recorded as 30 years in the Turin King-list (4/25), but which some scholars prefer to take as 33 years in accordance with the Manethonian tradition. It can only be stressed in this connection that the figures given by the different copies of the Manethonian tradition vary so greatly and are so unreliable when checked against known reigns, especially prior to the New Kingdom, that it seems exceedingly hazardous to emend the Turin King-list on this basis.

21. The known regnal-dates of the Old Kingdom have recently been thoroughly discussed by Spalinger, SAK 21, 275-319. Unfortunately, Spalinger is somewhat inaccurate in his remarks about the Turin King-list. The reign of Cheops is either 23 or 24 years. The papyrus breaks off directly after the third stroke behind the 20, and it can therefore not be excluded that the last figure may have been a 4. Redjedef’s reign is not lost, but is recorded as 8 years. Mycerinus’ reign is either 18,28, or 38. The tick that distinguishes 10, 20, and 30 from one another is lost, and none of these options is more likely than the others judging from the king-list itself. Shepseskaf’s reign is not ‘lost or 2 years?’, but is recorded as 4 years (4/15). Niuserre’s reign is damaged. There is a distinct trace of a 10,20 or 30, followed by a stroke after which the papyrus breaks off. Accordingly, the possibilities are 11-14,21-24, and 31-34 years, and not just 24 years. The reign of Merenre is not recorded as *6 years?’. In the entry in which his name is expected to have stood, the reign must be read ‘44 years’ (cf. the following footnote). 22. The record of the reign-length is partly damaged, but the traces can confidently be read rnpt 44 as transcribed by Gardiner, Royal Canon. The first two traces are clearly the rnpt group which aligns perfectly with the rnpt groups in the lines above and those below: cf. the facsimile of Lepsius, Auswahl, pl. IV. The dot between the rnpt group and the ‘4’ can only be read as the upper part of ‘40’. Helck (Manetho, 57; Geschichte, 74, n. 3; SAK 19,169), followed by Abubakr - Osing (MDAIK 29, 132, n. 125), has suggested that the traces should rather be read Ibd 4, ‘4 months’, but this reading is not compatible with the traces despite assertions to the contrary. It may also be objected against Helck’s reading that all other reigns from Dynasties III-VI are recorded in round years with the sole exception of Teti’s reign.

14

Primary Sources for the Chronology

list of regnal-years of the Old Kingdom, and the highest attested regnal-year of a king

need not be even close to his last year. Thus, for instance, no dates are attested for Pepi I until the ‘year of the 18th occurrence’. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the figures of

the Turin King-list cannot be correct as they stand. This does not necessarily imply that the reigns were incorrectly recorded. They may simply have been interchanged which

would be a less critical error and there is, in fact, evidence that other kings were interchanged in the Turin King-list as well.23 Accordingly, it is possible that the 44 year reign is that of Pepi I and the 20 year reign that of Merenre.24 Since their names are not preserved, it is not possible to say whether only the reigns were interchanged or, perhaps, the entire records of the two kings.

5/1 5/2 5/3 5/4 5/5

[Teti, he acted in kingship x years,] 6 months and 21 days. [Userkare x years] [Pepi I / Merenre] 20 years 44 years [Merenre / Pepi I] 90+ x years [Pepi II]

Table 3: The Sixth Dynasty in the Turin King-list.

The mid Twelfth Dynasty poses a similar problem. The names of Amenemhet II,

Senwosret Π, Senwosret III, and Amenemhet ΠΙ are lost, and their reigns are only partly preserved: ‘10+ years’, ‘19 years’, ‘30+ years’, and ‘40+ years’.25 It was generally

accepted on the basis of the Turin King-list that Senwosret II and Senwosret ΙΠ had reigns of 19 and 30 years respectively until in 1972 Simpson pointed out that the highest attested

regnal-years for the two kings were their 7th and 19th respectively.26 Simpson was further able to show that the 19th regnal-year of Senwosret ΠΙ was followed directly by the first

regnal-year of Amenemhet ΠΙ. As with the Sixth Dynasty, this does not necessarily imply

that the reigns themselves were incorrectly recorded in the Turin King-list. It may again

be argued that certain kings were interchanged, i.e. that Amenemhet II was incorrectly recorded after Senwosret III rather than in his correct position before Senwosret II.27

23. Amenemhet II interchanged with Senwosret II/III (see below), and Sobkhotep I interchanged with Wegaf(§5.1). 24. A similar suggestion was put forward by Goedicke (SAK15, 120, n. 36) to account for the 20 year reign in the place of Pepi I. While Goedicke would also ascribe the 44 year reign to Pepi I, he argues that Merenre was omitted from the king-list and that the 20 year reign belongs to Userkare. This suggestion raises more problems than it actually solves. It leaves one entry unaccounted for (viz. 5/2) and raises the question of why Merenre should have been omitted/suppressed when there are no other indications of intentionally omitted kings in the king-list. It also seems doubtful whether a 20 year reign can reasonably be ascribed to the obscure Userkare. 25. The fractions (months and days) are completely lost. 26. Simpson, CdÉ 47, 50-54.

27. So already Franke, Orientatici 57,122/126; Helck, SAK19,172-174.

The Turin King-List

15

Accordingly, Amenemhet II would have been recorded with a reign of 30+ years,

Senwosret II with a reign of 10+ years, and Senwosret III with a reign of 19 years. This arrangement is by no means inconsistent with the contemporary sources at present to

hand. The 10 year reign of Senwosret II might seem a bit high since his highest attested

regnal-year is his 7th, but again it must be borne in mind that even for the Twelfth

Dynasty we have only a scanty list of regnal-dates. The 19 year reign of Senwosret III

would match his highest attested regnal-year perfectly, and the 30+ year reign of Amenemhet II would also accommodate his highest attested regnal-year which is the 38th. It is therefore likely that the Turin King-list simply misplaced Amenemhet II or

confused his reign with that of his two successors which, compared to the incorrect

record of the reign of two of the more important kings, would be a less alarming error.

6/20 6/21 6/22 6/23 6/24 6/25 6/26 6/27

Amenemhet I, he acted in kingship [2]9 [years, x months, x days] 45 years, [x months, x days] Senwosret I 10+ x years, [x months, x days] [Amenemhet II / Senwosret II] 19 years, [x months, x days] [Senwosret II / Senwosret III] [Senwosret III / Amenemhet II] 30+ x years, [x months, x days] [Amenemhet III] 40+ x years, [x months, x days] 9 years, 3 months, 27 days Amenemhet IV Nofrusobk 3 years, 10 months, 24 days

Table 4: The Twelfth Dynasty in the Turin King-list.

While the cases discussed above can be explained as errors in the order of the kings, there is some evidence that a few figures in the Turin King-list are positively unreliable. The figures in question are, however, easily recognizable and can therefore be dismissed.

The reign of Nerikare is accounted for by the notation wsf rnpt 6, ‘lacuna, six years’ (7/6: cf. §5.1.2.4). The absence of any fraction in the record of the reign makes the figure

conspicuous, since all other reigns of the Thirteenth Dynasty are recorded in years, months and days. Accordingly, it may well be that the scribe simply attributed a reign

of a round six years to this king whose entire record was lost in order to avoid a

chronological gap in his list. This is supported by the fact that the collective reign of the Late Old Kingdom kings, whose records similarly were lost in the original (§1.1.2.1), was

also recorded as six years straight. Here the scribe was presumably not aware that the note of a lacuna which he saw before him covered more than the record of one king. It

is especially significant in this connection that the scribe actually listed the wsf years separately in the summations. If the round figures following the notes of lost records

were not his own emendations, this procedure would have been quite redundant, and we

may therefore assume that the scribe marked the straight figures thus because they were

his own. The figures in question must therefore be regarded as unreliable. A further indication that the scribe emended figures to avoid chronological gaps is 5/13 where a

reign is recorded as 'IVi years’ (rnpt 1 gs) straight. This is a unique deviation from the

system otherwise consistently employed by the scribe, that the reigns were recorded

16

Primary Sources for the Chronology

precisely by years alone or, as is the case for the section in question, by years, months and days. This suggests that the entry was damaged after the record of the year, and that

the ‘half’ year was an average estimated by the scribe in order to avoid a chronological gap. The Late Old Kingdom section was evidently quite riddled with lacunae as argued above, and apparently this damage also affected the record in question. Concerning the

emendations in the Turin King-list, it is highly significant that all of them were made in a way that makes it clear that they are, in fact, emendations. When the whole reign was lost, the notation wsfwas added, both where the record in question belonged and in the

summation. In the one case where only part of a reign was emended, the scribe wrote gs,

‘half (a year)’, rather than ‘six (months)’ which would have made it impossible to tell that this was an emended figure. Accordingly, each of the few emendations is clearly recognisable as such.

The summations giving the total duration of various groupings of kings must also be regarded as unreliable. This is exemplified by the ‘213 years, 1 month, and 17 days’

recorded as the duration of the Twelfth Dynasty in its summary. The figure was evidently reached by a simple addition of the reigns of the eight individual kings. Apparently the scribe did not realize that several of the reigns in question included a

period of coregency, and that the duration of the dynasty was therefore in reality much

shorter. The same source of error may reasonably be assumed to exist in the other summations that include kings whose reigns involved a period of coregency. The summations for Dynasties I-VIII, Dynasties VI-VIII and Dynasty XI, may additionally be regarded as unreliable, though to a lesser degree, because they include reigns that were recorded in round years. It is not known how these reigns were rounded off, and we

must therefore reckon with a margin of error of c. + V2 a year per king. §1.1.2.4

Incorrect Names: Among the lesser errors may be counted the incorrectly written names

of certain kings. Apart from the names of the most ancient kings, many of which seem to have been misinterpreted long before the Turin King-list was drawn up, there are only

a few cases of incorrectly written names.28

Three names of the Old Kingdom are incomplete: d-rr) (4/24), nfr-kf-r'") (5/9), and nfr{-kl-mnw} (5/10). As argued above, these were names which had been damaged through lacunae. More interesting is the fact that the false etymology of Netjerkare as

Nitocris already occurs in the Turin King-list - especially as the nomen of this king is also recorded, which makes it clear that we are dealing with a male ruler and not a female „„„ 29 one. The few other incorrect names all occur in the Second Intermediate Period section.

The prenomen of Siharnedjheritef (7/8) was recorded as Sehotepibre rather than Hotepibre, presumably because it resembles that of the famous Amenemhet I, and the

28. For the misinterpreted names of the most ancient kings, see esp. Helck, Manetho^ 10-23; idem, SAK 19, 162-166. 29. Ryholt, ‘The Late Old Kingdom in the Turin King-list and the Identity of Nitocris’ (forthcoming).

The Turin King-List

17

prenomen of Sobkhotep III (7/24) is garbled. The Semitic name

(7/20) was misinterpreted as the prenomen of Amenemhet III,

hndr Khendjer

ny-dr-r' (reading Θ instead of ©) on analogy with ny-mict-rc (§3.3.8.1). Finally, the first sign of

the Semitic name ‘Anati (9/27) was misinterpreted as

nb rather than the correct

c> (§2.2.1.5). It is hardly surprising that two of the misinterpreted names were of Semitic

origin, since these names would presumably not have made much sense to the scribe. A few nomina which have a redundant -Re added to them are discussed below (§1.1.4.1). gl.1.2.5

Inclusion of Fictitious Kings: Apart from the inclusion of Menes, who is presumably a conflation of several historical kings or alternatively a name given to Aha or Narmer posthumously (just as Netjerkhet is called Djoser in posthumous sources), and who

therefore strictly speaking cannot be regarded as entirely fictitious, there is little evidence

that fictitious kings were included in the Turin King-list. The Turin King-list includes in the Fourth Dynasty two obscure kings, both of whose

names are lost, after Chephren and Shepseskaf respectively (TK 4/13 and 16; the reign of the latter is preserved as ‘2 years’). The same two kings were originally included in the

Saqqara Canon, but by an unfortunate coincidence their names are lost in this list as well.30 Their names are, however, preserved in a Greek rendering in the Manethonian tradition as Bicheris and Thamphthis.31 It has been suggested that these two kings should

be identified as Hardjedef and Bawefre, both known from two short lists of Thirteenth

and Twentieth Dynasty date respectively and generally believed not to have reigned as kings.32 There are several problems with this identification. In both lists these two kings

30. As the blocks of the Saqqara Canon are at present reconstructed, five names are lost between Chephren (no. 19) and Userkaf (no. 25): cf., e.g., Malek, SSEAJ 12, 22. On the basis of the Turin King-list and the Manethonian tradition, four of the names can be restored as Bicheris, Mycerinus, Shepseskaf, and Thamphthis. The identity of the fifth king remains obscure. 31. The names of these two kings are recorded only in Africanus (apud Syncellus) which is the sole copy to list all the individual kings of the Fourth Dynasty. The order of the kings does not follow the Turin Kinglist precisely, in that Africanus first lists the four ‘great’ kings of the Fourth Dynasty (i.e. those who completed large pyramids): Snofru, Cheops, Chephren, and Mycerinus, and then the four ‘lesser’ kings: Redjedef (Ratoisês), Bicheris, Shepseskaf (Sebercheres), and Thamphthis. Aside from the fact that Redjedef and Bicheris thus come to be listed after Mycerinus, the order of the kings in Africanus is in harmony with the Turin King-list. Virtually nothing is know about the obscure kings Bicheris and Thamphthis, cf. von Beckerath, LÄ, I, 785-786, and Helck, LÄ, IV, 1180. 32. Redford, Pharaonic King-lists, 237; for the two king-lists, see ibid. 25 [3] and 25-26 [5]. It may be noted that Redford has got the position of Bicheris and Thamphthis in the Turin King-list slightly wrong, stating that both follow upon Shepseskaf. His assertion that Ratoisês of the Manethonian tradition is Hardjedef and not Redjedef (237, n. 24) is certainly wrong. Redjedef ruled between Cheops and Chephren, and it is exactly in this position that the Manethonian tradition records Ratoisês. Phonetically, Ratoisês also corresponds better to Redjedef than to Hardjedef. Since the Manethonian tradition is evidently in full agreement with the Turin King-list regarding the identity and order of the kings of the Fourth Dynasty, there seems little reason to produce any emendations. For Hardjedef and Bawefre, see also von Beckerath, LÀ, I, 600, 1099. Critical to our understanding of the nature of the Thirteenth Dynasty ‘king-list’ at Wadi Hammamat is the narrative of Pap. Westcar in which sons of Cheops take turns in entertaining their father with tales. The identity of the son who presents the first tale is lost, but the following tales are presented by Chephren,

18

Primary Sources for the Chronology

are listed after each other, unlike the two obscure kings recorded in the Turin King-list and the Manethonian tradition who are separated by the reigns of Mycerinus and

Shepseskaf. The two further lists disagree on the placing of Hardjedef and Bawefre. In the

former they follow Chephren, while in the latter they follow Mycerinus. It also seems impossible to recognize the names Hardjedef and Bawefre in the Manethonian Bicheris

and Thamphthis. Bicheris rather reflects an original bi-kl-r'y while the origin of

Thamphthis may represent a theophorous name compounded with pth such as dd=f-pth. Finally, an important archaeological indication of the existence of at least one ephemeral

reign during the Fourth Dynasty is the unfinished pyramid at Zawiyet el-Aryan that can

be dated to this dynasty.33 On the basis of these considerations, little remains to

commend the identification of the two obscure kings attested in the Turin King-list and

the Manethonian tradition with the non-kings Hardjedef and Bawefre, and Bicheris and Thamphthis may be identified as genuine, though ephemeral, kings of the Fourth Dynasty.

Certain kings recorded on fragments placed in the Second Intermediate Period section have also been considered fictitious. In fact, the fragments in question record the names

of gods and demigods, and belong to the beginning of the text, not to its end where they are at present positioned.34

§ 1.1.2.6

Evaluation as a Chronological Source for the SIP

As far as the king-list can be verified, it appears to be rather accurate. No kings can be shown to have been intentionally excluded from the document. The list not only included ephemeral kings whose reigns lasted just a few months, but also foreign kings whose memory was anathematized already long before the Turin King-list was drawn up, and who are not present in any other known king-lists.35 Nor are there any indications

that kings of contemporary dynasties are mixed together. On the contrary, the

contemporary dynasties of the First and Second Intermediate Periods were listed separately. The reigns of most kings are recorded in years, months, and days, except

Bawefre, and Hardefef (written hr-dd=f ior hr-dd=f), and the first son may well have been Redjedef. It is precisely these five figures, Cheops and his four sons, that are included in the Wadi Hammamat ‘king-list’, which suggests that this list may in fact have been based on the same tradition; cf. Wildung, Die Rolle ägyptischer Kön ige, 164-167.

33. The most recent discussion of the date of this pyramid is Edwards, F$ Shore, 97-105. 34. See discussion in §1.1.3.2.4. 35. Le. the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Dynasties. While the kings of the Fourteenth Dynasty were recorded with the title of nsw and cartouche, the kings of the Fifteenth Dynasty were simply recorded with the title hkl-hlswt, and the one king whose name is preserved was recorded by his nomen/birth-name, rather than his prenomen/thronename. Thus the Fifteenth Dynasty kings were deprived of any royal attributes in the king-list. There is, however, evidence that the first four kings of the Fifteenth Dynasty had actually ruled under this title and that prenomina and the use of cartouches were adopted only during the reign of Khayan (§2.3.1.3). Accordingly, the treatment of the Fifteenth Dynasty in the Turin King-list does not necessarily reflect some form of animosity against them, but perhaps just their own practices.

The Turin King-List

19

those of Dynasties III-VI and XI whose reigns were recorded only in round years.36

Apart from a few emendations made to avoid chronological gaps, there is as yet no evidence that any of the reigns contained in the Turin King-list are unreliable.

Concerning the emended reigns, these are marked in a manner that makes it clear that they are, in fact, emendations. Only the summations of those dynasties that included

coregencies are clearly unreliable, since the totals were produced by a simple addition of the individual reigns without regard to the fact that certain reigns overlapped. For the

present study, however, this source of error is not critical, since only one summation is

preserved for the Second Intermediate Period section, viz. the Fifteenth Dynasty, and there is some reason to assume that coregencies may not have existed during this dynasty.

It is therefore with some confidence that the Turin King-list, although not contemporary, is used as the main source in the definition of the individual dynasties of

the Second Intermediate Period in respect of the rulers and chronology. Where possible, the Turin King-list will be backed with contemporary sources, but where no

contemporary sources are available, it will be taken at face value for lack of anything

better.

§1.1.3

Reconstruction

§1.1.3.1

Present State of Reconstruction: Having established that the Turin King-list can be used with some confidence as a chronological source, attention must be turned to the

reconstruction of the document.37 As is well known, the Turin King-list is in a poor state

of preservation and today consists of a mass of fragments. Unfortunately, work on this document has been continuously hampered by the fact that no good photographs of the

text have ever been published, although its unique value as a chronological source was already recognized in the days of Champollion.38 Too little attention has also been paid to the tax-list on the recto, and considerable improvements may still be achieved from

work with the fibres.39 Several attempts to reconstruct the papyrus have been made over the years. The last

edition of the papyrus as a whole was published by Gardiner in 1959.40 Owing to the

36. For a possible explanation of why the reigns were not recorded in a consistent manner, see §1.1.6 below. 37. In June 1993 and November 1995 I had an opportunity to examine both sides of the Turin King-list itself, using a backing light in order to match fibres. The purpose of the visit was to test certain arrangements worked out in my original thesis, but it was naturally impossible to check all possible combinations given the large number of floating fragments.

38. Photographs of both the king-list and the tax-list were published in Farina’s edition (Papiro}, but these are much too small and indistinct to be of any serious use. 39. It may be noted that the 1851 edition of Wilkinson (The Hieratic Papyrus at Turin} is superior to all later editions in one respect, namely that it often states where actual fibre-correspondences occur and sometimes also where they do not. It is very unfortunate that this approach has not been adopted in the later editions. 40. Gardiner, Royal Canon.

20

Primary Sources for the Chronology

renown of Gardiner, his edition has generally been regarded as definitive as regards both

reconstruction and transcription, and this edition has been used uncritically for historical purposes.41 The examination of the document which follows below will, however, show that considerable improvements can be made. In fact, the introduction to Gardiner’s

edition also makes it clear that he was concerned mainly with the transcription of the document and spent little effort on the reconstruction. Gardiner simply adopted the

reconstruction made by Ibscher and Farina, and although it was clear to him that many

fragments hardly belonged where they had been placed, he made only a few minor changes to this reconstruction.42 Even so, Gardiner’s edition remains the best published

to date and it is therefore this edition that is used as the main reference in the following.

Since the publication of Gardiner’s edition, only few improvements to the reconstruction have been proposed. The most important is von Beckerath’s suggestion that fr. 36 + 48 should be placed to the left of fr. 47 at the bottom of col. 5.43 Despite

Gardiner’s assertion to the contrary,44 the fibres correspond perfectly and the arrangement is therefore beyond doubt. In fact, fr. 48 was already correctly placed by Seyffarth (cf. Lepsius’ and Wilkinson’s editions), but it was later removed.45 Von

Beckerath has further suggested that fr. 43 should be moved one line up from its position in Gardiner’s edition.46 Also this arrangement could be verified by my examination of the

fibres.47 The suggestion by Wildung that fr. 40 refers to Imhotep and should be placed in 4/9-10, right of fr. 18, can readily be rejected.48 In the suggested position there was certainly no writing on the recto (cf. fr. 18 and fr. 43), whereas fr. 40 has writing upon

its reverse. The fibres rather suggest that fr. 40 should be directly joined to the left of fr.

41. In his recent study of the Turin King-list, Malek (JEA 68, 93) explicitly states his belief that possible gains in reconstruction ‘were for all practical purposes exhausted when the authoritative edition by A. H. Gardiner appeared in 1959’. The uncritical use of Gardiner’s edition has led to at least one group of kings placed in the Second Intermediate Period being regarded as fictitious, cf. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, 441; von Beckerath, 2. Zwischenzeit, 82; idem, SAK 11, 56. This would obviously have lessened the historical value of the document, but the kings in question do, in fact, belong to the mythological section of the kinglist (§1.1.3.2.4). 42. Some of the fragments which Gardiner believed not to be in their correct position, he removed and placed on a separate plate with unplaced fragments. It may be noted that at least one of these fragment was actually in its correct position. Fr. 133 +135 was placed in 5/6-10 in Farina’s edition, but was removed by Gardiner; the fibres, however, leave absolutely no doubt that the fragment actually belongs where Farina had it. Concerning the numerous misplaced fragments in his col. IX and X, Gardiner simply noted that they 'must be regarded with the utmost scepticism.'

43. Von Beckerath, ZAS 93, 18-19. 44. Gardiner, Royal Canon, 16. 45. It is interesting to observe that one of the First Intermediate Period kings (5/23) was apparently recorded by both his nomen and prenomen, just as was the case for several kings of the Second Intermediate Period. In the specific case, it could perhaps be owing to the fact that he had the common prenomen Neferkare.

46. Von Beckerath, JNES 21, 144. 47. Ryholt, ‘The Late Old Kingdom in the Turin King-list and the Identity of Nitocris’ (forthcoming). 48. Wildung, Imhotep und Amenhotep, 30-32.

The Turin King-List

21

43, and in fact the child-sign after the cartouche of Neferkare is partly preserved on both

fragments.49 For this reason, the subsequent rearrangement of fr. 40 by Malek, who

placed it to the left of fr. 108 in Gardiner’s col. IX, can also be rejected.50 Most recently, Helck has published a lengthy study which suggests a long series of new reconstructions of the king-list.51 Unfortunately, this study does not advance the

reconstruction of the king-list, but rather sets it further back. I could not confirm a single

one of the new reconstructions and in several instances they could be readily rejected. The main problem with Helck’s approach is that he did not work on the original, but

only with Gardiner’s edition which, like the other published editions, is unreliable in the arrangement of the fragments. Accordingly, when Helck believes a fragment can be fitted in well besides another fragment, he does not realize that this fragment may well be in

a wrong position. The failure to check the fibres also makes all the arrangements speculative and highly subjective, since it is possible to find room for the majority of the

smaller fragments in any number of positions.52 In consideration of these points, it is

clear that Helck’s recent study of the Turin King-list should be regarded with extreme scepticism.

The seven fragments (re-)arranged by Helck in the Second Intermediate Period section

(nos. 29, 41 + 42, 50, 66, 75, 90, 147) may briefly be discussed. The position of three of

them can be rejected. Fr. 75 (col. VI: SAK 19, 175): the arrangement leaves no space for the number of months of the reigns where it is placed, and in fact it can be aligned

horizontally and vertically with fr. 72 (§1.1.3.2.1). Fr. 41 + 42 (placed in col. X: SAK 19, 192): the fragment belongs to the original col. 2 which must be inserted between col. I and the present col. Π of Gardiner’s edition (§1.1.3.2.4). Fr. 147 (col. VIII: SAK 19, 178):

hrw is written out in the record of the reign in the second line. Since repetition-marks were otherwise used, it is clear that the formula ir.n=f m nswyt must have stood in this

line. This formula would not, however, have been written in this line since it occurs in the line directly above. Fr. 29 (col. VII: SAK 19,177), 50 (col. IXa: SAK 19, 190), 66 (col. VI: SAK 19, 176) and 90 (col. VII: SAK 19, 177, 178): whether the four remaining fragments belong where they were placed by Helck remains to be tested, but there is

nothing in particular to favour these arrangements and there is room for the fragments elsewhere. The fragments cannot therefore be used for historical purposes until their

correct positions have been settled through an analysis of the fibres.

49. Ryholt, ‘The Late Old Kingdom in the Turin King-list and the Identity of Nitocris’ (forthcoming). 50. Malek, JEA 68, 102. 51. Helck, SAK 19, 151-216.

52. Unfortunately, Helck’s study came to my attention only after my work on the original, and it is therefore only where I happen to have checked the fibres of specific fragments for other reasons that I can comment upon his new arrangements. Unfortunately, this is only the case with one of the fragments placed in the SIP section, but the position of some of others may be rejected for other reasons (see below). Other fragments that can be shown to be in their wrong position on the basis of the fibres include fr. 40 (see above) and fr. 133-135. Helck placed the latter in 5/10-14, but the fibres clearly show that this fragment belongs, in 5/6-10 where it was also placed in Farina’s edition.

22

§1.1.3.2

Primary Sources for the Chronology

Revised Reconstruction of the SIP Section: In the following, the entire Second

Intermediate Period section of the Turin King-list is investigated and a revised reconstruction proposed.53 The Second Intermediate Period is recorded from col. 7/4 and occupies the rest of the document in its present state.

All of the columns in question are incompletely preserved. In order to estimate how many lines were lost from the individual columns, it is therefore important first to

estimate the original size of the papyrus. It is difficult to arrive at a precise figure, since the height is not preserved anywhere in the papyrus. However, the top margin is

preserved in col. 6-9 as 2.5-3.0 cm and the bottom margin in col. 3, 10 and 11 as c. 2.0 cm. The text-height is preserved in col. 3 as c. 37.5 cm. and in col. 4 as c. 37.0 cm. The height

of the document was thus about 41.5 to 42.5 cm., which is a full-size roll.54 The width of the individual sheets seems to have been about 26.5 cm., although none is preserved

intact.55 §1.1.3.2.1

Col. 7 = Gardiner col. VI (fig. 10. §2.1.1.1): In col. 7, the position of all fragments is

certain, except for fr. 71 where neither a horizontal nor a vertical fibre correspondence could be established with fr. 72. Nor does fr. 71 join fr. 88 + 96 (in col. 8) as suggested by

the editions of Farina and Gardiner. Accordingly, fr. 71 may be disregarded. The horizontal alignment of fr. 70 with fr. 77 is assured by horizontal fibre correspondence. There is no vertical fibre correspondence with fr. 78 which suggests that

fr. 70 should be moved slightly to the left.56 This is also required in order to make room for the formula ir.n=fm nswyt hìt-sp ... >bd... sw..., which is partly preserved on the two

fragments in 7/16. Gardiner transcribed it ir.n=f >bd 4, but it is not thus abbreviated elsewhere and in fact there is no visible trace of the =/ in the position where it is transcribed by Gardiner (i.e. under ìbd).

From the top margin about 39.5 cm. of col. 7 is preserved overall. This could leave

room for one additional king after the record of Sobkhotep IV, depending on the exact size of the roll. The presence of an additional king is supported by the sériation of scarab­

shaped seals which suggests that Sobkhotep Merhotepre belongs after the group Sobkhotep III - Sobkhotep IV (§1.2.1.1, §3.3.12). Also, the fact that the phrase ir.n=f m

nswyt occurs at an interval of 15 lines from 7/1 to 7/16 would suggest that one line was

lost, since the phrase would otherwise occur at an interval of just 14 lines from 7/16 to

53. This reconstruction must be regarded as preliminary. As mentioned above, the purpose of my examination of the original was mainly to test certain arrangements worked out in my original thesis. Only these arrangements and the more important fragments were checked for fibre correspondences. In order to produce a definitive reconstruction of the Second Intermediate Period section, the entire papyrus would have to be dealt with and this would certainly require a study of its own. 54. The measurements are taken from the facsimile of Lepsius (Auswahl, pl. Ill-VI). 55. This is the estimated width of the sheet covering col. 4, that covering col. 5-6, and that covering col. 7-8.

56. In Farina’s edition, a small unnumbered fragment apparently containing the word Ibd has been placed between fr. 70 and fr. 77, but the position of this fragment is certainly incorrect as there is no fibre correspondence in either direction. The fragment is rightly omitted in Gardiner’s edition.

The Turin King-List

23

8/3. Such a decrease in the interval is rather unlikely since the number of lines in the

Vorlage evidently increased slightly (cf. §1.1.5), and in fact the interval is 16 lines shortly after, from 9/4 to 9/20. Accordingly, col. 7 may be assumed to have had a total of 28

lines.57 Sl.1.3.2.2

Col. 8 = Gardiner col. IX (fig. 10. §2.1.1.1): Only the top part of col. 9, the top margin

and 8 lines, is preserved intact and loose fragments make up the rest of the column. In

the Lepsius/Wilkinson editions, some 15 fragments are placed in this column (fr. 82-96),

but in the Farina/Gardiner editions only 8 of them (fr. 82-83, 86-88, 93-96) are retained and a further unnumbered fragment (Gardiner VII/20) is included. An examination of

the fibres makes it clear that the older reconstruction is in fact more reliable in relation to this section. To begin with the larger fragments, horizontal fibre correspondences show that fr. 87 and fr. 93 belong across from fr. 70 and fr. 80 as positioned in the editions of Lepsius and

Wilkinson.

Fr. 87, 94, 95, and [Gardiner VII 20] can be aligned vertically with fr. 81 through a

fibre correspondence, and similarly fr. 82, 86, 87, 88, 93 can be aligned vertically with fr. 81. There seems to be a horizontal fibre correspondence between fr. 86 and fr. 74 of col.

7, but this is not entirely certain because of the distance between the fragments.58 It has not been possible to established a horizontal alignment for fr. 88, and it therefore remains

unclear how high or low it should be placed. The editions of Lepsius/Wilkinson and Farina/Gardiner each place it differently. However, since the fragment only contain the

royal titles, it is of little importance for the present purpose. Fr. 83 is placed below fr. 81 in all editions. Wilkinson notes that the vertical fibres ‘do

not correspond’. In fact, the fragment should simply be shifted about 3 mm. to the left to align with the vertical fibres.

Through horizontal fibre correspondences, fr. 94, fr. 95, and [Gardiner VII 20] can be

positioned to the left of fr. 93 (so also Lepsius/Wilkinson). Fr. 94 can further be aligned horizontally with fr. 82 which ensures its position directly above fr. 93.

According to Wilkinson, fr. 90 can also be aligned vertically with fr. 87 and 94, but I was unable to check this fragment. It was removed in Gardiner’s edition. Fr. 96 is placed at the bottom right of fr. 93 in Lepsius/Wilkinson, whereas Farina/Gardiner place it to the right of fr. 82. There is no horizontal fibre correspondence between fr. 96 and

fr. 82, and the latter reconstruction can accordingly be rejected. I have not found a new

57. In Gardiner’s edition, a space is left blank below the entry of Sobkhotep IV (7/27) before the papyrus breaks off. This may have led to the incorrect assumption that this was the bottom margin. However, examination of the original revealed that there is less blank space below this entry than is otherwise left between the lines in this column (cf. also Farina, Papiro, pl. VI), and accordingly there is no indication that it was the bottom margin. 58. One may consider whether the repetition stroke on the recto would make sense in the present position.

24

Primary Sources for the Chronology

position for this fragment, but it contains nothing of importance.

Both fr. 84 and 85 have correctly been removed to Gardiner’s col. V (= col. 6) in the editions of Farina/Gardiner and placed with the Eleventh Dynasty to which they belong.

Fr. 89 has been removed to Gardiner’s col. IX, but it was not possible to check the fibres

to see whether it aligned with fr. 41 + 42 because of the thick patch on the latter. Fr. 91

is marked by Gardiner: ‘Does not belong?. Fr. 92 is blank and irrelevant.

The top part of col. 8 preserves 8 lines; then 6 lines are lost before fr. 87 which

preserves 4 lines, and another 2 before fr. 93 + 94 which preserve 8 lines. Because of the fibre-correspondence between fr. 93 + 94 and fr. 78 + 80 and the size and margins of the

document, there would have been room for one additional line below fr. 93 + 94, i.e. a total of 29 lines in the column. §1.1.3.2.3

Col. 9 = Gardiner col. VIII (fig. 11, §2.2.1.2): The position of all the fragments in col. 9 is confirmed by fibre correspondences. Through horizontal fibre correspondences, it has been possible to join a single fragment, fr. 123, at the bottom of the column, next to fr.

101. This new arrangements completes three prenomina. The preserved part includes 29 lines and given the size and margins of the document

there would have been room for one additional line, a total of 30 lines. §1.1.3.2.4

Col. 10 = Gardiner col. IX-X (fig, 11. §2.2.1.2): In col. 10, the correspondence of fibres makes the position of the two uppermost fragments (fr. 105 and 108) certain. Fr. 112 is

also correctly placed in this column, but a horizontal fibre-match between this fragment

and fr. 100 of col. 9 shows that it should be moved up one line. The fragment partly

preserves the foreign nomina of three Semitic kings of the Fourteenth Dynasty. The remainder of Gardiner’s col. IX and the following col. X include a number of

fragments which are evidently misplaced since they contain the names of gods (n/nv) and

‘demi gods’ (?Aw).59 Gods are recorded on fr. 150 (col. X): sth swnw hrw, ‘Seth, the doctor, Horus,’60 and fr. 22+[Gardiner X/24-26] (col. X): skr rr[z], ‘Sokar, Uraeus,’61 while ‘demi

59. These names have generally been considered fictitious: cf. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, 441; von Beckerath, 2. Zwischenzeit, 82; idem, SAK 11, 56. Redford {Orientalia 39, 20, n. 4; Pharaonic King-lists, 199201, 240; Egypt, Canaan and Israel, 106) has repeatedly suggested that these names are transcriptions of West Semitic names and attempts to interpret them as Amorite, seeing them as an “'Ahnentafel” of the house of Salitis', i.e. as ancestors of the Fifteenth Dynasty. Redford does not, however, actually succeed in reading any of these names - thus suggesting that they are ‘hopelessly garbled’ - nor does he manage to present any convincing argument as to why they should be foreign, much less specifically Amorite. Scepticism concerning Redford’s interpretation has also been voiced by Ward (Tufnell, Studies, II, 155, n. 39). 60. ‘The doctor’ is clearly a reference to Thoth. It is interesting to observe that these three gods are also recorded on fr. 15 (col. 1) in the order: Seth, Horus, Thoth. This may indicate that two versions of the mythological god-kings were recorded in the Turin King-list. 61. For the writing of Sokar, see col. 4/1 (Neferkasokar) and Gardiner’s remarks at this point {Royal Canon, 15). Farina {Papiro, 57, 60) and von Beckerath (2. Zwischenzeit, 138, 276) misread the divine name Sokar {skr) as Seket {ski), and believed this to be the record of a King Seket whom von Beckerath ascribed to the Sixteenth Dynasty. This ‘king’ Seket is in fact attested only as a king’s son (cf. §1.2.2.2.3), and there is no evidence that he ever became king.

The Turin King-List

25

gods’ are recorded on fr. 41 + 42 (col. IX): h’b >pd hpw šmsw mni wr-kì, ‘Ibis, The bird,

Apis, The follower, Meni, Great-of-height,’ and fr. 151 + 152 (col. X) which includes among five names n ibh ..., ‘Not-does-[...]-thirst’, hr hmwt špsw\t\, ‘He-who-possesses-

noble-women’, and hw-hmwt-[spswt ?], ‘He-who-protects-[noble?]-women’. There is not room for all the fragments containing names of gods and demi gods in

col. 1, and the mythological period would therefore appear to have occupied two columns rather than just one as at present allotted to it. Confirmation of this is found on fr. 151 which contains a numeral on its right that is evidently part of the record of a

reign. Accordingly, Gardiner’s col. II is in reality the third column. That the present col. I was the original first column of the Turin King-list can be regarded as virtually certain in view of the space left blank for wear and tear to the right of this column. Examination

of the fibres confirms the present position of fr. 8, 9,10,11, and 51, except that fr. 9 + 51 do not seem to align with the unnumbered fragment to the left which suggests that these

two fragments should be placed further below, or perhaps above fr. 8 + 10.

Fr. 151 + 152, the alignment of which is certain from the horizontal fibres, must obviously belong to col. 2 since the reign preserved on the right of the fragment will have

stood in col. 1. Fr. 150 can be aligned vertically with fr. 151 + 152 by the fibres. The position of fr. 41 + 42 could not be established through its fibres which are obscured by

the thick patch. However, the patch itself and the occurrence of the phrase ir.n=fm nswyt make it virtually certain that this fragment forms the very top of col. 2 and that it contains lines 1-6 of this column. Patches occur at intervals of about 16-17 cm. and it is therefore clear that the papyrus had been damaged while rolled up.62 A patch is expected

17 cm. to the right of the patch preserved on fr. 1, and it is in this position that fr. 41 + 42

belongs. The horizontal alignment of fr. 22 with fr. [Gardiner X/24-26] is assured through fibre correspondence. The two fragments can be aligned vertically with fr. 11 in col. 1.

With the fragments containing the names of gods and demi gods removed from Gardiner’s col. IX and X, the fragments which remain are fr. 66, 122, 123, 134 and four

unnumbered fragments [Gardiner X/13, X/14-15, X/16-17, X/20-21]. Among these, three of the unnumbered fragments form the ‘Hyksos’ group (fr. [Gardiner X/14-15, X/16-17, X/20-21]). Whether or not all three belong together is not clear, but two

certainly seem to. There seems to be a horizontal fibre correspondence between the main fragment and fr. 123 so that Khamudi corresponds to 9/27 and the summation to 9/28.

Because the sheet-width is c. 16.5 cm., it is clear that the sheet on which col. 9 and 10 are written, the right join of which is preserved between col. 8 and 9, did not include any further columns. The main fragment can therefore be placed in col. 10 towards the

bottom. The Hyksos fragments are further discussed in §2.3.1.1. Fr. [Gardiner X/13] records part of a summation, presumably that of the Fourteenth

Dynasty. The summation can be restored [dmd nsw ...] ir.n=sn rnpt [... >bd ... hrw ...],

62. The damage was suffered after the tax-list was written, and the papyrus was repaired before the king-list was written.

26

Primary Sources for the Chronology

‘Total: X kings. They made up [x] years, [x months and x days.]’ The last, lowermost, fragment (fr. 134) placed in col. 10 would seem to be in its correct position, although it remains uncertain whether or not this is a coincidence. The

fragment preserves parts of two lines and what appears to be the bottom margin. Line and line x + 2

x+1 preserves the signs

be confidently restored as

°

. The latter can

Q

, ‘kingship (pl.)’. It has been suggested that this

fragment contains a summation. Helck reconstructs the two lines ‘[König]e von J3[t-....... x] [ihre] Regierungszeit [....... ’, while Redford only sees a summation in the second line

which he reconstructs ‘[Total of] kings o/[...]’.63 The latter reconstruction must be rejected, since the word is clearly the abstract ‘kingship’. Helck understands the word

correctly and his restoration would not be impossible. It seems, however, more likely

that the word was part of the phrase ir.n=f m nswyt, ‘He acted in kingship (etc.)’,

especially if the fragment is in its correct position. This reconstruction is obvious from

the fact that the Sixteenth Dynasty in the following column included 15 kings of whom 14 are listed in that column (11/1-14: cf. §2.4.1.1). Accordingly, the first king must have been recorded in the previous column, and the phrase ir.n=f m nswyt was always written

out in full for the first king of a dynasty (besides being used at the head of every column in the original because of the preceding summation and sometimes also heading). This would suggest that line x+1 should be interpreted with Helck as ‘[king]s of z?[.......]’. Alternatively, the line might have contained a prenomen of which determinative. In that case

would be the

would be part of a nomen written without a

cartouche. The nomen would then seem to be a syllabic writing and therefore belong to

a king of the Fourteenth Dynasty, i.e. somewhere in the upper half of col. 10.64

A minor fragment incorrectly joined to fr. 79 (col. 7/23) in Lepsius’ and Wilkinson’s editions does not figure in the editions of Farina and Gardiner, although it certainly belongs to the Turin King-list.65 The fragment contains part of a prenomen ^^ΊΡΓΓ,.

A possible restoration is Q^íP1 n in which case it would represent the prenomen of Ya‘qub-Har of the Fourteenth Dynasty. The record of this king is not preserved in the

king-list, but unless it stood in one of the four lost entries of col. 9 (lines 9, 15, 30-31), it

must have stood in col. 10. Accordingly, it is possible that the fragment in question

should be placed col. 10 or one of the four lost entries of col. 9. §1.1.3.2.5

Col, 11 = Gardiner col. XI (fig, 14, §2.4.1.1): This column consists of two clusters of fragments, fr.

125+126+127+130+131 + 142 and fr.

163 + 164, which preserve

respectively the top and the bottom margins of the column. The position of all these

fragments seems to be confirmed by fibre correspondences. On the basis of the basis of

63. Helck, SAK 19, 189, 216; Redford, Pharaonic King-lists, 13. 64. Col. 9 is excluded because the two ir.n=f nt nswyt formulas in this column are preserved. 65. Cf. comment by Gardiner, Royal Canon, 16 [VI23 a]. It may be noted that wsr and the complementary s are interchanged in Gardiner’s transcription.

The Turin King-List

27

the size and margins of the document, as well as the occurence of the formula ir.n=f m nswyt (§1.1.5), the column can be estimated to have had a total of 31 lines. §1.1.4

Notes on the SIP Section

A peculiarity in the record of the Second Intermediate Period in the Turin King-list is the inconsequential manner in which the individual kings were recorded. As a rule, the kings

were recorded by prenomen, but there is a considerable number of exceptions. Some

kings are recorded by nomen instead, sometimes with a superfluous -Re added, and others

are recorded by both prenomen and nomen, sometimes with the nomen enclosed within

a cartouche and sometimes not.66 §1.1.4.1

That certain kings recorded by their nomen alone had an intrusive -Re added to this

name has an obvious explanation. The scribe responsible for the Turin King-list was rather careless, and since most kings were recorded by their prenomen, it seems quite likely that the scribe automatically copied the title nsw-bit, the ‘cartouche-open’ and the sun-disc, and only then looked at his original to see what followed. In the few cases where a nomen is recorded without the abusive -Re, the scribe presumably happened to notice

in advance that the following cartouche did not contain a prenomen. Except perhaps in one case, the scribe did not take the trouble to correct the incorrectly written nomina.67 §1.1.4.2

As to the kings who are recorded by their nomen alone in the Turin King-list, Redford has suggested that "kings with very short reigns might lack a prenomen, not having

had a chance to undergo a coronation.'63 In fact, the prenomina of most of the kings in question are actually attested in contemporary sources, and Redford’s suggestion must therefore be rejected.69 The suggestion would also present somewhat of a paradox, since

there would be few obvious reasons to designate individuals as kings and include them in a king-list if they had never undergone coronation. It may further be noted that Nofrusobk had a reign of four years and Nebiryraw I apparently one of no less than 26

years. The fact that certain kings were recorded by their nomen alone therefore seems to have nothing to do with the length of their reigns. Rather this phenomenon should

be seen in relation to the physical condition of the original of the Turin King-list which, as has been argued above, was riddled with lacunae. The possibility presents itself that the

66. See table in Redford, Pharaonic King-lists, 6. 67. In the case of Amenemhet V (TK 7/7), there may have been an attempt to erase the abusive -Re. 68. Redford, Pharaonic King-lists, 7. 69. The prenomen of Nofrusobk (7/2), Kasobkre, is preserved on several objects, e.g., an architrave: Daressy, ASAE 17, 34. The prenomen of Amenemhet V (7/7), Sekhemkare, is preserved on a statue: Fay, MDAIK 44, 67-77, pl. 18-29. The prenomen of Sobkhotep II (7/15), Khaankhre, is preserved on several objects, e.g., the base of a statuette: Reeves, SAK 13, 165-167, pl. 19. [For identification of Sobkhotep Khaankhre with Sobkhotep Π, see §3.3.3.] The prenomen of Sihathor (7/26), Menwadjre, is preserved on a bead and a seal: Dewachter, RdE 28, 70-71. The prenomen of Nehsy (9/1), Asehre, is preserved on a pair of stelae: Abd el-Maqsoud, ASAE 69, 3-5, pl. 1. The prenomen of Nebiryraw I (11/5), Sewadjenre, is preserved on the Stèle juridique: text in Helck, Hist.-hiogr. Texte2·, 65. Only the prenomina of Jewefni (7/9), Ranisonb (7/16), and Nebiryraw II (11/6) remain unidentified.

28

Primary Sources for the Chronology

kings recorded by nomen alone had originally been recorded by both their prenomen and

nomen, and that the scribe simply omitted the prenomina in those cases where they had been damaged. §1.1.4.3

This leads to the question of why certain kings were recorded by both nomen and prenomen in the first place. To account for this inconsistency, Redford suggests that

‘ individuals accorded this treatment are those who, for whatever reason, had been known before their assumption of the prenomen, by a name which stuck in the tradition. This would be understandable with foreigners or natives who had made a mark for themselves before they

came to the throne.'™ This suggestion also gives rise to some scepticism. First of all, it is only Sobkhotep III among the kings in question who is actually attested prior to his accession in the contemporary sources at present available (§3.3.10). If these kings had made such a great name for themselves that it actually stuck in tradition we would expect

them to be attested by contemporary sources in more than just one case. One might also wonder what achievements would have caused so many petty kings to have been

remembered by name in later times. Who, for instance, would possibly have known of such obscure kings as ‘Anati and Babnum (TK 9/27-28) who ruled almost half a millennium prior to Ramesses II. These two kings did, in fact, rule a dissident dynasty

which was not even recognized in the Egyptian canon of the New Kingdom. Accordingly, Redford’s explanation must be regarded as highly unlikely. The main difficulty with the inconsistent record of the royal names is the fact that the inclusion of

the nomen seems to have been done completely at random. The most obvious reason to

include only the nomen for specific kings would be to make a distinction between kings who held the same prenomen,71 but this is evidently not the case, since most of the kings

in question had prenomina not otherwise attested, while a number of those recorded by their prenomen alone had one which is known to have been used by other kings of the

Second Intermediate Period as well. Judging from the accuracy with which the length of individual reigns is recorded, it must be assumed that the Turin King-list was compiled

ultimately from annals. Since such annals would in all likelihood have included the full royal titulary of all the individual kings, it should have been possible to include both the prenomen and nomen consistently if this had been desired. The peculiar inconsistency

must, as far as this study is concerned, remain unexplained. I would, however, concur with von Beckerath who argued that the inconsistent record of the royal names hardly

has any historical significance.72

70. Redford, Pharaonic King-lists, 7. Incidentally, Redford refers to imy-r msc as a military title added after a prenomen. This is not quite accurate since the title was actually the nomen, i.e. personal name, of the king, just as other titles could be used as personal names (cf. §3.3.9).

71. This is the case of the two royal canons at Abydos by Sety I and Ramesses II. 72. Von Beckerath, 2. Zwischenzeit, 31: 'Ein Grund, warum die Liste bald diese, bald jene Schreibweise verwendet, läßt sich also nicht angeben und wir dürfen wohl keine geschichtliche Bedeutung darin vermuten.'

The Turin King-List

§1.1.5

29

Excursus: The Vorlage of the Turin King-list

The layout of the Vorlage of the Turin King-list can be reconstructed with some certainty from the occurrence of the phrase ir.n=fm nswyt rnpt... Ibd... hrw..., ‘He acted

in kingship x years, x months, and x days.’ This phrase is added after the names of certain kings in the Turin King-list. These kings are followed by a number of kings whose reigns

are listed without this phrase, and the years, months and days of their reigns are simply

separated by tabulations and repetition-marks. Although one would expect the phrase to stand at the top of each column and the repetition marks to be used in the lines below, this is not the case. Quite to the contrary, repetition marks are often used in the top line,

and the phrase occurs within the column instead. The phrase is, however, consistently used for the first king of a dynasty. In 1954, Helck observed that if those cases where the

phrase is used for the first king of the dynasty are ignored, then it occurs at regular intervals of 13 to 16 lines.73 From this observation, it is plain that the phrase relates to a half-sized Vorlage where it would have been written at the top of each column, besides being used for the first king of each dynasty because of the preceding summation and sometimes also heading. Accordingly, it is clear that the scribe responsible for the Turin

King-list was slavishly copying what was before him without regard to the fact that he was using a full-size roll. There are only 13 and 14 lines between this phrase in the early

part of the document (3/17-4/4, 4/5-19), while there are 15 lines during the middle part (7/1-15, 7/16-8/3, 7/4-[8/17], [8/18]-9/4), and 16 lines during the latter part (9/4-9/19).74

This reveals that the writing gradually decreased in size in the original. The same feature is witnessed in the Turin King-list itself.

Malek has recently gone a step further and suggested that the original in fact contained a constant number of 16 lines per column and has, on this premise, produced a

hypothetical original.75 There are several problems with his reconstruction. Barta and von

Beckerath have immediately pointed out that it would be an exceptional feature for a document to have a constant number of lines per column.76 Malek’s reconstruction further assumes that certain lines in the Turin King-list had occupied two lines in the

original since the phrase evidently occurs at an interval of only 14 and 15 lines in several

cases. In fact, an interval of 16 lines is found only once. Malek’s method of determining

73. Helck, Manetho, 83-84. Redford [pharaonic King-lists, 9-10) has attempted to reject Helck’s thesis, but has clearly misunderstood Helck’s arguments. His own suggestion, that those kings after whose names the phrase was written were ‘ kings who stood out in the memory of the ancients, has rather unlikely implications. From this suggestion it would follow, e.g., that Amenemhet IV would have been regarded as more important than Senwosret ΠΙ and Amenemhet IH, and that an obscure king like Ranisonb of the Thirteenth Dynasty was more important than Neferhotep I and Sobkhotep IV. 74. The phrase is not preserved anywhere in col.3, but the fact that rnpt is written out in full for the age of the king in 3/17, whereas repetition marks were used in the following entries until 4/5, suggests that this entry originally stood on top of a column and that ir.n=f m nswyt would have stood in this line as well.

75. Malek, JEA 68,93-106. 76. Barta, GM 64, 12; von Beckerath, SAK 11, 51. Franke (Qrientalia 57, 256) states that Malek’s reconstruction is made under the assumption 'daß der Schreiber des pTurin bei seiner Kopie mehrere Zeilen der Vorlage weggelassen hať, but this is clearly a misinterpretation.

30

Primary Sources for the Chronology

which lines had occupied more than one line in the original does, however, contain a

methodical error. What constitutes his original column 9, occupies only 15 lines in the Turin King-list and he suggests accordingly that line 6/18 would have occupied two lines

in the original. The line is about 10 cm long. Line 9/4, however, is much longer - c. 14*/2 cm - but Malek does not divide this into two because what constitutes his original column

14, where the line in question belongs, is already 16 lines long. Furthermore, the physical

dimensions of the document are not taken into account. According to Malek’s reconstruction, col. 7-9 (his col. VI-VIII) of the Turin King-list had 29, 30, and 31 lines

respectively. Taking the physical dimensions into account, it can, however, be estimated that these columns had 28, 29 and 30 lines respectively (cf. §1.1.3.2.1-3, §1.1.5) which is incompatible with Malek’s reconstruction.77 On these grounds, Malek’s reconstruction

must be rejected. On the basis of the observations made by Helck concerning the phrase ir.n=f m nswyt and the new reconstruction here suggested, the layout of the Vorlage of the Turin Kinglist can be reconstructed as presented in table 5.78 In this reconstruction, the number of

lines per column in the Turin King-list is important. While the document is damaged, the

number of lines is preserved in coL 3-6, and it can be estimated with some certainty for col. 7-9. The number of lines in the few remaining columns (1-2,10) can be estimated on

the basis of the pattern of the supposed layout of the original. The result is as follows: col. 1 (25 lines), 2 (26 lines), 3 (25 lines of which one is blank), 4 (26 lines), 5 (26 lines), 6

(25 lines), 7 (28 lines), 8 (29 lines), 9 (30 lines), 10 (30 lines), and 11 (31 lines). According to this reconstruction, the Vorlage of the Turin King-list contained at least

21 columns. As noted above (§1.1.1), it seems unlikely that more than one column is lost

at the end of the king-list. Depending on whether the kings of the New Kingdom (until Ramesses II) were included in the Vorlage or not, it would therefore have contained

either 22 or 23 columns.

77. Von Beckerath (SAK 11, 52-54) states that he has examined the original and that columns 7-9 had 27, 28 and 31 lines respectively. However, not a single column is completely preserved in the document and since he does not state how these figures were arrived at, it is difficult to make use of them. 78. In the table, the sharp brackets refer to fragments that are not in their correct position in Gardiner’s edition of the Turin King-list. It should further be noted that the line numbering of col. 1 is misleading, since the vertical alignment of the group of fragments as a whole is uncertain. While fr. 9 seems to have a bottom margin on the recto, this is not necessarily so and at any rate there is no horizontal fibre correspondence with the unnumbered fragment to the left, which suggests that fr. 9 should be placed either higher up (above fr. 10) or further down (below the unnumbered fragment). An unnumbered fragment which contains the word 3bd was placed in 6/1 by Ibscher, and is found in this position in both Farina’s and Gardiner’s editions. Since Ibd is written out, this would suggest that the ir.n=f m nswyt formula also stood in this line. In fact, it is clear from the fibres that the fragment joins to the right of fr. 59 and belongs to the record of Teti (5/1). The position of this fragment was already questioned by Gardiner (Royal Canon, 16, note to IV/1 and V/1), and it is interesting to note that it was correctly placed already by Seyffarth, as seen from the editions of Lepsius and Wilkinson. A similar table has recently published by Helck (SAK 19, 184-186), but this is based on an incorrect reconstruction of the Turin King-list.

The Turin King-List

Original Col. No. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col.

I II Ill IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI

31

No. of Lines

Turin King-list Position

13 lines 13 lines 13 lines 13 lines 13 lines 13 lines 14 lines 14 lines 15 lines 15 lines 15 lines 15 lines 15 lines 15 lines 16 lines 16 lines 16 lines 16 lines 17 lines 17 lines ? lines

1/1 1/15 2/4 2/17 3/4 3/17 4/5 4/19 5/7 5/22 6/11 7/1 7/16 8/3 8/18 9/4 9/20 10/6 10/23 11/10 11/27

-

1/14 2/3 2/16 3/3 3/16 4/4 4/18 5/6 5/21 6/10 6/25 7/15 8/2 8/17 9/3 9/19 10/5 10/22 11/9 11/26 lost

ir.n=f m nswyt

Lacuna Lacuna Preserved [Fr. 41a+42/4] Lacuna (Summation) Preserved 3/17 Preserved 4/5 Preserved 4/19 Preserved [Fr. 40/1] Preserved [Fr. 48 + 36/1] (Heading) Preserved 7/1 Preserved 7/16 Preserved 8/3 Lacuna Preserved 9/4 Preserved 9/20 Lacuna Lacuna Lacuna Preserved 11/27

Table 5: Suggested Layout of the Immediate Vorlage of the Turin King-list.

§1.1.6

Excursus: The Transmission of the Turin King-list and the Dynastic Divisions

Owing to specific inconsistencies in the reckoning of reigns, there is reason to believe that five sources for the Turin King-list can be identified (table 6). These inconsistencies

are especially important because they correspond to certain dynastic groupings of the

kings as preserved in the Manethonian tradition as well as in modern divisions of the material culture of ancient Egypt. Obviously, it cannot be excluded that some of these

five sources were produced from different sources themselves. It seems unlikely, for instance, that the annals of the Memphite kings should also have included those of Avaris, and vice versa.

Source

A. B. C. D. E.

Period Early Dynastic Period [Dyn. I-II]'79 Old Kingdom [Dyn. Ill-VI]80 Late OK, FIP [excl. Dyn. XI] The Eleventh Dynasty The Twelfth Dynasty, SIP [Dyn. XII-XVI]

Characteristics (reckoning of reign) Years, months, days, and age of king Years only Years, months, days81 Years only Years, months, days

Table 6: Discernable sources for the ultimate Vorlage of the Turin King-list.

79. Sc. Menes through Bebi. 80. Sc. Nebka through Pepi II.

81. The only two reigns of Dynasty IX/X that are preserved both record the number of months (5/26 = fr. 48 + 36, and 6/1) which makes it clear that the individual reigns were not recorded in round years.

Primary Sources for the Chronology

32

These five sources were presumably merged some time early in the Eighteenth Dynasty, and a complete king-list established. This ultimate compilation may be designated ‘ Vorlage A’. In the above discussions, it has become clear that the Turin King-list can be traced back to a

lacuna riddled manuscript, a copy of ‘ Vorlage A’ which may be designated ‘ Vorlage B’. This manuscript was later copied and the lacunae marked with the notation wsf "Vorlage C’. In the Turin King-list, the lost records of specific kings are emended with round figures to avoid

chronological gaps in the list. Thus, for instance, the total reign of the ten kings of the Late Old Kingdom whose records were completely lost was emended as a round six years. This suggests that the scribe responsible for the emendations did not realize the size of the lacunae which were reported in his Vorlage. Apparently, he supposed that each wsf notation that did not indicate a partially damaged record (such as 9/12 and 11/8 where the number of months were lost) represented only a single lost reign and not, as in the case of the Late Old Kingdom, several reigns. Accordingly, these emendations cannot have been made by the

scribe responsible for Vorlage C, but only by a later scribe whose copy may be designated "Vorlage D’. It is from this copy that the immediate Vorlage of the Turin King-list, " Vorlage E’, a half-size roll, was copied. Accordingly, the following table of transmission may be

produced:

Source A Archaic Period

Source B Old Kingdom

Source C Late OK, FIP

Source D Dyn. XI

Source E Dyn. ΧΠ, SIP

Vorlage A

Compilation of Sources A-E.

Vorlage B

Lacuna riddled document.

Vorlage C

Lacunae are marked with the notation wsf, 'lacuna1.

Vorlage D

Average reigns ofsix years assigned tokings whose reigns were recorded as lost in Vorlage C to avoid chronological gaps. Evidently the scribe was unaware that the lacuna in the Late Old Kingdom included more than one king.

Vorlage E

Direct Vorlage of Turin King-list. A halfsize roll of 22 or 23 columns with 13-16 lines per column. The formula ir.n=fm nswyt was used for the first king of each dynasty and at the top of each column, while repetition marks were used in the entries following below.

Turin King-list

Slavish copy of Vorlage E, but on a full-size roll with 25-31 lines per column. Date: Ramesses II.

Table 7: Transmission of the Turin King-list.

In his investigation of the Turin King-list, Redford concluded that "The Manethonian

divisions of the dynasties of the Old Kingdom and the First Intermediate Period... are not yet part ofthe tradition in Ramesside times, and are therefore a later development.,82 However,

82. Redford, Pharaonic King-lists, 13.

The Turin King-List

33

a closer examination o£ the Turin King-list reveals that several of Manetho’s dynasties were in fact ancient concepts that existed already by the Nineteenth Dynasty. As argued

above, the ultimate sources for the Turin King-list were systematically defined and contained respectively the kings of the Archaic Period, the Old Kingdom, the Late Old Kingdom and the First Intermediate Period (excluding Dynasty XI), the Eleventh

Dynasty, and the Twelfth Dynasty and the Second Intermediate Period. These divisions are further broken down by summations in the Turin King-list itself.

Period

Vorlage

Turin King-list

Dyn. Dyn. Dyn. Dyn. Dyn. Dyn. Dyn. Dyn. Dyn. Dyn. Dyn.

Source A Source B Source B Source C Source C Source D Source E Source E Source E Source E Source E

Summation for Dyn. 1-5 (4/26) Summation for Dyn. 6-8 (5/14-15) Summations for Dyn. 6-8 (5/14-15) and Dyn. 1-8 (5/15-17) Summation (6/10) Heading (6/11) and summation (6/18) Heading (6/19) and summation (7/3) Heading (7/4), no summation preserved83 Summation (10/21) Summation (10/29) Summation (11/15)

1-2 3-5 6 7-8 9-10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Table 8: Chronological Divisions in the Turin King-list and its Ultimate Sources combined.

The divisions made after Neferkasokar (Second - Third Dynasty), after Unas (Fifth Sixth Dynasty), and after Pepi II (Sixth - Seventh Dynasty) are all present in the Manethonian tradition.84 Contrary to Redford’s conclusion, it is therefore evident that

some of the more important chronological divisions of the third millennium were already part of the tradition by the Nineteenth Dynasty, if not earlier.85 It is interesting to

observe that the reigns included in source ‘A’ (Early Dynastic Period) and ‘B’ (Old Kingdom) reflect periods of cultural homogeneity at certain levels which are discernible today. This can hardly be regarded as a coincidence, but rather suggests that the ancient Egyptian ‘chronographers’ were aware of certain changes in their cultural history.86

83. The heading may be intended for the entire Second Intermediate Period rather than just the Thirteenth Dynasty, but this has little bearing upon the present discussion. Although it is not preserved, one would also assume that the overlapping Thirteenth and Fourteenth Dynasties were originally distinguished by a summation since they would otherwise be the only overlapping dynasties not to be so distinguished. 84. There is a slight discrepancy as regards the end of the Sixth Dynasty in Source B and the Manethonian tradition. Source B, like the Saqqara Canon, ends the Old Kingdom with Pepi II, while the Manethonian tradition or at least Africanus includes the reigns of his two ephemeral successors.

85. It remains unclear when source ‘A’, Έ’ and ‘C’ were composed, but the Turin King-list was evidently a third generation copy of an original which incorporated these three sources. Source ‘C’ can obviously not have been composed prior to the beginning of the New Kingdom, but source ‘B’ may have been composed during the Middle Kingdom and source ‘A’ as early as the Old Kingdom.

86. These changes may be rather plain and one might indeed assume that Dynasties I-Π and Dynasties III-VI were distinguished on the basis of the introduction of stone building and the change in royal tombs from mastabas to pyramids.

34

Primary Sources for the Chronology

§1.2

Royal Scarab-Shaped Seals

§1.2.1

Royal Scarab-Shaped Seals of the Thirteenth Dynasty

§1.2.1.1

Seals of Kings During the Thirteenth Dynasty, scarab-shaped seals are almost exclusively attested for a sequence of seven kings in the middle of the dynasty: Sobkhotep ΙΠ, Neferhotep I, Sobkhotep IV, Sobkhotep V (Merhotepre), Sobkhotep VI (Khahotepre), Ibiaw, and Aya.87 Except for Sobkhotep V, the position of these kings is firmly established by the Turin King-list and a sériation of their scarab-shaped seals confirms their arrangement in the king-list.88 Only the record of Sobkhotep V is not preserved in the king-list, and he remains the one king of the Thirteenth Dynasty whose exact position can be established through the attributes of scarab­ shaped seals.89 Royal scarab-shaped seals of the Thirteenth Dynasty therefore have little to

§1.2.1.1.1

offer by way of dating the kings and are more interesting for a comparison with the contemporary royal seals of the Fourteenth Dynasty.90 They will therefore be dealt with rather briefly and only their designs will be considered.91 The three main designs, all symmetrical along a vertical axis, may be referred to as the genealogical type, the ntr-nfr type, and the P&N (prenomen plus nomen) type. The genealogical type was used by Sobkhotep ΙΠ (fig. 1, a-b), Neferhotep I (fig. 1, c-d), [Sihathor (fig. 1, e)], Sobkhotep IV (fig. 1, f-g), and Sobkhotep V (fig. 1, h-i).92 In each case it

87. Neferhotep Fs ephemeral coregent (and brother) Sihathor never had an independent reign and remains unattested by scarab-shaped seals. For this reason, he is omitted from the list. During the first 50 years of the Thirteenth Dynasty, scarab-shaped seals are only attested for Sonbef (1 seal: cf. file 13/2), Amenemhet VII (2 seals: cf. file 13/20), Khendjer (2 seals: cf. file 13/22), one of the two kings with the prenomen Sekhemkare, either Sonbef or Amenemhet V (1 seal: cf. file P/5), and the obscure King Sobk (3 seals: cf. file N/4).

88. See Ward, in Tufnell, Studies, II, 158. 89. The obscure King Sobk, whose nomen is inscribed on three seals, can possibly be identified with either Nerikare or Khabaw whose nomina remain unidentified (see file N/4). This is not so much due to a stylistic analysis, since the seals can only be dated roughly to the early Thirteenth Dynasty, before Sobkhotep III, but rather the fact that the nomina of most of the kings who come into consideration are already known and only a few possible candidates remain.

90. Obviously a sériation of the royal seals would constitute an all-important dating criterion for the extensive list of Thirteenth Dynasty officials attested by seals, but this falls outside the scope of the present study.

91. For a more complete discussion of royal seals of the Thirteenth Dynasty, see Ward, in Tufnell, Studies, II, 156-161, 184-192; cf. also Ward - Dever, Studies, III, 128-129. 92. Sobkhotep ΙΠ: e.g., Tufnell, Studies, Π, nos. 3099-3108. Neferhotep I: e.g., ibid. nos. 3111-3130. Sobkhotep IV: e.g., ibid. nos. 3133-3161. Sobkhotep V: Petrie - Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. LXXX [5]; Newberry, PSBA 36, 170, pl. X [c]; Tufnell, op. cit. no. 3533. These are the only known seals of Sobkhotep V so far published. No scarab-shaped seal of Sihathor has yet come to light, but a cylinder-seal of his contains the same design: Martin, Seals, no. 976. The purpose of the genealogical design is discussed in §3.9.1.1.

Royal Scarab-Shaped Seals

35

Sobkhotep III, paternal/maternal

Neferhotep I, paternal/maternal

(Left: Martin, Seals, no. 568) (Right: Tufnell, Studies, Π, no. 3104)

(Left: Hornung-Staehelin, Skarabäen, no. 106) (Right: Hornung-Staehelin, Skarabäen, no. 108)

Sobkhotep IV, paternal/maternal

Sobkhotep V, paternal/maternal

(Left: Martin, Seals, no. 948) (Right: Hornung-Staehelin, Skarabäen, no. 112)

(Left: Petrie-Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. LXXX/5) (Right: Newberry, PSBA 36, 170, pl. X/c)

Fig. 1. Thirteenth Dynasty Royal Scarab-seals. Genealogical Type (enlarged).

Sobkhotep IV

Ibiaw

Aya

(Tufnell, Studies, Π, no. 3131)

(Tufnell, Studies, Π, no. 3170)

(Hornung-Staehelin, Skarabäen, no. 126)

Fig. 2. Thirteenth Dynasty Royal Scarab-seals. Ntr-nfr Type (enlarged).

Primary Sources for the Chronology

36

Sobkhotep VI

Aya

(Hornung-Staehelin, Skarabäen, no. 118)

(Tufnell, Studies, II, no. 3198)

Fig. 3. Thirteenth Dynasty Royal Scarab-seals. P&N Type (enlarged).

Queen, King’s Mother Nubhotepti I

Queen Sonbhenas I

Queen Wadjet

(Newberry, Scarabs, pl. XLIV/13)

(Newberry, Scarabs, pl. XIII/30)

(Petrie, Historical Scarabs, no. 350)

Fig. 4. Thirteenth Dynasty, Royal Scarab-seals, Queen Type A (enlarged).

Senior Queen Ini

Senior Queen ‘Ankhmari’

Senior Queen Sitsobk

Senior Queen Nubhotepti II

(Tufnell, Studies, II, no. 3530)

(Newberry, JEA 18, 142, fig. 3)

(Giveon, RdÉ 30, 164, fig. 6)

(Newberry, Scarabs, XII/26)

Fig. 5. Thirteenth Dynasty, Royal Scarab-seals, Queen Type B (enlarged).

Royal Scarab-Shaped Seals

37

was the predominant type of seal to be used by the king. Originally, i.e. under Sobkhotep ΠΙ, the design consisted of the title ntr-nfr followed the prenomen and nomen placed within the same cartouche on one side, and either the paternal [ir.n it-ntrNN, ‘begotten by the God’s

§1.2.1.1.2

§1.2.1.1.3

Father NN’) or the maternal filiation (mst.n mwt-nsw NN, ‘borne by the King’s Mother NN’) on the other side. This design was changed by Neferhotep I and henceforth consisted of either the title ntr-nfr followed by the prenomen and the paternal filiation, or the title s3-rc followed by the nomen and the maternal filiation. The ntr-nfr type is attested for Sobkhotep IV (fig. 2, a), Ibiaw (fig. 2, b), and Aya (fig. 2, c).93 The design consists of the title ntr-nfr on one side, the signs being arranged one above the other, and the prenomen of the king on the other side. Sobkhotep IV is the first king attested by this type of seal and it may be argued that this new design was made towards the end of his reign since only two of the c. 70 known seals of his belong to this type. The design is not attested during the reigns of his two immediate successors, Sobkhotep V and Sobkhotep VI, but this may be nothing more than a coincidence since these kings are attested by only three and six scarab-shaped seals respectively. Finally, the P&N type is attested for Sobkhotep VI (fig. 3, a) and Aya (fig. 3, b).94 It is not attested for Ibiaw whose reign fell between the two, but again this may be regarded as a coincidence since that king is attested by only seven scarab-shaped seals. The design consists of the title ntr-nfr followed by the prenomen on one side, and the title sNrc followed by the nomen on the other.95 For some unknown reason all six seals of Sobkhotep VI omit the

cartouche for the nomen.96 This peculiarity is also attested for Aya, but only on one out of c. 60 seals.97

Kings

TK

Sobkhotep III Neferhotep I (Sihathor) Sobkhotep IV Sobkhotep V Sobkhotep VI Ibiaw Aya

7/24 7/25 7/26 7/27 [7/28] 8/1 8/2 8/3

Seals

19 56 (1) 71 3 6 7 55

Geneal.

ntr-nfr

P&N

X X (X) X X -

X X X

X X

Table 9: The Distribution of the Main Types of Royal Thirteenth Dynasty Scarab-Shaped Seals.

93. Sobkhotep IV: Hilton-Price, Egyptian Antiquities, 439 [3693]; Tufnell, Studies, II, no. 3131. These are the only two seals of Sobkhotep IV with this design. Ibiaw: e.g., ibid. nos. 3169-3171. Aya: e.g. ibid. nos. 31813190. 94. Sobkhotep VI: e.g., Tufnell, Studies, II, nos. 3163, 3167. Aya: e.g., ibid. nos. 3193, 3198, 3201 [Aya].

95. Two seals of Neferhotep I are rather similar to these seals, except that they contain the epithets di cnh ddvris-. Berlin 313/73 [Ex Michaelides] (unpublished), Chicago 16886 (Tufnell, Studies, II, no. 3110). One may also compare two seals of Khendjer which contain the epithet di cnh, but which are preceded by the title nsw-bit-. Basel Cat. 103 (Hornung - Staehelin, Skarabäen, no. 103), the present location of the other is unknown (Chassinat, BIFAO 10, 162 [IV]). 96. It seems doubtful if this was meant to signal a non-royal origin, cf. §3.3.13. 97. For this seal, see Tufnell, Studies, II, no. 3201.

38

§1.2.1.2

Primary Sources for the Chronology

Seals of Queens

The seals of queens of the Thirteenth Dynasty can be divided into two main types. Type A uses a closed scroll border with three paired loops for decoration and never contains the title hnmt-nfr-hdt (fig. 4). Type B has no decoration but invariably places the name

on one side, the title hnmt-nfr-hdt on the other, and the title hmt-nsw (wrt) above both

(fig. 5). In the following, an attempt is made to date these two groups of seals. Queen Ini is attested by a considerable number of scarab-shaped seals which are exclusively type B.98 Leaving aside the design, the remaining attributes date her securely in the Thirteenth Dynasty.99 Her seals use square heads of a type (Tufnell type C7) found

within the period from Sobkhotep III to Aya.100 The use of trapezoidal heads (Tufnell

type D5) which came into use during the reign of Sobkhotep IV, further narrows down the period by excluding the reigns of Sobkhotep III and Neferhotep I. Most important

is the use of notched legs of a type (Tufnell type elO) which is attested exclusively for King Aya during the Thirteenth Dynasty (occurring on about 20% of his seals). These

attributes strongly suggest that the seals of Queen Ini were produced during the reign of

King Aya and that she was accordingly his spouse. The fact that she is the best attested queen of the Thirteenth Dynasty (though only attested by seals) agrees well with her being the spouse of Aya whose reign of 24 years was the longest of the Thirteenth

Dynasty. Both types of seals are found with the name of a Queen Nubhotepti. However, the

seals of Type A record exclusively the titles hmt-nsw mwt-nsw, ‘Queen, King’s Mother’,101

98. Basel Cat. 127: Tufnell, Studies, II, 184 [Supl. Ser. Queen Ini\. Berlin 18486: Kaiser, Ägyptisches Museum Berlin, 39, 41 [334]. Berlin 314/73 [Ex Michaelides]: Unpublished. Berlin 315/73 [Ex Michaelides]: Unpublished. Berlin 316/73 [Ex Michaelides]: Unpublished. Ex Bissing: Newberry, Scarabs, 129, pl. XII [5]. Ex Blanchard: Brunton, ASAE 49,103 [42], fig. 3; Haynes - Markowitz, Scarabs and Design Amulets, no. 13. BM EA 65573: Unpublished. BMFA (seal-impression, from Kerma): Reisner, Kerma, IV-V, fig. 168 [59]; Reisner, Kerma, I-III, pl. III.l. BMFA 1979.600: Unpublished. BM EA 32311: Hall, Cat. ofEg Scarabs, 21 [202]. Cairo JE 74961-74962: Engelbach, ASAE 41, 228. Louvre [Salle historique 456]: Petrie, Historical Scarabs, 12 [353]; Wiedemann, 13-14ten Dynastie, no. 112; Newberry, Scarabs, 129, pl. XII [4]. MMA 26.7.83 (Ex Timmins and Carnarvon): Newberry, Timins Collection, 15, pl. 4 [48]. MMA 22.1.332 (from Lisht): Mace, BMMA 1922, Part 2, 16, fig. 22 [4]; Hayes, Scepter, I, 344, fig. 226. MMA 22.1.418 (from Lisht): Mace, JEA 8, 14, pl. Ill [6]; Hayes, Scepter, I, 344. Moscow 2171: Hodjash, Bgcthhkò, 62, pl. I [13]. Ex Thilenius (from Dendera): Wiedemann, 13- 14tenDynastie, no. 113. Petrie Museum 11581: Petrie, Scarabsand Cylinders, pl. XIX [13.DH.1]; Tufnell, Studies, II, no. 3528. Petrie Museum 11582: Petrie, op. cit., pl. XIX [13.DH.2]. Petrie Museum 11583: Petrie, op. cit., pl. XIX [13.DH.3]; Tufnell, op. cit., no. 3529. Petrie Museum 11586: Petrie, Buttons and Design Scarabs, pl. XIX [13.29.4]; Tufnell, op. cit., no. 3530.

99. For the date range of specific attributes, see the distribution lists in Tufnell, Studies, II, 184-192. 100. In the period of the Thirteenth Dynasty subsequent to the reign of King Aya, there followed an apparent decrease in the production of scarab-shaped seals and only a single royal scarab-shaped seal is known from the final 30 years of the dynasty. This is a seal of Sobkhotep VII: Catalogue, file 13/38 (2). It is therefore not possible to make any general statements as to which types might have been used during this period, but at the same time it is quite improbable that Queen Aya, who is well-attested by scarab-shaped seals, should belong to this period when royal scarab-shaped seals had become so rare. 101. Private Coll.: Hari, BSEG 4, 45-48. BM EA 40699: Tufnell, Studies, II, no. 3535. MMA 26.7.70 (Ex Carnarvon): Hayes, Scepter, I, 344, fig. 226. MMA 30.8.642 [Ex Murch, Ex Davis]: Newberry, Scarabs, 199, pl. XLIV [13]; Mace, JEA 7, 36; Hayes, Scepter, I, 344. Ex Tigrane Pacha: Daninos, Coll, d'antiquités

Royal Scarab-Shaped Seals

39

whereas the seals of Type B record exclusively the titles tont-nsw-wrt hnmt-nfr-hdt, ‘Senior

Queen, She who is united with the White Crown’.102 Given the improbability that a Senior Queen would have abandoned the use of the epithet Senior on the accession of her son, on which occasion she became King’s Mother as well, it would appear that we are

here dealing with two different queens. It is argued below (§3.3.5.5) that the Queen and King’s Mother Nubhotepti was a spouse of King Hor who appears to have been succeeded by one or two sons of his. The spouse of the Senior Queen Nubhotepti (II) at

present remains unidentified. Both types of seals are also found with the name of a Queen Sonbhenas.103 Again it is

likely that we are dealing with two queens since both King Khendjer and King Sobkhotep III appear to have had a queen by this name (§3.3.8.2, §3.3.10.3).

The spouses of the remaining queens who are attested by either Type A or B are

unidentified, and accordingly their dates remain uncertain. The queens in question are: Ahhotepti (A), ‘Ankhmari’ (B), Nehyt (B), Resunefer (B), Sithathor (B), Sitsobk (B), and

Wadjet (A).104 Since there are no certain cases of a queen using both types, nor any other certain indications that both types were used at the same time, it might be suggested that the two

types reflect a chronological development. This would make type A, which was used by

the spouse of Hor, the earlier design, and type B, which was used by the spouse of Aya, the later. Accordingly, Sonbhenas using type A may be identified as the queen of

Khendjer, and Sonbhenas using type B as the queen of Sobkhotep III. This arrangement would provide a date for the transition from type A to type B in the period between the

reigns of Khendjer and Sobkhotep III. Since Sobkhotep III evidently made a break with

the past on his accession, a break which included a complete change in the design of

égyptiennes de Tigrane Pacha, 15, pl. XLIII. A further seal (BM EA 66155, unpublished) inscribed with the legend ‘Queen, King’s Mother Nubhotepti’ does not have the scroll border, but should probably be ascribed to this queen as well. A statuette from Semna (now in the BMFA) also attests to this queen: Dunham Janssen, SemnaKumma, 28 [field no. 24-3-514], pl. 87 [A, A1]. 102. BM EA 65964: Unpublished. Ex Murch: Newberry, Scarabs, 131, pl. XII [26]; Tufnell, Studies, II, no. 3536. MMA 26.7.94 [Ex Carnarvon]: Hayes, Scepter, I, 344, fig. 226; Tufnell, Studies, II, 184 [Supl. Ser. Queen Nubhetepti (2nd)]. Petrie Museum 11517: Petrie, Scarabsand Cylinders, pl. XVIII [13 DB], LXXII. A further seal inscribed with the legend ‘Senior Queen Nubhotepti’ has neither the scroll border nor the epithet hnmtnfr-hdt, but instead a rope border (Martin Type 4a). The seal in question is from the Tigrane Pacha collection: Daninos, Coll, d'antiquités égyptiennes de Tigrane Pacha, 15, pl. XLIII.

103. Type A. Berlin 10977: Newberry, Scarabs, 134, pl. XIII [30]; Kaiser, Ägyptisches Museum Berlin, 39, 41 [335]. Cairo: Petrie, Scarabsand Cylinders, pl. XVIII [Senb Henos]. Type B. BM EA 40700: Hall, Cat. of Eg Scarabs, 21 [204]. Another scarab of a Queen Sonbhenas (Berlin 9518) is unpublished and cannot be classified: cf. Ausführliches Verzeichnis2, 416. 104. Ahhotepti. Ex Tigrane Pasha: Newberry, PSBA 36, 39 [o], pl. 4 [12]. ‘Ankhmari’. Berlin 317/73 [Ex Blanchard and Michaelides]: Newberry, JEA 18, 142. Newberry’s reading of the name Qïh-nfri) does not seem certain; perhaps it should rather be read cnh(ti) m crk, ‘She who lives by oath’ or ‘She who lives on perception’. Nehyt. Berlin 319/73 [Ex Michaelides]: Unpublished. Resunefer. BM EA 32291: Hall, Cat. of Eg Scarabs, 21 [203]. Sithathor. Petrie Museum 11595: Petrie, Scarabsand Cylinders, pl. 19 [14 A]. Sitsobk. Private Coll.: Giveon, RdÉ 30, 164, pl. 7 [fig. 6]. Wadiet. Petrie Museum 11516 [Ex Grant]: Petrie, Historical Scarabs, 12 [350]; Wiedemann, 13-14len Dynastie, no. 5; Petrie, Scarabs and Cylinders, pl. XVIII [13.DA].

Primary Sources for the Chronology

40

kingly scarab-shaped seals,105 it is tempting also to date the change in design of queenly seals specifically to his reign.

Name

Date

Main Titles

Type A

Nubhotepti I Ahhotepti Wadjet Sonbhenas I

Hor ? ? Khendjer

hmt-nsw y mwt-nsw hmt-nsw, mwt-nsw hmt-nsw hmt-nsw

Type B

Sonbhenas II Ini ‘Ankhmari’ Nehyt Nubhotepti Π Resunefer Sithathor Sitsobk

Sobkhotep III Aya ? ? ? ? ? ?

hmt-nsw hmt-nsw wrt hmt-nsw wrt hmt-nsw wrt hmt-nsw wrt hmt-nsw wrt hmt-nsw [wrt ?] hmt-nsw wrt

Table 10: The Two Main Types of Queenly Seals of Thirteenth Dynasty and their Distribution.

§1.2.2

Royal Scarab-Shaped Seals of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Dynasties

The Second Intermediate Period features a number of kings that are only attested by scarab-shaped seals (and seal-impressions) and whose date and identity remain uncertain.

The seals contain either the prenomen or the nomen of the individual kings, and often it is not certain which of these names belongs to the same king. The ‘floating’ nomina in

question are: ‘Ammu, Nuya, Qareh, Sheneh, Shenshek, Sheshi, Ya'ammu, Yakbim, Ya-kr-r-b and Wazad, while the ‘floating’ prenomina are: Ahotepre, Hotepibre, Khamure,

Khawoserre, Maaibre, Nubwoserre, and Sekhaenre. Only in the case of Ya‘qub-Har Merwoserre is the identification of a specific prenomen as belonging to a specific nomen

certain because a unique seal records both names. The seals form a relatively homogenous group which is quite distinct in the range of attributes from royal seals from the Southern

Egyptian dynasties, i.e. the Thirteenth, Sixteenth and Seventeenth Dynasties, but which

closely matches the attributes of royal seals datable to the Fourteenth (Nehsy,

Sekheperenre) and the Fifteenth Dynasty (Khayan, Apophis). This, together with the fact that the nomina are predominantly foreign, suggests that the kings in question belong to

either of those two dynasties, and in the following an attempt to narrow down the dates of the individual kings will be made. §1.2.2.1

Main Group/Sequence

Sl.2.2.1.1

Ward’s Sériation: In 1984, Tufnell published the second volume of Studies on Scarab Seals

105. I.e. the introduction of the genealogical type seal and abandonment of earlier types: cf. §1.2.1.1.1 and §3.9.1.1.

Royal Scarab-Shaped Seals

41

which includes the most comprehensive collection of royal scarab-shaped seals of the Second Intermediate Period published to date. Nearly 550 scarab-shaped seals belonging or thought to belong to the Second Intermediate Period were included, many of which had not previously been published. Each of these seals was classified according to the following attributes: design (i.e. decoration on base), head, back and side. All the royal

seals were discussed in a chapter by Ward.106 These include about 300 seals inscribed for the kings here in question. In order to establish a chronological sequence of these kings, Ward first separated a group consisting of the better attested kings, the main sequence. He then suggested that

certain floating prenomina and nomina could be identified as belonging to the same king on stylistic grounds, i.e. Yakbim + Sekhaenre, Yaammu + Nubwoserre, ‘Ammu + Khawoserre, and Sheshi + Maaibre. For the prenomen Ahotepre no corresponding nomen was identified. His main sequence thus came to include the following kings: ‘Ammu Khawoserre, Apophis Awoserre, Khayan Sewoserenre, Sheshi Maaibre, Yakbim

Sekhaenre, Ya‘ammu Nubwoserre, Ya‘qub-Har Merwoserre, and [no identified nomen] Ahotepre. Within this main sequence of kings, Ward found only one chronological fixed point

on which to pinpoint the sequence, namely Apophis from the end of the Fifteenth Dynasty. For lack of other fixed points, Ward adopted the working hypothesis that an

increase or decrease in seal length would reflect a chronological change.107 Since Apophis

seals are the smallest, he conjectured a development of gradual decrease in size and came up with a rough order of kings: ‘Ammu Khawoserre (21 mm), Khayan Sewoserenre /

Ya‘qub-Har Merwoserre / Sheshi Maaibre (20 mm), Yakbim Sekhaenre / Ya‘ammu Nubwoserre (18 mm), [no identified nomen] Ahotepre (17 mm) and Apophis Awoserre (16 mm). Having set up a working order by seal length, a sériation was then produced

according to various attributes. This resulted in a sequence of kings which differed only slightly from the previous one: Khayan Sewoserenre, Ya‘qub-Har Merwoserre, Sheshi

Maaibre, ‘Ammu Khawoserre, Yakbim Sekhaenre, Ya‘ammu Nubwoserre, [no identified

106. Ward, in Tufnell, Studies, II, 162-173. The slightly more recent study of Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period seals published by O’Connor in 1985 (SSEAJ 15, 3-14) contains methodical problems and has led to limited results concerning royal seals. First of all, it is limited to the two collections of the British Museum and University College. Although these are two of the largest collections, they contain only part of the seals here in question and many kings and attributes are not represented there. Furthermore, it does not discuss the profile which forms an integral part of the cutting technique and affords a very important dating criterion. The study also includes a considerable number of seals which are not royal and/or contemporary and which seriously disturbs the sériation and leads to incorrect results. Most of the seals attributed to Twelfth Dynasty kings are certainly neither royal nor contemporary. Ironically, these seals are classified into groups called ‘significantly miswritten names’, ‘orthographically peculiar klhieroglyph’, and ‘corrupt writings of name’. Similarly, most of the seals attributed to Apophis and Rahotep are not royal either (cf. § 1.2.3.3-5). The seals attributed to Monthhotep! Sankhenre are clearly inscribed with the prenomen Sewadjenre and belong to Nebiryraw I. The effects on some of the conclusions are devastating. Thus the seals and seal-impressions from the Uronarti Fortress are dated to the Twelfth, Thirteenth, and early Fifteenth Dynasties, but it can be shown that the vast majority dates to a period of no more than a few months in the early Thirteenth Dynasty! For a more detailed criticism of O’Connor’s typology, see Ward - Dever, Studies, III, 13-20. 107. Ward, in Tufnell, Studies, II, 164.

42

Primary Sources for the Chronology

nomen] Ahotepre, and Apophis Awoserre.108

Criticism of Ward's Sériation: While I agree with the basic premise of Ward’s study, that

a pattern with gradual changes will reflect a chronological development, there are severe problems with his conclusions both internally and externally. Internally, not only is his pattern broken by the placing of Apophis, but most of the seals ascribed to this king are in fact neither royal nor contemporary (§1.2.3.3-4) and their inclusion has a seriously disturbing effect on the sériation. The royal attributes are not

properly taken into consideration either. Ward excludes references to the royal titles and epithets which certainly constitute a principal attribute and which would have shown

serious inconsistencies in his sériation. For example, the use of epithets after the nomen is attested for his first four kings, not for the two following, but again for the last two.

Similar critical inconsistencies are found with the use of cartouches, the panel design, and the use of notched legs. There also appears to be a problem with two of Ward’s proposed identifications

between prenomina and nomina. The distribution of prenomina and nomina on the more than 600 royal seals of the Fourteenth/Fifteenth Dynasties here under discussion is such that approximately one third contain nomina and two thirds contain prenomina.

We must then a priori expect a similar balance of seals with either the nomen or prenomen of the individual kings.109 It is therefore problematic that Ward can find no corresponding nomen for the prenomen Ahotepre with which at least 31 seals are inscribed.110 Externally, two archaeological contexts make it clear that both Sheshi and Ya‘qub-Har must be dated well before the Hyksos age. A seal-impression of Sheshi was found at the Uronarti fortress in Nubia in an archaeological context which can with some certainty

be dated to the early Thirteenth Dynasty on account of seal-impressions of two early Thirteenth Dynasty kings found within the same context.111 A seal of Ya‘qub-Har was found at Shikmona in an archaeological context which reflects the transition MB II/a-b

and which accordingly provides a terminus ante quem for this king contemporary with

the mid-late Thirteenth Dynasty.112 Accordingly, Sheshi and Ya‘qub-Har cannot possibly

108. Ward, in Tufnell, Studies, II, 168. 109. It may also be noted that the royal seals of the genealogical type used by the kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty are divided into roughly one half inscribed with the nomen and one half with the prenomen. 110. See the Catalogue, file 14/4.

111. The significance of this context has only been recognized recently and its full implications remains to be explored. For a brief discussion of the chronological implications, see §5.2. A further indication that King Sheshi dates contemporary with the early Thirteenth Dynasty is provided by a seal of his found at the Mirgissa Fortress: Vercoutter, Mirgissa, II, 146, fig. 55 [27]; idem, Mirgissa, III, 277, fig. 6 [3]. In a forthcoming paper, it will be shown that the Mirgissa Fortress was abandoned during the reign of Neferhotep I. Under the assumption that no further graves were made at the fortress after it had been abandoned, this seal would provide an indirect indication that king Sheshi ruled prior to or contemporary with Neferhotep I. 112. For the context, see Kempinski, Syrien und Palästina, 74-75; idem, in Pharaonic Egypt (ed. Lichtheim), 132-134. Since Ya‘qub-Har is generally believed to be a ‘Hyksos’ king, this led Kempinski to suggest that there were two kings with the name Ya‘qub-Har, one Hyksos and one pre-Hyksos. This, of course, seems

Royal Scarab-Shaped Seals

43

have been successors of Khayan as suggested by Ward. Equally problematic is the fact that the seals of the king’s son, and later king, Nehsy contain a range of attributes which

correspond exclusively to that found on seals of Sheshi (§1.2.2.2.3). However, Nehsy is recorded in the Turin King-list 9/1 and is generally believed to be a king of the Fourteenth Dynasty whose reign was contemporary with the late Thirteenth Dynasty.113 Ward, who dates Sheshi to the middle of the Fifteenth Dynasty, is therefore forced to

conclude that Nehsy was a vassal of the Fifteenth Dynasty, but there is no evidence for

the existence of vassal kings during the Fifteenth Dynasty (§5.3). Moreover, Nehsy had several monuments inscribed with his royal names set up in the Delta and even at Avaris.114 This would hardly suggest that he was a mere vassal. Another result of Ward’s

sériation is a separation of the reigns of Khayan and Apophis. This is likewise difficult to accept since both these kings are connected with the Fifteenth Dynasty’s domination of Thebes which seems to have lasted only a few years and which therefore indicates that Apophis was the direct successor of Khayan.115 Finally, Ward’s working hypothesis, seal length, does not appear suitable for the purpose. Length is unlikely to be a firm indicator since a constant increase or decrease would produce fantastic sizes. It must be expected that seal length increased and decreased

within a reasonable limits and presents a curve rather than a diagonal development. This

is confirmed by Ward’s own analysis of the royal scarab-shaped seals of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Dynasties.116 It should also be considered that the seals of specific kings vary

considerably.117 Finally, it may be noted that most of the seals ascribed to Apophis by Ward are actually non-royal ones. When these seals are discounted, the average size of Apophis’ seals is significantly larger. This is important because Ward’s starting point is that the seals of Apophis are the smallest and therefore the latest. §1.2.2.1.3

Alternative Sériation: An alternative and more coherent sériation can be established by abandoning Ward’s working hypothesis and using some chronological fixed points which were not recognized by Ward. These fixed points have already been mentioned above and are: Sheshi (contemp. early Dyn. XIII), Ya‘qub-Har (contemp. late Dyn. XIII), Khayan and his successor Apophis (both Hyksos). Accordingly, we have the sequence Sheshi Ya‘qub-Har - Khayan - Apophis. Expecting a balance of seals inscribed with the prenomen and nomen, it may further be suggested that ‘Ammu (30 seals) was the nomen of Ahotepre (31 seals) and that Qareh (8 seals) was the nomen of Khawoserre (22 seals), rather than Ward’s identification of ‘Ammu with Khawoserre which resulted in no identified nomen for Ahotepre. Stylistically there is no objection to this identification;

rather unlikely, and the Shikmona seal is completely identical to most of the other seals inscribed for Ya‘qub-Har as regards both the design and the profile. 113. See esp. Bietak, SAK 11, 59-75.

114. See the Catalogue, file 14/6, for the monuments of Nehsy. 115. For the Fifteenth Dynasty domination of Thebes, see §2.3.2.1 and §2.7.2.3 (last paragraph). 116. Cf. the table in Tufnell, Studies, II, 184. 117. E.g., seals of Qareh Khawoserre vary from 14-23 mm., and those of Sheshi from 15-24 mm.

Primary Sources for the Chronology

44

in fact the attributes found on the seals of these kings are too similar to allow for any identification on stylistic grounds alone. I maintain Ward’s identification of Yakbim as the nomen of Sekhaenre and Sheshi as the nomen of Maaibre. The identification of the prenomen Maaibre with the nomen Sheshi can be regarded as certain since both display

the important transition from plain legs and sandwich profile to notched legs. It may be

noted that both are also attested by more than 100 scarab-shaped seals, far more than for any other king of the Second Intermediate Period.

With these two alternative identifications and the four chronological fixed points, the following table can be produced. The designations for the attributes used by Martin

(Seals, pl. 48-57) and Tufnell (Studies, II, 28-38) are included in the table for convenience.118

Design

ABCDEFGH

Attributes

Abbr.

Tufnell

Martin

X + X X X X X X x x X X X X X X X X X X X + + + + +

Nomen without title Prenomen without title Panels on flanks Stylized signs (always separated flanks) No cartouche Prenomen with epithet di-rnh Nomen with epithet di-rnh or rnh-dt Actual signs, flanks not separated Cartouche Closed scroll border, 3 pairs Open scroll border, 3 pairs Open scroll border, 2 pairs No decoration Concentric circles Sun-disc w. wings vertically on flanks Rope border Actual signs, sep. flanks Uraei separating flanks nsw bit / bit written ξ/ / ξ/ Elytra not marked Decoration on back Two triangular notches Trapezoidal Open Triangular Semi-circular Human face Sandwich profile (3 layered) Plain legs Notched legs Grooved legs

NWT PWT POF STS NOC PWE NWE ASN CAR CS3 OS3 OS2 NOD COC SUN ROB ASS URA NSW NM DB TRN Tpz Ορη Tri Sem Hum SP PL NL GL

3E4 3E2-3 15 15-16 3B 3D 7B3 7C2 7C3 8 8 3E1 0 Dec v 1 v, v 1 1 v Dl-6 B D7-9 A el0-ll Esp. d5 d6 e6

7a-b, 8 7a 6a Esp. lad,ak laf-ah laa-ac 3a 4 4 6c-d 6d Esp. 5, 10 (various) 41, 4aj, 9f Esp. 5d, 6 8e 9a,c lOe-f lOa-c (various) lla-g 6k,l,n-p,r Esp. 5d, 6d Esp. 4j, 5a, 6a 2-3

E= Sheshi Maaibre F= Ya‘qub-Har Merwoserre G - Khayan Sewoserenre H = Apophis Awoserre

X« Common x= Occasional + - Rare

+

X X X X X X x + X X XXX X + + x

x X X X x x X +

x X X X X X +

X X X X X

X X X

X Back

xxxxxxxx XXX +

Head

Profile

Keys:

x x x X X XX X + +XXXX X X X X X x + x X + X X x x x X + X X X x X X + x

+

X +

X X

A = Yakbim Sekhaenre B= Ya"ammu Nubwoserre C = Qareh Khawoserre D = ‘Ammu Ahotepre

Table 11: Sériation of Royal Seals of the Fourteenth Dynasty (Main Group).119

118. It may be noted that Martin does not distinguish head and back.

119. To avoid the complicated task of making extensive references to the each seal with the attributes in question, I refer simply to the vast collection of seals in Tufnell, Studies, II, which is in most respects representative. A few important additions are listed in the following. Yakbim with no decoration: BM EA 67025 (unpublished). Sheshi with concentric circles: add Matouk, Corpus, 208 [190], 266 [107]; Newberry, Scarabs, 196, pl. XLIII [18]; Newberry, PSBA 36, pl. X [el]. Ya‘qub-Har with decoration on back: add Beste, Skarabäen, III, 137-139. Khayan with decoration on back: add Hornung - Staehelin, Skarabäen, no. 141.

Royal Scarab-Shaped Seals

45

The development in the design of the Fourteenth/Fifteenth Dynasty royal scarab-shaped seals according to the sériation produced above has rather interesting implications as regards royal attributes. Most important is the fact that on the early seals of the dissident Fourteenth Dynasty, neither cartouche nor epithets di-cnh and 'nh-dt - all attributes of

kingship - are present. Some seals of the first king (Yakbim Sekhaenre) do not even

contain the titles of kingship. While royal epithets came into use already with the second king of the dynasty (Ya‘ammu Nubwoserre), they were used only for his prenomen which is probably owed to the fact that this was the throne name, whereas the nomen was usually the common birth-name of the king. The third king (Qareh Khawoserre)

expanded the use of royal epithets to include the nomen as well. It took yet longer before the cartouches came into use. Cartouches are first attested for the fourth king (‘Ammu Ahotepre), but only became common by the reign of Ya‘qub-Har about half a century

later.120 Such gradual assumption of royal titles and epithets is also known from other

lines of dissident kings; e.g. the Eleventh Dynasty,121 the Fifteenth Dynasty,122 and the

two priest-kings Herihor and Pinudjem of the Twenty-first Dynasty.123

The titles of kingship used on royal seals of the Fourteenth Dynasty are exclusively

ntr-nfr before the prenomen, and sl-r' before the nomen. For obscure reasons, ntr-nfr was replaced by nsw-bit (sometimes simply bič) on royal seals during the reign of Apophis.124

This forms an interesting historical parallel to the fact that Akhenaten, per contra,

Khayan with flanking uraei: add Hayes, Scepter, Π, 6, fig. Π; Newberry, PSBA 36, 171, pl. X [f]; and a further unpublished seal (Ex Nash: Newberry files). Khayan with human face: Berlin 193/73 (unpublished). Note that the one example of plain legs (Tufnell d5) on a seal of Yaammu is incorrectly listed as ‘e5’ in Tufnell’s list (no. 3419), but is clearly d5 and also listed as such in the statistical table {Studies, II, 187). Tufnell records one unpublished seal with a triangular head (no. 3455) which she assigns to Apophis. This attribute is not otherwise attested for the Fifteenth Dynasty and since so many seals are incorrectly assigned to Apophis and it is impossible to check the seals in question, it has not been included in the table. Certain rare attributes only attested for one or two kings, and which therefore cannot be used for the purpose of sériation, have been included in the table for the sake of completeness so that the table may serve as a source of reference. Among these attributes, the two triangular notches on the line separating the prothorax from the elytra on a seal of Apophis (Tufnell, no. 3460) are especially is significant since this is the earliest attestation of this attribute on a royal seal. This attribute became very common during the New Kingdom and is used as a main criterion for dating seals to this period. It may be noted that the table does not include Tufnell’s back type II, i.e. wing-cases separated by two lines. This type is extremely rare for the Fourteenth/Fifteenth Dynasties and used only for a few seals that are exceptionally elaborate. 120. For the chronology of the Fourteenth Dynasty, see the discussion in §2.7.3.2. 121. Cf. von Beckerath, Handbuch der ägyptische Königsnamen, 193-195.

122. See discussion in §2.3.1.3. 123. Cf. Jansen-Winkeln, ZÄS 119, 22-37. 124. The title nsw-bit is found on Berlin 334/73 [Ex Michaelides]: Unpublished; BM EA 37663: Tufnell, Studies, II, no. 3457; Chicago Oriental Inst. 18463: Ibid., no. 3453; and Ex Kelekian: Newberry, PSBA 35, 117-118, n. 6, pl. XXX [6]. The title bit on BM EA 24113: Tufnell, op. cit. no. 3458; and two Ex Murch seals: Newberry, Scarabs, 153, pl. ΧΧΠΙ [33-34]. The title ntr-nfr may be recorded on one unpublished seal (Cairo JE 72861): Tufnell, op. cit. no. 3455.

46

Primary Sources for the Chronology

abandoned the titles nsw-bit and sì-r' in favour of ntr-nfr, nb-tlwy, and nb-hcw.125

Presumably for superstitious reasons, the bee (^) was occasionally substituted by the red crown (ξ/ ) in the writing of bit.126 Another significant development was that the sculpturing of the scarab became more

complex with time. For dating purposes, one of the most important changes is the transition from the simple sandwich profile and plain legs to notched legs during the

reign of Sheshi, and the increasing number of seals with grooved legs during the Fifteenth Dynasty.

As regards the use of actual signs, stylized signs and panels on the flanks, Ward argued

that these attributes display a chronological development from actual signs (Tufnell 3E1),

to stylized signs (3E2), to inverted stylized signs (3E3) which finally led to the panel design (3E4).127 The sériation does, however, make it clear that panels and stylized signs

were used simultaneously in the entire period in which they are attested. Accordingly,

one cannot speak of a chronological development, even if panels did evolve from stylized signs. The sériation further suggests that the use of actual signs on the flanks in fact superseded panels and stylized signs, and not vice versa.m §1.2.2.1.4

The Dynastic Relationships of the Kings: Having established the sériation, it must now

be defined chronologically. In this connection, Sheshi provides the most important

chronological peg. As already argued above, Sheshi can be dated contemporary with the early Thirteenth Dynasty on account of the Uronarti context. This would place him in

early Fourteenth Dynasty. However, the number of his seals suggests that he had a reign

of considerable length and the sériation would suggest that it also covered the mid Fourteenth Dynasty (§2.7.3.2). This date is confirmed by a seal of the Deputy Treasurer

Aamu.129 The seal was found in an undisturbed burial in str. b/3 at Tell el-Dab‘a (= str.

F of Area A) which dates it to the mid/late Fourteenth Dynasty. The stratigraphical position of the burial provides at least a terminus ante quem for the seal, although it seems

rather likely that the burial is in fact that of the deputy treasurer himself and that the seal is therefore contemporary. The seal fits perfectly into the sequence of royal seals of the

Fourteenth Dynasty, and can be dated specifically to the reign of Sheshi or, at any rate, prior to Ya‘qub-Har through its attributes. Accordingly, Sheshi must be contemporary

with str. F or, if the seal of Aamu is not itself contemporary, date from before this

stratum. This, incidentally, fits perfectly with Bietak’s hypothesis that the two blocks of

King Nehsy found at Tell el-Dab‘a originally belonged to str. F, since Nehsy can be

125.1 owe this reference to Prof. J. R. Harris.

126. This is also the case on the Almuňécar vase of Apophis (Padró - Molina, FsDaumas, II, 517-524). 127. Ward, in Tufnell, Studies, II, 165, fig. 27.

128. The reason for this may be quite plain; presumably the early Fourteenth Dynasty engravers of scarab­ shaped seals simply did not understand the hieroglyphic writing and therefore made up pseudo signs. Pseudo signs often appear on scarabs-shaped seals manufactured in Canaan for the very same reason.

129. The seal is discussed below, §I.2.2.2.4.

Royal Scarab-Shaped Seals

47

Yakbim, nomen/prenomen

Yaammu, nomen/prenomen

(Left: Newberry, Scarabs, pl. XXII/9) (Right: Hornung-Staehelin, Skarabäen, no. 169)

(Left: Newberry, Skarabäen, pl. XXII/5) (Right: Tufnell, Studies, II, no. 3487)

Qareh, nomen/prenomen

‘Ammu, nomen/prenomen

(Left: Newberry, Scarabs, pl. XXI/24) (Right: Newberry, Scarabs, pl. XXI/26)

(Left: Newberry, Scarabs, pl. XXII/18) (Right: Hornung-Staehelin, Skarabäen, no. 149)

Sheshi, nomen/prenomen

Ya‘qub-Har, nomen/prenomen

(Left: Tufnell, Studies, II, no. 3299) (Right: Hornung-Staehelin, Skarabäen, no. 146)

(Left: Tufnell, Studies, II, no. 3231) (Right: Hornung-Staehelin, Skarabäen, no. 143)

Fig. 6/a: Fourteenth Dynasty Scarab-seals (enlarged).

48

Primary Sources for the Chronology

Khayan, Hyksos

Khayan, nomen

Khayan, prenomen

(Hornung-Staehelin, Skarabäen, no. 141)

(Hornung-Staehelin, Skarabäen, no. 142)

(Tufnell, Studies, Π, no. 3213)

Apophis, nomen

Apophis, prenomen

Hotepibre = Khamudi?

(Newberry, PSBA 35, 117, pl. XXX/6)

(Tufnell, Studies, II, no. 3457)

(Giveon, RdÉ 30, 163, fig. 1)

Fig. 6/b: Fifteenth Dynasty Scarab-seals (enlarged).

Sandwich Profile = Early Phase

Plain Legs = Early Phase

(Tufnell, Studies, Π, no. 3396)

(Tufnell, Studies, Π, no. 3291)

Notched Legs = Middle Phase

Grooved Legs = Late Phase

(Tufnell, Studies, Π, no. 3288)

(Giveon, RdÉ 30, 163, fig. 1)

Fig. 6/c: Fourteenth/Fifteenth Dynasty Scarab-seals, Main Types of Profile.

Royal Scarab-Shaped Seals

49

shown to be the son and successor of king Sheshi.130 Four kings have been identified as predecessors of Sheshi through the sériation:

Yakbim, Ya‘ammu, Qareh and ‘Ammu. It follows from the dating of King Sheshi that these four kings date to the early Fourteenth Dynasty.131 The cutting technique of their

seals and those of Sheshi is relatively alike which might suggest that they ruled in direct succession. Subsequent to Sheshi in the sériation, there follows Ya‘qub-Har. There are considerable differences between his seals and those of Sheshi which indicates that some

time had elapsed between the reigns of these two kings. This is confirmed by the Turin

King-list. While the name of Ya‘qub-Har is not preserved in this document, he is

significantly not included among the immediate successors of Sheshi whose names are

preserved.132 The question is whether Ya‘qub-Har belonged to the Fourteenth or the Fifteenth Dynasty. The context at Shikmona mentioned above (§1.2.2.1.2) strongly

suggests a date contemporary with the late Thirteenth Dynasty, and so does a sealing of Ya‘qub-Har which was found at Kerma in the Western Defufa together with sealings of Yakbim and Sheshi.133 While relations between the Fourteenth Dynasty and Nubia are

well attested, there are few indications of direct relations between the Fifteenth Dynasty and Nubia until the latter part of the dynasty and no royal seals of the Fifteenth Dynasty

have otherwise been found there (§2.3.2.4). Further support for a date in the Fourteenth Dynasty is the fact that Ya‘qub-Har is never attested with the title of hki-hiswt^* and

that Ya‘qub-Har adopted a prenomen whereas the early kings of the Fifteenth Dynasty

seem not to have adopted prenomina (§2.3.1.3). Finally a cartouche is only occasionally used on seals of Ya‘qub-Har, whereas it is always present on seals of Khayan, which

suggests that their reigns are separated by a length of time.135

130. Bietak, SAK 11, 71-72. For the identification of Nehsy as the son and successor of Sheshi, see §3.4.2. 131. These kings have generally been considered ‘Hyksos kings’, but there has never been presented any evidence to that effect, and according to the present study that idea must now be rejected. It is also noteworthy that none of these kings, who together are attested by more than five hundred seals, is ever recorded with the title hkl-hlswt. A further problem with the idea that these kings were ‘Hyksos’ is also the fact that the Turin King-list records the number of hk3w-hlswt as six whereas the inclusion of these kings causes this number to be exceeded. Attempts have been made to avoid this problem by classifying some of these kings as vassals of a main line of ‘Hyksos’, but there is no support in contemporary sources for this notion (§5.3).

132. Sheshi and his four predecessors are not preserved in this list, but the name of his son Nehsy is recorded in 9/1. The name of Ya‘qub-Har is not included among the 26 ephemeral successors of Nehsy whose names are preserved in col. 9. 133. Reisner, Kerma, IV-V, fig. 168 nos. 56 [=Ya‘qub-Har], 57-58 [=Sheshi], 60 [ = Sekhaenre, prenomen of Yakbim]; Reisner, Kerma, I-III, 28, pl. III. 1. Cf. further §2.2.2.4 for a discussion of these seal-impressions.

134. Von Beckerath (LÀ, III, 241) claims that Ya‘qub-Har is found with the title of hkl-hlswt, but fails to provide references. None is included in the Belegliste of his 2. Zwischenzeit, nor have I been able to find any. 135. The prenomen of Ya‘qub-Har is presumably to be identified on an unnumbered and unplaced fragment in the Turin King-list which might belong to col. 10 if the reading is correct, i.e. towards the end of the Fourteenth Dynasty; see §1.1.3.2.4.

Primary Sources for the Chronology

50

The order of Khayan and Apophis and their date in the Fifteenth Dynasty is certain

and requires no discussion (cf. §2.3.1.2). Summing up, the sériation and above discussions result in the following main sequence

of kings and dynastic relations:

No Nomen A B C D E F G H

Yakbim Yaammu Qareh ‘Ammu Sheshi Ya‘qub-Har Khayan Apophis

Prenomen

Date

Sekhaenre Nubwoserre Khawoserre Ahotepre Maaibre Merwoserre Sewoserenre Awoserre

Fourteenth Dynasty

Fifteenth Dynasty II

Table 12: Main Sequence of Kings.

§1.2.2.2

Secondary Group

With the sériation of the attributes attested for the main group of kings produced above, it is possible to proceed to date the less well attested kings (the secondary group). Also

included in this section are a queen, a king’s mother, and those princes and treasurers whose seals feature the attributes used during the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Dynasties,

in order to determine their dynastic relationships and to narrow down their dates. Rather

than discuss the seals of the individual persons at length, they have been arranged in tables which are intended to be more or less self-explanatory, and notes are made only on special points. The tables are divided into three parts. The name of the person for

whom the seals in question are inscribed is given on the left side, and on the right the attributes of the relevant seals are recorded.136 The middle section displays the

chronological range made possible by the attributes of the seals on the basis of the main sequence produced above. The chronological range is marked with a horizontal line -

which is placed under the rulers of the main sequence for whom the attributes in question are attested. The rulers are represented by the letters A-H (Yakbim-Apophis) as in table 11 above. The « indicates the interval between the groups A-E (Yakbim-

Sheshi, direct succession), F (Ya‘qub-Har), and G-H (Khayan-Apophis, direct succession). For the dating of the secondary group of kings, the only possibilities are, of course, these

two intervals since there are no indications of overlapping reigns.

136. In rhe following, all seals have plain backs unless otherwise stated. It is important to note that the attribute ‘no decoration’ is only a useful dating criterion when dealing with seals of kings.

Royal Scarab-Shaped Seals §1.2.2.2.1

51

Seals of Kings137 The table below includes two kings who are preserved in the Turin King-list: Nehsy (9/1)

and Sekheperenre (9/16). In the following, a few remarks are offered on points that deserve special attention.

While the few seals produced for Nehsy after he had become king can only be dated very approximately, his date is firmly established by the numerous seals produced for

him when he was still a prince (§1.2.2.23).

One of the two known seals of Khamure has a unique decoration on its back and belongs to a limited group of unusually elaborate seals which presumably were given to

officials of the highest rank.138 Both seals have the panel design and one has a triangular

head (only the base of the other seal is published). The best dating criterion for Sheneh is the rope border used for decoration on one

seal.139 While this design was commonly used on seals of officials during the Thirteenth

Dynasty, it was quite rare during the Fourteenth Dynasty and is otherwise attested only for King Sheshi and his son, Prince Ipqu.140 This may suggest that Sheneh was among the

immediate successors of Sheshi. Three seals are inscribed with the prenomen Hotepibre. While this prenomen was

used by King Siharnedjheritef of the Thirteenth Dynasty, one of the seals (private coll. Jerusalem) can be positively dated to the Fifteenth Dynasty by its use of uraei flanking

the inscription (otherwise attested only for Khayan), the grooved legs, and the semi­

circular head. The seal is inscribed either with a garbled writing of the title sì-r' ntr-nfr or, though this seems less likely, an otherwise unattested title hwi-nfr.w In either case, it is better explained in the context of the Fifteenth Dynasty when the royal titles were

often misunderstood and when other conflations are attested, than in the Thirteenth Dynasty; compare the title hki-nfrw (conflation of hkì-hìswt and ntr-nfr) on a seal of

Khayan, and nsw-nfr (conflation of ntr-nfr and nsw-bii) and nfr-nsw-bit (conflation of ntr-

137. For the seals of the kings in question, see the catalogue: Hotepibre (file 15/6), Khamure (14/e), Nehsy (14/6), Nuya (14/a), Sekheperenre (14/22), Sheneh (14/b), Shenshek (14/c), Wazad (14/d), and Ya-k-r-r-b (14/g). 138. Petrie Museum 11819: Tufnell, Studies, II, no. 3361. A few elaborate and untypical scarab-shaped seals are attested for other kings as well. A seal of Ya‘qub-Har has a Tilapia nilotica fish engraved on its back (Ex Timmins): Newberry, Timins Collection, pl. XXI [7]. For the Tilapia nilotica motive and its meaning, see Dambach and Wallert, CdÉ 41, 273-294. A seal of Khayan (Berlin 193/73) and one of Apophis (MMA 15.171) have human faces: Hayes, Scepter, Π, 6-7, fig. Π. Further elaborate seals are, e.g., Sheshi (Ashmolean 1955.503.1): Tufnell, Studies, Π, no. 3339, and the treasurer Har (Fitzwilliam E.550.1939): Hornblower, JEA 8, 206, pl. XXI [27]; Martin, Seals, no. 1035. 139. Sheneh (Moscow 2258): Tufnell, Studies, II, no. 3481.

140. Sheshi (Petrie Museum 11706): Tufnell, Studies, II, no. 3340. Ipqu (Private Coll.): Giveon, Tel Aviv 3, 129, fig. 1, pl. 7 [2], 141. The writing may be regarded as a garbling of ntr-nfr, if one interprets the w-chick as a badly shaped sl-goose, the round sign read as h as the sun-disc rr, and the sign read as the i’-reed as a badly shaped n/r-sign. These two titles are rarely found before a prenomen, but this arrangement is attested on at least one other seal of Khayan (for which see Tufnell, Studies, II, no. 3213).

Primary Sources for the Chronology

52

nfr and nsw-bit) on seals of Apophis.142 These conflations and other errors reveal the inability of the craftsmen who produced the seals to understand the titles they were cutting.143 The seal is here attributed to Khamudi since there is some evidence to suggest that the first three kings of the Fifteenth Dynasty did not adopt prenomina (§2.3.1.3),

and Khamudi thus remains the only candidate for this prenomen. The use of uraei as decoration is not found on the seals of Apophis, but this may be purely coincidental since relatively few seals of his are known. The two other seals (Israel Museum 33.1256 and

Berlin 370/73) are more difficult to date. Their decoration (closed scroll border with three paired loops) as well as the plain backs are attested during both the Thirteenth and

Fifteenth Dynasties. The plain legs are attested for the Thirteenth Dynasty, but not the

Fifteenth. On the other hand, the head type (Tufnell type B6) is otherwise attested only for Khayan, which would date both these Hotepibre seals to the same period as the Hotepibre seal discussed above. Since Khamudi was the last king of the Fifteenth

Dynasty, the plain legs could been seen as an attribute introduced during his reign. Like the seal discussed above, the Israel Museum seal also contains a puzzling title nb-nfr (in addition to the title ntr-nfr). This title is not otherwise attested on SIP seals, but can

hardly be other than a conflation of the titles ntr-nfr and nb-tìwy which would also suggest a date in the Fifteenth Dynasty. It is noteworthy too that both these two seals were found at Jericho, although this in itself does not provide a dating criterion. The third seal has the snt sign in the place of a royal title which is also unique.

Kings

ABODE-

Khamurep ______ Ya-k-r-r-b ______ Nuya _ _ _ _ Shenshek _ _ _ _ Wazad - Sheneh Sekheperenrep Nehsy _ _ _ Hotepibrep

F

-GH Attributes

-

-

POF NOC - Tri - PL NOD - Tri - PL SP POF NOC NWE - Tri - SP STS NWE144 - Tri - PL ASS OS3 NWE CAR - Tpz Opn - SP NL NOD ROB NWE - Tri Opn - PL NL OS3 PWE - Opn - NL OS3 CAR NWE POF - Tpz - NL URA CS3 CAR - Sem Opn - NL PL

Table 13: Dating of Secondary Group of Kings through Seal Typology.

142. Seal of Khayan (Athens): Martin, Seals, no. 1169. Seals of Apophis (MMA 15.171 and Ex Keleklan): Hayes, Scepter, II, 6-7, fig. 2; Newberry, PSBA 35, 117-118, n. 6, pl. XXX [6]. 143. Further errors are found on other seals. A seal of Apophis (Ex Blanchard) has the title nsw-bit written nsw-bit-bit·. Newberry, PSBA 36,171, pl. X [j]. Apparently the craftsman did not realize that the red crown and the bee were alternative writings of the same word, bit. On two seals of Khayan (Israel Museum 76.31.4593 and Berlin 193/73), the signs for the title hk3-h3swt are somewhat garbled and his nomen is misspelt {h}yhv. Ben-Tor, The Scarab, 49 [6]. Garbled writings of Khayan’s nomen are also found on two further seals (Ex Lanzone and Ex Michaelides 2044): Martin, Seals, no. 1181, and Kaplony, Rollsiegel, II, 540, pl. 149 [52]. The latter is especially interesting since the words s.wsr are written between h andy?n, i.e. hs.wsr-y-$-n. This writing is clearly a conflation of Khayan’s prenomen s.wsr-n-rc and his nomen hyln. For a completely garbled seal of Khayan which may or may not be original, see Catalogue, file 15/4, under ‘Remarks’. It is noteworthy that errors abound on royal seals of the Fifteenth Dynasty, whereas they are quite rare on the far more numerous seals of the Canaanite kings of the Fourteenth Dynasty.

144. The epithet reads 'nh-dt. In the publication, Bietak (BASOR 281, 52) incorrectly reads it whm-'nh, but this epithet is never, in fact, attested for kings of the Second Intermediate Period.

Royal Scarab-Shaped Seals Jl.2.2.2.2

53

Seals of Royal Women (fig. 7)

Only two royal women are attested by seals which conform with the attributes attested for the Fourteenth/Fifteenth Dynasties, viz. the Queen Tati and the King’s Mother ’Atti.145

Queen Tati is attested by eleven scarab-shaped seals of which two were found at Tell el-Yahudiya and one at Abydos.146 The use of both the sandwich profile, plain legs and

notched legs dates this queen specifically to the reign of Sheshi when the transition from the two former to the latter took place. Accordingly, she may be regarded as the spouse of Sheshi.147 The other attributes also point to this date. The use of triangular-shaped head

dates her seals to the Fourteenth Dynasty prior to Ya‘qub-Har, while the use of a cartouche and actual signs as decoration flanking the name (flanks not separated) suggests a date not earlier than Sheshi when these two attributes were extremely rare.

Seven seals of the King’s Mother ’Atti are known.148 The main dating criterion is

provided by a seal containing the open scroll border with three loops as decoration and the exclusive use of notched legs. The former attribute is attested from ‘Ammu of the Fourteenth Dynasty to Khayan of the Fifteenth Dynasty, but is rare with both these

kings and her date should therefore rather be sought between their reigns. A Fifteenth Dynasty date can further be excluded for reasons discussed in §3.4.5. Similarly, a date

prior to Sheshi can be excluded because of the notched legs. It is also very unlikely that

the seals should date to his reign, since notched legs were not used during its first half. One would not expect to find his mother attested only during the latter part of his reign. Accordingly, the King’s Mother ’Atti may be dated to the Fourteenth Dynasty, subsequent to king Sheshi.

145. Since name seals were otherwise made exclusively for the king, his heir apparent, and the treasurer during the Fourteenth Dynasty, there is reason to believe that these two women may have played official political roles during their time. Possible roles are discussed in cf. §2.2.2.4 (Tati) and §3.4.5 (’Atti).

146. Pr. loc. unknown (Abydos): Unpublished; mentioned in Newberry files: ‘Abydos South (?), 1907’. Aberdeen 21055 [Ex Grant]: Newberry, Scarabs (1906) pl. ΧΧΙΠ [19; the drawing is inaccurate]. Basel Cat. 130 (Tell el-Yahudiya): Hornung - Staehelin, Skarabäen, 216, pl. 11. Berlin 320/73 [Ex Michaelides]: Unpublished. Berlin 321/73 [Ex Michaelides]: Unpublished. BM EA 20824 (Tell elYahudiya): Petrie, Historical Scarabs, no. 100; Griffith, Tell el-Yahûdîyeh, 39, pl. X [3]; Hall, Cat. ofEg. Scarabs, 34 [308]. BM EA 37721: Hall, Cat. ofEg. Scarabs, 35 [309; read the group ta for ich, the t being above it and the bread below it]. Cairo JE 75042: Steindorff, ASAE 36,164, pl. I [6]; Engelbach’, ASAE 41,228. MMA 30.8.646 [Ex Davis]:

Hayes, Scepter, Π, 8, fig. 1. Ex Northumberland: Sotheby, Northumberland, lot. 88 [5; there called ‘pseudo­ cartouche and “lucky” hieroglyphs’]. Ex Wiedemann (bought at Luxor): Wiedemann, 13-14ten Dynastie, no. 50. 147. For the family of king Sheshi, see §3.4.2.

148. Berlin 81/67: Kaiser, Ägyptisches Museum Berlin, 39, 41 [328]. Berlin 308/73 [Ex Blanchard and Michaelides]: Newberry, JEA 18, 141-142, fig. 2. Berlin 309/73 [Ex Blanchard and Michaelides]: Newberry, JEA 18, 141-142, fig. 2. Ex Blanchard (apparently not in Berlin): Newberry, JEA 18, 141-142, fig. 2. MMA 20.1.14 (from Lisht): cf. Hayes, Scepter, I, 344 [name incorrectly read Ty’]. Moscow 2379 [Ex Golenischeff]: Hodjash, Bccthhk?), 63, pl. II [14]. Turin: Petrie, Historical Scarabs, no. 356. ’Atti is further attested by a magical wand, cf. §3.4.5.

Primary Sources for the Chronology

54

Royal Women

ABCDE-F-GH Attributes

Tati ’Atti

_____

NOD ASN CAR - Tri - PL SP NL NOD OS3 - Tri Tpz - NL

Table 14: Dating of Royal Women through Seal Typology.

§1.2.2.23

Seals of Kings' Sons (fig. 9) Ten princes are attested by seals whose attributes conform with those used during the Fourteenth/Fifteenth Dynasties: Apophis ‘A’ (5 seals),149 Apophis Έ’ (2 seals), 150Ili-Milku

(1 seal),151 Ipqu (46 seals),152 Nebnetjerew (1 seal),153 Nehsy (27 seals),154 Quppen (11 or 12

seals),155 Seket (5/11 seals),156 Yakbim (2 seals),157 ‘Yašri^Ammu’ (1 seal).158 The vast majority of these seals, comprising nine of these ten princes, can be dated to the Fourteenth Dynasty and all, except one, prior to the reign of Ya‘qub-Har.

Accordingly, most of them must be identified as sons of the first five and best attested kings of the Fourteenth Dynasty. That no kings’ sons of the late Fourteenth Dynasty are

attested by seals is obviously due to the fact that the average reign of the kings in this

period was about \.Vi years. Only a single seal can be dated to the Fifteenth Dynasty. The rarity of such seals within the Fifteenth Dynasty is highly significant since it would seem

to suggest that this Asiatic dynasty had a different political structure from that of the

149. Martin, Seals, no. 125, to which add Hilton Price, Egyptian Antiquities, 25 [171]; Firth, Arch. Survey of Nubia, 1908-1909, 27, 59, pl. 42 [44]; Gubel (ed.), Du Nil a Tescaut, 107/107 [100]; and Berlin 79/67 (unpublished).

150. Berlin 325/73 [Ex Michaelides]: Unpublished. Berlin 333/73 [Ex Michaelides]: Unpublished. 151. Hornung - Staehelin, Skarabäen, 216-217 [132].

152. As sl-nsw (2 seals): Martin, Seals, no. 127-128. As sl-nsw smsw (43 seals): Martin, Seals, no. 129-169, to which add Giveon, Tel Aviv 3, 129, fig. 1, pl. 7 [2]. The three ex Blanchard/Michaelides seals (Martin, no. 167, 168, 168a) are now Berlin 26/73, Illi'S, 28/73. As si-nsw/r' (1 seal): Hall, Cat. ofEg. Scarabs, no. 306; Pharaonen und Fremde Dynastien (ed. Hein), 143 [105]. 153. Martin, Seals, no. 660; photo in Pharaonen und Fremde (ed. Hein), 167 [155]. 154. Nehsy is attested as s3-nsw (1 seal), sl-nsw smsw (22 seals), and sl-nsw/rc (4 seals). For these seals, see the Catalogue, file 14/6.

155. As sl-nsw (1 seal): Martin, Seals, no. 1679. As si-nsw smsw (10 or 11 seals): Martin, Seals, no. 1680-1685, to which add Sotheby, MacGregor, 56 [438]; Giveon, Tel Aviv 3,129, fig. 2, pl. 7 [5]; Martin, MDAIK 35, 225 [79]; Ben-Tor, The Scarab, 63 [16]. The ex Blanchard/Michaelides seal (Martin, no. 1685) is now Berlin 261/73. As noted by Martin [Seals, no. 1680), it is not clear if BM EA 65963 is identical to a seal formerly in the possession of Abemayor. 156. As sl-nsw (2 seals): Martin, Seals (1971) no. 1657; Martin, MDAIK 35 (1979) 223, 225 [83]. As s3-nsw/r' (3 seals): Ward, LT7 8 (1976) 368 [54-55]; Berlin 291/73 [Ex Michaelides]. This king’s son may or may not be identical with a like-named King’s Son and District Overseer (imy-r w) of whom 6 seals are known: Martin, Seals (1971) no. 1656, 1658-61.

157. Martin, Seals, nos. 307-308. 158. Giveon, op. cit. 129, fig. 1, pl. 7 [3]. For the tentative reading of the name, see §2.2.1.6.

Royal Scarab-Shaped Seals

55

Queen Tati

King’s Mother ’Atti

(Hornung-Staehelin, Skarabäen, no. 130)

(Newberry, JEA 18, 142, fig. 2)

Fig. 7. Fourteenth Dynasty Scarab-seals of Royal Women (enlarged).

Treasurer Raha

Treasurer [...]m

Treasurer Periemwahet

(Martin, Seals, no. 908)

(Martin, Seals, no. 1711)

(Martin, Seals, no. 489)

Treasurer Sadi

Deputy Treasurer Aamu

Treasurer Har

(Ward, OLP β/7, 589, fig. 2)

(Martin, Seals, no. 31 la)

(Martin, Seals, no. 1063)

Fig. 8. Fourteenth Dynasty Scarab-seals of Treasurers (enlarged).

56

Primary Sources for the Chronology

King’s Son Yakbim

King’s Son Ili-Milku

King’s Son Nebnetjerew

(Hornung-Staehelin, Skarabäen, no. 135)

(Hornung-Staehelin, Skarabäen, no. 132)

(Martin, Seals, no. 660)

Eldest King’s Son Ipqu

Eldest King’s Son Nehsy

King’s Son / Son of Re Nehsy

(Hornung-Staehelin, Skarabäen, no. 136)

(Hornung-Staehelin, Skarabäen, no. 133)

(Martin, Seals, no. 790)

King’s Son Re Seket

King’s Son / Son of Re Seket

Eldest King’s Son Quppen

(Martin, Seals, no. 1657)

(Newberry, Scarabs, pl. XLIV/8)

(Martin, Seals, no. 1683)

Fig. 9. Fourteenth Dynasty Scarab-seals of Princes (enlarged).

Royal Scarab-Shaped Seals

57

Fourteenth Dynasty.159 Some comments on individual princes are made in the following. Two of the seals of Apophis ‘A’ contain his name within a cartouche and the epithet di-'nh which suggests that he held a special status.160 Both the cartouche and epithet were

royal prerogatives in this period, and no other prince of the Fourteenth Dynasty is attested with royal epithets.161 It is therefore interesting to observe that Apophis did not

have the title of Eldest King’s Son, but simply that of King’s Son. In this connection, it

should be stressed that the date of this prince within the Fourteenth Dynasty is certain

and that no identification with king Apophis of the Fifteenth Dynasty is possible; neither the panel design, the open scroll border with two paired loops, nor the triangular head is attested during the Fifteenth Dynasty. However, if the use of the cartouche and the

royal epithet are taken as an indication that Prince Apophis was a designated heir to the

throne, it is possible he should be identified with King ’Ap[...] of TK 10/15 whose name could also be restored as Apophis.

One seal of Apophis ‘B’ (Berlin 325/73) can be dated specifically to the late Fifteenth Dynasty and very likely to the reign of king Apophis. The main dating criteria is provided by the two triangular notches at the top of the elytra which mark the humeral

callosities. This attribute is otherwise only attested on a single seal of king Apophis (MMA 15.171) and only became common in the Eighteenth Dynasty. Also the grooved legs, the closed scroll border with 3 pairs of loops, and the misspelt epithet di-'nh ( Aâ for

Δτ ) points towards a date in the Fifteenth Dynasty. The attribution of a further seal to

this prince (Berlin 333/73) is mainly done on the basis of the title sl-nsw/rr which occur on both seals. The two seals do not otherwise have much in common, and it cannot be

entirely excluded that the latter should rather be attributed to Apophis ‘A’. Ipqu and Nehsy can be dated specifically to the reign of Sheshi since the attributes of the seals of both princes include the sandwich profile, plain legs and notched legs, and

thus reflect the transition from the two former to the latter which took place during the reign of this king. It may be noted that two seals of Ipqu have attributes only rarely

attested on Fourteenth/Fifteenth Dynasty name seals. One has a twisted-rope border as design which otherwise is attested only once for King Sheshi and once for King Sheneh,162 while the other has two pairs of wings placed vertically as decoration in the flanks which

159. Besides the fact that the attributes of the seals of the kings’ sons here discussed fit those of the Fourteenth Dynasty kings perfectly, but are incompatible with those of the Fifteenth Dynasty kings, there is yet another indication that seals were not commonly issued for the kings’ sons of the Fifteenth Dynasty. The eldest king’s son of Khayan, named Yanassi, is attested by a stela from Tell el-Dab‘a (§3.5.1), but despite his status and the long reign of his father, he is not attested by any seals. For an interpretation of the seals of kings’ sons and their implications, see §3.9.2.1. 160. Firth, Arch. Survey ofNubia, 1908-1909, 27, 59, pl. 42 [44]; Berlin 79/67 (unpublished). 161. One may compare the case of a King’s Son Sobkhotep of the Thirteenth Dynasty (perhaps the later Sobkhotep IV) who is attested twice with the epithet rnh wdi snb on seals: Martin, Seals, nos. 1428,1430.

162. Ipqu (pr. loc. unknown): Martin, Seals, no. 128. Sheshi (Petrie Museum 11706): Petrie, Scarabs and Cylinders (1917), pl. XXI [16.C.16]; Tufnell, Studies, II (1984), no. 3340. Sheneh (Moscow 2258): Hodjash, BecTHUKÒ (1973), 62, pl. 1 [12a]; Tufnell, Studies, II (1984), no. 3481.

58

Primary Sources for the Chronology

otherwise is attested just once for King Sheshi and once for Prince Quppen.163

The dating of Quppen is more complicated, but it seems that he too can be dated with some certainty to the reign of a specific king and accordingly be regarded as a son of this

king. The seals of Quppen exclusively use notched legs and, with one exception,

trapezoidal heads. The single exception from the trapezoidal heads is a triangular head, and this is important since triangular heads went out of use sometime between the reign

of Sheshi and Ya‘qub-Har. Notched legs were introduced during the reign of Sheshi, presumably towards its end, which excludes a date prior to his reign. However, the fact that the seals of Ipqu and Nehsy differ considerably in typology from those of Quppen and the consistent use of notched legs by this prince seem to rule out a date in the reign

of Sheshi. Accordingly, Quppen must be dated sometime after Sheshi. Quppen is relatively well-attested through seals, no less than 11 or 12 having been published so far.

This makes it unlikely that the father of Quppen should be identified among the ephemeral kings ruling between Sheshi and Ya‘qub-Har, since none of these themselves is attested by more than a few seals at the most. The attributes found on the seals of Quppen and their frequency are, however, remarkably identical to those found on seals

of Ya‘qub-Har who is among the best attested kings of the Fourteenth Dynasty. Like

Quppen, Ya‘qub-Har predominantly uses notched legs164 and is the only king to do so,

and trapezoidal heads are the most common type used by this king as well. The only

problem is the one seal of Quppen with triangular head since this attribute is not attested for Ya‘qub-Har. It is, however, clear that triangular heads were still used after Sheshi and it cannot be excluded that they still were in use, if only rarely, by the reign of Ya‘qub-

Har.165 This may also explain why only one seal of Quppen has this attribute, while all the others have trapezoidal heads. The only alternative to dating Quppen to the reign of

Ya‘qub-Har, and thus identifying this king as his father, would be to argue that his father

should be one of the ephemeral kings which, as stated above, seems unlikely. Seket can be dated between the reigns of ‘Ammu and Ya‘qub-Har, and excluding

either.166 The open scroll with two loops is attested only for Sheshi and once for Ya‘qub-

Har, and the sandwich profile and plain legs date the seals prior to Ya‘qub-Har.

163. Ipqu (BM EA 37669): Hall, Cat. ofEg. Scarabs, no. 306; photo in Pharaonen und Fremde (ed. Hein), 143 [105]. Sheshi (pr. loc. unknown): Firth, Arch. Survey ofNubia, 1910-1911, 216, pl. 36 [230]. Quppen (Petrie Museum 11600): Martin, Seals, no. 1682.

164. The one exception is an example of grooved legs.

165. The latest datable example of triangular heads is Khamure who dates subsequent to Babnum, Turin King-list 9/28, unless he was recorded in either of the two lost entries 9/9, 15. 166. Von Beckerath (2. Zwischenzeit, 138,276) read the divine name Sokar (skr) incorrectly as Seket (skt) on fr. 22 of the Turin King-list, and accordingly believed this to be the record of a King Seket whom he ascribed to the Sixteenth Dynasty. In fact, fr. 22 is misplaced and belongs to the mythological section of the king-list or, more specifically, to the original col. 2 (§1.1.3.2.4). It may also be noted that Seket is attested only with princely titles and that there is no evidence that he ever became king.

Royal Scarab-Shaped Seals

59

Princes

ABCDE~F~GH Attributes

‘Yasri-'Ammu’ Ili-Milku Nebnetjerew Yakbim Apophis ‘A’ Ipqu Nehsy Seket Quppen Apophis ‘B’

-----______ ______ ______ - - - -

-

NOD - Tpz - PL - si-nsw NOD - Tpz - PL - st-nsw STS - Tri - PL - si-nsw smsw NOD - Tri - SP - si-nsw and sl-nsw smsw OS2 OS3 POF CAR NWE - Tri - PL - s3-nsw NOD ROB Wings - Tri Tpz - SP PL NL - st-nsw, st-nswsmsw, sl-nsw/rc NOD POF OS3 - Tri Tpz Opn - SP PL NL - st-nsw, s3-nsw smsw, st-nsw/i* NOD OS2 ASN CAR - Tri Tpz - SP PL - si-nsw, si-n'sw/rr NOD ASS COC Wings - Tpz Tri - NL - s3-nsw, si-nsw smsw CS3 CAR NWE - Tpz - GL - sl-nsw/r'

Table 15: Dating o£ Princes through Seal Typology.

§1.2.2.2.3.1

Excursus: The Title s>-nsw/rc: A comment on the title s3-nsw/rc may not be out of place

here. This conflation between sš-nsw and sí-rc is attested for four princes dating to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Dynasties: Ipqu (1 seal),167 Nehsy (3 seals),168 Seket (2 seals),169

and Apophis ‘B’ (2 seals).170 The title is problematic, not only because it is a conflation of two titles not normally used together, but also because it remains somewhat unclear

whether the individuals attested with this title should be regarded as kings or king’s sons.

An argument in favour of their having been kings is provided by the fact that a cartouche is sometimes used with the title. On the other hand, there is at least one certain case of an ‘ordinary’ king’s son whose name is enclosed within a cartouche (two seals of Apophis

‘A’, see above). While Nehsy certainly did become king, as it is known from other contemporary sources, there is no evidence apart from the seals to suggest that Ipqu, Seket, or Apophis ‘B’ ever became kings. Since it would also appear unlikely that a king should use the title s3-nsw, it seems more probable that the men in question were not

kings. Rather the title may designate heirs to the throne since there is evidence that both

Ipqu and Nehsy held this status. Accordingly, the conflation with sì-r^ and the occasional

cartouche would signal that they were designated heirs and presumably effective

coregents, whereas the inclusion of s?-nsw at the same time proclaimed their legitimacy and their junior status as coregent.171 §1.2.2.2.4

Seals of Treasurers (fig. 8)

Primary Sources for the Chronology

60

to the Fourteenth Dynasty and prior to the reign of Ya‘qub-Har. The treasurers in question are named Har (c. 130 seals),172 Periemwahet (c. 35 seals),173 Raha (10 seals),174

Sadi (2 seals),175 and [...]m (1 seal).176 The treasurer Har can be dated specifically to the reign of Sheshi since the attributes

of his seals include both the simple sandwich profile, and plain and notched legs, and thus

reflect the transition from the two former to the latter which took place during the reign

of this king. A number of the seals of Har have the base divided into two halves by vertical lines (SPL). This design is quite rare during the Fourteenth/Fifteenth Dynasties

and is otherwise attested only for the Treasurer Periemwahet.177 The seals of Har never

make use of the panel design (POF) which went out of use sometime during or after the

reign of Sheshi. This suggests that Periemwahet and Raha, each of whom is attested with

this design, were predecessors of Har.

Treasurers

Raha Periemwahet Har Sadi

ABCDE-F-GH

______ ______ -----______

Attributes

NOD POF - Tri - SP PL NOD-Tri-SP POF NOD STS SPL - Tri - SP PL NOD SPL OS2 OS3 CS3 ASS - Tri Tpz - SA PL NL NOD-Tri Tpz-SP PL

Table 16: Dating of Treasurers through Seal Typology.

Besides the seal typology, the titles of the treasurers seem to provide an important dating criterion. Raha is consistently designated simply treasurer, whereas Har has the

172. Martin, Seals, nos. 984-1088a, to which add Ward, The Sacred Beetle, 40, pl. 1 [177]; Sotheby, MacGregor, 55 [433, 434], 56 [438] (Martin, Seals, seems to list only one of the three MacGregor seals); Downes, The Excavations at Esna 1905-1906, 58,62,124 [215/1]; Martin, MDAIK 35,223,224-225 [73-78]; Giveon, Tel Aviv 3,129-130, fig. 2, pl. 7 [6]; Giveon - Kertesz, Egyptian Scarabs and Seals from Acco, no. 5.; Les coll. Eg. dans les musees de Saone-et-Loine, 202 [226]; Ben-Tor, The Scarab, 61 [19]; David, The Macclesfield Collection, 36 [C7]; Niccacci, Hyksos Scarabs, 61, pl. 4 [137]; Gubel (ed.), Egypte onomwonden, 203. Unpublished seals: Berlin 23/71; BMFA 1979.590. The fourteen ex Blanchard/Michaelides seals (Martin, no. 1071-1076d, 1086-1088a) are now Berlin 165/73,166/73, 167/73, 169/73, 170/73, 171/73, 172/73, 173/73, 174/73, 175/73, 176/73, 177/73,178/73,186/73. 173. Martin, Seals, nos. 477-506, to which add Martin, MDAIK 35, 222 [64]; Sliwa, Egyptian Scarabs [1985], 46, pl. 11 [65]. The seven ex Blanchard/Michaelides seals (Martin, no. 491-496, 502) are now Berlin 78/73, 79/73, 80/73, 81/73,82/73, 83/73, 84/73.

174. Martin, Seals, nos. 904-912, to which add Ex André Bircher: unpublished, sketch in copy of Newberry, Scarabs, in the British Museum. One of the two ex Blanchard/Michaelides seals (Martin, no. 911-912) is now Berlin 161/73. 175. Ward, OLP 6-7, 589-594.

176. Martin, Seals, no. 1711. The name on the only known seal of this treasurer is partly illegible and its reading remains uncertain, hence the inverted commas. The reading is that of Martin.

177. Outside the Fourteenth/Fifteenth Dynasties, this design is attested only for the Overseer of Priests Juyamose and the First King’s Son Ket: Martin, Seals, nos. 91 and 1347. The inscription on the latter seal is clearly to be read sl-nsw tpy kt rather than sl-nsw s$-kt-sL The name Ket (kt) means ‘The small one’, or similar.

Royal Scarab-Shaped Seals

61

additional title of royal seal-bearer and sometimes that of sole friend as well. This suggests

a development in which the treasurers originally had simply the title Treasurer, but later added the rank titles of royal seal-bearer and sole friend which were used by the highest

ranking officials in the contemporary Thirteenth Dynasty.178 Periemwahet, who is attested only with the titles of royal seal-bearer and sole friend on occasion, would then date between Raha and Har. Accordingly, the sequence Raha -> Periemwahet - Har can

be established, but there is no indication if we are dealing with direct succession in office

between these three treasurers. [...]m, who is designated simply treasurer on the only known seal of his, would also seem to date prior to Har by the same criterion. Sadi, on the other hand, is designated both treasurer and royal Seal-bearer on both known seals

and must therefore be dated subsequent to Periemwahet. It remains uncertain whether he was a predecessor or successor of Har. In addition to the five treasurers who are attested by scarab-shaped seals, two further

individuals may briefly be mentioned in order to complete the material relating to treasurers of the Fourteenth Dynasty. A treasurer named Ranisonb is depicted upon a

stela dating to the reign of Merdjefare.179 Merdjefare was the fifth successor of Sheshi and accordingly Ranisonb must have been a successor of Har. As expected from the above

discussion of the titles of the treasurers as a dating criterion, Ranisonb is designated both royal seal-bearer and treasurer. Since he is not otherwise attested, his tenure of office

would seem to have been relatively short. The second individual is Aamu, the only deputy treasurer of the Fourteenth Dynasty so far known. Aamu is attested by a single

scarab-shaped seal found in an intact tomb at Tell el-Dab‘a which, it may be argued, was his own burial.180 A rather precise dating of Aamu is possible through the attributes of the seal (grooved legs, triangular head). The grooved legs first came into use during the

reign of Sheshi, while the triangular head dates the seal prior to Ya‘qub-Har.

Accordingly, Aamu can be dated to the reign of Sheshi or shortly thereafter. This date is corroborated by the stratigraphical position of the tomb (str. b/3 = str. F of Area A)

in the mid/late Fourteenth Dynasty.

In accordance to the above discussion, we can establish the following sequence of Fourteenth Dynasty treasurers: (a) Raha / [...]m, (b) Periemwahet, (c) Har / Sadi /

Ranisonb / deputy Aamu.

178. This development was, perhaps, nothing but a vain attempt on the part of the Fourteenth Dynasty treasurers to match their titles to those of their counterparts in the Thirteenth Dynasty. There can hardly have been a practical purpose in including these additional titles upon the seals. 179. Private collection: Yoyotte, BSFE 114, 17-63.

180. For the seal (Cairo JE 91201), see Bietak, MDAIK TS, 108, pl. 32 [c, middle]; Martin, Seals, no. 311a; Bietak, Tell el-Dab‘a, N, 54, fig. 1. The burial is discussed in §2.2.2.2.

62

§1.2.3

Primary Sources for the Chronology

Scarab-Shaped Seals Misinterpreted as Royal Seals of the SIP

In studies of the Second Intermediate Period and on scarab-shaped seals that include this period, a number of seals are frequently included which are thought to be royal, but

which in fact can be shown to be non-royal and/or non-contemporary. Some of them

contain no form of royal attribute, but happen simply to contain signs of which known prenomina are built up. Others merely contain a cartouche which is a frequent attribute of Re on seals. Finally, there is a large group of non-contemporary seals which are inscribed with names of specific kings of the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate

Period, and which presumably were used as amulets.181 As a rule, a seal should only be classified as royal when it contains the proper royal

titles, and the stylistic attributes should always be taken into account. In the following, some of the most common examples of seals misinterpreted as royal seals of the Second Intermediate Period will briefly be dealt with. It will emerge from the discussion that

most of the seals in question in fact pertain to Re rather than to kings.182 The fact that numerous scarab-shaped seals contains motives or inscriptions that relate to Re is, of

course, not surprising since the scarab itself was seen as a symbol of the daily resurrection of the sun.

§ 1.2.3.1

Legend lw-ib-rc A group of scarab-shaped seals bear the legend )W-ib-rc which has been identified as the

prenomen of King Hor.183 As a number of these have been found in archaeological contexts, it is important to recognize that they are not royal seals and therefore do not

afford a criterion for dating these contexts to the early Thirteenth Dynasty. None of

these seals includes any titles of kingship or a cartouche, and the accompanying

inscriptions in the flanks on either side of >w-ib-rc would not make sense on a royal seal.

The central element 3w-ib-rc simply means ‘Joyful is Re’, and the seals may thus be ascribed to the class related to the cult of Re. The seals of the iw-ib-rc group fall into two

types. Type A has the legends mn-di-nfr and mn-di-cnh on either side of ?w-i6-rr, while type B has the legend mn-kl-nfr (?) on both sides and the legend ff-ki-r' added to iw-ib-rc.

181. These seals can often be recognized, not only by their stylistic attributes, but also by faulty writings of prenomina or nomina through transmission. The seals were frequently copied by craftsmen who evidently did not quite understand the royal names they were engraving. Among the kings of the Second Intermediate Period, Sobkhotep IV especially is attested by a large number of non-contemporary seals (cf. Catalogue, file 13/29). 182. Although this is not the place to discuss the function of these seals, one would suspect that the vast number containing different motifs and legends concerning Re, the king of gods, were used as protective amulets. It is noteworthy that in the New Kingdom, when Amun became the king of gods as Amun-Re, we suddenly find a vast number of seals inscribed with the name of this god instead.

183. E.g., Hornung - Staehelin, Skarabäen, 205 [69].

Royal Scarab-Shaped Seals

63

sharing the element rr.184 The legends on the sides of type A may be interpreted as epithets of Re, ‘the stable one, the giver of vitality’ and ‘the stable one, the giver of life’.185 The central legend of type B reads ‘joyful is Re’ and ‘the Ka of Re appears’,186 while the legends on the sides again may be interpreted as an epithet of Re, ‘the vital Ka is stable’

or similar. Finally, it remains to be noted that the attributes of these seals do not conform with those of the Thirteenth Dynasty royal series, but seem to be consistent with a

Twelfth Dynasty date.187 §1.23.2

Legend hc-htp-r